Re: [Pali] vant vs vantu
- Dear Jayarava,
<< Most Pāli grammars (Collins, Geiger, Duroiselle) produced in the west
give the form of the possessive suffixes as -vant/-mant. But Narada's Intro,
and Buddhadatta's dictionary follow the Pāli grammars in making the stem
Since the 'u' plays no role in the declensions I'm interested to know why it
is there, especially since western scholars silently dropped it in most
cases (except for a very brief note in Warder's intro p.252, n.1).
Can anyone shed light on this form? >>
The 'u' is called an anubandha (indicatory letter) which is dropped in
word-formation. The traditional grammars, both Pali and Sanskrit, when
giving a root or suffix frequently show them with an attached anubandha
letter (sometimes more than one). They have a purpose, e.g. an '.n'
indicates that a vowel in the root undergoes vuddhi (increase).
Compare Pali mantu/vantu with their Pa.ninian Sanskrit counterparts:
I don't know the purpose of having a 'u' at the end of mantu or vantu
instead of some other vowel. That would require some investigation.
Explanations of the anubandhas can be found in S.C. Vasu's English
translation of Panini's A.s.taadhyaayii.
- Further to my question... Actually Warder does deal with this under primary derivatives starting on pg.251. The -u presumably distinguishes the mant/vant taddhita suffixes from the kita present-participle in -nt.
- Dear Jayarava,
Op 24-apr-2010, om 12:54 heeft jayarava het volgende geschreven:
> Further to my question... Actually Warder does deal with this under-------
> primary derivatives starting on pg.251. The -u presumably
> distinguishes the mant/vant taddhita suffixes from the kita present-
> participle in -nt.
N: I am glad you mention the page in Warder. The explanation of
taddhita I find very difficult and would wish he gave examples. A new
word derived not from a root but from another wordstem is not so
clear. What is that other wordstem?
I remember Jim wrote a post about this subject, but it is some time ago.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- Hi Jayarava,
In my first response, I explained the "u" of "vantu" and "mantu" as an
anubandha or indicatory letter. After some further digging I now think
this is not right. It was an assumption based on the Sanskrit
counterparts "vatup" and "matup" for Pali "vantu" and "mantu" plus the
fact that the "u" is not seen in the declensional paradigms. For
example, in the locative singular form one would expect a
"bhagavantusmi.m" instead of "bhagavantasmi.m" with the stem
"bhagavantu". Well, I just found a rule in the Saddaniiti which states
that the "u" of "ntu" is changed to "a" before some of the
declensional vibhattis or case endings -- so bhagavantu + smi.m >
bhagavanta + smi.m > bhagavantasmi.m. It's not clear why the
traditional grammarians use "vantu" instead of "vanta" in the first
place and then having to add another rule just to change the "u" to
> Further to my question... Actually Warder does deal with this underprimary derivatives starting on pg.251. The -u presumably
distinguishes the mant/vant taddhita suffixes from the kita
present-participle in -nt.