sanskrit vs linguists

8/14/2019 Sanskrit vs Linguists

1/6

Sanskrit vs Linguists

first | < pre

Shivappa

Sanskrit vs Linguists

(western) Linguists are doing injustice to Sanskrit ignoring the role of Sanskrit in linguisticto accept sanskrit etymology in linguistics.

for E.g. [vidhav] A widow.

The etymology of the said word is clrealy and properly explained by sanskrit etymologist a

husbandless (-woman).

cf. [adhav] A widow. a + dhava a husbandless (-woman). There is no correspother IE languages or in PIE language. Further the word dhava not exists in other IE llanguage, AFAIK.

To explain the origin of widow, the said linguists arbitrarily/wrongly/artificially invented theignoring the primordial condition of Sanskrit etymology ofvi + dhava a husbandlesword widow in IE languages. They simply cited other IE languages while constructing the

* Germanic: Proto-Germanic *widuw-English: widow

German: Witwe* Ancient Greek: theos

* Sanskrit: (vidhv)

* Italic:Latin: viduaCatalan: viduItalian: vedovaFrench: veuveSpanish: viuda

* Proto-Slavic vdovaBulgarian: Croatian: udovaCzech: vdovaPolish: wdowaRussian: (vdov)Serbian: udova, udovica

While doing so, sanskrit grammar/etymological explanation ofvi + dhava a husbannot considered by them.

As they thought that there is no corresponding word for [adhav] A widow in other IE

have not invented arbitrarily had?wh, although there is similar word exist in Ancient Grewas wrongly cited as derived from hwid?wh.
http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Profile?uid=7998567811121740450http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Profile?uid=7998567811121740450http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Profile?uid=7998567811121740450


2/6

Sanskrit Identity is now depending upon the etymology and Indian History proposed by linits survival and originality. shame.

Shivappa

They are not ready to accept that other IE languages have borrowed the word widow from(vidhv). Simply they have arbitrarily reconstructed the PIEword hwid?wh and claimedincluding Sanskrit has borrowed the word widow from hwid?wh. This is absolutely basele

Shivappa

The GK word theos is similar to Skt. adhav . However the meaning of both words aAncient Greetk, word theos means unmarried man and but in Skt adhav, a widow.

RK

The IE cognates are a more compelling source of evidence.

dhavA is not a word, hence vidhavA may not be dissected into vi+dhavA.

Probably if the native tradition knew about the IE cognates, they wouldnt have explained it

just visithttp://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.3:1:894.apte3 dhav 1 Shaking, trembling. -2 A man. -3 A husband, as in . -4 A master, lord

RK

I know that, but dhavA itself is derived (wrongly) from vidhavA.

It's like saying missed = mis + sed, and thereby claiming that "sed" is a word which has sThis is how dhavA was created from vidhavA, and claimed that it means man/lord. Of courcalled dhavA since it is not used in any major sanskrit literature.

Yes, it is included in some dictionaries, but it is not authentic.

RK

Tamil has borrowed the word vidhavA () but it has not borrowed the word dhavA (since would be meaningless, it is not a word.
http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Profile?uid=7998567811121740450http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Profile?uid=7998567811121740450http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Profile?uid=8019474716390756527http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Profile?uid=10364497597963365627http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Profile?uid=10364497597963365627http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Profile?uid=10364497597963365627http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.3:1:894.apte3http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Profile?uid=8019474716390756527http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Profile?uid=8019474716390756527http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Profile?uid=8019474716390756527http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Profile?uid=8019474716390756527http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Profile?uid=8019474716390756527http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Profile?uid=8019474716390756527http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.3:1:894.apte3http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Profile?uid=10364497597963365627http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Profile?uid=10364497597963365627http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Profile?uid=8019474716390756527http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Profile?uid=8019474716390756527http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Profile?uid=7998567811121740450http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Profile?uid=7998567811121740450http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Profile?uid=7998567811121740450http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Profile?uid=7998567811121740450


3/6

RK

The sanskrit grammarians were very fond of explaining everything. It was as if their head

could not explain every single thing about languages.There is no explanation for vidhavA to become vi+dhavA, so they assumed that dhavA is acreated this word intentionally even though no one has used it in any authentic sanskrit lit

Dibya ()

Three observations from within Sanskrit that support the claims of the linguists

1> The words "vidhvA" has been attested in the Rgveda (e.g. 4.18.12, 10.40.2, 10.40.8)."avidhav" (e.g. 10.18.7) in the Rgveda. The word "dhava", as RK points out, does not apliterature until much later. Though this does notprove any side's position, it certainly is m

what the linguists say, that "dhava" is a back-formation on "vidhvA".

2> We do not need any fancy "dhava" to explain the etymology of "vidhvA" either. It seethe root "vidh-" (to lose, lack), as in Vedic "vidhu" (lonely; also "moon" - the loner in the sra" (lonely).

3> A strong point against the analysis of "vi-dhva" is the accent. The word has an udAttathe 2nd syllable, whereas pretty much all bahuvrihi words with privative (i.e. negative) vi-accent the "vi-", the first syllable, e.g. vgrIva = throatless (RV 7.104.24), vjoSas = witho8.22.10), vparva = jointless (RV 1.187.1), vmanas = mindless (RV 8.86.2), vmAya = fre10.73.7), etc. So, if "vidhavA" were really formed as "lacking dhava" it should have been awhich is NOT the case.

~~~

As for the word "adhavA" ... again, it is mentioned by some lexicographers, but does not sattested in any literature. Hence, insecure.

Not only Tamil, Telugu also has borrowed the word dhavA

1. http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.6:1:171.tamillex tavan, n. < dhava. Husband; . (.)2. http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/romadict.pl?query=%E0%B0%A7%E0%B0%B5&table (p. 0622) [ dhavudu ] dhavudu. [Skt.] n. A master, lord, owner, king. . A husba (p. 1182) [ vidhava ] vi-dhava. [Skt. +.] n. A widow. . A term of ssexes. (p. 1216) [ vedhava ] vedhava. [Tel.] n. Corruptiuon of. (q. v.) is a feminine term and Tamil form of Skt word vi+dhavA (which is derived from dhhusband) borrowed by Tamil and Telugu languages. is cited wrongly instead of.

showing 11-20 of27
http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Profile?uid=8019474716390756527http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Profile?uid=14385319614912106650http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Profile?uid=14385319614912106650http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Profile?uid=14385319614912106650http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Profile?uid=10364497597963365627http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Profile?uid=10364497597963365627http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Profile?uid=10364497597963365627http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.6:1:171.tamillexhttp://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/romadict.pl?query=%E0%B0%A7%E0%B0%B5&table=brownhttp://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Profile?uid=8019474716390756527http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/romadict.pl?query=%E0%B0%A7%E0%B0%B5&table=brownhttp://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.6:1:171.tamillexhttp://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Profile?uid=10364497597963365627http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Profile?uid=10364497597963365627http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Profile?uid=14385319614912106650http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Profile?uid=8019474716390756527http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Profile?uid=8019474716390756527


4/6


5/6

Dibya ()

Then why this skt root vidh was not accepted by the linguists as the clinching evithe word widow in IE?

Who said they don't accept it? Where do you think I found the reference form? This is owhere I found my reference from:http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?root=config&morpho=0&basename=\data\ie\Look for "widow" and scroll down to the "Reference" section and click. Some of the explanaas much of the material is from Pokorny's 50 years old "Etymologisches Wrterbuch" - sorrsame reason, it lacks the laryngeals (h, h, etc.) in the reconstruction, because at Pokornyyet firmly established.

Dibya ()

Instead, those linguists have arbitrarily invented the so called PIE word hwid?

basis, as the only source or evidence to deny/ignoring the Indian-Sanskrit Sourc

It is not arbitrary. There are reasons behind it. While the Sanskrit (synchronic) etymology iSanskrit, it cannot explain the forms of cognates in other languages, e.g. Greek. The propsupposed to be able to explain all the attested cognates, e.g. why there is an extra vowel "the Greek form, which is absent in the Sanskrit.

You need to understand that the Sanskrit synchronic etymology and the PIE diachronic etycompetitors. So, the linguists are NOT supplanting one by the other (even though the diacpowerful, as it takes more evidence into account). It just happens that you have gatheredworks of the historical linguists, who by the nature of their field is more interested about thetymologies, and that's what they talk about.

Dibya ()

To explain it with a less contentious example:Modern IA languages often have pairs of transitive-intransitive verbs which are distinguishabsence of what is called guNa or vRddhi of the root vowel, e.g. Bengali "cl- (< older cal-The etymology of such pairs can be explained in two ways:1> Synchronically: The transitive root of these pairs can be simply viewed as the guNa orinstransitive root: guNa grade if the root vowel is "i/u" and vRddhi if it is "a".2> Diachronically: They can be explained as evolving from the simple and the causative rocal-a-ti (it moves - simple, intransitive) and cAl-aya-ti (it makes sth. move - causative), w

formation was by the way of adding a suffix "-ay-" in case of the causative, which also cauas a side effect. However, in modern IA languages, the suffix has been lost, but the side efretained in many cases.

Now, they are two different etymologies for the same set of words. But they are both corrework along different axes! It is the same case with Sanskrit and PIE etymologies.

Shivappa

The proposed PIE form is supposed to be able to explain all the attested cognatesan extra vowel "e" in the beginning of the Greek form, which is absent in the San

if Sanskrit form is not able to explain "why there is an (extra) vowel "e" in the beginn
http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Profile?uid=14385319614912106650http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Profile?uid=14385319614912106650http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Profile?uid=14385319614912106650http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?root=config&morpho=0&basename=http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Profile?uid=14385319614912106650http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Profile?uid=14385319614912106650http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Profile?uid=14385319614912106650http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Profile?uid=14385319614912106650http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Profile?uid=14385319614912106650http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Profile?uid=14385319614912106650http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Profile?uid=7998567811121740450http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Profile?uid=7998567811121740450http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Profile?uid=7998567811121740450http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Profile?uid=14385319614912106650http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Profile?uid=14385319614912106650http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Profile?uid=14385319614912106650http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Profile?uid=14385319614912106650http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?root=config&morpho=0&basename=http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Profile?uid=14385319614912106650


6/6

form", then how PIE word hwid?wh is able to explain the (extra) vowel "e" in the beginniform?

pls clarify me.

RK

Reconstruction of proto-languages involves armchair research and nothing more. Needlessproof.

However, with or without proto-language reconstructions, one has to explain the cognates

So whether or not widow has been properly reconstructed in PIE is not relevant to whethervi+dhavA.

I hope it is clear to you that you cannot declare your theory right merely by disproving othyour theory is capable of standing on its own. Hence discussions of reconstructing PIE are

Shivappa

I hope it is clear to you that you cannot declare your theory right merely by disprtheories, unless your theory is capable of standing on its own. Hence discussionsPIE are moot points.

I have not submitted my theory. i have pointed out the negatives of western linguists' app

So called PIE words are reconstructed by those linguists, who merely cite Indian/Skt wordsstrengthen their AMT/PIE theories. King can do no wrong. So there is no claim/denial by slIt is a clear waiver by them. It is equal to accept his neighbour as the father of his own chilexample].

Hence, to them, Indian/ Skt etymologies are just like a curry leaves' usage in Indian cookiare forced to ignore Indian/ Skt words/etymology, which are now irrelevant while studyingshould blindly trust western linguists. We have Indian history/etymology arranged/INVENTwesterners/Britishers. we are mere silent participants. They are active participants. Thanks
http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Profile?uid=8019474716390756527http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Profile?uid=7998567811121740450http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Profile?uid=7998567811121740450http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Profile?uid=7998567811121740450http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Profile?uid=8019474716390756527http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Profile?uid=8019474716390756527

sanskrit vs linguists

Documents