On the Use of Genitive Absolute in Sanskrit 1612299369, 9781612299365

Ferdinand de Saussure is most famous for his Course in General Linguistics, reconstructed after his death by his student

304 85 7MB

English Pages 146 [144] Year 2018

Report DMCA / Copyright


Table of contents :
Table of Contents
Section I: Extension and Use of the Genitive Absolute
Section II: Collection of Examples
Index (Names and Critical Terms)
Recommend Papers

On the Use of Genitive Absolute in Sanskrit
 1612299369, 9781612299365

  • 0 0 0
  • Like this paper and download? You can publish your own PDF file online for free in a few minutes! Sign Up
File loading please wait...
Citation preview

On the Use of Genitive Absolute in Sanskrit FERDINAND DE SAUSSURE (Translated French to English by Ananta Ch. Sukla; In Collaboration with Patrick Michael Thomas; Edited with Preface, Introduction, Notes, Bibliography, and Index by Ananta Ch. Sukla)


Ferdinand de Saussure


Ferdinand de Saussure Translated from French to English by Ananta Ch. Sukla In Collaboration with Patrick Michael Thomas Edited with Preface, Introduction, Notes, Bibliography, and Index by Ananta Ch. Sukla


First published in 2018 as part of the New Directions in the Humanities Book Imprint Common Ground Research Networks 2001 South First Street, Suite 202 University of Illinois Research Park Champaign, IL 61820 USA Copyright © Ananta Ch. Sukla, 2018 All rights reserved. Apart from fair dealing for the purposes of study, research, criticism, or review as permitted under the applicable copyright legislation, no part of this book may be reproduced by any process without written permission from the publisher. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Saussure, Ferdinand de, 1857-1913 author. | Sukla, Ananta Charana, 1942- translator editor. | Thomas, Patrick Michael editor. Title: On the use of genitive absolute in Sanskrit / Ferdinand de Saussure ; translated from French to English by Ananta Ch. Sukla ; in collaboration with Patrick Michael Thomas ; edited with preface, introduction, notes, bibliography, and index by Ananta Ch. Sukla. Other titles: De l’emploi du genitif absolu en Sanscrit. English Description: Champaign, IL : Common Ground Research Networks, 2017. Identifiers: LCCN 2017048962 (print) | LCCN 2017050867 (ebook) | ISBN 9781612299389 (ebook) | ISBN 9781612299365 (hardcover : alk. paper) | ISBN 9781612299372 (pbk.) Subjects: LCSH: Sanskrit language--Case. Classification: LCC PK729 (ebook) | LCC PK729 .S313 2018 (print) | DDC 491.25--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017048962 Cover Photo Credit: Phillip Kalantzis-Cope

Table of Contents Dedication .............................................................................................................. v

Acknowledgements ..............................................................................................vii


Abbreviations ......................................................................................................xiii


Introduction .......................................................................................................... xv


Extension and Use of the Genitive Absolute.......................................................... 1

Bibilographical Note 1

§ 1. Extension of the Genitive Absolute 2

§ 2. The Subject of Genitive Absolute 3

§ 3. The Predicate of the Genitive Absolute 3

§ 4. Relationship in Time with the Principal Action 4

§ 5. Logical Relationship with the Principal Action 5

Group A 6

Group B 7

I. Strong Anādara 8

II. Weak Anādara 9

III. Extreme Degradation of the Anādara 11

α. Precarious 15

β. Easy 16

§ 6. The Rule of Pāëini 17


Collection of Examples ........................................................................................ 21

§ 7. Critical Observation 21

§ 8. Examination of Examples 27

I. The Predicate Is a Present Participle 28

The Verb Clutaytati 28

The Verb Tarkayati 29

The Verb Dhyāyati The Verb Mīmāàsati The Verb Kathayati The Verb Jalpati The Verb Bravīti The Verb Sam-Bhāñate The Verb Vi-Lapati The Verb Vadati The Verb Tiñöhati The Verb Vasati The Verb Karoti The Verb Pālayati The Verb Gacchati The Verb Carati The Verb Pra-Viśati The Verb Vrajati The Verb Juhoti The Verb Tapasyati The Verb Yajati The Verb Āste The Verb Vi-Śrāmyati The Verb Krośati The Verb Jīvati The Verb Icchati The Verb Hasati The Verb Roditi The Verb Śocati The Verb Varñati The Verb īkñati The Verb Paśyati The Verb Miñati Appendix to the Section īkñati, paśyati, miñati The Verb Śåëoti The Verb Ni-Śāmayati The Verb Śaàsati The Verb Dravati The Verb Pibati The Verb Yatate and Synonyms The Verb Yudhyate II. The Predicate Is an Adjective Akāma Gata, Prasthita











































Sthita Upaviñöa Supta and Synonyms Vyagra and Synonyms Various






Notes .................................................................................................................... 85

References ............................................................................................................ 91

Index (Names and Critical Terms) ....................................................................... 97

D E D IC A T IO N For my Sanskrit teachers:

Late Pandit Rama Chandra Hota

Late Professor Phanibhushan Banerjee

Professor Brajakisora Satapathy


A C K N O W LE D GE M EN T S I acknowledge the major function of late Professor Patrick Michael Thomas on the faculty of French and Comparative Literature in translating this English text of Ferdinand de Saussure’s De l’emploi du genitif absolu en Sanscrit. But several other colleagues, friends, and pupils are passionately involved in this project. Late Professor V. K. Chari on the faculty of English at University of Carleton, Ottawa, Canada has been the chief source of encouragement in accomplishment of this work. Professor Kshirod Ch. Dash on the faculty of Sanskrit in the Govt. of Odisha has carefully corrected the Sanskrit diacritical marks; Dr. Urmishree Bedamatta, Asst. Professor of English, Ravenshaw University, Cuttack, Dr. Sanjay Kumar Sarangi, my friend and pupil, on the faculty of English at MIT College, Bhubaneswar has been enthusiastic in overall proof corrections. Mr. Jagannath Dalai, Mr. Bijay Kumar Mohanty, and Mr. Sanjit Kumar have devoted much time and labour in typesetting and proof reading the English text. I am grateful to all of them. Ian Nelk (Holk), former managing editor at the Common Ground Research Networks, has performed the greatest role in bringing this text to light. My debt to him is irrepayable. Finally, Caitlyn D’Aunno, current managing editor, has given the finishing touch to the text. I am obliged to her.


P R E FA C E Ferdinand de Saussure, one of the four most influential thinkers of the nineteenth century among three others Emile Durkheim, Sigmund Freud, and Karl Marx has been considered an intellectual prophet in generating a new direction for studying language. A polyglot from the childhood, he produced two works in comparative and historical linguistics, the most popular trend of language studies during his days Mémoére sun de systéme primitive des voyelles dons ler langues indo européenes (Memoir on the Primitive Systems of Vowels in Indo-European Languages), Geneva, 1878 and his doctoral dissertation De l’emploi du genitif absolu en Sanscrit (On the Use of Genitive Absolute in Sanskrit), Geneva, 1881. But, ironically, the fame of Saussure is not due to these works that he wrote and published during his lifetime, but to the posthumous publication of the lecture notes that he is said to have prepared for offering three courses in general linguistics at the University of Geneva where he also taught Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, Indo-European languages, modern French phonology, French versification, and German literature. In fact Saussure did not leave any organized notes for the lectures he delivered in alternate years 1907, 1908–1909, 1910–1911. After his death in 1913, Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye, two young Genevan teachers, collecting the notes of Saussure’s lectures taken by his students (not many, only a few) and correlating them with the few notes left by Saussure constructed them into a book form and published them in 1916 under the title Cours de linguistique au générale (Course in General Linguistics). Attempts have been made by various researchers to reconstruct the text constructed by Bally and Sechehaye. In 1957 Robert Godel published Les Sources manuscrites du Course de linguistique générale de Ferdinand de Saussure in five installments that contained the sources for each segment. Tullio de Mauro supplied a number of notes in his Italian translation of the Cours summarizing the sources, commentaries, and critiques that compare the end product and the materials from which it was constructed (Gadet 1989, 14–15). Surprisingly, Saussure’s fame is founded on this un-authored constructed/reconstructed texts, whereas what he authored and published, the Memoir and the génetif absolu in sanscrit are put aside by the posterity, the second one being considered even “apparently a less brilliant work than the Mémoir” (Gadet 1989, 13) without any substantial explanation for such derogatory remarks. The purpose of presenting this English translation of Saussure’s work on Sanskrit genitive absolute is to project that he did not simply take up the subject at random; but worked on this topic deliberately as it taught him two foundational aspects of his general linguistics (1) the synchronic system of language (that is actually spoken) is a system of relations (sambandha) and (2) it is use rather than any imposition of preconceived system of rules that constitutes a language either living or dead.


On the Use of Genitive Absolute in Sanskrit

In this context, Frits Staal (2005, 19–21) observes: Philosophers of language depended on Pāëini and I should mention at least Bhartåhari, the greatest and most original of them. Indian linguistics was also influential in other Asian countries, especially in Tibet. In Europe, it led via Franz Bopp to the beginning of modern linguistics. There is a curious reason for the importance of Pāëini’s grammar to the development of synchronistic linguistics in Europe. That type of linguistics, that treats language not as a development but as a system, was a reaction against the diachronic or historical philology of textual scholars. Its founder, Ferdinand de Saussure, did not like or understand Pāëini’s grammar which is structurally similar to his own. But the reasons, in the case of Pāëini, were different and based upon an erroneous belief that of the eternity of Sanskrit. It illustrates that science can grow out of mud just like the lotus which is paìkaja (mud-born). I conclude that Pāëini’s greatest contribution was structural system of his grammar which was based upon a unique method and led to deep generalization, many of which are valid across languages and may be linguistic universals. Insight in the infinity of language was part of that package. But Saussure’s dissertation on genitive absolute evidences not only his awareness of Pāëini, but also his thorough knowledge of the Sanskrit grammatical system as well as the literary texts particularly prose and verse narratives available to him in Leipzig. He states that Sanskrit abounds in locative absolute whereas genitive absolutes are rarely noted. Therefore, he takes up the task for his investigation encouraged by Bopp who shifted to general linguistics leaving the Sanskrit studies to his students. The present text is practically a work on Sanskrit syntax. But excepting Jakob Speijer later critics on Sanskrit syntax have not given due attention to this aspect as it deserves. Jakob Speijer (1886/2006, 286–87) writes: Sometimes the absolute genitive is a concurrent idiom of the absolute locative. It is far from learning the general character of the latter. It is limited, indeed, to the expression of some action not cared for while performing the main action. Sometimes the genitive absolute may be rendered by, “though”, “notwithstanding”, “in spite of” and the like, sometimes it is simply pointing out, which action is going on at the time when the main action intervenes, then we may translate it by “while” or “as”. Other restrictions of its employment are: 1. its predicate must have a durative meaning, and is therefore in most cases a participle of the present, or at least a partic, or adjective, which does duty as such; 2. the subject must be a person upon the whole, the absolute genitive is usually found in standing phrases.



Whereas Gadet considers this work “apparently, a less brilliant work than the Memoire” Speijer considers this work of Saussure as a “valuable and exhaustive treatise.” While analyzing Paëini’s rule II.3.38 Speijer observes succinctly that absolute genitive is expressive of some action not cared for, while performing the action of the chief sentence: rudataù / rudati prāvrājit. Explaining further, Speijer states that while the rule II.3.37 instructs the employment of the locative absolute, the rule II.3.38 adds that in such a construction the sixth case ending is allowed only if anādara is expressed (therefore the use of ca in the rule). Speijer answers the possible questions on the exactness of this rule what exactly does this anādara mean? The answer is that anādara covers a very wide area of meaning not confined to disregard or indifference. In Raghuvaàśa I.60.15 saśarīro nareśvaraù| divam jagāma… kākutstha munīnāà paśyatāà tadā. Here the absolute genitive does not express disregard etc. in any derogatory sense, but in the sense of admiration, i.e., the sages were the spectators when Triśaìku ascended to heaven. Speijer makes clear the apprehended doubt of Saussure about the views of Patañjali or others on this rule that there none has left any comment (Speijer 1886, 286–87). Finally, Speijer concludes that the use of genitive absolute in the sense of derogation, disregard etc. is a matter of context or situation, not of grammatical construction only. The value of this present text, as realised by no other than Speijer lies in syntax construction in general and in Sanskrit syntax with particular reference to absolute construction in genitive. The reader learns that in grammatical construction vivakñā or intention of the speaker in a particular context is more valuable than the general rules instructed by the grammarians. It is a surprise that the scholars editing a collection on Sanskrit syntax while felicitating Speijer overlook Saussure who is the pioneer in working on this subject and has been highly admired by Speijer who has substantially borrowed his ideas in treating the subject of another action provided anādara (disregard) is intended in expression. As an alternative to II.3.37 the rule is an optional as the particle ca denotes, that wherever II.3.37 is applicable there II.3.38 can also be applied only in limited case of expressing disregard. Sharma comments that this rule introduces ñañthi as an option to saptamī only if anādara (disrespect) is denoted. Anādara is used with reference to the locus of the action characterized. This rule instructs that saptamī (III.144) is broader than ñañthī in use. Sharma’s explanation seems to be more reasonable than Joshi and Roodbergen who, following Whitney, interpret anādara more in the sense of “while” than in the meaning of “in spite of”. Following Staal we may not agree with Whitney who was more a linguist than a Sanskrit grammarian without much regard for this language (VII.71) Saussure, commenting on this rule observes correctly that Kāśikā’s commentary does not add anything essential and in the absence of Mahābhāñya in print during his studies, he feels helpless to draw anything on it. But Joshi and Roodbergen find no comment by Pataïjali on this rule. The nominal stem which implies an action which characterizes another action must be either an agent or an object, the locus of the action concerned. Goñu duhyamānāñu gataù (He left when the cows were being milked). This sentence uses a present participle: the action of milking was still in process when the


On the Use of Genitive Absolute in Sanskrit

person left. The alternative sentence is goñudugdhāsu gataù. Here the action is complete (siddha) meaning “He left when the cows had already been milked.” What is important to remember in this context is that one action serves as the characteristic mark for the timing of the other action. The use of the genitive case of Yad (that) signifies the locus of action. The nominal stem which implies an action which characterizes another action must be either an agent or object, the locus of the action concerned. In the first example, where the object of milking (the cow) serves as the locus of action which characterizes another action otherwise, in the sentence brāhmaëeñu adhīyāneñu gataù (He went when the brahmanas were chanting) is an example where the locus of action is agent. Coming to the context of Saussure’s thesis the rule II.3.38 is the central one. Ñañöhī cānādare is an alternative to II.3.37. It is a conditional instruction: A ñañthī also occurs after a stem whose implied action characterizes another action. K. Menakshi has surprisingly stated that, “genitive absolute is much less common than the locative absolute and more limited in its application” (Hock 1991, 149) even when the editor of the volume has listed Saussure (Hock 1991, 240). The same editor has simply listed Saussure in the bibliography he has compiled for Peter M. Scharf Sanskrit Syntax (2015). These are shameful examples of ignorance indeed! In the present text we have written an introduction that comprises, a brief historical account of the Sanskrit studies in India and Europe during the second half of the nineteenth century with particular reference to the Sanskrit grammar with an emphasis on the subject that concerns us, i.e., the use of genitive absolute in Sanskrit syntax. Besides, the introduction focuses upon Saussure’s interest in the topic, his mastery over both the grammatical rules and their use in the narrative literature as also highlighting the controversy over his religious link—whether Buddhist or Brahmanic, stressing the point that his study carefully avoids any such religious issues in grammar/language directly or indirectly. Moreover, we do not note any particular point in the text that could have contributed to his studies in general linguistics, although stressing that Pāëini’s structural analysis of the functioning of his rules have substantially guided Saussure’s linguistic studies in general.


A B B R EV IA T IO NS Rgveda R.V. M. Bh. Mahābhārata, Calcutta Hariv Harivaàśa Rām Rāmāyaëa, the 1st two books ed. Schlegel; the last two books ed. Goressio. We have put aside the Uttarakāëòa. Rām, Calc Rāmāyaëa (ed.) Hemacandra Bhaööa, Calcutta. Mārk Pur Mārkaëòeyapurāëa, ed. Banarjea Bhāg Pur Bhāgavatapurāëa, ed. Burnouf Kath Kathāsaritśagara, ed. Brockhaus. Pttr. Calc Païcatantra, Calcutta, 1872 The 1st number indicates Pttr. Kos Païcatantra, Kossgarten the page, the 2nd the line. Hiptop Hitopadeśa, ed. Schlegel and Lassen

Chrest. Benf. Sanskrit-Chrestomathie, Th. Benfey.

Chrest, Böhtl.Sanskrit Chrestomathie, Otto Böhtlingk, 2nd ed.

Ind. Spr Indische Sprüche, Pub. Otto Böhtlingk, 2nd ed.

T R A N S C R IP T IO NS 1. Vowels and diphthongs: 2. Gutturals: 3. Palatals: 4. Cerebrals: 5. Dentals: 6. Labials: 7. Semi-Vowels: 8. Sibilants: Aspiration, Visarga and Anusvāra:

a, ā, i, é, u, ū, r, è, e, ai, o, au. k, kh, g, gh, ì c, ch, j, jh, ï ö, öh, ò, òh, ë t, th, d, dh, n p, ph, b, bh, m y, r, l, v ś, ñ, s h, ù, à


I N TR O D U C TIO N I Frits Staal’s exhaustive treatment of the history of studies in Sanskrit grammar by the foreigners enlightens us sufficiently for comprehending a clear picture that precedes Saussure’s researches in Sanskrit grammar, particularly writing his dissertation on the genitive absolute in Sanskrit. Concentrating on the Western part of this history, the event begins in the sixteenth century with Filippo Sassetti (1540–1588). Since then several missionaries working in India started writing grammars of Sanskrit in Latin, among whom the pioneering one is Henrich Roth (1660). Jean Francois Pons (1698– 1752) wrote a letter from Karikal, in Southeast India, on November 23, 1740 to Father du Halde that he had written an abridged grammar of Sanskrit which he sent to Rome. This manuscript was discovered by Jean Fillozat in Paris in the Bibliotheque du Roi where it was studied by A. L. De Chezy the founder Professor of Sanskrit (the First Western Chair in Sanskrit) at College de France (1814). Pons seems to have grasped the very fundamentals of the Pāëinian grammar (the grammar of Brahmaëas) that starts with the fourteen metalinguistic alphabets called Śivasūtras from which all the rules are derived. The second part of his letter to du Halde contains the following as quoted by Staal: “Small number of primitive elements” themselves not used (i.e. themselves abstract) from which the Sanskrit grammarians are said to derive “the infinite variety of actual forms in use”; and also, the implication that the rules of grammar are described explicitly, so that someone “who knows nothing but grammar can apply them” (Staal 1967, 30). But none of the early missionaries acquired any systematic knowledge of Sanskrit. It is Charles Wilkins who studied Sanskrit with traditional pundits, and wrote a Sanskrit grammar in English the first print of which was destroyed by fire in 1795. But, although Pons refers to Pāëini as “Pāëia”, it seems none of these early writers of Sanskrit grammar studied Pāëini. The knowledge of Sanskrit grammar was based on two texts in the Pāëinian tradition such as Kāśikā of Jayāditya and Vāmana (7th C. AD) and Sidhaānta Kaumudī of Bhaööojidikñita (17th C.), and one nonPāëinian text Mugdhavodha of Vopadeva (13th C). As Friedrich Max Müller reports, the first and the best among these early grammars written by Englishmen was one by Henry Thomas Colebrooke (1765–1837), published in 1805, but in an incomplete form. Other two scholars are H. P. Foster who delivered his manuscript to the Council of Fort William, Calcutta in 1804, and another by William Carey published in 1806. Colebrooke’s interest in Sanskrit grammar was purely nonliterary. Adopting a scientific attitude, he viewed it on par with mathematics. Although these scholars did not study Pāëini’s Añöādhyāyī directly, they were aware of him as the sūtrakāra (maker of the rules) as evident in both the texts Kāśikā and Kaumudī, commentaries on Pāëini’s text arranging the rules in two different orders Kāśikā following the original order of Pāëini, and Kaumudī rearranging this topic wise. Apart from studies in Sanskrit grammar Colebrooke was also interested in the Brahminic religion and


On the Use of Genitive Absolute in Sanskrit

philosophical knowledge reacting against the British negligence of the Indian culture as a whole. His Essay on the Philosophy of the Hindus (1823) was a groundbreaking work; and in his letter to H. H. Wilson (December 24, 1827) his reaction to the British attitude is sufficiently clear: “Careless and indifferent as our countrymen are, I think, nevertheless, that you and I may derive some complacent feeling from the reflection that, following the footsteps of Sir W. Jones, we have with so little aid of our collaborators, and so little encouragement, opened nearly every avenue and left it to foreigners, who are taking up the clue we have furnished, to complete the outlines of what we have sketched” (Staal 1967, 49) While blaming the mundane (political) prejudices of the British scholars’ interest in studying Sanskrit grammar (language), pioneers of the German Romantic movement came forward to study Sanskrit language and culture in general, using the manuscripts of Mugdhabodha and Amarakoña in Bengali characters. Friedrich Schlegel studied Sanskrit with Alexander Hamilton (1762–1824) in Paris. Hamilton, a Scotsman was a prisoner on parole in Paris for collecting Sanskrit manuscripts for an edition of the Hitopadeśa simultaneously writing a booklet titled Terms of Sanskrit Grammar (1814). But Friedrich Schlegel could not succeed in learning Sanskrit, although he wrote to his elder brother August Von Schlegel (1762–1845) that he was doing well. August Schlegel came to Paris for learning Sanskrit, but Chezy, the founding professor of Sanskrit at College de France who learned Sanskrit from Pons’ manuscript, could not satisfy August Schlegel who then chose Franz Bopp (1791– 1867) who came to Paris in 1812, and was himself not well educated in the subject. He wrote in 1814 that neither he nor Chezy could follow Sanskrit texts in original without any translation. A useful dictionary needed for them was published by H.H. Wilson in Calcutta (1819), which was not accessible to them because, it was expensive to get a copy of it in Paris. In any case, there was none in Germany at that time knowing more Sanskrit than Bopp. However, Bopp confessed his limited knowledge in Sanskrit by considering all his work in Sanskrit subordinate to his interest in language in general. Otto Böhtlingk criticized Bopp harshly in the preface to his edition of Mugdhabodha (1847). Bopp wrote his Sanskrit grammar Ausführliches Lehrgebäude der Sanskrit Sprache in 1827 that he dedicated to Wilhelm Humboldt. The materials of his book were largely drawn on the grammars of Henry Foster and Wilkins for whom Bopp had great regards. But Bopp’s grammar was adversely reviewed by Christian Lassen who was full of praise for the usefulness of Sanskrit grammar as against Western philosophy. Bopp’s empiricist view that Sanskrit grammarians “created many forms to serve as roots which were not known from Sanskrit texts, and which were not therefore ‘real’ roots, but are the stems of verbs derived from nouns” was opposed by N. Westergaard that without reading the vast area of Sanskrit literature it is improper to judge most of the roots as not real, but postulations. August Von Schlegel was not satisfied with Bopp’s teaching of Sanskrit grammar and very soon having earned deeper knowledge in the subject, agreed with Christian Lassen that, Bopp neglected the Sanskrit grammarians without being thorough in them whereas Bopp defended himself that neither did he neglect them nor did he consider studying Sanskrit grammar useless. Rather he recommended his students for carrying on further studies



in the subject while shifting himself to studies in general linguistics. Meanwhile Wilhelm Humboldt also defended Bopp as against Schlegel, although he was close to both of them. Schlegel’s knowledge of Sanskrit grammar at that time was rather scanty and he was not sure whether the Sanskrit grammarians had ever dealt with syntax in which Humboldt had great interest. He learned Sanskrit from the grammar of both Wilkins and Bopp and from the translations of Sanskrit texts by both Bopp and Schlegel, and Bopp, in a letter to the French Sanskritist, Jean-Louis Burnoaf, praised Humboldt’s rapid progress in learning Sanskrit. According to Humboldt Sanskrit was the Zenith of the development of inflected languages. His studies in Sanskrit gerunds and Bhagavadgītā, and remarks on the creative potency of the Sanskrit language as reflected in the Kawi (poetic) language of the Southeast Asia (see Sukla, Introduction to the special issue of the online journal Contemporary Aesthetics, “Southeast Asian aesthetics”) have influenced the views of Noam Chomsky on the creative aspect of language use. In another respect Humboldt differed from Bopp that the Sanskrit roots were not simply postulations. They are real and need further linguistic analysis. They might be invisible in some cases, but they originally existed there, and they might be traced in other languages. In a letter to Schlegel in 1829, Humboldt stressed the point that the Sanskrit grammarians while postulating the roots also isolated them by a kind of purification. Thus, Humboldt’s ideas of the creative use of language as manifested in word formation, foreshadowed by Pons’ “elémans primitifs” were influenced by the Sanskrit grammarians and by the long discussions about their “invented” roots among Bopp, Lassen, and others. II In spite of his shortcomings Franz Bopp continued to influence some scholars such as Adolf Stenzler and Friedrich Max Müller who shined as noted Sanskritists later. Apart from his studies at Leipzig (1841) University Max Mūller also studied with Friedrich Schelling in Berlin and with Eugene Burnouf in Paris (1845). Although defeated by Mornier Monier-Williams in the 1860 election to the Boden professorship in Sanskrit at Oxford, later in 1868 Mūller became the first professor of Comparative Philosophy at Oxford and continued his spectacular researches in Indology till his death in 1875. In 1866 Mūller published his Sanskrit Grammar for Beginners which is a remarkable work based throughout on and collated with Pāëini’s Sūtras. He was fully aware of the complexity of the Pāëinian system of grammar that he expresses in the second edition of the work: By this process (i.e., by collating the whole of the grammar with Pāëini) which I have adopted, I believe that on many points a more settled and authoritative character has been imparted to the grammar of Sanskrit than it possessed before; but I do by no means pretend to arrive on all points at a clear and definite view of the meaning of Pāëini and his successors. The grammatical system of Hindu grammarians is so peculiar, that rules which we should group together, are scattered about in different parts of their manuals. We may have the general rule in the last, and the exceptions in the xvii

On the Use of Genitive Absolute in Sanskrit

first book, and even then, we are by no means certain that exceptions to these exceptions may not occur somewhere else. (Staal 1970a, 138) Bopp’s view that the rules that the Sanskrit grammarians formulated were ‘merely’ rules not explaining any “actually existing” language called Sanskrit was further corroborated, after half a century, by William Whitney (1827–1894), the first American Sanskritist who studied Sanskrit with Edward Salisbury at Yale. But Salisbury’s own study of Sanskrit with Bopp in Berlin and later with Lassen in Bonn was insufficient and inadequate. Whitney followed the second edition of Bopp’s Sanskrit grammar (1847), and later studied with Bopp, Weber and Roth in Germany, and in 1879 published his Sanskrit Grammar in Leipzig in which he did not follow Pāëini’s rules considering them “highly artificial and difficult form of about four thousand algebraic-formula like rules in the statement and arrangement of which brevity alone is had in view, at the cost of distinctness and unambiguousness” (Preface-XI; Staal 1970a, 140). Staal notes that Whitney does not appear to have done any work himself on Sanskrit grammarians, though he had worked widely in the Prātiśākhya literature that confirms his own linguistic convictions and philosophical activities: “language in the concrete sense is the sum of words by which any man expresses his thought” (Staal, 140). In fact, there is a characteristic difference between the Prātiśākhya literature and the Sanskrit grammatical traditions. The Prātiśākhyas do not provide any linguistic rules though the rules which they provide for the derivation of the Saàhitā form, the padapāöha, often coincide with linguistic rules. Franz Kielhorn (1840–1908) studied Sanskrit with Stenzler, himself influenced by Bopp, and on publication of an edition of Śāntonava’s Phiösütra he was recommended by Albrecht Weber to work with Monier-Williams at Oxford as an assistant to his compilation of Sanskrit-English dictionary. But, subsequently, as advised by Max Müller he proceeded to Poona to join the Deccan College as a Professor of Oriental Language (Sanskrit). During his stay in Poona, for more than fifteen years, Kielhorn was associated with Georg Buhler at Elphin-stone College, Bombay and with several Indian scholars including Ramakrishna Bhandarkar. Būhler and Kielhorn set up a new era in Western scholarship. Kielhorn’s first two articles published in Poona were (1) on the subject matter of the Sanskrit grammarians (1885) where he refuted Richard Pischel’s views on Pāëini’s date (1885), and (2) The text of Pāëini’s sütras as given in the Kāśikā Våtti (7th C. AD) compared to that known to Kātyāyana and Patañjali. The other two works by Kielhorn are the English translation of Nāgeśa Bhaööa’s Laghu Śabdenduśekhara and an authentic edition of Patañjali’s Mahābhāñya. Staal records a list of Kielhorn’s monumental contributions to the studies on Sanskrit grammar and grammarians (1972, 106 ff.). Despite the fact that, Bopp’s knowledge of Sanskrit grammar was inadequate enough for claiming any authority in the subject, his fame in Germany was due to his foundational works in comparative grammar of Indo-European languages such as Greek, Latin, Sanskrit, Gothic, Avestan, Lithuanian, Old Slavic, and Armenian. This probe into a common prehistoric ancestor not surviving then was known as a “new science,” and was acknowledged as an academic discipline in German Universities xviii


led by the University of Leipzig. Whereas Sanskrit studies at Oxford and the University of Paris were motivated strongly by colonial and missionary attitude and necessity, the Germans pursued this area of knowledge as an intellectual quest. The missionary colonial attitude of Monier-Williams’ Sanskrit-English Dictionary is only self-manifest: “In explanation I must draw attention to the fact that I am only the second occupant of the Boden chair, and that its founder, colonel Boden, stated most explicitly in his will (dated August 15, 1811) that the special object of his munificent bequest was to promote the translation of the scriptures into Sanskrit, so as ‘to enable his countrymen to proceed in the conversion of the natives of India to the Christian Religion’. My very first public lecture delivered after my election in 1860 was on the study of Sanskrit in Relation to Missionary Work in India” (published in 1861, IX–X, preface to the New Edition, 1899.) The linguists working at Leipzig under the leadership of Bopp were commonly known as the “German Neo-Grammarians,” seeking to establish the regularity of phonetic change among the Indo-European languages (since they possessed ancient written documents). Thus, the beginning of the nineteenth century saw the establishment of the laws of phonetics with Grimm’s laws (1822) which focused the relationship between the Germanic languages on the one hand and Latin, Greek and Sanskrit on the other. Ferdinand de Saussure born in Geneva in 1857 into a protestant family of intellectuals and scientists descended from eighteenth century French immigrants, was attracted like many of his contemporaries, by this new branch of knowledge emerging in Leipzig. He left Switzerland in October 1876 to join the University of Leipzig for studying historical comparative linguistics under the masters like Georg Kurtins (1820–1885), August Leskien (1840–1916) and Karl Brugmann (1849–1919). But before leaving for Leipzig he started teaching himself Sanskrit using Bopp’s German text on Sanskrit grammar and some technical literature by Bopp and Curtius alongwith translations and editions of Sanskrit literary texts by scholars including Stenzler. This extensive self-teaching was very much helpful in Saussure’s speedy progress in his studies at Leipzig publishing the Memoire in 1878 and defending his doctoral dissertation Use of Genitive Absolute in Sanskrit in 1880 (published in 1881). But strangely, Saussure does not seem to have consulted some important texts on Sanskrit grammar available during his time: Henry Colebrooke’s A Grammar of the Sanskrit Language (1805), William Carey’s A Grammar of the Sanskrit Language (1806), Mūller’s Sanskrit Grammar for Beginners (1866), and Anandoram Borooah’s A Higher Sanskrit Grammar (Calcutta, 1876). III Terrence Gordon states that Saussure, according to one excessively imaginative historian of linguistics was influenced by Buddhist philosophy (1996, 15). But Gordon does not cite any reference, either the text or the author, that supports his statement. Similarly, Ramakrishna Bhandarkar in his address at the Bombay branch of the Royal Asiatic Society reported his observations on the state of Sanskrit studies in Europe during his visit to the Vienna Oriental Congress of 1886. While appreciating the studies and researches in Sanskrit done by the Germans that have been the foremost among all the European scholars, Bhandarkar remarks entertainingly the xix

On the Use of Genitive Absolute in Sanskrit

detesting attitude of the Germans toward the Brahminic cultural tradition in their preference to Buddhism: A German Sanskrit Professor once said to me that he liked social equality being given to the natives of India, but not political equality, and that he considered the Liberty Bill to be mischievous. I told him that in Ceylon and the presidency towns the native magistrates did actually exercise the power of trying European offenders. He did not know that, he said, but still proceeded to defend his position, and bringing his Oriental learning to his aid, observed, “Oh, Buddhism has softened the Ceylonese, so that they might exercise that power; but the case is different in India.” I listened quietly thinking my country’s stars that she had not fallen into the hands of Germans. (Staal 1972, 81–83) Bhandarkar does not mention the name of this German Sanskrit Professor, although from his statement one might guess that Gordon’s historian of linguistics is a German. But, as Staal deals with the matter elaborately, it is not curtain which German scholar active during the last two decades of the nineteenth century might be the author of the comments quoted by Bhandarkar. There is, however, no proof, either direct or indirect, for Saussure’s link with Buddhism. Any probability of such proposed link might be viewed with regard to the hypothesis of Pāëini’s affiliation to Buddhism. But this hypothesis has been dealt with Madhav Deshpande who has most reasonably rejected it in an exhaustive probe into the topic (1997). The grammatical treatise of Pāëini in eight chapters, called Añöādhyāyī starts with fourteen classes of sounds known as Çivasūtras which are integrally connected with the whole corpus of rules amounting to around four thousand in number. Rules and their exceptions as found in use comprise these eight chapters. Pāëini draws upon the phonetically ordered listings of sounds as found in the Prātiśākhyas. This introductory list of sounds in the treatise on grammatical rules implies that language, as dealt with in this treatise, originates in a group of foundational sounds (Śabda/dhvani) and to trace the source and nature of these sounds is beyond any human efforts. It must have been revealed by Divinity to Pāëini, and this Divinity is Lord Śiva whose ontic entity is itself the archetypal sound called praëava (a-u-m), literally meaning coming of a bull’s bellowing (praëu). The traditional legend connected with this idea is that Pāëini received this fundamental list of sounds on his hard penance and worship of Lord Çiva, himself the lord of knowledge, who blew his hand-drum (damaru) to produce these sounds. Patañjali correlates a Rgvedic stanza (IV.58.3) implicating that the language of gods descended to the world of men in form of a shower of rain that sounds like a bull’s bellowing (Båñabho roravīti / mahodevo martyamāviveśa). Paul Kiparsky (1991, 257) comments:



It is said that god Çiva revealed these fourteen classes of sounds to Pāëini to get him started on the Añöādhyāyī. We might now want to see a deeper point in this legend. Our conclusions imply that if we did not possess the text of the Añöādhyāyī but merely a pre-theoretical description of Sanskrit phonology, the main principles of Pāëini’s grammar could be inferred just from the way the phonemes of Sanskrit are organized in the Çivasūtras. While tracing the history of this Çaivite link of Pāëini’s list of sounds (akñarasamāmnāya) Deshpande observes that any such link is not noted earlier than Kāsikāvåtti. Haradatta, the author of the Padamañjaré commentary on Kāśikā, belonging to the Chola era in south India, refers to this Çaivite link of Pāëini for the first time. How can folks like us see all the target language? Perhaps not for folks like us, but such (an ability) is possible for the great sages who are superior to us. Or a person who has been graced by God can directly see everything. In this context, the learned of the world remember: “Salutation to Pāëini, who having acquired the akñarasamāmnāya from the Great Lord (Çiva), narrated the whole grammar”. They call the akñarasamāmnāya by the term devasūtra. According to Haradutta, Pāëini, Kātyāyana and Patañjali were great sages who were capable of viewing the entire eternal language. A passage in the versified form of Pāëinīya Śikñā edited by Manmohan Ghosh (1938) known to the tradition around 5th C. AD states, “Salutation to Pāëini, who, having learnt the akñarasamāmnāya from Maheśvara, offered (us) the whole of Vyākaraëa (śāstra).” This passage was known to Dharmakīrti, a Ceylonese Buddhist (10th C. AD) who has significantly accommodated both Maheśvara and Çiva. The first benedictory stanza to his Rūpāvatāra, a reorganization of the Pāëinian grammar, mentions Pāëini’s reception of the akñarasamāmnyāya from Maheśvara, and only in the second stanza salutation is offered to the Buddha. Haradatta’s contention was followed by the later tradition by Jayadratha, Ramabhadra Dikñita, Bhaööoji Dikñita, and Nāgeśa Bhaööa. The episode as narrated in the Kathāsarit-sāgara, and its link with Guëāòhya’s Båhatkathā raised, however, the question of the legend’s availability earlier than the Kāśikā, in the event that Guëāòhya belongs to 4th C. AD who was himself a Śaivite. Equally important is the consideration of Pāëini’s Buddhist link as recorded by two travelers Hiuen Tsang (7th C.) and Taranatha (17th C.). The latter is aware of the legend that Pāëini, born to a Brahmin family of Bhirukarëa was a friend of the King Nanda, and attained grammatical wisdom by intense propitiation to lord Çiva. According to Taranatha this is the view of the “outsiders” (bāùyas/ tīrthikas) or nonBuddhists, whereas the Buddhists (insiders) consider this deity Avalokiteśvara the Buddhist god. Manjusrī Mūlakalpa records a prophecy, “Pāëini, the son of a


On the Use of Genitive Absolute in Sanskrit

Brahmana will certainly attain the Srāvaka-bodhi. I have predicted that he would be the great (Ava) lokeśvara by his own words.” Other two Tibetan historians, Bu-ston and Obermiller also refer to the same passage of the Manjusrī Mūlakalpa. Hiuen Tsang, who visited the northwest region of Classical India, the cities of Kapiśā (now Afghanistan), Puñkalāvatī and Sālātura (Pāëini’s birth place) informs that the people there raised images of both the Buddhist (Avalokiteśvara) and Brahmanic Maheśvara and his spouse Bhimā Devi and narrate legends regarding an admixture of Pāëini’s affiliation to both the sects. Hiuen-Tsang’s information makes clear the point that Buddhists had great admiration for Pāëini’s ÇabdavidyāÇāstra, but they were unwilling to affiliate him to the Brahminic tradition. Interrelation of the Brahminic and Buddhist grammatical traditions is further evidenced from the Buddhist grammarian Candragomin/ Candrācārya, may be a contemporary of Bhartåihari (5th C. AD), who reports the discovery of a lost tradition of Patañjali’s Mahābhāñya. This connection is also supported by Kalhana’s Rājatarangiëi (I.176). Besides, the authors of Kaśikā, Jayaditya and Vāmana are also considered Buddhist controversially. But Jinendrabuddhi the Nyāsa commentator on Kāśikā was certainly a Buddhist. So also, were Dharmakirti the author of Rūpāvatāra, Puruñottamadeva the author of Bhāñāvåtti and Saraëadeva the author of Durghaöavåtti. Buddhist authors of eminence such as Nāgārjuna, Vasubandhu, Candrakīrti, and Yogamitra have always followed the Pāëinian rules in their compositions. The Avalokiteśvara/ Maheśvara conflict is recorded by Mahāyānasūtrasaìgraha (I.265) where the Buddha reports his disciple about the subordination of the Brahmanic gods: From Avalokiteśvara’s eyes were born the sun and the moon, from his forehead Çiva, from his heart Narāyaëa and Sarasvatī from his jaws so on and so forth. Subjugation of the Brahmanic pantheon to the Buddhist god Avalokiteśvara whom the Buddha places in the peak of the Buddhist pantheon and Brahmanic pantheon is also marked in the art historical and numismatics materials in India and other countries. Tantric miracles also are attributed to both the deities. But at the same time, as is well known, both the religious cults were equally patronized by rulers from Aśoka to Harñavardhana including the Kuñāna ruler Kaniñka in the Northwestern India. Aśoka built temples to both Çiva and Buddha in Kashmir. So much for the Saivite Buddhist syncretism and claim for their hold on Pāëini’s grammatical knowledge. Deshpande concludes his exhaustive investigation of the topic: all the Buddhist Pāëinian commentators belong to the post-Gupta or postHarñavardhana period when Buddhism was on decline, though not completely disappeared. It is during this period that Kāśikā appeared (7th C.), and subsequently two dominant commentators on this text represented two different religious affiliations Haradatta the Brahmanic and Jinendrabuddhi the Buddhist. Kāśikā starts his gloss on Pāëini’s rules without any benediction and treats grammar as forming rules for use of language for its own sake without any ulterior purpose. But Haradatta, following Patañjali, explains the purpose of Vyākaraëa as not merely manifesting or analyzing (vyākå) language in its own interest but in the interest of preservation of the sacred scripts, the Vedas, even if Kāśikā does not mention this purpose explicitly.



Jinendra, however, following Kāśikā strictly does not mention any other purpose of grammar than studying language objectively, as it is in itself. Haradatta’s orthodox view of Pāëini is clearly drawn upon Patañjali (I.1.): The needs (of studying grammar) are preservation, modification, injunction, brevity and certainty: Grammar is to be studied for the preservation of the Vedas. Only the person who knows about elisions, introductions and the change of sounds can properly follow the Vedas. Certainly, also modification; in the Vedas the mantras were not always uttered in all genders and with all kinds of suffixes. The person engaged in sacrifice must properly modify them. No one who is not a grammarian can make the proper modification, for that reason one should study grammar. There is also the Vedic injunction: A Brahmin should, without any objective, study and know the dharma as the Veda with its six aìgas. Grammar is the prominent of the six aìgas. Effort made in the prominent aìga produces fruit. Grammar is to be studied for the sake of brevity. “A Brahmin must know words.” There is no other simple method of knowing words than grammar. Grammar should be studied also for attaining certainty. That which is only studied and merely pronounced but not properly understood does not ever burn like dry wood (in a hearth without fire). So grammar should be studied so that our reading may not be fruitless. (Trans, Dasgupta) In explaining the purpose of studying grammar Patañjali emphasizes both the linguistic aspects of language in itself as also its application in the Vedic sacrifices. Linguistics and pragmatics are equally essential in studying grammar. Under the language that Patañjali deals with in Pāëinian grammar two varieties are counted—both the popular (laukika) and Vedic: “There the popular are the cow, the horse, the man, the elephant, the bird, the beast, the Brahmin and so forth. Also, there are the Vedic (propositions as illustrated in the four Vedas, i.e., words in the mantras).” But beginning with the Kāśikā, the Vedic ideology that Patañjali introduced to the sūtras of Pāëini was gradually eliminated by the Buddhist Pāëinians. Kāśikā starts with Patañjali’s introductory sūtra “atha Çabdānuśāsanam, as also counts both the worldly (laukika) and scriptural (vaidika) categories of language (words) under the word śabda, but does not elaborate the nature and necessity of discussing both these categories as Pataïjali does. Then Kāśikā passes over to explain the word anuśāsana (instruction). Jinendra, in his commentary clearly dispenses with the Vedic context. He writes: “The separate mention of the Vedic words apart from the worldly words is to indicate their special importance. The indication of special importance is to avoid their (grammatical) degeneration. With their degeneration in sacrificial acts, a great evil result is seen. Or perhaps, the worldly words are well as only those words of common usage with which one can conduct the business of the world. Therefore, the Vedic words are separately mentioned. Jinendra proposes that the Vedic context is of special concern for those who perform the Vedic rituals, or even with the Vedic scriptures. In other words, the non-Vedic sect may keep it aside. xxiii

On the Use of Genitive Absolute in Sanskrit

Jinendra’s implied proposal is explicitly mentioned by a latter commentator on Kaśikā. Purusottamadeva, in his Bhāsāvåtti, omits the Vedic rules from the Añöadhyāyi completely by a straight declaration in commenting on Patañjali’s introductory statement. “Here begins the instruction of words. Of which words? Of worldly words.” Although Candragomin’s grammar does not cover the Vedic rules in its extant recension some references are there to his classifying Pāëini in two separate sections:bhāsābhāga and Chandobhāga. Some scholars mention that Puruñottamadeva omitted the Vedic section from his bhāñāvåtti because his patron Lakshmana Sena had no concern with the Vedic rituals. Thus, all the non-Brahmanic systems of grammar such as Kātantra and Candra that developed later, deal with only the laukika language section of the Pāëinian rules ignoring any religious link of Pāëini, although he remains basically a Brahmanic grammarian forever. Against this vast historical backdrop, it is now clear that Saussure, following the non-sectarian system of studying Sanskrit and other languages in Leipzig was neither a Buddhist nor a Brahmanic in his Pāëinian studies. No reference is there in his dissertation to any Buddhist text or to any Vedic scripture in illustrating his thesis. He makes it explicitly clear that in illustrating his arguments he has put up references to only classical Sanskrit narratives epics, purāëas and prose works including pañcatantra and Kathā-saritsāgara whatever best was available to him in Leipzig during his studies. Dramatic literature is not consulted by him. IV The term “absolute” refers to a sentence constituent, in traditional grammar and linguistics, that is isolated from or abnormally connected to the rest of the sentence. In modern linguistics the term refers to a type of universal: an absolute universal characterizes all languages without exception, contrasting with “relative” universals (Radford 1978, Ch. I). Coincidentally, both Vaman Shivram Apte and Ferdinand de Saussure highlighted the absolute construction in Sanskrit grammar and its use in genitive and locative cases. Absolute construction is, therefore, both a grammatical and syntactical phenomenon. Both Apte and Saussure, without knowing each other, either by name or by works published, observed in the same year 1881, Apte in his The Student’s Guide to Sanskrit Composition and Saussure in his Leipzig doctoral dissertation, treat the topic with special reference to its use in genitive case while comparing its use in locative case as well. Naturally, Saussure’s work is much more exacting, thorough, analytical and extensive contributing significantly to comparative linguistics. But Apte’s three-page (82–84) presentation of the subject is no less substantial and precise. He defines the nature of absolute construction: “When the participle agrees with a subject, different from the subject of the verb, the phrase is said to be in the absolute construction” (Bain) The phrase is unconnected with the general structure of the clause in which it stands. The absolute case differs in different languages; in English it is nominative; in Latin, the ablative; and in Sanskrit, the Genitive and Locative. If it be found that the nominative of the subordinate sentence be not a noun occurring in the principal sentence, or a pronoun representing xxiv


such a noun, the absolute construction may be used. In such cases the participle must agree with the said subject both in gender and number. Locative absolute is used when a noun or pronoun expresses a thing, the action performed indicating the time of another action. Thus, having two subjects and two actions, the time of the first action is supposed to be known and that of the second unknown, the time of the latter is determined by the former; common example from Kālidāsa’s Çākuntalā (6) Kaù paurave vasumatéà śasati avinayam ācarati? (“Who, while Paurav rules over the earth, acts immodestly?”). The Locative absolute in Sanskrit is used in the sense of the nominative absolute in English (Pāëini II. i.37: yasya ca bhāvena bhāva lakñaëam). As regards the genitive absolute, the expression is ideational rather than merely formal, related to the speaker’s cognitive awareness or intention. In a behavioural definition, the expression refers to the objectively verifiable status of the affairs in the external world. Pāëini specifies this cognitive or ideational content of the expression concerned (II. 3.38 Ñañöhī ca anādare): in an expression where contempt or disregard is intended (anādara) by phrases carrying senses such as “in spite of,” “not withstanding,” “before the very eyes,” and “for all” (paśyato’pi me śyenenāpahåtaù śiñuh, 1.21 “before my very eyes a hawk snatched away the baby”). Genitive absolute is also used to express the English participles ‘when’ and ‘while’, not conveying anādara necessarily: “evaà tayoù parsparaà vadataù sa rājāśayanam āsādya prasuptaù (“While they two were thus speaking, the king coming to his bed slept down,” 1.9). When the participle of an absolute construction is ‘being’, it is omitted in Sanskrit, and two substantives or one substantive and the other adjective are put together in the absolute case: “nātha kutastvayi aśubhaà prajānām (“you [being] the lord, how can any mishap befall the subjects?” Raghu.13). Sometimes both genitive and locative absolutes are used to express anādara (disregard in spite of etc.): Rudati putre/ rudataù putrasya pitā prāvrājit (“In spite of disregarding the son’s weeping the father turned out a recluse” S. K.). The subject or object of an absolute construction is not repeated in the principal sentence excepting only in the genitive case, either in its own form, or represented by a demonstrative pronoun: In cases where the subject or the object or their representative pronoun is to be used in principal sentence, the absolute construction is prohibited, and the whole should be treated as one sentence and translated by the use of participles, e.g., sāraìge evaà vicārayati sa vyāghreëa hataù is not as idiomatic as evaà vicārayat sāraìgo vyāghreëa hataù; måtesmin rājñi tasya putro rājyaà adhigamiñyati is perfectly idiomatic. Apte considers compactness and idiomatic use of language more correct and acceptable than the instructions of the rigid grammatical rules. In the present case, i.e., the subject or object of an absolute construction is not repeated in the principal sentence excepting in a genitive absolute construction, the authorities of Sanskrit grammar are silent. But Apte proposes to settle this point on three grounds: (1) by the very definition of an absolute construction, (2) the overwhelming evidences furnished by the best Sanskrit writers and (3) the analogy of other classical languages, e.g., Latin:


On the Use of Genitive Absolute in Sanskrit

The definition of an absolute construction distinctly implies that the subject of the absolute phrase must not be a noun occurring in the principal sentence, and hence, it cannot be repeated in any case. Secondly, in several instances of absolute constructions that we find in Sanskrit authors, we find very few, or hardly any, cases in which the subject or object is repeated in the principal assertion in any case except the Genitive. And just as we should not say mahābalī meaning having much strength, but merely mahābalaù the same meaning being more compactly expressed by this word; so also, constructions like duhyamānā gā jalamapāyayat, are more compact than goñu duhyamānāsu etc. and have therefore, become more idiomatic. Thirdly, the nature of an absolute case in Latin is precisely the same: “When a substantive or pronoun together with a participle or an adjective form a clause by themselves and are not under the Government of, or in agreement with any other words they are put in ablative absolute: ‘Pythagoras Tarquinio Superbo regnate in Italian vernit”. Thus, though Sanskrit grammarians are silent on this point, the three circumstances above alluded to lead to the conclusion that what is more compact and idiomatic is more correct than that which grammarians by their silence do not condemn. (85–86). The gist of Apte’s observations implies that use is preferable to grammatic instructions manifest or silent. But with due honour by the great ācāryas, Apte argues that when the ācāryas remain silent on the point concerned, their agreement is assumed; there is no need for modification of the original rules. He emphatically states: “I for my part should consider such instances. In accurate and unidiomatic, if not positively incorrect construction, rather than modify the rule, by relying on insufficient evidence.” Staal appreciates Apte’s authority in observing a major difference between the Western Sanskrit grammarians and the Indian Sanskrit grammarians, particularly Apte, who studied grammar not from the textual matter, as the grammarians of Latin do. The Indian Sanskrit grammarians studied Sanskrit not only on the textual basis, but also on the basis of Sanskrit language they were speaking. Therefore, Apte’s stress on the superiority of idiomatic use over textual matter is most acceptable (62). V Coming to the methodology of studying Sanskrit language, a clear contrast is noted between oriental and occidental scholars. As Renou observes, the object of Pāëini’s grammar was the complete description of Sanskrit as the spoken language (bhāñā) of his time, and to a more limited extent, of the Vedic language (chandas) (Staal 1967, 18). Two traditions in language studies are noted: the Prātiśākhya tradition and the grammatical (Pāëinian) tradition that is most possibly latter to the former. The former treats exclusively the Vedic texts whereas the latter treats the language itself, both the Vedic and the spoken (bhāñā). As such, the former treated the utterance aspect of the



Vedic corpus whereas the latter treated sentences as spoken (also applied to written). Pāëini’s grammar is not confined to the phonological and morphological aspects of Sanskrit, it treats syntax as well without adopting a taxonomic outlook, which is the characteristic feature of the occidental linguistics. It deals more with the use or performance of language whereas Pāëini deals more with the regularities of language or with competence, thus interested in underlying rules. What is most significant to note is as already stated earlier that the Western Sanskritists studied Sanskrit generally from the corpus of written texts, the way Latin scholars studied Latin language. On the other hand, Sanskrit grammarians of India, to cite the example of Apte, were Sanskrit speakers as well and could therefore study the nuances and the idiomatic aspects of the language. Robert Lees observes that the Greek word Taxis led not only to the formation of the word syntax, but also to the framing of the term taxonomy which serves to characterize the major inadequacy of structural linguistics. Lees uses this term to describe taxonomy as “the view that sentences are constructed from left to right, word for word, by the simple adjunction of successive constituents one to another” (Lees 1963, XIX). Taxonomy in this sense corresponds to the Sanskrit abhisambandha, and structural linguistics in this sense insists upon abhisambandha. But structuralist linguistics may be judged not only by the emphasis on taxonomy, but also by the idea of basing a taxonomy strictly and exclusively upon phonetic form (Lees 1963, XXI). Taxonomic linguistics insists on confining its attention to the phonetic form, arrangement and intonation of utterances by classifying their elements in terms of simple bracketing. Thus analyzed, the utterances are collected from a fixed corpus. All this is postulated for conferring on linguistics the status of an empirical science, this empiricism being misguided itself (Chomsky 1964). This misguided form of empiricism combines with a behaviourist theory of language use and learning, adhering to the idea of a discovery procedure by means of which a grammar is supposedly obtainable, by mechanical norms from the physical shape of the utterances obtained from a finite corpus, just as parts of botany are presumably obtainable by mechanical means from a stretch of jungle. (Staal 1967, 2) On the other hand, if structural linguistics is characterized by its insistence upon taxonomy, the Sanskrit grammatical tradition is characterized by its insistence upon Sambandha (grammatical relations). This key point has not been recognized by the Western Sanskritists, not even by Whitney who refers to Pāëini as a taxonomist. Whitney, who did not care to study Pāëini’s rules disapproving them as “highly artful and difficult form of about four thousand algebraic formulae like rules,” instead expresses most clearly the taxonomist point of view (“language in the correct sense (is) the sum of words and phrases by which any man expresses his thought”), a view supported by his disciple Noam Chomsky. According to Staal (1967, 3), Barend Faddegon makes a correct approach to the study of Sanskrit grammarians, attributing the taxonomist view of grammar to the Western linguists, with a taunting remark for Whitney: “Whitney has admirably attacked Pāëini, but for Pāëini we forget Whitney”. Faddegon’s interpretation of Pāëini’s Kāraka theory leaves an ideal avenue to follow by all the linguists: “Evidently Pāëini tries in this analysis to separate the ideational aspect from the xxvii

On the Use of Genitive Absolute in Sanskrit

linguistic expression, an attempt which the occidental linguists of the latter half of the nineteenth century have condemned, misled as they were by the hope of being able to understand language through the exclusive study of its phonal and morphological aspects, i.e., its articulative utterance and the association system underlying declension and conjugation, as if the application and imitation of physics and a mechanistic psychology were the last word of moral science. And so besides the injustice done to Apte’s key points in presenting the use of Genitive and Locative absolute constructions, the following may be put up succinctly: “A pioneer of grammar who lived about twenty-five centuries ago by associating with him results of modern grammar; it is even questionable whether Pāëini has not something still to say to us” (Faddegon 1936, 18). VI Both Sambandha and abhisambandha denote relationship among the words in a sentence. Whereas the latter denotes arbitrary system of word order without any logical conceptual semantic implications, belonging, therefore to surface structure, the former denotes a logical and semantic relationship among words in a sentence belonging to the deep structure. Pāëini meticulously formulates several rules about the relations between words in a sentence. Syntactic or grammatical relations are quite independent of the word order of surface structure. The scholars observing that Pāëini did not study syntax are misled by the assumption that syntax is the study of word order. “This assumption results from neglecting the distinction between the relation of words in a sentence (sambandha), which certainly belongs to the deep structure, and the order of words of a sentence (abhisambandha), which may belong to the surface structure.” (Staal 1967, 30) Both Kātyāyana and Patañjali regarded word order as free, obviously because of Pāëini’s Kāraka theory with a declensional and conjugational presentation of words. Barend Faddegon interprets Kāraka: “By Kārakas Pāëini understands the logical or ideational relations between a noun and a verb, or more precisely between an object or anything conceived after the analogy of an object and an action” (1936, 18). Thus Kāraka relation expresses adequately certain grammatical relations of the deep structure; it can be understood from the purely semantic interpretation of the deep structure. At the same time, what is more important is that the Kāraka relations are not merely expressive of the logical and philosophical aspects of Sanskrit grammar, they also contribute greatly to the terminology and analysis of modern linguistics that developed by 1936. Philosophically, Kāraka relations determine almost all the possible relations between objects and actions expressed linguistically. There are therefore two aspects of a linguistic expression ideational or semantic, i.e., Kāraka relation, and morphological, i.e., Vibhakti, formation of words using case affixes that are metalinguistic, that are applied both to the objects and to the roots for formation of verbs expressing appropriate action. According to Pāëini, there are the following possible relations between objects and actions: apādāna (separation: The action of moving from one object/ point of space to another implying also the act of creation),



sampradāna (giving away something by someone to some other one with a particular purpose or point of view; Karaëa denotes the means or way someone performs an action; adhikarëa denotes the relation with the locus of an action someone performs; Karman denotes the relation with what is primarily desired by the agent of the action. Kartaå denotes the independent agent; and, finally, hetu denotes the relation of the agent with the object that prompts his action. Western interpreters think that Pāëini’s Kāraka relations are vaguely semantic, because of their assumption that Pāëini was interested only in surface morphology ignoring the fact that he was equally interested in syntax and sentence construction nowadays called deep structure. “In Pāëinian grammar a pada is not only a finished word-form, but in certain conditions it is an unfinished word-form also, even a stem is defined as a pada. Thus, in Pāëini the pada is defined both ways, (a) word with verbal or nominal case-ending, and (b) a stem followed by certain grammatical condition spada in (a) is defined both as grammatical and pragmatic, but in (b) is defined only as grammatical unit for certain technical purposes. Thus, pada here implies both types of forms, though the meta-rule is necessitated only for finished form of words” (Mahāvir 1984, 7–8), may be said to be a part of speech. The correspondence of the Kārakas with the vibhaktis or case-endings morphological markers (The meta-linguistic signs, themselves meaningless), both in conjugation (tiìanta) and declension (subanta) are intended for expressing the objectaction relation in syntactic formulations: apādāna is expressed by the Ablative, sampradāna by the Dative, Karëa by the instrumental, adhikaraëa by the Locative, Karman by the Accusative, Kartå by both the Nominative (in active voice) and the Instrumental (in the passive voice), and, finally, hetu by the Causative. But there is one case-ending, the sixth or genitive that does not denote any Kāraka, the objectaction relationship, as it expresses the relationship between two objects, may be a substantive (noun) or a pronoun. Therefore, this Genitive relation is called a pada i.e., sambandha pada. This sambandha pada is of two kinds Absolute and Relative. The use of Absolute Genitive in Sanskrit is said to be very rare in comparison to the use of Locative absolute. (For Relative Universal see Radford 1997a, Ch. I.) VII In our context four consecutive rules are relevant: II.3.35, II.3.36, II.3.37, and II.3.38. They are correlated with a preposition ca which means “also.” II.3.35 instructs that the second case ending, fifth case ending and third case ending occur optionally for indicating distance near and far (antika and dūra or their synonyms). The next rule instructs that a seventh case ending is used after a nominal stem when location (adhikaraëa) is not expressed otherwise; it also (ca) is expressed after dūra and antika or their synonyms. II.3.37 states that the seventh case ending also occurs after a stem whose implied action characterizes another action. In yasyacabhāvenabhāvalakñaëam Kāśikā glosses bhāva as kriyā and paraphrases the rule: “that by whose implied action another action is implied characterized. The Seventh case ending is introduced after that which is implied as the bhāva action.”


On the Use of Genitive Absolute in Sanskrit

Sharma elucidates: This rule introduces Saptamī after the nominal stem which implies the bhāva action, and characterizes another bhāva. The word bhāva “action” should be interpreted differently from kriyā-“action,” because an action is composite of several actions. For an “action,” when not specified otherwise, denotes a process. This is the case with kriyā-“action,” which does indeed denote an action with process; that is, an action in the process of being brought to completion (sādhya). Once this process is complete (brought to completion), it becomes siddha (accomplished). In the present rule, the word bhāva denotes an action which is siddha, and not an action which is sādhya, denoted by a verb root (dhātu) to denote the same thing, why did Kāsikā gloss bhāva as kriyā in this rule? This paraphrase of the rule itself is sufficient to bring out the distinction. They say tato bhāvavataù saptamī “seventh triplet of nominal ending is to be introduced after that nominal stem which implies an action.” Now both bhāva and kriyā have “action” as their central meaning. The difference between an action denoted by a root and an action denoted by a nominal stem is one of sādhya and siddha. Since the rule introduces the ending after a nominal stem which implies an action, the action of the nominal stem can be recognized as bhāva. Moreover, an action denoted by a nominal stem is always an action which is siddha. The action which the nominal stem implies, and the further action which this action inhered, characterizes, do not have to be already accomplished (siddha). The important point is that one action must characterize another. Moreover, the action that a nominal stem implies has to be known (jñāta), or famous (prasiddha). If it is not famous, then it may not qualify to characterize another action, what is important to remember in this context is that one action serves as the characteristic mark for the timing. The other action speaking technically, Pāëini uses the variable yad (that) in the genitive. As such it signifies the locus of action. The nominal stem which implies an action, which characterizes agent or object, the locus of the action concerned. (III, 142–43) We repeat the examples mentioned above (a) goñu duhyamānāsu gataù (He left when cows were being milked). Here the action of milking is known, whereas the action of leaving is characterized by that of milking, i.e., the action of milking was still in process when the person left. But milking could have been accomplished before he left. Therefore, the alternative sentence; (b) goñu dugdhāsu gataù (He left when the cows had already been milked). An example when the locus of action is agent: (c) brāhmaneñu adhīyāneñu gataù (He went when the brahmaëas were chanting). Now comes the rule crucial for us II.3.38 Şañöhicānādare: A ñañthi also occurs after a stem whose implied action characterizes another action provided anādara (disregard) is denoted. Example: (a) rudataù/ rudati prāvrājit. (Without caring for the



crying relatives, he became an ascetic) (b) Krośataù/ krosati prāvrājit (Without caring for the angry relatives he became an ascetic). Here ñañöhī is an option for saptamī in case of disregard. Here disregard (anādara) is used for the locus of the action characterized. Four technical terms viz, pada, prātipadika, kāraka and vibhakti are relevant in understanding Sanskrit syntax. Pada is an inflected word; no un-inflected word can be used in a sentence. When affixed with seven case-endings, a word used in a sentence is called prātipadika. Kāraka denotes the relation between a noun and a verb in a sentence. Any factor contributing to the accomplishment of an action is called a Kāraka, determined by a case ending or affix (a meaningless sign) that makes a word (pada) meaningful in the sentence. Thus, a crude word or prātipadika usable in a sentence with a case-ending sign (tiìanta and subanta) is called Kāraka-Vibhakti. The relation of a noun with another noun in a sentence is not a Kāraka, although this relation is indicated by a case-ending or vibhakti. There are six Kāraka-Vibhaktis, and the relationship is indicated by a Vibhakti. In the sentence dharmasya lakñaëam śåëoti (He listens to the definition of dharma) lakñaëam is a Kāraka not dharma, and the relation between dharma and lakñaëam indicated by the case-markers, the marker of the six-case does not refer to any action but to the relation of a possession (dharma) and its possessed (lakñaëam). There are as many as six such relations: “Possession and the possessed”, “part and the whole”, “material and the thing”, “made of it”, “a thing meant for another” (tādarthya) relation of proximity. Besides, the sixth case affix is used when an object is not directly intended to be expressed, but only a relation in general is meant. The rule ñañöùéśeñe (2.3.50) is interpreted severally by the authorities of Sanskrit grammar. Kātyāyan is silent on this rule. Patañjali explains that ñañöùé means any relation other than the six relations of Karma etc. He further states, significantly enough, that it is the intention of the speaker that determines the case endings in (Vivakñā) speech act (Karmādīnām avivakñā). Scholars criticize (Sarangi 1995, 75ff) Patañjali for correlating linguistics with rhetorics in using the term Vivakñā. But they forget that both these branches of knowledge are organically correlated. Patañjali, in this case, seems to be the founder of the modern speech act theory that emphasizes the speaker’s intention. Linguistic expression is essentially an expression of the speaker’s intention. Therefore, Patañjali’s focus on the role of speaker’s intention in using a kāraka is absolutely logical. Grammar is based on use of the language, and the use of a language is based on the speaker’s intention to speak. The rhetoricians such as Ānanda Vardhana have borrowed the concept of Vivakñā from Patañjali. Sarangi has besides, committed a grave factual error by placing Candragomin (5th-7th AD) earlier than Patañjali (see Staal 1972, 21). Thus, Patañjali’s correlation of Vivakñā with kāraka (Vivakñātaù Kārakāëi, Abhyankar: 361) is one of the most remarkable observations to be noted by the grammarians, linguists and scholars. The sixth case-ending is called Genitive case, and a word with this ending is called a pada or relation or sambandhapada. It is a pada because it is usable in a sentence (apadamn na prayuàjīta), and it denotes a relation (sambandha) between two nouns. In our context rule II.3.38 ñañthīcānādare that comes under genitive case xxxi

On the Use of Genitive Absolute in Sanskrit

is of major significance. Pāëini relates this rule to another rule that comes under Locative case (II.3.37): “The person or thing whose (well-known) action marks the action of someone else takes saptamī yasya ca bhāvena bhāva lakñaëam, the word ca (also) is used to connect it to rule II.3.36 where the major use of the seventh caseending denotes location (adhikaraëa). The rule (of our concern) ñañthīcaānādare indicates vivakñā (intention) of the speaker where he alternates this rule with the rule II.3.37. In case of expressing “disregard” or “condemnation” the speaker is free to use II.3.35 in place of II.3.37. A father renounces the world even though the son cries. If the father goes on Sannyāsa disgraerding the son’s cries, then the expression will use the genitive case: rudataù putrasya pitā prāvrājat. But if there is no sense of disregard, just in a normal situation the rule II.3.37 will be used: rudati putre pitā prāvrājat. Thus, if is Vivakñā that determines the Kāraka relation. The absolute construction using Locative case abounds in Sanskrit composition. Again, the word ca in the rule denotes not only location, but also distance such as “near” and “far” (dūra and samīpa)/ but not so in case of genitive absolute. Franz Bopp, as we have noted earlier, was no more interested in Sanskrit grammar as he took up general linguistics leaving the subject to his younger disciples. Ferdinand de Saussure, as a follower of Bopp noted the profuse use of Locative absolute in Sanskrit, but “such is not the case with genitive absolute in the same language. You may say that this construction is known only by hear say, and by mere mention otherwise very laconically by the grammarians of India, so difficult is it to find any precise indication in its regard in European works. A monograph on this subject can therefore be of some use.” Having thus justified the need of his dissertation, Saussure cites some strong examples mentioned by his predecessors such as Adolf Stenzler, Antoine Siecke and Richard Pischel the renowned Pāli scholar. Disagreeing with Albrecht Weber’s comments that use of genitive absolute is rather common in Pāli but rare in Sanskrit and mentioned in a few cases in William Whitney’s Sanskrit grammar Saussure comes forward to establish his thesis that the use of genitive absolute galore in Sanskrit language. He clarifies that his approach concerns only the Sanskrit language without adopting any comparative method, although he refers only casually to Zend as investigated by Johann Hubschmann who mentions only three cases of genitive absolute without ascertaining their interpretation. Even if these cases are somehow less doubtful they have nothing of the essential characterstics of the Indian genitive absolute. Friedrich Spiegel’s citations on the issue, though partly different from those of Hubscmann also give rise to the same remarks. The point is that in Zend great confusions reign regarding the use of cases as also the use of locative absolute. Saussure abstains from taking the Vedic texts to his concern, but casually refers to Saint Petersburg’s dictionary that cites an example of genitive absolute from the Maitrāyaëi Upaniñad, and remarks that this text is relatively modern belonging to the epical age. As is said before, his concern is the texts of the epics from second centry BC to the prose narratives of the fifteenth century, and comments that



In classical Sanskrit there is hardly a text of any extent which does not offer examples of the genitive absolute, provided that the literary genre lends itself to it. They are works of the narrative genre, principally the epics and the Puräëas, but also the prose of the Pañcatantra, which admits of most easily its usage. Drama appears to avoid genitive absolutes. We come across genitive absolutes in texts written more freely, such as Païcadanòa chatra prabandha later in the fifteenth century. The fact is undoubtedly attached to the observation that in popular language, as we may judge by Pāli this construction still remained alive. Saussure uses “subject” and predictate (or complement) instead of “substantive” and “participle” to avoid any ambiguity. “They are not less legitimate than the term ‘proposition-participle’ used traditionally.” VIII The subject of genitive absolute is always a person or a collective group of persons as also a relative pronoun. The genitive absolute, unlike the locative in the corresponding functions is not at all a construction used freely and in a great variety of combinations. The principal action, in relation to that of the genitive absolute, is counted almost always in the predicate of the clause; and the action of the genitive absolute accompanies the principal action in tense; the first is never given as closed at the moment when the second is accomplished. In this regard, Saussure discusses the logical relationship with principal action. For the study of the modes of use of absolute construction Saussure establishes two major groups of examples; In group A the genitive absolute marks a situation at the heart of which the principal action unrolls, and it does not modify the idea to any great extent. Group B is composed simply of all other cases, that is, rather disparate elements. Saussure further distinguishes between “strong” anādara, “weak” anādara, and extreme degradation of anādara. Significantly, when Saussure correlates the rules II.3.37 and II.3.35 a commentator (not named) states that quoting for expressing anādaraca in II.3.38 is optional, meaning that the rule II.3.35 instructs that one might use locative absolute as well for expressing disregard, etc. By treating anādara as only an optional genitive use, Saussure comments most reasonably that “One is forced to find the principle of Pāëini, on one hand too exclusive, on the other too indeterminate. Too exclusive, for anādara is not the only permitted application, although it is the most characteristic and the one which is affirmed with the most consequence. Too indeterminate for the restrictions concerning the nature of the subject and the tense of the verb (see § 2 and 3). As to the choice of the term anādara, it is irreproachably exact. We succeeded in being convinced about this” (19).


On the Use of Genitive Absolute in Sanskrit

In the second section Saussure observes the tremendous liberty that reigns in the syntax of cases in Sanskrit that gives birth to ambiguous constructions, often so close to the absolute turn of phrase that the latter floats amidst rather uncertain limits. An eminent Sanskritist, Hermann Brochaus, is not afraid at all, it seems, to give the large part over to the genitive absolute. We make this judgement according to the only indication that he left us in this regard, the punctuation adopted in the texts of Somadeva. To look at the distribution of commas in his Kathāsaritsāgara, we must believe that Brockhaus looked upon this turn of phrase as quite a current usage, which is certainly an exaggeration. As far as we are concerned, we are especially forced to bring together materials that are uncontaminated and conducive. What was only doubtful has been rejected and, as of general rule, we have in each individual case systematically doubted the existence of a genitive absolute as soon as it did not impose itself. Saussure then collects a large number of genitive cases used in the Sanskrit absolute construction. The citations are classified following a lexicographic order, according to the verb of the genitive absolute. As far as possible the verbs are grouped by synonyms. Furthermore upto a certain point the kind of syntactic use of the absolute case depends strongly on the verb and its meaning: the genitive absolutes containing such a verb will habitually have such a logical role in the sentence. Thus, the entire first series (to think, to say, to tarry etc.) which finishes at the article Krośati is composed in large part of examples in group A. Starting from that point, on the contrary, we no longer come across anything but representative of group B with rare exception. From the study of the modes of use of genitive absolute construction Saussure establishes two (great) classes of examples. In the group A the genitive absolute marks a situation at the heart of which the principal action unrolls, and it does not modify the idea to any great extent. Group B includes the rest of the cases, i.e., the disparate elements in the Group A. The genitive absolute responds to the conjunctions while, the inverse is deserved in the other group, where the salient point of the idea is contained most often in the genitive absolute. The second Group B presents a given time without any accessory idea of mode, and in these conditions, without the only possible kind of ideas, the sense of after (conjunction) being excluded. In the Group B the genitive absolute is equivalent to a subordinate clause introduced by although or even when. Pāëini borrows the term anādare from a third given: the attitude of the principal agent vis-á-vis the subordinate action. Then the sense of this term can be rendered by: “When it is not taken into account, when there is indifference, the absence of considerations, the act of carrying on regardless.” We should not believe that the genitive absolute is



properly able to express the idea of although. The Indian locative absolute like the Latin ablative and Greek genitive absolute, does not have the same function. Precisely, anādara is independent of the genitive: once anādara is a given, the usage inclines toward the genitive. To add, this subsidiary character of the genitive absolute was unknown, as it appears, to Stenzler from the example miñatāà naù etc. The truth is that anādara results from the context that involves the attitude (vivakñā) of the speaker. As it seems, according to Saussure, in a speech act, context and the speaker’s attitude are preferred to the rigid grammatical rules; in contexts, genitives can be replaced by locatives, i.e., genitive absolutes are optional, not indispensable (Pāëini’s rules). Dividing the cases of anādara into “strong” and “weak,” the observations offered above belong to the “strong” classes and, speaking of the “weak” anādara Saussure states this semi-anādara would be equivalent to expression in French: (i) in the presence of can be replaced by in spite of the presence of (ii) during his life time by although he was still alive. The peculiarity in the case of the verb paśyati is that its use is made in two distinct kinds of anādara (i) in which the principal act takes place in spite of the presence of a hostile agent; (ii) in which there is the presence of an agent who should show himself hostile. There is yet a third category: extreme degradation of the anādara: an anādara less in the fact than in the idea where the use of locative genitive will run the risk of being lost than the well-marked anādara in genitive absolute. Two particular cases of anādara in genitive by means of the particle eva: (i) The idea of in spite of being effaced because of its very evidence, the obstacle of which it is a question, becomes, on the contrary a circumstance which heightens the range of the action; (ii) The genitive absolute often marks the conditions in which something could not take place. In the second section Saussure collects examples with critical observations exhaustively. Readers are to consult them directly.


S E C TI O N 1

Extension and Use of the Genitive Absolute

The use of the locative absolute is a chapter of Sanskrit Syntax sufficiently clarified and easy to study, thanks to the abundance of examples. Such is not the case with the genitive absolute in the same language. You may say that this construction is known only by hear say and by mere mention otherwise very laconically by the grammarians of India, so difficult is it to find any precise indication in its regard in European works. A monograph on this subject can therefore be of some use.

BIBILOGRAPHICAL NOTE What has been said thus far on our subject is reduced to the following scattered remarks: The first, as far as I know, is the statement of Mr. Stenzler, in his edition of Kumāra-Saàbhava. Śloka II 46 is conceived in this way: yajvabhiù saàbhåtaà havyaà vitateñv adhvareñu saù jātavedomukhān māyī miñatām āchinatti naù In this regard, Mr. Stenzler makes the following observations: miñatāà naù, requires declension of present participles of verbs. The author then establishes that the locative absolute usually contains a given time, while according to Pāëini, the genitive may be substituted for it precisely when we want to express a certain lack of regard for time anādara and he concludes by saying Vaidarbhyāùprekñamānāyāù. The note of Mr. Stenzler is found reproduced in the dissertation of Mr. Siecke, De Genetivi in Lingua Sanscrita usu, page 67. Moreover, the author limits himself to stressing verse I 63.16 of the Rāmāyaëa, where Schlegel is supposed to have perceived a genitive absolute, which Mr. Siecke leaves him responsible for Mr. Pischel, as well in the article we will cite, did justice to this so called example. This little work of Mr. Pischel is entitled: Genitivus absolutus in Pali (Kuhns Zeitschr XXIII 425 seq.). There we find a few words cited while touching lightly on the Sanskrit genitive absolute. The author discusses the doctrine of Pāëini concerning anādara and believes he can illustrate it by a passage from the Åtusaàhāra, concerning which we have some doubts in spite of everything (§ 7). One observes that Pāli ‘as in Sanskrit’, a certain predilection for the genitive absolute when it comes to


On the Use of Genitive Absolute in Sanskrit

the very paśyati, and one adds with reason that anādara is not at all de rigueur for the subject as the rule of the grammarians would have us believe. Mr. A. Weber, in a short annotation of the passage which we cite under No. 19, says that the construction in question is rather common in Pāli but rare in Sanskrit. He recalls the text of Pāëini without wishing to find for the least reason the application of it in the sentence he comments on.

§ 1. EXTENSION OF THE GENITIVE ABSOLUTE A prime fact, noticed for a long time is the absence of genitive absolute in the monuments of the Vedic period. In the presence of assurances renewed by eminent connoisseurs, I thought it useless, on my part, to verify the accuracy of this fact by special research. I must note, however, that the lexicon of Saint Petersburg gives s.v. 1 miñ. a genitive absolute drawn from the Maitrāyaëéyopaniñad (See below no. 407). The text of this writing, the language of which approaches that of the Sanskrit epic, is looked upon as relatively modern. Without approaching here, the field of comparative syntax, the usage of one language as near to Sanskrit as Zend, merits to be consulted just in case. Mr. Hübschmann (Zur Kasuslehre, 280) mentions three cases of genitive absolute drawn from that language, without (273), however, ascertaining their true interpretation. Even if they would be less doubtful, these examples have nothing of the essential characteristics of the Indian genitive absolute. The citations partly different from Spiegel (Gramm. der Altbaktr. Spr. § 277) give rise to the same remark. 1 What’s more, the very great confusion which reigns in Zend in the use of cases, joined to the absence of locative absolutes, would recommend an extreme prudence. In classical Sanskrit there is hardly a text of any extent which does not offer examples of the genitive absolute, provided that the literary genre lends itself to it. They are works of the narrative grammar genre, principally the epics and the Purāëas, but also the prose of the Pañcatantra, which admits most easily its usage. Drama appears to avoid genitive absolutes. It is true that we have not pushed our research very far in this regard. As to the writings of the low epic, their studied and artificial language, as far as we have been able to observe, no longer knows how to use a turn of phrase which had never been very usual. However, this concerns only the language of purists, for we come across genitive absolutes in texts written more freely, such as Pañcadaëòachattraprabandha later than the fifteenth century. This fact is undoubtedly attached to the observation that in popular language, as we may judge by Pāli, this construction still remained alive. The genitive absolute in Sanskrit passes for a syntactic parity. It would be more precise to say, that it is met rarely outside of a certain number of formulas, of which a few, on the contrary, are rather widespread. Such a one among them, in a few parts of the Mahābhārata, is nothing more than a banal refrain or one of the bits of versification which the poet uses over and over again.


Extension and Use of the Genitive Absolute

In what follows, we speak of subject and predicate (or complement 2) of the genitive absolute, rather than calling them substantive and participle. These expressions cannot lend themselves to any ambiguity. They are not less legitimate than the term proposition-participle applied to the absolute turn of phrase.

§ 2. THE SUBJECT OF GENITIVE ABSOLUTE First and important rule to note: The subject of the genitive absolute is always a person, in the grammatical sense of the word that is, an animate and intelligent being, or supposed to be such. You should not therefore be able to convert into genitive absolutes locatives such as: divaseñu gacchatsu, barshiñi stīryamāëe, utsave pravartamāne. However, the subject can be a collective group of persons. There is sometimes, as in the clause with a finite verb, an ellipsis of the subject he: thus at No.64, and in the example the commentator (not named) of Pāëini gives, rudataù prāvrājit (V. § 6). The genitive varñataù “űoντος” which we thought we recognized in Nos. 80 and 81, must be considered as a particular case in which the subject remains unnamed. Devasya or Parjanyasya must be inferred, for the verb varñati is not at all impersonal like the Greek űει. Therefore, from the syntactic view point, it is not űoντος, but rather locations such as παλλομένων, “by drawing lots” (II.15, 191) which would be the best parallel3 here. The relative pronoun, as subject of a genitive absolute, is found in Nos. 50, 84. It is owing to a negligence of style that we find certain genitive absolutes, the subject of which repeats one of the terms of the sentences, as in the Greek άσδενήσαντοςαύτού, ούδέποτεάπέλιπετόνπάππον, Xenophon Cyr. I 4, 2. Thus Mahābhārata XIII 4002: iti teñāà kathayatām, bhagavān Govåñadhvajaù ‘evam astv’ iti devāàstān viprarñe pratyabhāñata cf. nos. 2, 6, 9, 32, 43, 45, 47.

§ 3. THE PREDICATE OF THE GENITIVE ABSOLUTE Unlike the locative in the corresponding functions, the genitive absolute is not at all a construction used freely and in a great variety of combinations. In this regard, we find almost constantly participles of the same verbs. It is then, in sum, a series of formulas, consecrated by usage, that we have before us. The verb which by its frequency, holds first place, without any comparison, is paśyati, “to see,” and that not only in Sanskrit, but also, it seems, in Pāli. Two verbs of a similar meaning, prekñati and miñati, come in second place with śåëoti, “to hear.” It is not rare that the predicate is an adjective and under the term adjective you must include also past participles, which we will see, in a moment, can become part of 3

On the Use of Genitive Absolute in Sanskrit

the genitive absolute only in that function. The addition of the participle sant“being,” which we can always supply in thoughts, is not at all necessary and even seems uncommon. We have not collected any examples in which the predicate is a substantive, as in the Latin type dictatore Fabio, and in the Indian locative absolutes tasmin mahīpatau, tvayi yantari, etc.

§ 4. RELATIONSHIP IN TIME WITH THE PRINCIPAL ACTION The principal action, in relation to that of the genitive absolute, is contained almost always in the predicate of the clause. Nevertheless, it is good to note the case that is easily imagined, in which the absolute member of the clause attaches itself by the sense to any other term of the clause, this term presumably a participle or an adjective expressing an action. This fact, which is rare, is presented in this passage from Mārkaëòeya-Purāëa (14, 84): paśyato bhåtyavargasya mitrānām atithes tathā eko miñöānnabhug bhuìkte jvaladańgārasaàcayam. “The man who (in the course of his life) has alone tasted delicacies in the presence of his servants, his friends or his host, [undergoes the suffering] of eating a bunch of burning coals.” You see that the genitive absolute is used only for the adjective with a participle sense miñöānnabhuk, which, in the clause has the role of subject. An analogous example is found in the Rāmāyaëa of Gorresio V, 91, 11.4 vinañöaù paśyatas tasya rakñituù śaraëāgataù ādāya sukåtaà tasmāt sarvaà gacchaty arakñitaù. The action of the genitive absolute accompanies the principal action in tense; the first is never given as closed at the moment when the second is accomplished. That is a new characteristic, particularly as regards the use of the locative absolute, which lends itself indifferently to express concomitance or antecedence. Its consequence is that the participle of the genitive absolute is invariably a present participle―or an adjective, by which we are to infer the nominal verb. It does not follow, however, that past participles cannot figure in a genitive absolute. It is only on condition that they entirely cast off their verbal nature: they mark then a prolonged and still present state, and are reduced in this way to pure adjectives.


Extension and Use of the Genitive Absolute

We will never come across a genitive absolute where past participles are susceptible of being interpreted as we have just discussed. This is specially, true of the past participles of neutral verbs. Thus, a passage of Pañcatantra offers us these words: nāyaà pāpātmā mama gatāyā utthitaù? Here it is not a question of two consecutive facts. It would be simply impossible, in the genitive absolute, to take gata in the participial sense and to translate postquam abii. Our participle means departed in the sense of absent. It has become an adjective, and the sentence will be translated: “Didn’t that Pascal get up at all during my absence?” We see there is simultaneity: The subordinate action embraces the entire principal action and does not precede it. The context in the case cited, previously, confirms, perfectly the exactness of the rule. The wife of the drunkard, who comes home in great danger of being beaten, inquired only what had happened during her absence. She does not say: “Once I had departed, hadn’t he got up at all?” which would have us suppose that the husband suspected her departure and that he was on the lookout for her. 5 The locative absolute is less precise: mayi gatāyām can have either sense. The examples of No. 64 where måte (loc.) is opposed to jīvataù (gen.) is an interesting illustration of the preceding remarks.

§ 5. LOGICAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PRINCIPAL ACTION We have in turn considered, as regards the genitive absolute, the subject, the verb, the tense, and on each of these different points we have found it subject to certain strict limits where the usage never confined the locative absolute. These two syntactic forms do not have equal attributions either as regards the logical relationship with the principal action, a relationship, which, in the normal sentence, would have its expression in the conjunctions of subordination. The locative absolute offers more latitude than the genitive, although constructed in the same way. It replaces subordinate clauses of a very diverse nature. It is true that this last feature perhaps makes up in depth and clarity what it lacks in breadth. Let us remark in this regard that the construction we are studying is never absolutely obligatory, for none of its proper uses falls equally under the same source of the locative absolute. However, the participles of certain verbs have a marked preference, for the genitive. One must cite: miñant-, almost never found in the locative absolute,6 paśyant and śåëvant, also rare in the locative absolute at the very least in the language of the epics.7 The optional character of the genitive absolute is expressly stressed by the commentator of Pāëini (See-6). Jayamaìgala, one of the commentators of Bhaööikāvya, believes he should speak of it, and even then, a rather singular occurrence, with regards to a locative absolute.


On the Use of Genitive Absolute in Sanskrit

Hanumān explains to Sītā why, from the depths of his hideout, he assisted in the violence of Rāvana without defending him: tasmin vadati, ruñöo’pi nākārñaà, devī, vikramam arināśāya kāryasya, vicinvānaù parāparam. Bhaöö VIII. 113 Jayamaìgala perceives in the clause an anādara (v. 6), and remembering the prescription of Pāëini: ñañöhī cānādare, he begins to campaign, in order to justify the presence of the locative tasmin vadati. Anādara is evident in effect, only it concerns ruñöo’pi,“although irritable” alone, and it is inadmissible to see in tasmin vadati the idea “although he spoke thus.” Still it is necessary to note that the commentator puts in the word “thus” which does not exist at all in the text. This is to note the inappropriateness of his gloss, which in itself does not lack interest. 8 yady ādāv eva praviñöo’si, tarhi kim iti svakarma na darśitavān asi ’ty āha: tasmin ityādi he devī, tasmin vadati ruñöo ’pi vikramaà nākārñam | taà tathā vadantam anādåtya vikramaà nākārñam, ity arthaù | “ñañöhī cānādara” iti cakārāt saptamī. | For the study of the modes of use of our construction, we establish two great classes of examples. In Group A the genitive absolute marks a situation at the heart of which the principal action unrolls, and it does not modify the idea to any great extent. Group B is composed simply of all other cases, that is, rather disparate elements. If we gathered together these cases into a unique group opposed to Group A, there is one common trait they present―more or less marked and not constituting a rigorous distinctive character―namely the words in the genitive absolute modify directly the principal action, contrary to what takes place in the other group.

GROUP A There are a few observations to make on Group A. The genitive absolute responds to the conjunctions while, at the moment when, it forms a sort of background on which the principal fact is articulated. Precisely the inverse is observed in the second group, where the salient point of the idea is contained most often in the genitive absolute. Once the uniformity of this kind of examples is seen, one single quotation will suffise: iti cintayatas tasya, tatra toyārtham āyayuù gåhītakāñcanaghaöā bhavyāù subahavah9 śtrīyaù. Kath. 18, 356 6

Extension and Use of the Genitive Absolute

“While he was deep in these reflections, numerous women of noble appearance came to draw water in golden vases that they had brought.”

GROUP B In the simplest application we find the sense of while: in other words, a given time without any accessory idea of mode, and in these conditions, without the only possible kind of idea, the sense of after [conjunction] being excluded, as we have seen (44). I will not indicate yet again the character which separates the examples in question from the group treated above, in which, while simultaneously marking an analogous relationship, the genitive absolute does not contain within itself an essential circumstance of action. Kath. 29, 79: Devasenas tadā gatvā mātaraà praëato ’bravit: Kīrtisenādhunā haste tavāmba prasthitasya me; “nāsyā niùsnehatā kāryā, kulinatanyā’hy asau.” Ibid., 42, 68 (No. 486): suptasya me tad apy aśnāt sapatnī te chalāt. Again, compare examples 482, 487, 495. Although the “anādare” use, consecrated by the code of Hindu grammar, is neither exclusive nor predominant, we would be embarrassed to stress in Group B another salient application of the genitive absolute, so much is it inconstant. It is principally then this kind of use that we have to describe. In the case in question, the genitive absolute is equivalent to a subordinate clause introduced by although or even when, whether of the kind that we name concessive by making the viewpoint of the narrator intervene and it would be more exact to call it adversative by its taking a position equal to that of the subject of the subordinate clause. The term anādare which Pāëini had borrowed from a third given: the attitude of the principal agent vis-à-visthe subordinate action (280). The sense of this term can be rendered by: “When it is not taken into account, when there is indifference, the absence of considerations, the act of carrying on regardless.” We would be wrong, however, to believe that the genitive absolute enjoys the proper ability to express the idea of although. We must obtain this idea more or less clearly from the words themselves, and in these conditions the Indian locative absolute, like the Latin ablative absolute, like the Greek genitive absolute, has the same function. The absolute case marks a concomitant circumstance. Whenever the role of this circumstance in the principal action occasions any ambiguity, the mind of


On the Use of Genitive Absolute in Sanskrit

itself supplies the desired conjunction. In a word, anādara is independent of the genitive. What is exact is this: once anādara is a given, the usage inclines toward the genitive. This purely subsidiary character of the genitive absolute appears not to have been known by Mr. Stenzler, or so it seems to me, in the passage cited above (page 43) where he says: miñatāà naù, about survey. The observation, without being precisely faulty, goes beyond moderation. It would seem that the genitive had the power to transform the clause, to introduce by it an idea that we would not perceive if the same words were put in the locative. The truth is that anādara results from the context, and it would not result less surely from the context if we had the locative instead of the genitive.―I add that by a direct consequence of this first error, Mr. Stenzler commits another, that of admitting the restricted sense of quanquam in a clause where you can find only an attenuated quanquam, of the kind considered here below under heading II. If we make a classification, it is exclusively to introduce an order in our examples. What precedes shows in effect that there are not different values proper to the genitive absolute. We can only list logical categories by giving examples which depend on them with reference to each one. We acknowledge the fact, in finishing up, that a few irrelevant case militate against the principle developed above and tend to indicate that the genitive absolute is not always inexpressive by itself under the relationship of anādara. You find it in clauses, where, in order to render the idea of although, the absolute locative would be, if not insufficient, at the very least more ambiguous. Thus, by dint of being affected by cases of, our anādara construction arrives at carrying this (page 49) sense in itself. In order to take this fact into account, we open subdivision I β.

I. STRONG ANĀDARA The circumstance expressed in the genitive absolute constitutes a constraint upon the principal action. The idea is then that of characterized although. α. This circumstance being expressly designated a constrained, the sense although is born spontaneously and could not be considered as determined in whatever it may be the genitive. Bhāgavata-Purāëa VIII 21, 14: te sarve vāmanaà hantuàśūlapaööiśapānayaù anicchato Bale rājan, prādravan jātamanyavaù. Mahābhārata II 2478: akāmānāà ca sarveñām suhådām arthadarśinām akarot Pāëòavāhvānaà Dhåtarāñöraù sutapriyaù.


Extension and Use of the Genitive Absolute

If we replace these genitives with locatives, everything will be in the same state. The examples in which the meaning is obtained with the article api fall naturally into the same category: Bhāg. Pur. VIII 12, 25: tayāpahåtaijñānas tatkvåtasmaravihvalaù Bhavānyā api paśyantyā gatahrīs tatpadaà yayau. Cf. again No.66. β. The constraining circumstances is described, but not expressly characterized as such. It is the interesting and rare case to which we make allusion above, the only one in which the idea of although exists, up to a certain point by means of the genitive. MBh. I 4143: Vicitravīryas taruno yakñmanā samagåhyata. suhådāà yatamānānām āptaiù saha cikitsakaiù jagāmāstam ivādityaù Kauravyo Yamasādanam. “his friends making an effort”, which, because of the genitive, means: “although his friends made an effort (to save him).”10 MBh. X 197: Bhūriśravā maheśrāsas tathā prāyagato rane krośatāà bhūmipālānāà Yuyudhānena pātitaù. “The princes crying out,” that is by virtue of the genitive: “in spite of the shouts of the princes.”11

II. WEAK ANĀDARA Let us indicate by an example the exact degree we have in view. This semi-anādara would be equivalent in French to in the presence of, for: in spite of the presence of12, or still: during his lifetime, for: although he was still alive. The circumstance reported by the genitive absolute conceived directly as an obstacle. There is only a discrete nuance. By way of avoiding the conjunction even outside of the absolute case, the peculiarity, of which is to suppress it. MBh. V 374: Ahalyā dharñitā pūrvam åñipatnī yaśasvinī jīvato bhartur Indrena, sa naù kià na nivāritaù? 9

On the Use of Genitive Absolute in Sanskrit

Pttr. 193. The king of the crows apologizes to Sthirajīvin, the most senior of his counselors, for consulting him only after the others: tāta! yad ete mayā påñöāù sacitvāstāvad, atra sthitasya tava, tat parīkñārthaà yena tvaà sakalaàśrutvā, yad ucitaà tan me samādiśasi.13 It is precisely in this class that we place quite naturally, almost all the examples in which the participle in the genitive is paśyataù “seeing,” or a synonym, the fact of being seen not being an obstacle properly speaking. Kath. 61, 159:

bhuktvā ca, paśyatas tasya, rātrau tadbhāryayā saha

samam āsevya surataà, sukhaà susvāpa tadyutaù MBh. VII 6406:

hantāsmi Våñasenaà te prekñamānasya saàyuge.

We can remark that the genitive absolutes coming from paśyati, thanks to the meaning of this verb, lend themselves to two distinct kinds of anādara: one in which the principal act takes place in spite of the presence of a hostile agent―we have just given examples of that―the other in which the principal act is accomplished in spite of the presence of an agent who should show himself hostile, but who gives his consent, as in the following sentences. MBh. XIII 7429. Kåñëa relates how a Brahman having moved in, had, among other insolences, treated his wife Rukminī badly right to his face. Kåñëa withstands these humiliations with joy: agnivarno jvalan dhīmān sa dvijo rathadhūryavat pratodenātudad bālāà Rukminīà mama paśyataù. Mārk. Pur. 114, 30. King Sudeva, by a guilty compliance, lets his favorite Nala offend the wife of a Åiñi: sakhā tasya Nalo matto jagåhe tāà ca durmaöiù paśyatas tasya rājñaś ca “trāta=trāte” tivādinīm. MBh. III 11799: mām avajñāya duñöātmā yasmād eña sakhā tava dharñanām kåtavān etāà pañyatas te Dhaneśvara, tasmāt, etc. 10

Extension and Use of the Genitive Absolute

III. EXTREME DEGRADATION OF THE ANĀDARA There is no more left of the idea of in spite of. The principal subject carries on regardless, not only on an act of opposition, but on any act whatever of the second subject. It is an anādara that is less in the fact than in the idea. Even by that, it is necessarily concentrated more on the genitive as genitive, and this extreme nuance, if you wanted to express it in a locative absolute, would run more of a risk of being lost than the well-marked anādara of the preceding cases. One construction will serve, for example, as a way of bringing out the impassive serenity of a character, which the mere fact of an incident could not disturb. Thus Rām. III 16, 26, in the known fable of Agastya eating Asura Vātāpi: tatas tu kalpitaà bhakñyaà Vātāpià meñarūpiëam bhakñayām āsa bhagavān Ilvalasya sa paśyataù. The Sage, confident in the power of digestion eats Vātāpi without being bothered with the attitude of Ilvala, who observes him and goes to give the agreed signal to his brother. Ilvalaà paśyantam anādåtya the style of commentator at verse I 67, 16, it is the calm assurance of Rāma that the poet stresses: paśyatāà nåsahasrāëāà bahūnāà, Raghunandanaù āropayat sa dharmātmā salilam iva tad dhanuù. The commentary of Rāmānuja says with reason, or so I believe, at this point: paśyatāà, anādara ñañöhī. At other times, it is an affected indifference: Indra, proposing to clarify the burden of his true duties to a muni, takes the form of a brāhman and in his presence, goes about throwing pebbles into the Ganges (Kath. 40, 16). āgatya ca sa Gaìgāyās taöāc cikñepa vārīëi uddhåtyoddhåtya sikatāù paśyatas tasya sormiëi. tad dåñövā muktamaunas taà Tapodattaù sa påñöavān: “aśrāntaù kim idaà, brahman, karoñī’ti sakautukaù.” The genitive absolute depicts the apparent indifference of Indra who pretends not to know the presence of the Muni while actually he has no other end than to arouse his curiosity.


On the Use of Genitive Absolute in Sanskrit

Similarly, Kath, 16, 33, the exclamation of the vratin wants to appear spontaneous. praviñöo jātu bhikñārtham ekasya baëijo gåhe sa dadarśa śubhāà kanyāà bhikñām ādāya nirgatām. dåñövā cādbhutarūpāà tāà sa kāmavaśagaùśaöhaù “hā hā kaśöam”iti smāha, baëijas tasya śåëvataù, gåhitabhikñaś ca tato jagāma nilayaà nijam. tatas taà sa baëig gatvā rahaù papraccha vismayāt: “Kim adyaitad akasmāt tvaà maunaà tyaktvoktavān?” iti. Certain cases that I am going to cite offer a point of attachment with examples―deprived of every anādara―of which Group A is composed (278). If this rapprochement is legitimate, as I believe it is the distinction of Group A would have no raison d’etre, other than from a practical point of view. We are going to see, in effect that the genitive absolute of anādara frequently serves to express a contrast, which is very easily explained. The fact enunciated in the genitive absolute is struck by anādara, that is, he is rejected, invalidated, contradicted by the following fact, with which it forms an antithesis. Now, from this use to the one which Group A presents us, it is only a question of degree. Here are some examples MBh. VII 4860: “düraà yātaś ca Sātyakiù.” tathaivaà vadatas tasya Bhāradvājasya, mārisa.14 pratyadåśyata Śaineyo nighnan bahuvidhān rathān. We know that Çaineya is another name for Sātyaki II Rām. VI. 80, 36: tām anuvyāharac chaktim āpatantīà sa Rāghavaù “svasty astu Lakñmaëasyeti moghā bhava hatodyamā!”


Extension and Use of the Genitive Absolute

ity evaà dhyāyatas tasya Rāghavasya mahātmanaù, nyapatat sā mahāvegā Lakñmaëasya mahorasi. Likewise, in example No. 19. (iti lokānāà jalpatām), the presumptions of the crowd are suddenly confused. Rām. IV 9, 91. The monkey Sugrīva doubts that Rāma can measure upto Bāli. He leads him next to the skeleton of the Giant Dundubhi killed by the former and asks him how he hopes to triumph over the author in a similar exploit. athaivam vadatas tasya Sugrīvasya mahātmanaù. Rāghavo Dundubheù kāyaà pādāìguñöhena tolayan lilayiva tadā Rāmaś cikñepa śatayojanam. Rāma without worrying any further about the objections of Sugrīva, answers him by a tangible fact, and that’s what the genitive expresses. MBh. I 7049: evaà teñāà vilapatāà viprāëāà vividhā giraù, Arjuno dhanuño’ bhyāśe tasthau girir ivācalaù. At the svayamvara of Kåñëa, the brāhmanas argue to ascertain if young Arjuna should be permitted to attempt the test of the bow. The genitive absolute marks the contrast between their agitation and the tranquil pride of the hero. Evidently it will suffice to have a slight expansion for this kind of sentence to end in examples of Group A in which no one, from the very beginning, would have suspected anādara. We have still to mention two particular cases of anādara: 1. One in which one insists on the genitive absolute of anādara by means of the particle eva. In these conditions the idea of in spite of being effaced because of its very evidence, the obstacle of which it is a question becomes, on the contrary a circumstance which heightens the range of the action. Hariv. 7464: dardarśa tatra bhagavān devayodhān durāsadān nānāyudhadharān vīrān Nandanasthān Adho’kñajaù. teñāà saàpaśyatām eva Pārijataà mahābalaù


On the Use of Genitive Absolute in Sanskrit

utpāöyāropayāmāsa Pārijātāà satāà gatiù

Garuòaà pakñirājānaà ayatnenaiva Bhārata.

“Under the very noses of the guards.”

Kath. 46, 76:

iti Vidyādharāù Sūryaprabhaà te jahasus tadā

teñāà prahasatām eva, gatvā Sūryaprabheëa saù

stimitāsyo gåhītaś ca kåñöaś cājagaro bilāt. MBh. XV 483:

prekñatām eva vo, Bhīma, vepantīà kadalīm iva

strīdharmiëīm ariñöāìgīà tathā dyūtāparajitāà

Duùśāsano yadā maurkhyād dāsīvat paryakarñata,

tadaiva viditaà mahyaà parābhūtam idaà kulam.

2. The genitive absolute often marks the conditions in which something could not take place. Bhāg Pur. III 18, 3: na svasti yāsyasy anayā mamekñataù surādhama! Rām. II 101, 3: na hi tvāà jīvatas vanam āgantum arhasi. Ibid., III 56, 31: na śaktas tvaà balād dhartuà Vaidehīà mama paśyataù. Hariv. 14, 461: eka eva mahādvāro gamanāgamane sadā

mudrayā saha gacchantu rājño, ye gantum ipsavaù;

na cāmudraù praveñövyo15 dvārapālasya paśyataù.


Extension and Use of the Genitive Absolute

The affinity of this kind of sentence with the “anādara” use is obvious. Isolating negative, we obtain in effect the type of pure “anādara.” We can allow that the thought: na-yāsyasi X mamekñataùwas conceived first in the form: na X yāsyasimamekñataù. Here we also place certain interrogations which are equivalent in meaning to negative sentences of the same nature as those we have just seen. Kath. 31, 84: kathaà hy etad, devī, syān mama jīvataù? MBh. VII 6572. Duryodhana suspects Droëa of being in connivance with enemy. kathaà niyacchamānasya Droëasya yudhi Phālgunaù pratijñāyā gataù pārà hatvā Saindhavam Arjunaù? “If Droëa had been effectively opposed to it, how would Arjuna have been able to fulfill the vow that he had made to kill Jayadratha?” Outside of the cases that we just indicated the genitive absolute expressing a condition is extremely rare. Let us point out the passage in which Draupadī implores Kåñëa not to let Arjuna and Bhīma realize their projects of peace with the Kurus. She recalls the bloody outrage of Duùśāsana, seizing her by the hair before the assembled crowd. MBh. V 2906: ayaà, (sc. keśapakñaù) te, Puëòarīkākña, Duùśāsanakaroddhåtaù smartavyaù sarvakāryeñu, pareñāà saàdhim icchatām. This example could be understood also as an “anādara” genitive absolute. The two cases that are left are rather curious, because they contain a need of special thing for all. It is the idea of si quidem, si modo. The principal fact “holds on to a small thing.” Α. PRECARIOUS

MBh. II 1549 ff. Śiśupāla reproaches Bhīñma for resembling behavior wise the bird bhūliìgaśakuni, the cry of which is: mā sāhasam, “No recklessness!” and which nevertheless lives off the small pieces that he has just stolen from within the mouth of the lion. He goes on in this way: “icchataù sā hi siàhasya, Bhīñma, jivaty asaàśayam! tadvat tvam apy adharmiñöha sadā vācaù prabhāñase,


On the Use of Genitive Absolute in Sanskrit

icchatāà bhūmipālānāà, Bhīñma, jīvasy asaàśayam!”

lokavidviñöakarmā hi nānyo’sti bhavatā samaù.

“provided that the lion gives his consent; as long as it is good pleasure.

Let us cite against the answer of Bhīñma:

tatañ Cedipateù śrutvā Bhīsmaù sakaöukaà vacaù

uvācedaà vaco rājàś Cedirājasya śåëvataù:

“icchatāà kila nāmāham jivāmy esāà mahīkñitām?

so’haà na gaëayāmy etāms tåunenāpi narādhipān!”


Rām. VI 31, II: dravatāà vānarendrāëāà, Rāmaù Saumitriëā saha avaśas te nirālambaù, Prhkasta vaśam eñyati. These words of Rāvaëa to his lieutenant Prahasta must not be taken in a sense in which the two facts in question would be envisaged (page 56) as close realities. Such an interpretation would make of dravatāà vānarendrāëāà either a descriptive genitive absolute (in the middle of the defeat) or a causal genitive absolute (following the defeat), two uses which appear foreign in principle to our construction. The genitive is truly explicable only if we see in this sentence an entirely theoretical conception: “the monkeys were almost put to flight,” let them be put to flight, and R. will be in your power.”16 We can discover an analogous intention in the strange genitive absolute of the Bhāgavata-Purāëa quoted on page 45. i.n. (yasya pītasya). Still a few words on applications of the genitive absolute that we hold to be improper. The circumstance, that the words in the genitive state must not at all be found in a relationship of causality with the principal fact. In verse VI 100, 10 of the Rāmāyaëa, ity evaà bruvatas tasyaSītā Rāmasya tad vacaù mågīvotphullanayanā babhūvāśrupariplutā. 16

Extension and Use of the Genitive Absolute

It seemsthat this principle is violated, and we are tempted to translate: “Under the impression of the words of Rāma.” But it is better to admit the pure and simple sense of while, which we have established above (page 46). The case presents itself in an identical fashion in verse V. 25, 54: tathā tāsāà vadantīnāà paruñaà dāruëaà bahu rākñasīnām asaumyānāà, ruroda Janakātmajā.17 Other examples where the same turn of phrase marks the determining circumstances of the action, and there can no longer be any doubt about this, will find their place in section III, because there is reason to believe that their genitive is not, properly speaking, a genitive absolute. We also consider as abnormal the genitive absolute serving uniquely to create an image, while adding nothing substantial to the idea. At the very least such a genitive seems out of place coming in the middle of an aphorism, as in the passages below. Such a genitive would perhaps be less out-of-place in a story. Mārk. Pur. 22, 42: India. Springer number 6531 śocatāà bāndhavānāà ye niùścasanto’ tiduùkhitāù mriyante vyādhinā kliñöās, teñāà mātā våthāprajā; saàgrāme yudhyamānā ye’bhītā godvijarakñaëe kñuëëāùśastrair vipadyante, ta eva bhuvi mānavāù. MBh. XIII 3095: krośantyo yasya vai rāñörād dhriyante tarasā striyaù krośatāà patiputrāëāà, måto’sau na ca jīvati. What’s more, in the last example, the absolute construction is not forced the genitive being able to depend on hriyante.18

§ 6. THE RULE OF PĀËINI The sūtra ñañöhī cānādare (II 3, 38) in which Pāëini aims at the absolute construction of the genitive, follows upon the relative sūtra in the locative absolute: yasya ca bhāvena bhāvalakñaëam (tataù saptamīti).


On the Use of Genitive Absolute in Sanskrit

Textually: “(37) the term, the action of which serves to determine the principal action is put into the locative,―(38) or into the genitive, if there is an act of carrying on regardless.”19 The commentator (not named) illustrates the sūtra by an example and notes that by virtue of the word ca, the use of the genitive is only optional (cf. pages 11 and 12): anādarādhike bhāvalakñaëe bhāvavataùñañöhī syāt / ca- kārāt saptamī―ca bhavati / rudataù prāvrājīt / rudati prāvrājit / rudantaà putrādikam― anādåtya pravrajīta, ity arthaù. The Kāśikā adds nothing essentially. The example krośataù prāvrājīt which is found there cited is interesting in that the texts confirm the relatively frequent use of krośant―in the genitive absolute, while they furnished us with only one isolated example for rudant―(No. 78): pūrveëa saptamyāà prāptāyāàñañöhé vidhīyate /ca- kārāt sāpi bhavati/ anādarādhike bhāvalakñaëe bhāvavataùñañöhīsaptamyau vibhaktī bhavataù rudataù prāvrājīt / rudati prāvrājīt / krośataù pravrajīt / krośati prāvrājīt\ krośantam anādåtya pravrajita, ity arthaù/. The edition of the Mahābhāñya which Mr. Kielhorn has undertaken has unfortunately not yet appeared in print up to the sūtra in question. One is forced to find the principle of Pāëini, on one hand too exclusive, on the other too indeterminate. Too exclusive, for anādara is not the only permitted application, although it is the most characteristic and the one which is affirmed with the most consequence. Too indeterminate since the restrictions concerning the nature of the subject and the tense of the verb (see § 2 and 3) are passed over in silence. As to the choice of the term anādara, it is irreproachably exact. We succeeded in being convinced about this, I hope, by following the analysis to which we devoted ourselves above (pages 46 ff).20 The commentators (not named) faithfully repeat the rule of the master everywhere when the occasion presents itself. Here are some examples: Rām. Cale. III 18, 16: adyemāà bhakñayiñyāmi paśyatas tava mānuñīm.21 Commentary of Rāmānuja: paśyatas tava, paśyantaà tvām anādåtya. A few verses later we find tasya Rāmasya paśyataù, but this time without any trace of anādara. The annotator does not breathe a word of it. At verse 160, 15 (see No. 107) anādara is equally nonexistent, and the annotator is content to say: munināà paśyatāà, muniñu paśyatñu. The Scholiast does soufflé word. On the other hand, we have seen above 18

Extension and Use of the Genitive Absolute

(page 49) a very slightly different case in which Rāmānuja puts the note anādare ñañöhī. The sentence: na śaktas tvaà balād dhartuà Vaidehīà mama paśyataù Does not offer a pure anādara (see page 49) is equally accompanied by the remark: māà paśyantam anādåtyety arthaù. Śiśupālavadha 18, 64 (cf. 15, 34): kaścic chastrpātamūòho’paroòhur22

labdhvā23 punaś cetanām āhavāya /

vyāvartiñöa krośataù sakhyur uccaiù. “Such a warrior whom the blow of a weapon had stunned becoming conscious again, returns to the combat in spite of the cries of a friend who wanted to carry him away (far from the field of battle).” Commentary of Mallinātha: kaścid iti | śastrapātamūòhaù prahāramūrcchitaù kaścid vīraś cetanāà saàjñāà labdhvā | aparoòhur mūrcchāsamaye yuddhabhūmer apanetuù sakhyur mitrasyoccaiù krośataù “āgacche”’ty24 ākrośati sati | “ñañöhīcānādare” iti ñañöhī | krośantam anādåtyety arthaù | etc.


S E C TI O N 2

Collection of Examples

§ 7. CRITICAL OBSERVATION Being an aside comment that is characteristic of the genitive absolute and its relative rarity make it desirable to have a collection of passages, quoted in extenso, which we give below. These examples must have undergone a preliminary classification concerning which it is indispensable to say a few words. The tremendous liberty that reigns in the syntax of cases in Sanskrit gives birth to ambiguous constructions, often so close to the absolute turn of phrase that the latter floats amidst rather uncertain limits. An eminent Sanskritist, Hermann Brockhaus, is not afraid at all, it seems, to give the large part over to the genitive absolute. We make this judgement according to the only indication that he left us in this regard, the punctuation adopted in the text of Somadeva. To look at the distribution of commas in his Kathāsaritsāgara, we must believe that Brockhaus looked upon this turn of phrase as quite a current usage, which is certainly an exaggeration. Among others, here is Sloka 59, 92 of the Kathāsaritsāgara, such as it appears in his edition: Tato, mama’upaviñöāyāù, sakhī jñātobhayāśayā “kas tvaà? brūhi mahābhāga!” ’ity apåcchat tad-vayasyakam. Is it not uncommon, given the habits of Sanskrit, to separate mama’upaviñöāyāù from sakhī in order to introduce almost violently, the absolute turn of phrase into sentence?25 As far as we are concerned, we are especially forced to bring together materials that are uncontaminated and conclusive. What was only doubtful has been rejected and, as a general rule, we have in each individual case systematically doubted the existence of a genitive absolute as soon as it did not impose itself with evidence. Nevertheless it is necessary to indicate briefly a few of the cases where one is permitted to hesitate, several false similarities merit being at the very least; certain examples will occasion discussion. The examination of these different specimens will serve in all cases to mark well the limit that we do not believe we have to cross over. A first series of examples, which can in effect prove a distant affinity with the genitive absolute, will be seen from this last point of view in Section III. We limit ourselves presently to the cases where the dilemma imposes itself between two radically different constructions. On page 44 an allusion was made to the genitive absolute by Mr. Pischel in the Åtusaàhāra (2, 10): 21

On the Use of Genitive Absolute in Sanskrit

sutīkñëam uccai rasatāà payomucām ghanāndhakārāvåtaśarvarīñv api taòitprabhādarśitamārgabhūmayaù prayānti rāgād abhisārikāù striyaù Pischel: The women by the splendour of the flash is shown the way, go in consequence of their passion for the rendezvous even in the dense dark is wrapped up nights (and) although the clouds strongly (and) according to thunder. Without wishing to disagree completely with this example we believe it would have been good to establish that the genitive rasatāà payomucām could depend neither on ghanāndhakāra nor a taòitprabhā.26 This possibility at least merits being taken into consideration, for the subject of the genitive absolute always being an animated being (page 45), the interpretation of Mr. Pischel would not be correct in any fashion except on condition of personifying the cloud. To the number of usual turns of phrase that we could be tempted incorrectly to take for genitive absolutes, we must cite in particular: α. Certain genitive partitives which are not the necessary complement of the work to which they relate. MBh. III 17240 (Cf. 12366): teñāà samupaviñöānāà Nakulo duùkhitas tadā abravīd bhrātaraà jyeñöam27 amarñāt Kurunandanam. Rām. IV 13, 12 (Cf. VI 110, 45): teñāà tu gacchatāà tatra tvaritaà sumanoharam drumañaëòam atho dåñövā Rāmaù Sugrévaà abravīt. β. The daring constructions of genitives of substance or others, as in the following example (MBh. VI 3957): vadhyatāà tava sainyānām anyo’nyena mahāraëe prāvartata nadī ghorā rudhiraughapravāhinī. γ. The genitives governed by an implied term. MBh. XV. 439.

Tanniryāne duùkhitaù pauravargo Gajāhvaye caiva babhūva, rājan, | 22

Collection of Examples

yathā pūrvaàgacchatāà Pāëòavānāà dyūte, rājan, Kauravāëāà sabhāyāù. The words gacchatāà Pāëòavānāàrefer to nīryāne which it is necessary to supply according to tanniryāne (“As at the time of the departure of the Pāëdus to exile”) Rām. Cale. I 73. 28: ity uktvā prākñipad rājā mantrapūtaà jalaà tadā “sādhu sādhu” iti devānāàåñiëāà vadatāà tadā devadundubhinirghoñaù puñpavarño mahān abhūt. The genitive depends on―nirghoñaù, as indicated by the commentary (vadatāà, śabda āsid, iti śeñaù). δ. Sometimes, a genitive, possessive or other, is resumed anew in the pronoun tad which enters into the composition with the governing word. Most often, that is a simple superfluity which in itself does not authorize one to conclude there is a genitive absolute. IInd. Spr. No.94828 ādeyasya pradeyasya kartavyasya ca karmanaù kñipram akriyamānasya kālaù pibati tadrasam. Chrest. Benf. Page 120, 1. 2: evaà tasya rājakriyāyām vartamānasya te siàhādayo mågān vyāpādya tatpurataù prakñipanti. Cf. Kath. 60, 124. Bhāg. Pur. V 10, 1. VII 13, 18. ε. A few oblique cases of different substantives are used continually in the manner of adverbs thrown incidentally into the sentences: Thus pathi “on the way” yudhi “in the battle,” vegāt “impetuously”. We may wonder, if the case arises, if we must restore to these words the value of substantive properly speaking in order to have a term to which to attach the genitive―or consider the latter as an absolute. Pttr. 127, 5: athādhvani teñāàpañcānām api pallipuramadhye vrajatāà dhvāìkñāù kathayitum ārabdhāù: “rere Kirātā, dhāvata-dhāvata! sapādalakñadhanino yānti; etān nihatya dhanaà nayata!” Here the genitive is probably independent of adhvani, and consequently absolute. On the other hand, in the two examples mentioned here below in which the question is 23

On the Use of Genitive Absolute in Sanskrit

asked summarily in the same terms, the genitive is surely ruled by mahāhave and by vegena. MBh. IX 530: tasmin vilulite sainye vadhyamāne parasparam, draramāneñu yodheñu, ninadatsu ca dantiñu, kūjatāà stanatāà caiva padātināà mahāhave, vidåuteñu, mahārāja, hayeñu bahudhā tadā Pāëdavās tāvakaà sainyaà vyadhamanta śitaiùśaraiù. “In the melee of murmuring infantrymen” MBh. I 5886 (Cf. III 16342) gacchatas tasya vegena Tārkñyamārutaraàhasaù Bhīmasya Paëòuputrāëāà mūrccheva samajāyata. “As a result of the speed of Bhīma”. ζ. Another turn of phrase which finds to be ambiguous. It can be defined thus: the word on which the participle in the genitive depends is understood (in the accusative) as object of this participle, Hariv. 786: aśvaà pracārayām āsa vājimedhāya dikñitaù tasya cārayataù so’śvaù samudre pūrvadakñiëe velāsamīpe’pahåto bhūmià caiva praveśitaù. Mārk. Pur. 7, 60: bruvann evaà yayau śīghraàākarñan dayitāà kare. karñatas tāà tato bhāryāà sukumārīàśramāturām sahasā daëòakāñöhena tāòayāmāsa Kauśikaù. MBh. VI 4536: tasyātha kurvataù karma mahat saàkhye mahībhåtaù 24

Collection of Examples

pūjayāà cakrire håñöāù praśaśaàsuś ca Phālgunim. Bhāg. Pur. I 10, 31: evaàvidhā gadantīnāà sa giraù purayoñitām nirīkñaëenābhinandan sasmitena yayau Hariù. Cf. again MBh. I 8233; Rām. VI 113, 12; Bhāg. Pur. III 16, 1; IV 11, 3; VII 15, 34 without possible confusion with the genitive absolute: MBh. III 10723; Bhāg. Pur, VII 13, 25. It is to be noted that the term to which the participle in the genitive relates is most often perfectly determined and known, thus so’śvaù, the horse of which it has just been a question, tāà bhāryāà, his wife, etc. Therefore, the addition of the genitive seems superfluous and the solidity of the construction is increased all the more. However, we guess easily the origin of the usage that reserves this formula precisely for this kind of case. It is none other than an artifice or rather clumsy syntax in order to arrive at stating an accessory fact or a supplement of designation without the help of a relative clause. The relative clause, in effect, always contains in Sanskrit an important given, and it modifies profoundly the range of the principal clause. The sacred horse that he led forth, his wife whom he was dragging along, could rarely be rendered by means of the pronoun ya. On the other hand, the language disposes of two participial constructions: one that is furnished by the use of the passive and the other which occupies us at this moment:

These two turns of phrase appear to have entered into a mutual relationship of equivalence which ends up in certain very bizarre applications, witness the examples below. We see there the first construction replaced by the second although the genitive cannot be justified by any relationship of dependence, if it is not one totally fictitious, which is established from the very fact of the action, between any subject and any object whatever. Kath. 69, 153: kñaëāc ca nadyāù kasyāścit khagau tau tīram āpatuù muninādhyāsitaà kenāpy arcāvyagreëa Dhūrjaöeù. 25

On the Use of Genitive Absolute in Sanskrit

tatra vyādhena kenāpi yāntau tau saha dampatī hatāv ekena yugapac chareë bhuvi petatuù ātapatrāmbhujaà tac ca tadīyam apatat tadā muner arcayatas tasya Śivaliìgasya mūrdhani. “And the lotus which was serving them as a parasol (cl. 150) came to fall at the end of the liìgam of Śiva which the muni adored.” Chrest. Böhtl. Page 64, v. 118: yasminn eva phale Nāgas, tam evābhakñayat svayam. tato bhakñayatas tasya phalāt kåmir abhūd aëuù. bhakñayatas tasya phalāt = phalāt tena bhakñyamāëāt. All the ambiguous examples cited above resolved into genitives dependent on a noun after examination. The genitives which refer to a verb can also engender similar ambiguities. In order to speak on those cases with full knowledge of the facts, it would be necessary to know exactly which are the verbs which involve a direct or indirect object in the genitive, or again up to what precise nuance do they admit the genitive. Thus, an entire group of examples, and one of the most numerous to be classed with certitude, would demand a special study of permitted constructions with the āyāti and its synonyms. The sentences respond in general to the model: teñāà saàjalpatām āyayau Devadattaù. The difficulty is knowing it we have the right to consider such a genitive like a kind of indirect object of the verb āyāti. We will have to take into account the particular nature of each case. Therefore, one part of the types of this kind has been incorporated into the list of genitive absolute, while most are related to section III as containing another kind of genitive. In the same order, it is good to note, so as not to make a mistake, a certain abuse of language which consists of grabbing a handy (page 130) construction proper to a given verb, in order to extend it to its synonyms. 29 Thus, by analogy with mucyate “to escape from, to get rid of,” which takes the genitive rather frequently, we find Rām. V 79, 3: na hi no jīvatāà gacchej jīvan sa vanagocaraù. (Cf. MBh. VII 1790: na me jīvaì jīvato yudhi mokñyase.) håsyate, assimilates in tuñyati is accompanied by the genitive: evam tu bruvatāà teñāàAìgadaù samahåñyata. Rām. V 64, 23. 26

Collection of Examples

With the example of prādur asti, āvir bhavati, etc., the verbs dåśyate, pratidåśyate “to appear” can, on occasion, command the genitive. I have nevertheless considered this latter as absolute in several sentences that we will find later on, because it comes out of the context that the appearance in question does not concern uniquely and directly the person in the genitive. Finally, we must be attentive to the frequent corruptions of the text. Thanks to the particular structure of the Indian sentence and in the loose style of the epics, the loss of an hemistich can at every turn transform the first genitive you come upon into a genitive absolute. We read in the Rāmāyaëa of Gorresio (III 7, 24): tasyaivaà bruvato dhåñöaà Virādhasya manasvinī Sītā prāvepata trastā pravāte kadalī yathā. Now, between these two hemstitches, the edition of Calcutta (III 2, 15), there is a third one which peremptorally pushes aside all absolute constructions: śrutvā sagarvitaà vākyaà saàbhrāntā Janakātamajā. Let us add that, in its kind, the genitive, while following the reading of Gorresio, depended almost surely on prā-vepata. One last remark. Let us say right off that the dual confusing in a same form the genitive and the locative is outside of our research. The distinction of the two cases would be possible only if we had to deal with the pronoun nau and vāà, or with a participle in the dual agreeing with two different substantives in the singular.

§ 8. EXAMINATION OF EXAMPLES The citations are classified, following a lexicographic order, according to the verb of the genitive absolute. As far as possible, the verbs are grouped by synonyms. Among other advantages, this order will have one revealing the rather developed formulism, pointed out in §3. Furthermore, up to a certain point, the kind of syntactic use of the absolute case depends strongly on the verb and its meaning: the genitive absolutes containing such a verb will habitually have such a logical role in the sentence. Thus, the entire first series (to think, to say, to tarry, etc.) which finishes at the article krośati is composed in large part of examples in Group A, see (278). Starting from that point, on the contrary, we no longer come across anything but representative of group B, with rare exception.


On the Use of Genitive Absolute in Sanskrit

I. THE PREDICATE IS A PRESENT PARTICIPLE The verb Clutaytati 1.― Pttr. Koseg. 34, 16 (40, 3. Calc.): ity evaà cintayatas tasya [Añāòhabhüteù], Devaśarmano’pi śiñyaputraù kaścid grāmād āmantraëārthaà samāyātaù. 2.― (?) Chrest. Benf. Page 116, 1.5 (Pttr.): evaà cintayatas tasya, śaśako mandaà-mandaà gatvā praëamya tasyāgre sthitaù. 3.― MBh. VI 2580. Kåñna thinks it is time to stop the victorious assault of Bhīñma. tathā cintayatas tasya. bhūya eva pitāmahaù preñayām āsa saàkruddhaùśarān Pārtharathaà prati. 4.― Kath. 118, 168: iti cintayatas tasya rājïaù, sā Daityakanyakā jyeñöhārcayitvā Trailokyaprabhā Vahnià vyajiñapat. 5.― Ibid., 121, 135: evaà Thinöhākarālasya tasya cintayato hådi, nåttānte chāgabhaëòasya Śakraù sthānaà nyavartata. 6.― Mārk. Pur. 70, 27: evaà cinlayatas tasya, punar apy āha rākñasaù pranāmanamro rājānaà baddhāïjalipuöo, mune. (tasya rājñaù). It would hardly be plausible to have genitive on namraù. 7.― Bhāg. Pur. VI 7, 16: evaà cintayatas tasya Maghono, bhagavān gåhāt Båhaspatir gato dåśyāà gatià adhyātmamāyayā. gåhāt,as the context indicates, is equivalent to svagåhāt, and does in no way govern the words in the genitive.


Collection of Examples

8.― Kath. 18, 356. Cite page 46. We scarcely dare to place among the genitive absolutes the unformed clauses of which there are a few examples. The composers of Purānas feel a great satisfaction, notably in the pieces of metaphysical speculation to repeat at random the formula, evaà cintayatas tasya without knowing themselves how the sentence will end. Hence, we find monstrosities: Mārk. Pur. 47, 14: bhūrādyāàś caturo lokān purvavat samakalpayat. såñöià cintayatas tasya, kalpādiñu yathā purā abuddhipūrvakas tasmāt prādur bhūtas tamomayaù etc. Hariv. 11 428: tato mahātmātibalo matià lokasya sarjane mahatāà païcabhūtānāà viśvabhūto vyacintayat. tasya cintayatas tatra tapasā bhāvitātmanaù nirākāśe toyamaye sūkñme jagati gahvare éñat saàkñobhayām āsa so’rnavaà salile sthitaù. Cf. Mark. Pur. 49, 3 (with the verb såijati):

Brahmaëaù såjataù pūrvaà satyābhidhyāyinas tathā

mithunduāà sahasraà tu mukhāt sό’thāsåjan, munē,

The Verb Tarkayati 9.― MBh. III 1723: tasmin rathe sthitaà sütaà taptahemavibhūñitam dåñövā Pārtho mahābāhur devaà evānvatarkayat. tathā tarkayatas tasya Phālgunasyātha Mātaliù

saànataù praśrito bhūtvā vākyaà Arjunam abravīt.30


On the Use of Genitive Absolute in Sanskrit

The Verb Dhāyati 10.― Rām. VI 80, 36 Cited page 54. abhi-dhyāyati. We can mention Mārk. Pur. 47, 25 only with great reservation, first because of the general character of this entire passage, and then because of the proximity of prādur babhau which, according to the sense that we will give it, would be able to govern the participle. The Verb Mīmāàsati 11.― Bhāg. Pur. III 13, 23: iti mīmāàsatas tasya Brahmaëā saha sūnubhiù, bhagavān yajïapuruño jagarjāyendrasaànibhaù. The Verb Kathayati 12.― MBh. XIV 2880: tathā kathayatāà teñāà, devarājaù Puraàdaraù vavarña sumahātejā dåñövā tasya tapobalam. 13.― Rām. III 23, 4: kathāù kathayatas tasya saha bhrātrā mahātmanah, gådhrarājaù samāgamya Rāghavaà vākyam abravīt. 14.― MBh. XIII 4002. Cite page 43. The Verb Jalpati 15.― Pttr. 175: athaivaà jalpatāà teñāà Citrāìgo nāma hariëo lubdhakatrāsitas tasminn eva sarasi praviñöaù. 16.― (Possessive genitive?) MBh. VIII 3251: 30

Collection of Examples

abhavad vyākulaà bhītaà putrāëāà te mahad balam, “tiñöha-tiñöhe” ’ti ca tataù Sutaputrasya jalpataù nāvatiñöhati sā senā vadhyamānā mahātmabhiù. 17.― Kath. 26, 19. A Brahman makes a voyage by sea with Satyavrata, the king of a tribe of Dāśas. In view of an enchanted fig tree which emerges from the surface of the water, Satyavrata realizes that the ship is rushing towards a whirlpool where it will not delay on being swallowed up. He imparts to his companion the last way of saving himself that remains: “tad yāvad dhārayāmy etad ahaà pravahamāëaà manāk, tāvad asyāvalambethāùśākhāà vaöataror drutam” iti Satyavratasyāsya dhīrasatvasya jalpataù babhūva nikaöe tasya taroù pravahamāëaà tataù. 18.― Ibid. 26, 231. The moment when Jālapāda and his disciple Devadatta prepare to eat a mysterious meal that will transform them into Vidyādharas, the former finds a pretext to send his associate away and prevent him from taking part. tāvan māàsaà aśeñaà tad vratinā tena bhakñitaà. “kathaà sarvaà tvayā bhuktam?” iti cātrāsya jalpataù jihmo, Vidyādharo bhūtvā, Jālapādaù kham udyayau. 19.― Pañcadaëòachattraprabandha, page 46. (Abhandlungen der Kgl. Der Akad. Willenschaften zu Berlin, 1877) The sorcerer-king Vikramāditya is metamorphosed into a counterfeit and miserable inhabitant of Gauda. In this form, he marries the daughter of a dancing girl. Those who attend the ceremony are pitying the fate of this unfortunate woman, when, at the voice of his great treasurer, the king reveals himself in his true aspect. lokaiś cintitaà: “eñā varāki kià kartum udyatā, athābhāginyāù putrī eñāpy abhāginy evā?” iti lokānāà jalpatāà, vyayakaraëakena Gauòika uktaù: “deva Vikramāditya! nijarūpaà prakāśaya!” 20.― Rām. VI 72, 42:


teñāà saàjalpatām evaà, aśokavanikāgatām abhidudrāva Vaidehīà Rāvanaù krodhamūrcchitaù 31

On the Use of Genitive Absolute in Sanskrit

21.―MBh. VII 660: Yudhiñöhira is on the point of falling into the power of victorious Drona. The Kurus congratulate themselves when Arjuna arrives. Sañjaya relating the scene to Dhåtarāñöra, says: evaà saàjalpatāà teñām tāvakānāà, mahārathaù

āyāj javena kaunteyo rathaghoñeëa nādayan, śonitodāà rathāvartāà kåtvā viśasane nadīm The Verb Bravīti 22.― MBh. II 1580: “kruddhād vāpi prasannād vā kià me tvatto bhaviñyati?” tathā bruvata evāsya, bhagavān Madhusūdanaù manasācintayac cakraà daityagarvanisūdanam. 23.―Ibid., III 373: “kuru me vacanaà, rājan, mā manyuvaśam anvagāù.” evaà tu bruvatas tasya Maitreyasya, viśāmpate, uruà gajakarākāraà kareëābhijaghāna saù

Duryodhanaù, smitaà kåtvā caraëenollikhan mahīm.

24.― Ibid., III 12562: tathaiva bruvatas tasya, pratyadåśyata Keśavaù Śaivyasugrīvayuktena rathena rathināà varaù. Tasya means a brāhmaëa that acquainted to Pāëòus the next one. 25.― Rām. VI 100, 10. Cite page 56. brūtê.


Collection of Examples

26.― Rām. I 32, 9: Rāmasyaivaà bruvānasya tvaritasya yuyutsayā, prjavāla tadā vediù sopādhyāyapurohitā. Commentary (ed. Cale. I 30, 8): idaà jvalanaà rākñasāgamanasūcaka utpāta, ity āhuù. 27.― Ram. Cale III 68, 17 (Cf. III 73, 22 Gorr.): “putro Viśravasaù sākñād, bhrāatā Vaiśravaëasya ca” iti uktvā durlabhān prāëān mumoca patageśvaraù. “brūhi-brūhi” ’iti Rāmasya bruvāëasya kåtāïjaleù

tyaktvāśarīraà gådhrasya prānā jagmur vihāyasam The Verb Sam-Bhāñate 28.― MBh. III 16731: evaà saàbhāñamānāyāù Sāvitryā bhojanaà prati, skandhe parañum ādāya Satyavān prasthito vanam. 29.― Rām. V 89, 52: teñāà sambhāñamāëānāà anyonyaà, sa Vibhīñaëaù, uttaraà tīram āsādya jaladheù, khe vyavasthitaù. The Verb Vi-Lapati 30.― Bhāg. Pur. IX 9, 33: evaà karunabhāñiëyā vilapantyā anāthavat, vyāghraù paśum ivākhādat Saudāsaùśāpamohitaù The regims, namely brāhmaëan is heard into.


On the Use of Genitive Absolute in Sanskrit

31.― MBh. I 7049. Cite page 54: lālapyati. 32.― MBh. I 968 (Chrest, Böhtl. Page 48): evaà lālapyatas tasya bhāryārthe duùkhitasya ha, devadūtas tadābhyetya vākyam āha Ruruà vane. The Verb Vadati 33.― Pttr. 131: evaà vadatas tasya, sa lubdhakas tatra vaöatalam āgatya, jālaà prasārya, sinduvārasadåśāàs taëòulān prakñipya, nātidūraà gatvā nibhåtaù sthiñtaù. 34.― MBh. III 15434: ity evaà vadatas tasya tadā Durvāsaso muneù, devadūto vimānena Mugdalaà pratyupasthitaù. 35.―Rām. Cale. I 55, 25 (Ibid., Schleg.). It is a question of the disciples of Vasiñöha, gazelles and birds from his hermitage, which the divine weapons of Viśvāmitra have put to flight. vidravanti bhayād bhīta nānādigbhyaù sahasraśaù

Vasiñöhasyāśramapadaàśūnyam asīn mahātmanaù; muhūrtam iva niùśabdam āséd īriëasaànibham vadato vai Vasiñöhasya “mā bhair!” iti muhurmuhuù

“nāśayāmy adya Gādheyaà nīhāram iva bhāskaraù” evaà uktvā etc. Commentary: vadato vai, vadato ’pity arthaù | tādåśyāpi Vasiñöhasya vacanam anādåtya dudruvur, ity arthaù.


Collection of Examples

36.― Bhāg. Pur. IV 2, 33: tasyaivaà vadatah śāpaà Bhågoù, sa bhagavān Bhavaù niścakrāma tataù kiñcid vimanā iva sānugaù 37–39.― Rām. IV 9, 91 (cite page 54). Rām. V 25, 54 (page 56). MBh. VII 4860 (page 54). 40.― Pttr. Koseg. 242, 9 (303 Calc. With the lesson pra-vadataù): tato drutataraà gatvā tam avocata: “bho ko bhavān? kim evaàśirasi bhramatā cakreëa tiñöhasi?” evaà tasya vadatas tac cakraà tatkñanād eva tanmastakād brāhmanaśirasi samāruroha. tasya and brāùmaëa―in brāùmaëa śirasi relate back to the same person. The construction is bizarre, but it would still be more so if one did not admit the genitive absolute. pra-vadat. 41.― Pttr. 180: evaà tasya pravadata, ākarnapūritaśarāsano lubdhako’py upāgataù. This genitive does not at all depend on upāgataù for tasya designates the tortoise, and the gazelle is what the hunter pursues. The Verb Tiñöhati 42.― MBh. IX 3051: tathā tu tiñöhatāà teñāà, Nārado bhagavān åñiù ājagāmātha taà deśaà yatra Rāmo vyavasthitaù.


On the Use of Genitive Absolute in Sanskrit

The Verb Vasati 43.― Rām. I 1, 42: vasatas tasya Rāmasya vane vanacaraiù saha, åñayo’bhyāgaman sarve vadhāyāsurarakñasām

Rāmaà kamalapatrākñaà śaraëyaà śaraëaiñinaù. 44.― Hariv. 7000. doubtful, cf. 296: vasatas tasya Kåñnasya sadārasyāmitaujasaù sukhāsīnasya Rukminyā, Nārado’bhyāgamat tataù. ―MBh. IX 2796: asmin khalu, mahābhāge, śubhe térthavare,’naghe,

tyaktvā saptarñayo jagmur Himanvantam Arundhatīm. tatas te vai mahābhāgā gatvā tatra susaàśitāù

våittyarthaà phalamūlāni samāhartuà yayuù kila. teñāà våttyarthināà tatra vasatāà Himavadvane anāvåñöir anuprāptā tadā dvādaśavārñikī. te kåtvā cāśramaà tatra nyavasanta tapasvinaù. As with other examples reserved for section III, the genitive here depends on the words anāvåñöir, anuprāptā. Therefore, this passage would have been mentioned if various indices did not seem to establish that the order of the hemstitches is inverted it. I cannot enter into a detailed discussion here, I am happy to suggest the following tranformation, by which we obtain a true genitive absolute: (I ñloka lost) te kåtvā cāśramaà tatra nyavasanta tapasvinaù. asmin khalu, mahābhāge, śubhe tīrthavare,’naghe,


Collection of Examples

anāvåñöir anuprāptā tadā dvādaśavārśikī. tatas te vai mahābhāgā, gatvā tatra susaàśitāù

tyaktvā saptarñayo jagmur Himavantaà Arundhatém. våttyarthaà phalamūlāni samāhartum yayuù kila teñāà våttyarthināà tatra vasatām Himavadvane, Arundhaty api kalyāëī taponityābhavat tadā. ni-vasati. 45.― MBh. I 3731: tatrāvasan bahūn kālān Bhāratā durgam āśritāù. teñāà nivasatāà tatra sahasraà parivatsarān,

athābhyagacchad Bhāratān Vasiñöho, bhagavān åñiù.

The Verb Karoti 46.― Mārk. Pur. 21, 48: kurvato mama rakñāàca munīnāà dharmacāriëām, vighnārtham āgataù ko’pi saukaraà rūpam āsthitaù. mayā sa viddho bāneëa, etc. As vighna marks especially the fact of troubling the ceremonies of the cult, the genitive kurvato mama cannot be governed either by vighnārthaà or by āgataù. 47.― Ibid., 130, 19: tasyaivaà kurvato rājyaà samyak pālayataù prajāù, tapasvī kaścid abhyetya tam āha munisattama: “pitur mātā tavābhedam, etc”


On the Use of Genitive Absolute in Sanskrit

48.― MBh. III 10934: purā Kåtayuge, tāta, vartamāne bhayaàkare, Yamatvaà kārayām āsa Ādidevaù purātanaù. Yamatvaà kurvatas tasya Devadevasya dhīmataù na tatra mriyate kaścij jāyate vā tathā’cyuta. vardhante pakñisaìghāś ca, tathā paśugavedakam, gavāśvaà ca mågāś caiva, sarve te piśitāśanāù, tathā, puruñaśārdūla, mānuñāś ca, paraàtapa, sahasraśo hy ayutaśo vardhante salilaà yathā. We do not properly understand the reason for this prodigious multiplication of species, since it is said that death and reproduction had equally ceased. For that reason, the genitive absolute is doubtful without the words which follow it, seemingly having undergone some alteration.31 49.― Pañcadaëòachattraprabandha, page 52: aëuvaro’pi tasmin avasare teñāà kalaham kurvatāà śūnyagåhe sarvaà rasavatyādi bhukvtā rājïaù samīpam āgatyopaviñöaù. Weber: By the way, while they bicker so and the house was empty, and the verzchrle Brauligmsfuhrer (?) The whole kitchen, etc. then went back to the king and selzle itself. The Verb Pālayati 50.― Bhāg. Pur. I, 17, 45: itthaàbhūtānubhāvo’yam Abhimanyusuto nåpaù, yasya pālayataù kñaëéà yūyaà sattrāya dikñitāù.

Cf. Le No. 47.


Collection of Examples

The Verb Gacchati 51.― Hitop. Page 46, 1.17: tato gacchatas tasya Sudurganāmni parvate mahāraëye Saàjīvako bhagnajānur nipatitaù. We read the corresponding tale of Kathāsaritsāgara (60, 12–13): tasyaikadā baëijyārthaà gacchato Mathurāà purīm bhāravodhā dhuraà karñan bhāreëa yugabhaìgataù giriprasravaëodbhūtakardame skhalitaù pathi Saàjīvakokhyo våñabhaù papātāìgair vicūrnitaiù Here the genitive agrees with våñabhaù without any difficulty. The Verb Carati 52.― Hariv. 1221: teñāà tatra vihaàgānāà caratām sahacāriëām, Nipānām īśvaro rājā Vibhrājaù Pauravānvayaù śrimān antaùpuravåto vanaà tat praviveśa ha. vi-carati. 53.― MBh. I 5248: atha Droëābhyanujïātāù kadacit Kurupāndavāù rathair viniryayuù sarve mågayām, arimaròana. tatropakaranaà gåhya narāù kaścid yadåcchayā rājann, anujagāmaikaù śvānam ādāya Pānòavān; teñāà vicaratāà tatra tattatkarmacikīrñayā, śvā caran sa vane gūòho Naiñādià prati jagmivān. 39

On the Use of Genitive Absolute in Sanskrit

The Naiñādī Ekalavya is a character that lives retired in the forest and who was brought up in a preceding passage. The Verb Pra-Viśati Kath. 38, 137, and 142. King Vikramāditya, from Pāöaliputra, swore that he would at that point vanquish and debase Narsiàha, the king of Pratiñöhāna, whom the latter would be announced to him as a humble servant at his door (yathā sa vandimāgadhair dvāri sevako me nivedyate). In despair of succeeding soon by force of arms and nevertheless wanting to fulfill his vow, he goes incognito to Pratiñöhāna, puts himself in the good graces of the courtisan Madanamālā and makes plans with her to carry out the ruse indicated in what we are going to read: gaëikātha svān āhūyovāca vandinaù: “Narasiàho yadā rājā gåham eñyati me, tadā

dvārasaànihitair bhāryam bhavadbhir dattadåñöibhih “deva! bhakto’nuraktaś ca Narasiàhanåpas tvayi!” iti vācyaà ca yuñmābhis tasya praviśato muhuù” In verse 142; Narasiàhanåpo hitvāpy32 āgād drañöuà sa tadgåham. pratihārāniñiddhasya tasya praviśato’tra ca ā vahirdvāratas tāram ūcuù sarve’pi vandinaù: “Narasiàho nåpo, deva, praëato, bhaktimān” iti, tac ca śåëvan sa sāmarñaù saśaìka cābhavan nåpaù, etc. The absolute turn of phrase seems so certain in the two pre-cited examples that we could dispense with mentioning them in this spot, leaving us free then to present our own observations. Needless to say, genitive is not at all governed by vac, but we can suppose that it has been indirectly brought up by the presence of this verb. Another case, very similar, is consigned hereafter under vrajati. In effect, it happens sometimes that the verbal action belongs to that group that governs two different complements, that group that gives to one the construction proper to the other; a veritable quiproquo, which is scarcely possible, furthermore, 40

Collection of Examples

except in the case where the second complement is absent from the sentence. Thus, we find: prāëinaà hanyamānānām… kopiteñu mahātmasu (Bhag. Pur. III 14, 39), literally “irritated against the killed people” for “irritated with regard to or at the sight of the killed people.” By memory of “being afraid of the enemy, of death,” one said: amitrād bhetum, maranād bhetum, “being afraid for his life” (Rām. VI 1, 28). Perhaps it is to the same phenomenon of which we will see again an interesting example in section III, that we must attribvute R.V. VIII 1, 5: parāśulkāya deyām na sahasrāya (for śulkena, by attraction to putrāya dadāmi).33 In the sentence that we are concerned with, it is very likely that an inadvertance of the same kind brought about the use of the genitive, that is, the most current construction with the verb vac, even when the idea to be expressed was not “to tell someone,” but “to tell before someone (to a third party).” 34 The Verb Vrajati Pttr. 127, 5. While citing the passage on page 294, after putting aside the possibility of a link with adhvani, we considered the genitive teñāà vrajatāà as absolute, in order not to complicate the question. But it is sufficient to report on the indicated page that the case at every point is clearly similar to the one which has just been treated under praviśati and the same remarks are indicated. The Verb Juhoti Rām. VI 19, 40 and 52, 21. (Doubtful.) (19, 40) juhvatas tasya tatrāgnau raktoñnīñāmbarasrajaù ājahrus tatra saàbhrāntā rākñasā yatra Rāvaniù śastrāëi śitadhārāëi samidho’tha vibhitakān, etc. (52, 21) juhvatas tasya tatrāgnià raktoñëīñadharās trayaù ājagmur atha saàbhrāntā rākñasā yatra Rāvaëéù, śastrāëi, etc. II It is probably necessary to read in two places: juhvatas tasya tatrāgnià raktoñëīñāmbarasrajaù

ājahrus tatra saàbhārān rākñasā yatra Rāvaëéh, śastrāëi, etc.


On the Use of Genitive Absolute in Sanskrit

What with the word yatra Rāvaëéù, the genitive is perhaps absolute? The Verb Tapasyati 54.― Kath. 28, 27: āsīt ko’pi purā kānte kutrāpy upavane yatiù

anujāhnavī35 vairāgyaniùśeñanikañecchayā. tapasyataś ca ko’py asya rājā tatraiva daivataù

vihartuà āgataù sākam avarodhavadhūjanaiù. The Verb Yajati In the past, we could easily join together numerous examples, but their believability would be limited. Different formulas, belonging notably to the cycles of the gāthās, contained yajataù or yajamānasya. These turns of Phrase, interested consequently with more or less success into a text, give birth here and there to genitive absolutes of a doubtful kind. MBh. III 8390: api cātra, mahārāja, svayam Viśvāvasur jagau imaàślokaà tadā, vīra, prekñya dikñāà mahātmanaù: “yajamānasya vai devān Jamadagner mahātmanaù,

āgamya sarito viprān madhunā samatarpayan.”

Ibid., IX 2192: yajatas tasya sattreëa sarvakāmasamåddhinā, manasā cintitā hy’arthā dharmārthakuśalais tadā upatiñöhanti, rājendra, dvijātīàs tatra tatra ha. Ibid., XII 928: Aìgasya yajamānasya tadā Viñnupade girau, amādyad Indraù somena, dakñinābhir dvijātayaù


Collection of Examples

This last refrain is very frequent, and in other variants it no longer contains a trace of the absolute turn of phrase. MBh. III 8331: Någasya yajamānasya pratyakñam, iti naù śrutam, amādyad Indraù somena, dakñinābhir dvijātayaù

A series of these ill-determined construtions is found in MBh. IX 2205–11. The Verb Āste 55.― Rām. Calc. III 17, 5: tathāsīnasya Rāmasya kathāsaàsaktacetasaù, taà deśaà rākñasī kācid ājagāma yadåcchayā. The Verb Vi-Śrāmyati 56.― Rām. I 62, 2: tasya viśrāmyatas tatra, Śunaùśepho mahādyutiù puñkaraà Jyeñöham āgamya Viśvāmitraà dadarśa ha. Variant: tasya viśramamānasya in the edition of Calcutta, and in the chrestomathy of Böhölingk page 90 (text of Bombay). The Verb Krośati 57.― MBh. III 15214: pratyakñaà tava, Gāndhāre, sasainyasya, viśāmpate, Sūtaputro’pāyād bhīto Gandharvānāà tadā raëāt, krośatas tava, rājendra, sasainyasya nåpātmaja. 58.― Ibid., VIII 2392: tān abhidravato dåñövā Pāndavāàs tāvakaà balam Duryodhano, mahārāja, vārayām āsa sarvaśaù.


On the Use of Genitive Absolute in Sanskrit

yodhāś ca svabalaà caiva samantād, Bharatarñabha, krośatas tava putrasya na sma, rājan, nyavartata. 59.― MBh. XII 5630. The words of Indrota Śaunaka to king Janamejaya guilty of brahmahatyā, before welcoming his demand for expiation. na bhayān na ca kārpaëyāà na lobhāt tvām upāhvaye; tāà me daivéà giraà satyāàśåëu tvaà brāhmanaiù saha. sa’haà na kenacic cārthī tvāà ca dharmād upāhvaye krośatāà sarvabhūtānāà“hā-hā dhig” iti jalpatām vakñyanti mām adharmajïaà, tyakñyanti suhådo janāù, etc. ― MBh. VII 3747 merits being especially noted, although the genitive is probable in apposition of naù: sarvakñattrasya miñato rathenaikena daàśitau bālakrīòanakeneva kadarthīkåtya no balam krośatāà yatamānānām asamśaktau paraàtapau darśayitvātmano vīryaà prayātāu sarvarājasu. 60.― Bhāg. Pur. III 19, 35: yo gajendraàjhañagrastaà dhyāyantaàśaraëāmbhujam krośantināà kareëünāà kåcchrato’mocayad drutam, taà ko na seveta? 61–62.― MBh. X 197, cite page 50. Śiśupālavadha 18, 64, cite page 290. Cf. MBh. XIII 3095 (page 289). vi-krośati. 63.― MBh. VII 6005: vāryamānaù sa Kåñnena Pārthena ca mahātmanā, 44

Collection of Examples

Karëena, Våñasenena, Saindhavena tathaiva ca, vikrośatāàca sainyānāà, avadhit taà yatavratam. The Verb Jīvati 64.― MBh. XIII 2455. To the question proposed Cf. Manu IX 97: “kanyāyāù prāptaśulkāyāù śulkadaù praśamaà gataù

“pāëigrahītā cānyaù syād: atra no dharmasaàśayaù” tān evaà bruvataù sarvān Satyavān vākyam abravīt: “yatreñöaà tatra deyā syān, nātra kāryā vicāraëā; “kurvate jīvato’py evaà, måte naivāsti saàśayaù” 65.― Ibid., VII 4809: kathaà ca mama putrāëāà jīvatāà tatra, Saïjaya, Śaineyo’bhiyayau yuddhe, tan mamācakñva Saïjaya. 66.― Rām. V 19, 29: Rāghavasyāprameyasya Lakñmaëasya ca jīvataù yadi Sītāpi duùkhārttā, kālaù sa duratikramaù. api belongs by its meaning to the first hemistich. In its, place we would expect rather tathāpi. 67.―Ibid., V 69, 12: yathāhaà tasya vīrasya balād upādhinā håtā, jīvatāà rākñasām eva, tathā nārhati Rāghavaù Literally: this situation which has torn me from this hero by force and by ruse, when the Rākñas are still alive, Rāma does not merit it (or perhaps: this situation is not worthy of Rāma).


On the Use of Genitive Absolute in Sanskrit

68–70.― MBh. V 374, cited page 50. Rām. II 101, 3 (page 49). Kath. 31, 84 (page 286). (?) Katha. 113, 40: aprāptakāmo hy arthī me kathaà yāsyati jīvataù? The Verb Icchati 71–72.― MBh. II 1549, 1550 1552; cites page 56. MBh. V 2906 (page 56) anicchataù, anicchatām. 73.― MBh. XIII 1056: anicchatas tava, vibho, janma måtyur anekaśaù. 74.― Bhāg. Pur. IV 30, 43: iti Pracetobhir abhiñöuto Hariù prītas tathety āha śaraëyavatasalaù. anicchatāà yānam atåptacakñuñāà yayau svadhāmānapavargavīryaù. 75.― Ibid., VIII 21, 14; cite page 49. The Verb Hasati 76.― Kath. 61, 43 (in the mūrkhakathās): tac cūrëaà tasya durbuddher oñöhau śmaśrūëi cālipat; hasatas tu janasya, asya mukhaà dhavalatāà yayau. We have reproduced the punctuation of Brockhaus. This text leaves us with some doubts. The general aspect of the sentence recalls verse 61, 13 where we read: tasyābhavan mukham tādåg eva, sahāsasya lokasyāsiti punaù smitam (sc. mukham) This resemblance suggests the correction hasanaà tu in place of hasatas tu.36 We would have something of this type: hasanaà tu janasya, asya mukhaà dhavalatāà yayau.


Collection of Examples

Literally: “the mouths of people turned to laughter, his to whiteness.” Whatever one thinks of this conjecture, the genitive absolute in question is of a type that is unusual and suspect. pra-hasati. 77.― Kath. 46, 76 cited page 286 The Verb Roditi 78.― Bhāg. Pur. III 30, 19: evaà kuöumbabharaëe vyāpåtātmājitendriyaù mriyate rudatāà svānām uruvedanayāstadhīù. This is the only passage that we have accepted for this participle that the commentators of Pāëini like to place in their examples of the genitive absolute. Let us note, however, Mārk. Pur. 135, 14, where the locative is tenable only at the point of anusvāra: “hā-he”’ti Cendrasēnayāà rudantyām bāñpagadgadam cakarña kōpāt37 khadgaà ca vākyaà cēdaà uvāca ha. The Verb Śocati 79.― Mārk. Pur. 22, 42. Cited page 289. anu-śocati. ― Bhāg. Pur. VI 16, 1: atha devaåñī, rājan, saàparetaà nåpātmajam darśayitveti hovāca jïātinām anuśocatām: jīvātman! paśya, bhadraà te, mātaraà pitaraà ca te, etc. Although the åñi is supposed to speak to the dead person, it is evident he is addressing in reality the family which surrounds him so that jñātinām anuśōćatāà probably depends on uvāca.


On the Use of Genitive Absolute in Sanskrit

The Verb Varñati 80.― MBh. III 10299: sikatā vā yathā loke, yathā vā divi tārakāù, yathā vā varñato dhārā asaàkhyeyāù sma kenacit: tathaiva tad asaàkhyeyaà dhanaà yat pradadau Gayaù. A parallel passage, Mārk. Pur. 15, 71: abbindavō yathāmbhodhau, yathā vā divi tārakāù, yathā vā varñato dhārā, Gaìgāyāà sikatā yathā. 81.― MBh. XIII 5340: yāvadvarñasahasraà vai Jambudvīpe pravarñati, tāvatsamvatsarā proktā brahmaloke’sya dhīmataù. vipruñaś caiva yāvantyo nipatanti nabhastalāt varñāsu varñatas, tāvan nivasaty amaraprabhaù. On these genitive absolutes, which I do not present as unquestionable, the reader would indeed want to see the remarks presented on page 45. ― A locative absolute varñati comes up in Bhāg. Pur. IX 2, 4: ekadā prāviśad goñöhaà śārdūlō niśi varñati. The Verb īkñati 82.― Bhāg. Pur. III 18, 3. Cited page 49. (apekñati.) ― Bhāg. Pur. I 15, 50: Draupadé ca tadājïāya paténām anapēkñatām Vāsudevē bhagavatí hy ekāntamatir āpa tam. 48

Collection of Examples

Burnouf makes a genitive absolute out of patīnām anapēkñatām. Here is his translation: “Draupadī, whom her spouses had abandoned, learning this news (tad ājìāya) and fixing her meditation on Bhagavat, the son of Vasudeva, likewise obtained permission to join with him.” This is perhaps to sin by excess of prudence, but the very sharpness with which this genitive absolute cuts the sentence, not being justified by a frequent use of apekñant―in such formulas, appears to us a little bit suspect. Nor is it ordinary either that the genitive absolute marks the motif of the action (v.p. 56 ff.). That’s why we would like to see in anapekñatām a substantive, A synonym of anapekñām, derived from the adjective anapekña: “Draupadī, recognizing then the indifference of her spouses, etc.” nir-īkñati. 83.― Bhāg. Pur. III 21, 34: nirīkñatas tasya yayau. 84.― Mārk. Pur. 125, 26: nāham etāà grahīñyāmi na cānyāà yoñitaà, nåpa, parair yasyā nirékñantyāù saàgrāme’haà parājitaù. prekñati. 85.― MBh. I 5968: aham enaà haniñyāmi prekñantyās te, sumadhyame. 86.― Ibid., VII 3318: vyasuś cāpy apatad bhūmau prekñatāà sarvadhanvinām. 87–93.― MBh. I 148: prēkñatāà sarvarājïām. III 581: pañcānāà Pāëòuputrāëāà prekñatām. III 14390: mātåëāà prekñatīnām. VIII 2399: prekñatō mama. IX 3266: prekñato Bhīmasenasya.


On the Use of Genitive Absolute in Sanskrit

XV 483: Cited page 49.

XVI 239: prēkñatah Pārthasya. Prekñate. 94.― MBh. v 4659: yac ca, vaù prekñamāëānām sarvadharmōpacāriëām. Pāñcālī paruñāëy uktā, ko nu tat kñantum arhati? 95–97.― MBh. II 2391: Draupadyāù prekñamāëāyāh (depends perhaps on the verb adarśayat). III 2261: Vaidarbhyāù prekñamāëāyāù. VII 6406: Cited page 50. saà-prekñate. 98–99.― MBh. VIII 4298: saàprekñamāëasya Dhanañjayasya. IX 973: naù saàprekñamāëānām. The Verb Paśyati 100.― Chrest. Benf. Page 133, 1. 18 (Pttr.): paśyato bakamūrkhasya nakulena hatā bakāù. Another text and another construction Hitop. IV, 7: paśyato bakamūrkhasya nakulair bhakñitāh prajāù. 101.― Pttr. 248: atha, tasya paśyato, gåhitvā tat sakalaà devāyatanābhimukhā pratasthe. 102.― MBh. V 2685: pitāmahasya, Droëasya, Vidurasya ca dhīmataù, brāhmaëāëāà ca sādhūnāà rājñaś ca nagarasya ca 50

Collection of Examples

paśyatāà Kurumukhyānāà sarveñām eva tattvataù, dānaśīlaà måduà dāntaà dharmaśīlam anuvratam yat tvām upādhinā, rājan, dyūte vaëcitavāàs tadā, na cāpatrapate tena, etc. 103.― MBh. V 7386 (Ambopākhyāna 49, 17): tataù sā, paśyatāà teñām maharñiëām, aninditā samāhåtya vanāt tasmāt kāñöhāni varavarëinī citāà kåtvā sumahatīà pradāya38 ca hutāśanam, pradipte ’gnau, mahārāja, roñadīptena cetasā uktvā: “Bhīmavadhāye”’ti praviveśa hutāśanam. 104.― MBh. VIII 3318: hatavāhas tataś cāsmi Yuyudhānasya paśyatah, Dhåñtadyumnasya, yamayor, vérasya ca Śikhaëòinaù, paśyatāà Draupadeyānāà Pāñcālānāà ca sarvaśah. 105.― MBh. VIII 3001: paśyator yamayor, Pārtha, Sātyakeś ca Śikhaëòinaù, Dhåñöadyumnasya, Bhémasya, Śatānékasya vā, vibho, Pāïcālānāà ca sarveñāà Cedināà caiva, Bhārata, eña Karëo raëe, Pārtha, Pāëòavānām anīkinīm śarair vidhvaàsayati vai nalinīm iva kuïjaraù. 106.― MBh. IX 112: yaà yaà senāpraëetāraà yudhi kurvanti māmakāù, 51

On the Use of Genitive Absolute in Sanskrit

acirēëaiva kālena taà taà nighnanti Pāëòavāù. raëamūrdhni hato Bhīñmaùpaśyatāà vaù Kirīöinā: evam eva hato Droëah sarveñām eva paśyatāà; evam eva hataù Karëaù Sūtaputraù pratāpavān, sarājakānāà sarveñāà paśyatāà vaù, Kirīöinā. 107.― Rām. I 60, 15: uktavākye munau tasmin, saśarīro nareśvaraù divaà jagāma, Kākutstha, munénāà paśyatāàtadā. 108.― Kath. 17, 125: gatvā sa, tasyāù paśyantyāù, kayāpi varayoñitā saha cakre samālāpaà racitodāramanòanaù. 109.― Bhāg. Pur IV 5, 9 ūcur: vipāko våjinasyaiva tasya yat paśyatīnāà duhitåëāà Prajeśaù sutāà Satém avadadhyāv anāgām 110–163.


MBh.―I 2941:

paśyatas tatra tatrarñeù.


jïātigrāmasya paśyataù.


tasya manujēndrasya paśyataù.

III 951:

tapasvinām paśyatām.


puruñavarasya paśyataù.

IV 701:

paśyato rājïaù.

MBh. V 4458:

Kurūëāà paśyatām.

VI 2481:

Droëasya paśyataù Gāìgēyasya ca.

Collection of Examples


yodhānāà tava paśyatām.

VII 1847:

paśyatāà bāndhavānām.


Rādheyasyaiva paśyataù.


håñţānāà Dhārtarāñörānāà paśyatām.


paśyatāà no durātmanām.


Drupadaputrasya Phālgunasya ca paśyataù.


Saubalasyaiva paśyataù.


paśyatas tasya rakñasaù.

8333 VIII 4176

Paśyatah Savyasācinaù

VI 113:

Karëasya paśyataù.


sabhāmadhye Pānòavānāà ca paśyatām(?).


paśyatām tatra vīrānām.


sarveñāà no ’dya paśyatām.


paśyatāà tāvakānām.


paśyatāà te putrāëāà citrayodhinām.

VIII 3337:

paśyatāà suhådām.


paśyatām naù.

X 742:

teñām sarveñām paśyatāà.

XI 587:

Pāndaveyānām Pāïcālānām ca paśyatāà.

XII 13586:

Brāhmaëaù paśyataù.

XVI 60:

Våñëīnāà paśyatāà.


paśyato Dārukasya.




On the Use of Genitive Absolute in Sanskrit

Rām. II 96, 47:

Sītāyās tatra paśyantyāù.

III 24, 22:

tasya Rāmasya paśyataù.

VI 17, 6:

paśyato rākñasēndrasya.

89, 15:

śatror vikhyātavīryasyapaśyataù.

92, 34:

Devadānavayakñānāà paśyatāà.

Hariv. 9317:

paśyatāà rājïāà sarveñāà sainikasya vai.


Brāhmaëaù paśyataù.


devasya paśyataù.


paśyataù Keśavasya.


paśyatas tu Śacīpateù.

Kath. 20, 171:

asya paśyataù.

26, 208:

paśyatas tasya.

36, 110:

paurānām sāśru paśyatām.

52, 130:

rājïaù paśyataù.

69, 136

71, 56:

tasya paśyataù.

Mārk. Pur. 109, 11:

paśyato rājalokasya.

125, 12:

bhūpānāà paśyatām atimāninām.

Bhāg. Pur. II 9, 37:

paśyatas tasya.

III 18, 8:


IV 9, 26:

bālasya paśyataù.

VIII 11, 28:

jïātīnāà paśyatām. (very doubtful)

IX 10, 5:

paśyato Lakñmaëasyaiva. Sarvalokasya paśyataù.


Collection of Examples

164.― MBh. III 8807: etāvad uktvā vacanaà Maitrāvaruëir acyutaù samudram apibat kruddhaù sarvalokasya paśyataù. 165–178.― the same formula: MBh. VI 1859. 1931. 2814. 5258. 5454. 5471. 5784. (Cf. 2505 cited under


VII 7490.

IX 255.

Hariv. 15929. 15934. 16029. 16301. Add: Sadguruśiñya cited by Max Mūller, A Hist. of Ancient SSCR. Lit. 1859, page 236, and by Pischel, Kuhn’s Zeitschr. XXIII 427. 179–187.― Analogous Formulas: MBh. VII 7452:

paśyataù sarvalokasya39.

Mārk. Pur. 75, 21:

paśyataù sarvalokasya vismayāviñöacetasaù.

Bhāg. Pur. VI 12, 35 VII 1, 19

paśyatāà sarvalōkānām

VIII 4, 5

MBh. V 2392

Rām. VI 73, 5

lokasya paśyataù.

Kath.40 36, 131

MBh. V 2394:

jagatah paśyataù. sarvakñattrasya paśyataù.

188–198. MBh. IX 344. 744. 55

On the Use of Genitive Absolute in Sanskrit

Hariv. 15161. 15202. 15241. 15310. 15334. 15337. 15643. 15970. 15973. sarvañainyasya pāśyatah. 199–214. MBh. VI

3182. 3238. 3710. 3728. 3909. 4753. 5321.


749. 1683. 5585. 6115.


608. 3568.


478. 642. 1145. Paśyatäà sarvadhanvinäm.

215–221. MBh. VI



3984. 5800. 7444. 9385.


1163. 1420.

222: Supplement Rām. VI 25, 35: paśyatāà sarvarakśasām. paśyatāà sarvasainyānām. 215–221. MBh. VI



3984. 5800. 7444. 9385.


1163. 1420.

222: Supplement Rām. VI 25, 35: paśyatāà sarvarakśasām. paśyatäà sarvasainyänäm. 223.― MBh. VII 8075: paśya Bhīmaà, mahābāho, rakñasā grastam āhave


Collection of Examples

paśyatāà sarvasinyānāà tava caiva, mahādyute. 224–229. MBh. VII 4649. 5588. 5917. 6404. 8987. IX 509. paśyatāà sarvabhütänäm 230–232. Hariv. 8533. 11933. Bhāg. Pur. VIII 10, 2. 233–237.― Analogous Formulas: MBh. VII 6127:

paśyatāà sarvayodhānām.


paśyatāà sarvavīrāëām.

Hariv. 8995: Mārk. Pur. 90, 6:

paśyatāà sarvadevānām. paśyatāà sarvadevānām asurāëāà ca.

Ibid., annexe. Page 656:

paśyatāà sarvadevānāà siddhagandharvarakñasām. paśyatāàbhümipalānām, etc.

238–244. MBh. X 198 Mārk. Pur. 69, 15

134, 9

134, 33

paśyatāà bhūmipālānānam.

paśyatāà sarvabhūpānām.41

MBh. II 2391:

paśyatāà vo mahīkñitām.

Mārk. Pur. VII 298:

paśyatāà puruñeëdrānām.

XIV 1802:

paśyatāà påthivīkñitām.


On the Use of Genitive Absolute in Sanskrit

245–263.― By reason of their very metrical type, we can join together the following examples: paśyatāà lokavīrāëām

MBh. I 4104: III 404

paśyatāà Pāëòuputrāëām.

IX 682

VI 4914

VII 2816

paśyatāà Dhārtarāñörāëām.


V 4666

paśyatāà Kuruvīrāëām.42

VIII 1949

MBh. VI 5635:

paśyatāà Kuruvīrāëāà sarveñāà.

VIII 2468:

paśyatāà Kauraveyānām.

Hariv. 6827:

paśyatāà Yadusiàhānām.


paśyatāà devadaityānām.

Bhāg. Pur. VIII 9, 27:


MBh. VI 3408

VII 6964 7215

paśyato Bhīmasenasya. etc.

7754 VIII 4266:

paśyataù Sūtaputrasya.

XVI 12:

paśyatāà Vāsudevasya. paśyatāà tridivaukañām.

264.― Hariv. 15956: atipravåttaà saìgrāmaà devāsuraraëopamam vidadhāte mahārange paśyatāà tridivaukañām.


Collection of Examples

265–266.― Hariv. 159. 16060. sarveñām paśyatām. 267. MBh. VI 4041: sarveñāà eva paśyatām. 268. Hariv. 9326: sarveñām eva paśyatām. Bhīmasenasya Paśyatah. etc.

269–300. MBh. I.6687:

Viśvāmitrasya paśyataù.

III 14890 14913

Dhārtarāñörasya paśyatah.43

IV 2013

V 5678

IX 541

Dharmarājasya paśyataù

VI 2353

VII 679

Dhåñöadyumnasya paśyataù

VIII 728

VII 1620



Bhāradvājasya paśyataù.

4558 7259 6879:

rakñasendrasya paśyataù


On the Use of Genitive Absolute in Sanskrit

VIII 2945:

Sūtaputrasya paśyataù.

MBh. VIII 2693



Bhīmasenasya paśyataù.

IX 835


VII 3442

IX 3661

XI 378

XII 138

Vāsudevasya paśyataù.

Hariv. 15192



Hariv. 2940:

Mārkaëòeyasya paśyataù.

Rām. VI 16, 90

86, 18

Daśagrīvasya paśyataù.

MBh. III 16501

301–313.― In the course of the narration of Sañjayato Dhåtarāñöra, we often see the words return: tava putrasya pasyataù. MBh. VI 3462

VII 4940. 6137.


IX 1258. 1340


tava putrasya paśyataù.

Collection of Examples

VI 5098:

putrasya tava paśyataù.


putrāëāà tava paśyatām. VIII 2464

VII 7733


paśyatas tava putrasya.

VI 3637:

śyālasya te tava putrasya paśyataù.

VIII 2835:

paśyatas tasya vīrasya tava putrasya. paśyato me.

314.― Pttr. 152 (122, 9 Koseg.): asaìkhyayātha parivåtaù paśyato me paribhramann itas tataù svajanena sahagacchati yāti ca (subjet:ākhuù). 315.―Pttr. 124: paśyato me nadītaöāc chyenenāpahåtaù śiśuù 316.― Kath. 72, 143: paśyatas te. 317.― Mbh. I 891. A remarkable example in what pśyatas te, far from containing a nuance of anādara, signifies in this case: by calling you to witness. tvam, Agne, sarvabhūtānām antaś carasi nityadā sākñīvat punyapāpeñu: satyam brühi, kave vacaù. matpūrvāpahåtā bhāryā Bhågunānåtakāriëā. seyaà yadi, öathā me tvaà satyam ākhyātum arhasi. śrutvā tvatto, Bhågor bhāryāà harisyāmy āśramād imām, Jātavedāh, paśyatas te: vada satyāà girāà mama. 318–332. 61

On the Use of Genitive Absolute in Sanskrit

MBh. I 1767. III 421. 2822. VI 2822. VII 6390. 8228. XII 10137. XIV 1723.

Rām. II 12, 44, Schleg. III 35, 34 Gorr. VII 17, 30 Bamb.

Bhāg. Pur.44 VII 10, 37

Cited above: MBh. III 11799 (See page 51).

Rām. III 21, 17 (see page 290, note 2).

paśyato mama, etc.

333. MBh. I 6276, cited page 290n.: paśyato mama 334–335. MBh. III 15048 Hariv. 7112

paśyatas tava.45

336–337. MBh. XIII 7429, cited page 51 Rām. III 56, 31, cited page 286

mama paśyataù

338. MBh. I 8394: mama paśyantyāù 339. Kath. 58, 75: me paśyataù.46 340–341. Rām. VI 60, 22 Hariv 4200

tava paśyataù

342–350.― Passages cited in section I: Rām. I 67, 16 (page 52); III 16, 26 (page 51); V 91, 11 (page 44) 62

Collection of Examples

Hariv. 14461 (page 49)

Kath. 40, 16 (page 52); 61, 159 (page 50)

Mārk. Pur. 14, 84 (page 44); 114, 30 (page 51)

Bhāg. Pur. VIII 12, 25 (page 52)


351.― (?) Kath. 69, 142. The subject is hamsī: tataù snātuà pravåttena kenāpy atra sarastaöe puàsā vastropari nyastam apaśyad ratnakanöhikam, gatvā cāpaśyatas tasya tāà gåhītvaiva kanöhikām dāśāya47 darśayantī sā tasmai, vyomnāśanair yayau. The punctuation of Brockhaus indicates that he saw here a genitive absolute. paśyate. 352. MBh. VII 6543: naù paśyamānānām. anupaśyati. 353.― Hariv. 8907: vajranābhasya tat kāyād uccakarta śiras tadā Nārāyaëasutonmuktam,48 daityānām anupaśyatām 354.― Bhāg. Pur. VIII 12, 23: vāsaù sasūtraà laghu māruto’ harad, Bhavasya devasya kilānupaśyataù abhi-paśyati. 355.― Bhāg. Pur. III 13, 19: tasyābhipaśyataù khastùaù kñaëena kila, Bhārata, 63

On the Use of Genitive Absolute in Sanskrit

gajamātraù pravavådhe (Subject: varāhatokah) pra-paśyati. 356. MBh. VIII 4772: Rādheyasya prapaśyataù. 357. Rām. VI 75, 43: Rāvaëasya prapaśyataù. 358.― MBh. V 5613:


aham ādau nihatya tvāà Śakuneù samprapaśyataù tato’smi Śakunià hantā’ saà-paśyati. 359.― Bhāg. Pur. VIII 3, 33: gajendraà saàpaśyatāà Harir amumucad ucchriyānām. 360.― MBh. VIII 4338: sampaśyataù tava 361.― Hariv. 7464. Cite page 49. The Verb Miñati 362.― MBh. III 10369: tasmād yuvāà kariñyāmi prītyāham somapīthinau miñato devarājasya, satyam etad bravīmī vām. 363.― Ibid., VII 6720: tatas tu Durmadaś caiva Duñkarnaś ca tavātmajau ratham ekaà samāruhya Bhīmaà bānair avidhyatām. tataù Kåñëasya miñato, Drauëer, Duryodhanasya ca,


Collection of Examples

Kåpasya, Somadattasya Vāhlikasya ca, Pāëòavaù Durmadasya ca vīrasya Duñkarëasya ca taà ratham padaprahāreëa dharāà prāveśayad arindamaù. 364.― Ibid., VII 6947: tato Yudhiñöhiraù kruddhas tavānīkam aśātayat miñataù Kumbhayoneś ca putrāëāà tava cānaghā. 365.― Hariv. 753: miñatāà devatānāà ca Vasiñöhasya ca, Kauśikaù saśarīaà tadā tam tu divam āropayat prabhuù. 366.― Bhāg. Pur. IV 22, 48: ta ātmayogapataya ādirājena pūjitāù śilam tadīyam śaàsantaù khe’bhūvaà miñatāà nåëām. miñatāà sarvadhanvinām 367.― MBh. VIII 3784: śiraś chetasyāmi Karëasya miñatāà sarvadhanvinām. 368–379.― The same formula: MBh. I 545. II 2535. V 5614. 5650. 5687. VI 5512 VII 3431. 3749. 5061. VIII 1687. 3777. IX 1121.


On the Use of Genitive Absolute in Sanskrit

380–402. MBh. I 7179:

pārthivānāà miñatām.


miñataù sarvalokasya.


miñato’sya Śacīpateù.

III 10464:

miñato Vajrapāninaù.


miñatāà sarvabhūtānām.

V 5957:

miñatāà vaù.

VI 2473:

miñatāà sarvasainyānām.

VII 1553:





Droëasya miñataù.49

sarvakñattrasya miñataù(v.p. 309)

miñato Bhīmasenasya.


miñatāà sarvasainyānāà tvadīyānām.

VIII 2685:

miñatas te.

XII 499 (=XIV 322):

miñatāà Pāëòuputrāëām.

Hariv. 2134:

yajïārthaà samavetānāà miñatāà dvijanmanām.


Mahādevasya miñato Guhyasya ca.

Rām. V. 38, 33

VI 72, 3

miñatāà sarvarakñasām.

Bhāg. Pur. III 19, 9:

miñataù śatroù.

Śiśupālavadha 15, 34:

mågavidviñām iva…miñatām

403–406.― Examples cited elsewhere:

Kumārasambhava II 46


Collection of Examples

MBh. VI 2505: very doubtful (page 109) VII 1667 (page 109). VII 6573 (v.n. 477). 407.― Vedic example Maiträyaëéyopaniñad 1, 4: miñato bandhuvargasya mahatīà śriyaà tyaktvāsmal lokād amuà lokaà prayātaù Appendix to the Section īkñati, paśyati, miñati I. While going through the examples enumerated under the three verbs meaning “to see,” you will be struck by the frequency of those which contain an anādara. Nevertheless, we repeat50 this sense is (page 107) independent of the syntactic construction, that is, the genitive absolute. Otherwise the genitive would cease evidently to be absolute: it would be the case responding to the question “in spite of whom?” just as the instrumental, for example, is the exposure of the idea “with whom.” In effect, if we find the genitive absolute of the type tasya paśyataù taken so often in the indicated sense, we can say it has as many locutions of every nature used in the most diverse languages and signifying: in the eyes of, in the presence of. As soon as the principal action goes against the will of the one who is witness to it (and that case will be presented in an instant), the expression in the eyes of takes from this fact a nuance of anādara. That is so true that one can imagine and cite a hundred sentences where the same latest idea will attach itself to the Sanskrit participles in question, without there being any absolute construction. Kath. 44, 56: jahāra tatra tanayāà rājïo Rambhasya paśyataù Ibid., 62, 216: ebhir me mahiño hatvā bhakñitaù paśyato jadaiù. MBh. V 5655: ahaà hi vaù paśyatāà dvīpam enaà Bhīñmaàrathāt pātayiñyāmi bāëaiù Ibid., VII 8065: hayāàś caiva śitair bāëaih sārathià ca mahābalaù jaghāna miñataù saàkhye Bhīmsenasya, Bhārta


On the Use of Genitive Absolute in Sanskrit

Rām. Calc. I 54, 19: nāśayanti balaà sarvaà Viśvāmitrasya paśyataù. The commentator (not named) has this last verse of the note anādare ñañöhī then follow, as if he had before him a genitive absolute. If he wrote with the fixed opinion that the genitive is not governed by balaà, there is nothing to say. More probably the sūtra of Pānini came mechanically to his mind because the sentence contained, on one hand, an anādara and, on the other, the form paśyataù so frequent in the genitive absolute. This inadvertence of the commentator (not named) naturally suggests the following question: when the participle is not absolute, why do we not always see, in the case of anādara, any less of the appearance of the genitive of paśyatù, paśyatāà, and not the dative, the accusative, the instrumental? The solution is one of the most simple. The type of sentence in question offers this peculiarity: paśyant- has for its implied object the (page 108) whole of the verbal action. Now it is only in the genitive and in a genitive dependent on a noun, that one has the occasion to apply paśyant- in this fashion. The other cases, in effect, are reserved for objects, subjects and complements of the verbal action, and these see too evidently the action that they undergo or that they accomplish so as not to have to ever mention it. II We should remark, however, that the Hindu authors sometimes go to this useless extreme and put their readers in the presence of sentences which, at least at first sight, are the very contrary of being Witty: MBh. IX 218: sarvān vikramya miñato, lokam cākramya mūrdhani, Jayadratho hato rājā: kià nu śeñam upāsmahe51 Bhāg. Pur. IV 8, 14 (Subject: Dhruvo bālakaù): mātuù sapatnyāù suduruktividdhaù śvasan ruñā daëòahato yathāhiù hitvā miñaöan taà pitaraà sannavāśam jagāma mātuù prarudan sakāśaà. There are naturally such cases where, although added to a possessive genitive, this word seeing is not less shocking to the sense than in the pre-cited examples. Bhāg. Pur. II 3, 3: eñāà miñatāà padaà mūrdhani dadhat. Such singularities are among the number of the reasons which can make one doubt the meaning of miñant-. It is important, before continuing, to clarify this special point. 68

Collection of Examples

III It is much less easy than you would think to fix the true sense of miñant. First, if we disregard our genitive absolutes, the verb miñati in its simple form is very rare, as much in the dialect of the Vedas as in classical Sanskrit. To consider only the usage which is made of it in the genitive absolute, the translation which presents itself naturally in most cases is not at all “to see,” but “to resist,” “to be opposed to,” “to take offense.” For example, miñato’sya śacīpateù MBh. I 8159, forms an exact pendent to the words as akāmasya Śatakratoù (page 109) verse 8166. Therefore Westergaard, Bopp, Emile Burnoof give in the lexicons the meaning of to resist. Eugène Burnoof adopts the same interpretation for certain passages, thus Bhāg. Pur. IV 1, 32 (cf. also V 14, 29): evaà kāmavaraà dattvā pratijagmuù sureśvaraù sabhājitās tayoh samyag dāmpatyor miñatos tataù. B. “After granting the hermit the favor which was the object of his desire, the chief of the Suras, treated with respect by the two spouses who wanted to retain them, left the hemtage of Atri.” He went further and translated miñatām by rivals in the pre-cited example,

Bhāg. Pur. III 3, 3.

The manner in which miñatām and paśyatām are juxtaposed MBh. VII 1667

seems particularly convincing against the meaning to see of miñati. ahaà enäà haniñyāmi, mahārāja, bravīmi te, miñatāà Pāëòuputrāëāà Pāïcālānāà ca paśyatām. How to translate differently: Inuities Panduis of spectators and the same. How otherwise to translate than: And likewise, IV 2505; adya Pāndusutān sarvān sasainyān saha bandhubhiù miñato vārayiñyāmi sarvalokasya paśyataù. However, and here we indicate the point of view of where we stand, the argument, that one could draw from the last two citations depends absolutely on the manner in which we group the terms of the sentence. In the first passage, it suffices to divide in this way: miñatāà Pānduputrānāà, Pāñcālānāà ca paśyatāà, to preserve the sense of to see for miñ. As to the second, miñato probably is not a genitive, but a plural accusative agreeing with pāndusutān, and this leads us to the difficult case which was the point of departure of our discussion (page 108 II).


On the Use of Genitive Absolute in Sanskrit

Let us examine this case. It is a question of shedding the sense of to see so as to accommodate the bizarre examples of which I recall only the most characteristic: eñāà miñatāà padaà mūrdhni dadhat. It seems that, just as an attempt we might translate: “putting his foot on the head of these, who were witnesses to it.” I believe that, in spite of appearances, we should not at all shrink from this sense. There is no lack of closely similar examples that have, as a participle, no longer miñant- but paśyantMBh. VI 1697. Yudhiñöhiraù svayaà rājā Madrarājānam abhyayāt tasya Madrapatiś cāpaà dvidhā ciccheda paśyataù. Ibid., III 1269: rājyaà, naù paśyatāà håtam Ibid., XIV 2365: hā-hā dhik Kuruvīrasya saànāhaà kāïcanaà bhuvi apaviddhaà hatasyeha mayā putreëa paśyataù. These examples permit one to answer simultaneously the special question of the sense of miñant- and the question of syntax which concerns paśyant like miñant. The word miñant never signified only seeing or looking at. Every other explanation would furthermore be found in disagreement with etymology and with tradition. We must not forget that, in the number of genitive absolutes, it does not govern any ambiguity with regard to this meaning. Considering the most frequent uses of the same participle, we recognize that, up to the Bhāgavata Purāna, when the finite verb míñati had fallen completely into disuse, it constantly kept its primitive meaning. Example: jano’yaà miñan na paśyati (V 18, 3). Whether in the genitive absolute or in constructions mentioned on page 107, it was so common to apply the participles paśyant and miñant to the powerless spectator of a scene that they ended up by using it in every analogous situation, while speaking, no longer of the spectator of the action, but of the object or even the agent. From that point of view, we see the emergence of the precited sentences where the more than idle addition of these participles is evidently only a means of strongly stressing the anādara. Miñant especially, we have to admit, underwent an extension of usage. Even in the absolute case, miñatas tasya. “illo spectante” often becomes a locution for saying “illo invito”. However, the idea of to see never disappears entirely.52


Collection of Examples

IV The verb antardhīyate “to disappear”, in cases which are not doubtful, is accompanied by a genitive of person. Thus Bhāg. Pur. VIII 6, 26: tēñām antardadhē “he became invisible to their eyes.”53 Most of the time, however, we find: tēñām paśyatām (prekñatām, miśatām) antardadhe. It is very difficult then to say whether one is, or not, in the presence of the absolute construction. Strictly speaking, we never need to admit such. 54 MBh. I 5060: te cāntardadhire nāgāù Pāëòavasyaiva paśyataù Ibid., III 11991: prekñataś caiva me devas tatraivāntaradhīyata. Bhāg. Pur. I 12, 11: miñato daśamāsyasya tatraivāntardadhe Hariù. Likewise with tirobhavati Kath. 42, 39: ity uktvā rāpiëī Vidyā tirobhūt śāsya paśyataù. Cf. MBh. III 11975. XIII 2753. 2767. 2777. 3877. XIV 2900. Ambopākhyāna 17, 16. Hariv. 10866. Mārk. Pur. 92, 29. Bhāg. Pur. IV 12, 9. IV 25, I. VI 2, 23. VI 4, 54. VI 10, 1. VI 16, 65. With antardhānaà ou adarśanaà yāti.55 MBh. III 16576: tatas te prekñamānāëāà teñām akliñöakarmanām antardhānam yayur devaù

Cf. MBh. XIII 1770. XIV 366. Hariv. 3695. With adåśyo bhavati.56 Mārk. Pur. 95, 26: ity uktvā pitaras tasya paśyato, munisattama, babhūruù sahasādåśyāù Cf. Mārk. Pur. 100. 29. Kath. 101, 269.


On the Use of Genitive Absolute in Sanskrit

The verb naśyati is constructed with the genitive in the sense of “to be lost for someone.”57 The following example cannot therefore be accepted more than what preceded as containing the genitive absolute. Mārk. Pur. 49, 63: tatas tāù [prajāù] paryagåhëanta nadīkñetrāëi parvatān, våkñagulmausadhiś caivaàātmanyāyād yathābalaà tena doñeëa tā neśur oñadhyo miñatāà, dvija58: agrasad bhūr yugapat tas tadausadhyo, mahāmate. Useless to say that with certain verbs, for examples, harati “to remove”, there is no reason whatever to admit the existence of an absolute turn of phrase. Thus Bhāg. Pur. V 14, 3: anicchato’pi kutumbinā uranakavatsaà miñato’ paharanti. The word miñatah strikes one as being superfluous, but that goes back to the cases treated above, page 108 II and page 109 ff. The Verb Śånōti 408.― MBh. V. 5599: tan me kathayato, manda, śåëu vākyaà durāsadam sarvakñattrasya madhye tvam yad vakñyasi Suyodhanam śåëvataù Sūtaputrasya Śakuneś ca durātmanaù. 409.― Hariv. 14993: tataù sa bhagavān Rudraù, sarvān vismāpayann iva, stutyā pracakrame stotum Viñnuà viśveśvaraà Harim arthyābhiù59 śrutiyuktābhir munīëāà śåëvatāà tadā. 410.― Rām. VI 7, 40: tataù paramasaàhåñöo Rāvaëo rākñasādhipaù Sitāyās tatra śåëvantyā rākñasīm idam abravīt: “rākñasaà krūrakarmānaà Vidyujjihvaà praveśaya,


Collection of Examples

yena tad Rāghavaśiraù saìgrāmāt svayam āhåtam.” 411.― Ibid., VI 106, 15: evam uktas tato Rāmaù pratyuvāca Vibhīñaëam rakñasāà vānarāëāà ca sarveñām eva śåëvatām: pūjito’smi ivayā, véra’ etc. 412.― Bhāg. Pur. VI. 17, 5: uvāca devyāù śåëvantyā, jahāsoccais tadantike: eña lokaguruù sākñād dharmaà vaktā śarīriëām “aste mukhyaù sabhāyāà vai mithunībhūya bhāryayā.” 413.― Anth. Lassen, 2nd ed., page 92, v. 62, (A fragment of the Saàkñepaśankarajaya): atha provāca divyā vāk samrājaà aśarīrīëī nudantī saàñayaà tasya, sarveñām api śåëvatām: “satyam eva mahārāja, brāhmaëā yad babhāñire etc.”

414–452. MBh. I 4049 4058:

śåëvatāà bhūmipālānām60.

V 1810:

śåëvataù Keśavasya


śåëvatāà cāpi teñām


śåëvatāà Kuruvīrāëām


On the Use of Genitive Absolute in Sanskrit

5413 5487 III 2001

Vāsudevasya śåëvataù

VI 2064 VII 4248



rājïo Dhåtarāñörasya śåëvatāù.


pitådevamanuñyāëāà śåëvatām.


teñām śåëvatām.


śåëvatas tava Kauravāëāà ca.


sarveñāà śåëvatāà.


Dhåtarāñörasya śåëvataù.

VIII 3394:

tapasvināà śåëvatāà.


śåëvatas tava.


śåëvataāà lokavīrāëām.

IX 1769:

sarvalokasya śåëvataù.

XII 13443:

åñiëāà Pāëòavānāà ca śåëvatoh Kåñëabhīñmayoù.

MBh. XIV 1862:

Dharmarājasya śåëvataù.

Hariv. 5139:

Ugrasenasya śåëvataù.

Collection of Examples

Rām. V. 66, 23:

Sugrīvasyaiva śåëvataù.

Kath. 15, 33:

Cite page 52.

43, 115:

Arthalobhasya śåëvataù.

45, 406:

śåëvato Mahendrasya.

Mārk. Pur.



109, 17:

śåëvatāà sarvabhūbåtām ca.

Bhāg. Pur. I

7, 38:

śåëvato mama.

13, 6:

teñāà śåëvatām.

IV 6, 37:

śåëvatāà satām.

8, 10:

śåëvato rājñaù.

VI 17, 26:

devarñidaityasiddhānāà pārñadānāà ca śåëvatām.

VII 1, 14:

munīnāà śåëvatām.

1, 21:

śånvantyās tatsadaù.61

VIII 1, 33:

munīnāà sadasi sma śåëvatāà.62

śåëvatāà sarvabhūtānām

453.― MBh. I 4793: jātamātre kumāre tu, vāg uvācāśarīriëī mahāgambhīranirghoñā nabho nādayaté tadā. 75

On the Use of Genitive Absolute in Sanskrit

śåëvatāà sarvabhūtānāà teñāà cāśramavāsinām Kuntīm ābhāñya vispañöaà uvācedam śucismitām: “Kārtavīryasamaù, Kunti, etc.” 454–456.― Same formula: MBh. VII 700. Bhāg. Pur. VIII 4, 16 IX 20, 20. 457.― MBh. VII 1458: śånvatāà sarvayodhānām 458.― Hariv. 14906: śånvatāà sarvadevānām munīnāà bhāvitātmanām. anu-śåëoti. 459.― Bhāg. Pur. VIII 22, 20: tasyānuśåëvato, rājan, Prahlādasya kåtaïjaleù, Hiranyagarbho bhagavān uvāca Madhusūdanam. 460.― Ibid., I 9, 25: åñiëām anuśåëvatām. abhi-śåëoti, 461.― Bhāg. Pur. IV 4, 10: jagato’bhiśåëvataù’ a-śåëoti. 462.― Bhāg. Pur. IV 4, 10: tasyā nuraktasya muner Mukundaù pramodabhāvānatakandharasya āśåëvato mām anurāgahāsasamīkñayā viśrāmayann uvāca. upa-śåëoti. 463.― MBh. XII 2043. The poet depicts the licence and the insubordination which reign among the servants of a too easy-going prince: alaìkāre ca bhojye ca tathā snānānulepane hriyamāëe, naravyāghra, svasthās, tasyopaśåëvataù, nindante svān adhikārān samtyajante ca, Bhārata.


Collection of Examples

464.― Hariv. 9608: Keśavasyopaśåëvataù. In the Rāmāyaëa, upaśåëoti is ordinarily used when it is a question of a secondary character, placed beside the one who speaks, a secondary character whom the discourse of the main character does not concern directly: 465.― Rām. II 3, 3: iti pratyarcya tān rājā brāhmaëān idam abravīt Vasiñöhaà Vāmadevaà ca, teñām evopaśåëvatām. 466.― Ibid., VI 107, 2: tam abravīn mahātejā, Lakñmaëasyopaśånvataù, vimåśya Rāghavo vākyam idaà snehapuraskåtam. 467.― Ibid., III 75, 36: Lakñmaëasyopaśåëvataù.63

468.― Ibid., V 70, 15: harinām iśvarasyaiva Sugrīvasyopaśånvataù.

saà-śåëoti. 469.― MBh. V 1812: avocan mām yotsyamānaù Kirīöī: “Madhye brūyā Dhārtarāñöraà Kurüëām, saàśånvatas tasya durbhāñino vai durātmāëaù Sūtaputrasya, sūta, etc.” The Verb Ni-Śāmayati 470.― Bhāg. Pur. V 4, 18: sa kadācid āptamāno bhagavān Åñabho Brahmāvartagato brahmarñipravarasabhāyāà, prajānām niśāmayantīnām, ātmajān avahitātmānaù. upaśikñayann iti hovāca. 471.― Ibid., V 3, 19: iti niśāmayantyā Merudevyāù patià abhidhāyāntardadhe bhagavān. It would be less natural to refer this genitive to patim than to regard it as an absolute case.


On the Use of Genitive Absolute in Sanskrit

The Verb Śaàsatt 472.― Bhāg. Pur. VIII 12, 42: tāà māyāà Bhavānīm bhagavān Bhavaù

śaàsatām åñimukhyānāà prītyācañöātha, Bhārata: “api vyapaśyas tvam Ajasya Māyām? etc.

The Verb Dravati 473.― Rām. VI 31, 11. Cite page 56. The Verb Pibati 474.― Mārk. Pur. 69, 11: avamene srajaà dattāàśubhāny ābharaëāni ca, uttasthāv aìgapīdeva pibato’sya varāsavam, bhuïjatā ca nareëdreëa kñaëamātraà kare dhåtam64

bubhuje svalpakam bhakñyam, dvija, nātimudārati. These lines, where it is a question of the queen of Bahulā and her secret aversion for her spouse, are not without some obscurity. It appears to me difficult, in any case, to interpret pibato’sya other than by the absolute turn of speech. The word aìgapīdā seems to be put for aìgapīditā unless one implies asyāù. The Verb Yatatē and Synonyms 475.― Mbh. XII 419. Draupadī and the Pāndus try to detour Yudhiñöhira from his project of abdication: sāhaà sarvādhamā loke strīëāà, Bharatasattama, tathā vinākåtā putrair yāham icchāmi jīvitum. eteñāà yatamānānāà (na me’dyā vacanaà måñā tvaà tu sarvām mahīm tyaktvā, kuruñe svayam āpadam.


Collection of Examples

476.― MBh. I 413, cite page 49 (suhådāà yatamānānām) ―Compare MBh. VII 3747, cite page 84 (krośatāà yatamānānām). ―MBh. III 17238: nāvidhyan Pāëòavas tatra paśyanto mågam antikāt. teñāà prayatamānānāà nādåāyata mahāmågaù apaśyanto mågaà, śrāntah, etc. The absolute turn of phrase is here so much less probable that, according to the content, nādåśyata is equivalent to antardhānaà yayau (just as na bhavati is said sometimes for mriyate). This circumstance excludes exactly the sense to which the genitive absolute would be most appropriate, namely: “in spite of their efforts, they did not succeed in perceiving the gazelle.” 477.― MBh. VII 6572 ff. Duryōdhana attributes the defeat of the Kurus to a treacherous act of Drōna. In this series of participles in the genitive, some are certainly absolute and others are probably absolute because of their parallelism with the first. Verse 6575 has already been quoted on page 56. abravīc ca tadā Karëam putro Duryodhanas tava: “tava vyāyacchamānasya Droëasya ca mahātmanaù65 miñatāà yodhamukhyānāà, Saindhavo vinipātitaù. mama vyāyacchamānsya Droëasya ca mahātmanaù,66 alpāvaśeñaà sainyaà me kåtaà Śakrāmajena hi.

katham niyacchamānsya Droëasya yudhi Phālgunaù

pratijïāyā gataù param hatvā Saindhavam Arjunaù? anicchataù katham, vīra Droëasya67 yudhi Pāëòavaù

bhindyāt sudurbhidaà vyūham yatamānasya saàayuge?”

The Verb Yudhyate 478.― Mbh. VII 659. Karëa, responding to Duryōdhana (see above No. 477), takes up the defense of Droëa: 79

On the Use of Genitive Absolute in Sanskrit

daivādiñöo68’nyathābhāvo na, manye, vidytate kvacit; yato no yudhyamānānāà paraàśaktyā, Suyodhana, Saindhavo nihato yuddhe, daivamātraà paraà småtam. 479.― Rām. VI. 62, 8: prayatnād yudhyamānānāà asinā paśyatāà ca naù jaghāna rudatāà Sītām Rāvaëo, Raghunandana. ― MBh. VII 4975: katham ca yudhyamānānāà apakrānto mahātmanām eko bahūnām Śaineyas, tan mamācakñva, Saïjaya Here the genitive, without any doubt, depends on apakrānto. This is the case treated on page 130, l. 3 ff.

II. THE PREDICATE IS AN ADJECTIVE. Akāma 480.― MBh. 8166: tac chrutvā vacanaà tv Agner, Bibhatsur Jātavedasam abravīn, nåpaśārdūla, takālasadåśaà vacaù

didhakñuà Khāndavam dāvam akāmasya Śatakratoù. 481.― Ibid., II 2478. Quoted on page 49. Gata, Prasthita 482.― Pttr. 43 (38, 7 Koseg; Chrest. Benf. 103, 19): mama gatāyāù. Cf. page 276. 483.― Kath. 29, 79: prasthitasya me. V. page 46. Sthita 484.― Pttr. 193. Cite page 50:


Collection of Examples

Upaviñöa 485.― Pttr. 279: atha prabhātasamaye, sabhopaviñöasya rājïo, Vararucir dhyātaù. Supta and Synonyms 486.― Kath. 42, 64, and 68: sūptasyāsya nåpasyatha rajïī sādhikasaìgamā utthāyātmana eva dvāv icchanti sadrśau sutau śirñāntād bhakñayāmāsa dvitīyam api tatphalam. Queen Adhikasaìgamā takes possession of the magic fruit placed under the pillow of the prince. It is possible that the genitive depends on śīrñāntāt; but this explanation no longer applies to verse 68 as we can see: tatra tat phalam ekaà taà yācamānāà ca so’bravīt: “suptasya me, tad apy āśnāt sapatnī te chalād” iti. 487.― Ibid., 124, 117: pathiśramāc ca suptasya tasya, nirgatya sa vahiù caurasyopapateù śūlaviddhasyāpy antikan yayau. 488.― Ibid., 61, 91: suptasyātra ca tasya. 489.― Ibid., 112, 14: āryaputrasya suptasya. 490.― Pttr. 156: tasya nidrāvaśaà gatasya.69 The participle svapant- in the genitive absolute appears only in a doubtful example of the Rāmāyaëa, II 31, 27: āhariñyāmi te nityaà mūlāni ca phalāni ca, bhavāàs tu saha Vaidehyā girissānuñu ramyate. ahaà sarvam kariñyāmi jāgrataù svapataś ca te. The genitive can be the indirect object of kariñyāmi. Everything depends on the exact nuance you want to put on it.


On the Use of Genitive Absolute in Sanskrit

Vyagra and Synonyms 491.― (?) Pttr. 151 (121, 14 Koseg.): atrāntare tasyā gåhakarmavyagrāyās tilānāà madhye kaścit sārameyo mūtrotsargam cakāra. The tilas in question are amply known by the preceding lines; it is therefore permitted to detach from it the stressed genitive. 492.― Mārk. Pur. 85, 37 (Devémāhātmya. 5, 39): evaà stavādiyutānāà devānāà, tatra Pārvatī snātum abhyāyayau toye Jāhnavyā, nåpanandana. 493.― Pttr. 309: atha kadācit teñāà goñöhīgatānāà, jālahastadhīvaraùprabhūtair matsyair vyāpāditair mastake vidhåtair astamanavelāyāà tasmin jalāśaye samāyātāù teñāà designates the fish which are found in the pool. Various 494.― Pttr. 183 below: Citrāìgopy, aprāptasyāpi tasya, tala utthāya, vāyasena saha palāyitaù. “before the hunter had arrived; the hunter not yet having arrived.” 495.― (?) Rām. IV 20, 14. Words of Tārā, the widow of Bāli, to Rāma: tvāà tu śaptuà samarthāsmi pativratasamāśrayāt; Vaidehyās ty abhibhūtāyā, na tāvac chāpam arhasi. acireëa tu kālena tava bāëair upārjitā na Sītā mama śāpena ciraà tvayi bhaviñyati


Collection of Examples

The underlined words could be understood as ablatives (= Vaidehyās ty abhibavāt, abhibhūtatvāt70), and would indicate then the reason for the action. It is (338) preferable to make a genitive absolute out of it, dealing with the time of the absolute (yāvad abhibhūyate Vaidehé), and as a consequence na tāvat, insteat of meaning not yet, responds to the yāvat virtually contained in the genitive absolute.71 496.― (?) Rām. V 63, 25. An example which perhaps must be interpreted like those of which it was a question in the section praviñati (page 79). prahåñöasya tu Rāmasya Lakñmaëasya ca dhīmataù idaà Dadhimukham vākyaà Sugrīvo mudito’bravīt: “prīto’smi, mā bhūn manyus te, etc.”


NOTES 1. With the exception perhaps of the passage Yt. 3, 13, which, on the other hand, is found, after verification, to have in the text a form very different from the one under which it is quoted by Spiegel. 2. The term predicate was introduced by Mr. Bergaigne. It seems to us it offers advantages over that of attribute which, in foreign terminologies and in French usage even, represents various ideas. 3. Furthermore, varñaöah means perhaps more exactly: the rainy (weather) raining, varñato varñatah in the same way that the true sense of παλλομένων is παλλομένωντώνπαλλομέω. The subject is omitted because it is none other than the implied predicate in the state of a substantive. Page 44. 4. Cf. Ind. Spr. No. 6131, where Bööhtlingk gives the text of Bombay. 5. According to what has just been said, it is an enormous mistake that the author of Kñitéśavaàśāvalīcarita (ed. Pertsch, Berlin, 1852) committed in the following Genitive Absolute, the only one that is presented by this piece of writing from the end of the XVIIIth century: evaà viàśativarñaà suśāsitarājyasya Majamudārasya prāptaparalokasya, Śrīkåñëaù asvārjitarāyam taditarau bhrātarau ca vibhajya prāptaà paitåkaà rājyaà śaśāsuù. Pertsch: When the Majmuat-dār, after having thus ruled happily for twenty years, passed away to the other world, Srikåñëa ruled over the kingdom he had gained for himself, and his two brothers over the divided realm of their father. We must see there probably only a confusion of cases or one of the incredible anacoluthons that the author of this chronicle permits himself (see the Introduction of Pertsch, VIII). A case still more extraordinary is afforded us in Bhāgavata-Purāëa, VIII 6, 21: amåtotpādane yatnaù kriyatām avilambitam yasya pitasya vai jantur-måtyugrasto’maro bhavet. This example violates the best established rules. It contains a past participle which is not an adjective, and the subject represents a thing, instead of being a person. 6. We know only one example of it: miñatsv animiñeñu, Bhāg. Pur. III 15, 31.


On the Use of Genitive Absolute in Sanskrit

7. We have noted: paśyatāsu sarvarājasu MBh.VII 5800, paśyatsu Kurupāëòuñu, Ibid., 9245; śåëvatsu teñu. MBh. III 1997. In the Kathāsaritsāgara, these locatives are much more frequent. 8. The commentator probably insisted on finding at any price, verse by verse, the application of the sūtras, necessarily placing in the text what was not there. 9. We similarly have at Verse. 35, 23: patnīñu bahuñu 10. To tell the truth, the presence of the words astam ivādityaù casts a certain doubt on this genitive absolute. Vicitravīrya leaving the terrestrial world is compared to the setting sun. Now we will see in Section III that the Sanskrit usually says: teñäà ādityo’staà jagāma “the sun went down for them,” and it is perhaps in this fashion we must interpret the above genitive. 11. The absolute rental, contains, it must be admitted, the very idea of spite. The absolute locative contains, we have to admit, the same idea of in spite of. We see how awkward it is to find an example where the anādara would reside essentially in the genitive. 12. The intention moves more openly into equivalent popular locutions: “before the very eyes of, right in the face of.” 13. I do not grant a connection between the genitive sthitasya tava and sacivāù because I believe this last word designatives, in its true use, the courtesans, the close friends (of a prince), and not the comrades or colleagues of any person whatsoever. 14. The context shows that we must either change māriña into sāratheù or take Bhāradvājasya as the object of vadatas tasya. In any case, there is a genitive absolute. 15. Apparently for: na cāmudreëa praveñöavyam. For it would be too rash to give to praveñöavya the meaning of praveśayitavya. 16. Here is an absolute locative with an absolutely similar nuance: heñitaà hy upaśåëvāne Droëe sarvaà vighattitam “that D. Come to hear a whinny and all is discovered.” MBh. IV 1494. 17. This śloka, moreover, seems interpolated. It is only the paragraph of the verse which precedes it in the text. 18. In none of the two passages would it be permitted to introduce an idea of anādara, under pain of depriving it of its meaning. 19. Such is remarked by Mr. Pischel in the already cited section, Kaccāyana poses for Pāli a very similar rule: anādare chaööùī vibhatti hoti sattamī ca (III. 35), and the example which accomplishes it is in agreement precisely with that of the commentator of Pāëini: rudato darakassa pabbaji rudantasmià dārake pabbaji. 20. One may perhaps be interested to take note of the following poetic expression to meet the grammarian: bhūïjānam annaà taà dåñövā Bhīmasenaà sa rākñasaù vivåtya nayane kruddha idaà vacanam abravīt: “ko’yam annam idaà bhuìkte madartham upakalpitam



“paśyato mama durbuddhir yiyāsur Yamasadanam? Bhīmasena tatasśrutvā prahāsann iva, Bhārata, rākñasaà tamanādåtya bhuìkta eva parāìmukhah. MBh. I. 6277. 21. The edition of Gorresio (III. 24. 17) reads: paśyatas te’timānvinaù. 22. It appears doubtful to read the fundamental ideas of the signification: aparodhur? 23. Printed labdhā. 24. Printed āgacchaty. 25. I will cite yet other passages that follow where, if I interpret correctly his punctuation, B. appears to have admitted this construction without sufficient reason: 29, 48. The genitive―depends on tad vacah, which B. reads as tad-vacah.― 35, 130. Depends on tair vacanaih 37, 34. Depends on milanti.―37, 238. Depends on nikaöam. ―43, 163. Depends on purataù.― 46, 207. Depends on suprakāśā, abhūt.―48, 103. Depends on prajighāya, or on rathān. ―53, 16. Depends upon agrataù.―53, 191 Depends upon babandha paööam.―74, 97. Depend upon taragau. Similarly:― 74, 189;―90, 153;― 104, 152;―111, 3;― 119, 61;― 123, 127.―Add 101,175; 104, 202; 120, 110; which offer the dual genitive. 26. Constructions of this type are, as they say, very common (patyur vacana kopitā, arlāvy tagro Dhurjaöeù,― hastabhrañto rakñinām, bhrātaù patnyavamantā, Bharatasya sainyarenuù, balajño Ramasya, Agastyasyā―śramasamīpe. etc.). 27. śrēñöham, which the text shows, is certainly faulty. 28. Cf. the note of Böhtlingk in no. 5370. 29. This fact of syntactic analogy is not foreign to any language. It suffices to recall the popular French expression se rappeler de; the Parisianism partir a Londres copied from aller ā Londres. (Translator’s note: in grammatically correct French, se rappeler de should be se rappeler [t direct object] [to recall (something) to oneself]; partir a londres should be parir pour londres.) 30. It is difficult to decide if the genitive does not depend on saànataù or on praśritaù. ―In his writing De genetivi in lingua sanscrita, USU, page 53, Mr. Siecke mentions this passage with regard to verbs, which govern the genitive. To our astonishment, he makes tasya the object of tarkayatas, by relating it, as we see, to


On the Use of Genitive Absolute in Sanskrit

Mātali (“cogitare de”). This interpretation does not touch on the genitive absolute in any way. but, in any case it does not seem to us to be inadmissible. 31. Read, for example: jāyate ca tathāpy uta, jāyate ca prajāpy uta.―Further, perhaps pannagaśārdulaù instead of puruñaśārdulaù. 32. hitrāpi, because Narasiàha had interrupted her relationship with Madanamālā. 33. There is some analogy between these facts and the popular confusion of the French expressions, commencer par, commencer à [to begin by, to begin to]. 34. To speak of someone is even rendered by the genitive, thanks undoubtedly to the same syntactic lapsus (Rām. IV. 58, 13. Kath. 49, 221. Bhāg. Pur. V 14, 41. V. 15, 7. VI 26, 3). 35. If this reading is correct, can only be an adverb drawn from Jāhnavī and formed as anujāhnvavī, anuvedī, pratiyāmini. 36. The manuscripts continually put nasals instead of anusvāra, and hasanantu could very easily be read as hasatastu. 37. Read: kōñāt. 38. Böhtlingk ―Roth do not clarify this unusual use of the verb pra-dā. For the case where we could make use of this coincidence, I point out the term aranipradānam which appears in the Gåhyasūtras of Pāraskara with regard to prescriptions relative to the domestic fire. Besides, the precise meaning of this term is uncertain. 39. This genitive could, however, not be absolute.

In this last passage, loka is taken in the sense of hominess, people. 40. Printed by error sarvabhūtānāà in the first passage. 41. In verse VIII 1919 the absolute turn of phrase is not certain. 42. In verse III 14913 the absolute turn of phrase is questionable. 43. We could add Bhāg. Pur. VIII 21, 31: Padaikena mayā krānto, bhūrlokaù khaà diśas tanoù, Svarlokas tu dvitéyena paśyatas te svam ātmanā. Burnouf: “With the first step I crossed over the earth, filling up with my body the atmosphere and the points of space; with the second I occupied the heaven, taking possession of your empire, under your very nose.” If we accept the pre-cited text, paśyatas tē depends perforce on svam. But this text must be corrupted, for it is permitted to say that the translation of Burnouf does not succeed in making it clear from one end to another. It is probably that, if we had the correct reading, paśyatas tē would be absolute. We suggest the following correction, presenting it for what it is worth: padaikena mamākrānto bhūrlokaù khaìdiśastanoù, svarlokas tu dvitīyebna, paśyatas te, svamāyayā.



44. Add (cited pages 47–48). 45. Perhaps possessive. 46. Printed: dāsāya. Now it is a question of the character previously called dhīvarù. 47. And not sūtonmuktam which the text shows. 48. Perhaps possessive in the first passage. 49. See page 34. 50. Parallel examples prove that it is not necessary to correct miñato to dviñato. 51. We have seen on pages 109 a passage which Burnouf translates as “the chiefs of the Suras left the two spouses who wanted to retain them (miñatōh)”. An interpretation scarcely plausible, precisely because it has no part in the idea of spectans which remained as the fundamental meaning of the word miñant―, and which is a reason one doesn’t use it to express any kind of opposition. There must be astonishment, chgrin, consternation.―The passage in question is, quite on the contrary, one of those where there appears the pure meaning of spectans, without any mixture of anādara. 52. If this genitive is one of those, which has replaced a dative, it comes back by (pages 111–12) anticipation in the subject of section III. We can invoke in this sense Bhāg. Pur. IV. 19, 17: so’śvam rūpaà ca tad dhitvā tasmā antarhitaù svarāö (supposing that tasmai does not at all refer back to hitvā).―According to Pānini I 4, 28, with verbs signifying “to hide oneself”, the person we seek not to be seen is apādānam and must therefore be put in the ablative. This would indicate, contrary to what precedes, that the genitive in question proceeds from the ablative, as it has happened frequently. But antardhīyate, in the passive, does not precisely mean “to hide oneself”; it means “to disappear.” 53. It is probable that there was a fusion of two different constructions (cf. on this subject K. Brugmann, Jenaer Literature-Zeitung, 22, 1879.) It is a similar fact that gave: samakñaà tasya dhūrtāsya paśyatah (MBh. IV 527), puratastasya patyuù. Paśyataù (Kath. 43, 163) 54. Still in this case we find genitives without a participle, which show that the absolute turn of speech is not at all necessary. MBh. XIV 2806. jagāmādarśanaà tesāà viprāste tu yayur gåhān. The direct proof that the genitive was not felt any more as absolute when there was a participle seems furnished by the words lokasyeva in verse III 1664: tasya saàpaśyatas tv eva Pinākī Våñabhadhvajaù jagāmādarśanaà, bhānur lokasyevāstam īyivān. The genitive, furthermore, can be explained in a double fashion, either by referring back exclusively to adarśanaà, or the expression was endowed by analogy with the construction used with its synonym antardhīyatē (see page 112 note). 55. Here, as above, if one does not consider the genitive as absolute, we can have it depend wither on the word adåśya only or on the locution taken as a whole.


On the Use of Genitive Absolute in Sanskrit

56. MBh. IX 2966: teñāà kñudhāparītānām nañöā vedāù, Nala 24, 17: mama rājyaà pranañtam. Kath. 33, 82: naśyet sarvaà idaà mama, etc. 57. Printed: dvijaù. 58. Read: arcābhiù. 59. In the second passage the absolute turn of speech is only probable. 60. Must we read: saàsadaù? Burnouf translates it as meeting. 61. Example doubtful. 62. Lakñmaëasya ca śåëvataù in the edition of Calcutta (III 71, 21). 63. Text: dhåtā. 64. What with the presence of miñatāà in the following hemistich, it is not sure that vyāyacchamānasya is the principal attribute. 65. The addition of me in the following hemistich confirms the absolute turn of speech. 66. This last genitive could well be possessive, a few verses higher we read: ācāryavihitaà vyūhas. The ācārya is, as we know, Droëa. 67. Or daivādiñöo?? 68. These last three genitives are less certainly absolute. 69. Sanskrit knows in effect the turn of phrase reges exacti = exactio regum. Rām. VI 112, 26: åñisaàghaistadākāśe devaiś ca samarudgaëaù. stūyamānasya Rāmasya śuśruve madhuradhvaniù. 70. The construction is frequent especially in the instrumental, and it is worthwhile (page 338) to add, considering the subject of our work, that it was very near to generating a third Sanskrit absolute case. From this point of view, see Rām. II, 12, 100. II 50, 32. II, 64, 17. Kath. 55, 213, 60, 52, 71, 273, 101, 30. Mārk. Pur. 27, 16, 49, 9, 84, 17, 108, 2. Bhāg. Pur. IV. 11, 15. Ind. Spr. No. 427 (while taking as points of comparison in the locative absolutes MBh. III 529 = Mārk. Pur. 69, 35. Hitop. II. 35. Prabodhacandrodaya, Brockh. page 74: nāryāà jitāyāà. 71. Cf. Bhāg. Pur. V 8, 1: tayā pepīyamāna udake, tāvadeva mågapaterunnādah udapatat.


REFERENCES Abhyankar, Kashinath. 1961/1986. A Dictionary of Sanskrit Grammar. Baroda: Oriental Institute. Apte, Vaman Shivram. 1965/2014. The Practical Sanskrit-English Dictionary. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. ———.2002. The Student’s Guide to Sanskrit Composition. 28th edn. Varanasi: Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office. Aufrecht, Th., ed. 1859. Ujjvaladatta’s Commentary on the Uëādi-Sūtras. Bonn. Ballantyne, J. R., and the Pandits of the Benares College, eds. 1856. The Mahābhāshya with Its Commentary, the Bhāshya-pradépa and the Commentary Thereon, the Bhāshya-pradépodyota. Vol. I. Mirzapore. Bergaigne, Abel. 1838–1888. Reference not found. Bhandarkar, Ramakrishna Gopal. 1883–1885c. “Note on Peterson” (1883–1885), Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 16: 343–45. ———. 1889. “My Visit to the Vienna Oriental Congress.” Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 17: 72–95. Also in N. B. Utgikar, ed., Collected Works of Sir R. G. Bhandarkar. vol. 1., 332–60, Poona, 1933. Boehtlingk, Otto. 1851. Über die Sprache der Jakuten. St. Petersburg. ———. 1876a. “Kātjājana oder Pataìgali im Mahābhāshja.” Zeit-schrift der deutschen morgenlāndischen Gesellschaft 29: 183–90. ———. 1876b. “Das Verhalten der drei kanonischen Grammatiker in Indien zu den im Wurzelverzeichniss mit s und n anlautenden Wurzeln.” Zettsctiriit der deutschen morgenldndlschen Gesellschaft 29: 483–90. ———. 1893. “Whitney’s letzte Angriffe auf Pāëini.” Berichte über die Verhandlungen der königlich sāchsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, Philologisch-Historische Classe 45: 247–57. ———, ed. 1844. Die Uëādi-affixe. St. Petersburg. ———, ed. 1847. Vopadeva’s Mugdhabodha. St. Petersburg. ———, ed. and trans. 1887. Pāëini’s Grammatik. Leipzig. The edition of the text first appeared in 1839; reprint Hildesheim 1964. ———, and Rudolf Roth. 1855–1875. Sanskritwörterbuch. Vols. 1–7. St. Petersburg. Bopp, Franz. 1816. Über das KonJugationssystem der Sanskritsprache. Frankfurt am Main. ———. 1827. Ausführliches Lehrgebāude der Sanskrito-Sprache. Berlin.


On the Use of Genitive Absolute in Sanskrit

———. 18673. Glossarium comparativum linguae sanscrhae in quo omnes sanscritae radices et vocabula usitotissima explicontur et cum vocabulis graecis, latinis, germanicis, lituanicis. slavicis, celticis comparantur. Berlin. Borooah, Anandoram. 1879. A Higher Sanskrit Grammar. Calcutta: Mukherjee. Brough, John. 1951a. Selections from Classical Sanskrit Literature. London. ———. 1951b. “Theories of General Linguistics in the Sanskrit Grammairians.” Transactions of the Philological Society: 27–46. Cardona, George. 1967. Pāëini’s Syntactic Theories.” Journal of the Oriental Institute (Baroda) 16: 201–15. ———. 1969. “Studies in Indian Grammarians I: The Method of Description Reflected in the Śivasūtras.” Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 59 (Part 1): 3–48. Carey, W. 1806. A Grammar of the Sungskrit Languageto Which Are Added Examples for the Exercise of the Student and a Complete List of the Dhatoos, or Roots. Serampore. Chatterji, K. C. 1934a. “The Śiva Sūtras.” Journal of the Department of Letters, University of Calcutta 24 (2): 1–10. ———. 1966. Cartesian Linguistics. New York and London. Chomsky, Noam. 1964. Current Issues in Linguisit Theory. The Hauge. Colebrooke, H. T. 1803. “On the Sanskrit and Prācrit Languages.” Asiatic Researches 7: 199–231. ———. 1805. A Grammar of the Sanscrit Language. Vol. 1. Calcutta. Colebrooke, H. T. 1823. “Essay on the Philosophy of the Hindus.” Transactions of the Royal Asiatic Society 1: 19–43, 92–118, 439–66, 549–79; 2: 1–39. Dasgupta, Surendranath. 1991. The Mahabhasya of Patanjali. 1st Four Anhikas, Translation with Annotations. Delhi: Indian Council of Philosophical Research. Deshpande, Madhav. 1997. “Who Inspired Pāëini?” Journal of the American Oriental Society July–Sept. Faddegon, Barend. 1929. “The Mnemotechnics of Pāëini’s Grammar I: The Śiva­ Sūtra.” Acto Orientalia 7: 48–65. ———. 1936. Studies on Pāëini’s Grammar. Amsterdam. Foster, Henry P. 1810. An essay on the principles of Sanskrit Grammar. Part 1. Calcutta.



Gadet, Francoise. 1989. Saussure and Contemporary Culture. English translation by Gregory Elliotz.Auckland. Goldstücker,







Bhāñyapradépa, an undated MS, as reproduced by photo-lithography. London. Gordon, Terrence. 1996. Saussure: For the Begineers. New York: Writers and Readers Publising Inc. Hock, Hans Henrick, ed. 1991. Studies in Sanskrit Syntax. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Humboldt, Wilhelm von. 1832. Über die Kawi-Sprache auf der Insel Java. Berlin. Jayāditya-Vāmana, Repr. 2010. Kāśikā Våööi. 3 Vols. Delhi: Chaukhamla Sanskrit Pratisthana. Joshi, S. D. 1968. Pataïali’s Vyākararëa-Mahābhāñya: Samarthāhnlka (Page 2.1.1). Edited with Translation and Explanatory Notes. Poona. Joshi, S. D., and J. R. F. Roodbergen. 1992–2011. The Añöādhyāyé of Pāëini. 14 Vols. Delhi, Sahitya Academy. Kielhorn, F. 1876a. Kātyāyana and Pataïjali: Their Relation to Each Other and to Pāëini. Bombay. Reprinted Varanasi 1963, Osnabrück 1965. ———. 1876b. “On the Mahābhāñya.” Indian Antiquary 5: 241–51. ———. 1886b. “Indragomin and other Grammarians.” Indian Antiquary 15: 181–83. ———. 1886c. “The Cāndra-Vyākaraëa and the Kāśikā-Våtti.” Indian Antiquary 15: 183–85. ———. 1886d. “Ācāryadeśéya” or Notes on the Mahābhāñya 1. Indian Antiquary 15: 80–81. ———. 1887b. “The Text of Pāëini’s Sūtras as Given in the Kāśika-Våtti, compared with the Text Known to Kātyāyana and Pataïjali” or Notes on the Mahābhāñya 6. Indian Antiquary 16: 178–84. ———. 1887c. “Some Devices of Indian Grammarians” or Notes on the Mahābhāñya 7. Indian Antiquary 16: 244–52. ———, ed. 1880–1885. The Vyākaraëa- Mahābhāñya of Pataïjali. Vols. 1–3. Bombay. Second edition 1892–1909, third revised edition 1962 (vol. 1), 1965 (vol. 2). Poona. Kiparsky, Paul. 1970. “From Paleogrammarians to Neogrammarians.” In Essays in the History of Linguistics, edited by Dell Hymes. Bloomington.


On the Use of Genitive Absolute in Sanskrit

———. 1991. “Economy and the Construction of the Śivasütras in Pāëinian Studies.” Edited by Madhav Deshpande and Saroja Bhate, 239–61. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. Kiparsky, Paul, and J. F. Staal. 1969. “Syntactic and Semantic Relations in Pāëini.” Foundations of Language 5: 83–117. Kunjunni Raja, K. 1963. Indian Theories of Meaning. Madras. Lassen, Christian. 1830. “Über Herrn Professor Bopps grammatisches System der Sanskrit Sprache.” Indische Bibliothek 3 (1): 1–113. Lees, Robert. 1963. The Grammar of English Hominalizations. The Hague. Liebich, Bruno. 1891. Pāëini. Ein Beitrag zur Ketunnis der indischen Literatur und Grammatik. Leipzig. Mahāvir. 1984. Samartha Theory of Pāëini and Sentence Derivation. Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal. Mukherjee. S. N. 1968. Sir William Jones: A Study in Eighteenth- Century British Attitudes to India. Cambridge. Müller, F. Max. 1866. A Sanskrit Grammar for Beginners. London. Pertsch, Wilhelm. (cited in note No.5; reference not available). Pischel, Richard. 1849–1908. Reference not found. Pons, J. F. 1743. In Lettres edifiantes et curieuses, ecrites des Missions Etrangeres, par quelque Missionaires de la Compagnie de JESUS, XXVI Recueil, 222– 27. Paris. Portal, P. M. (Not found). Radford, Andrew. 1978. An Introduction to English Sentence Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ______. 1997a. Syntax: Theory and the Structure of English Sentence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ______. 1997b. Syntax: A Minimalist Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Renou, Louis. 1969. “Pāëini.” Current Trends in Linguistics 5: 481–98. ———, trans. 1948–1954. Añöādhyāyé of Pāëini. Vols. I–III. Paris. Re-edited with text of sūtras, 1961. ———. 1967. Current Trends in Linguistics V: Linguistics in South Asia. The Hague. Sanders, Carol, ed. 2004. Saussure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sarangi, Alekh Chandra. 1995. Gleanings in the Sanskrit Grammatical Tradition. Delhi: Eastern Book Linkers. 94


Scharf, Peter M., ed. 2015. Sanskrit Syntax. Providence: The Sanskrit Library. Sebeok, Thomas A., ed. 1966. Portraits of Linguists. A Biographical Source Book for the History of Western Linguistics, 1746–1963. Vols. 1–2. Bloomington and London. Seymour. Thomas Day. 1894. “William Dwight Whitney.” American Journal of Philology 15: 271–98. Reprinted in Sebeok 1966, I, 399–426. Sharma Ramanath. 1987–2008, 6 vols. The Añöādhyāyé of Pāëini. Delhi: Munshiram Mavnoharlae. Speijer, Jakob Salman. 1886/2006. Sanskrit Syntax. Delhi: Motilal Banarasi dass. Spiegel, Friedrich von. 1820–1905. Reference not found. Staal, J. F. 1962a. “A Method of Linguistic Description: The Order of Consonants According to Pāëini.” Language 38: 1–10. ———. 1962b. “Negation and the Law of Contradiction in Indian Thought.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 25: 52–71. ———. 1965a. “Context-sensitive Rules in Pāëini.” Foundations of Language 1: 63– 72. ———. 1965b. “Euclid and Pāëini.” Philosophy East and West 15: 99–116. ———. 1966a. “Room at the Top in Sanskrit: Ancient and Modern Descriptions of Nominal Composition.” Indo-Iranian Journal 9: 165–98. ———. 1966b. “Indian Semantics, I.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 86: 304–11. ———. 1967. Word Order in Sanskrit and Universal Grammar. Dordrecht. ———. 1969. “Sanskrit Philosophy of Language.” Current Trends in Linguistics 5: 499–531. ———. 1970a. “Origin and Development of Linguistics in India.” In Essays in the History of Linguistics. Edited by Dell Hymes. Bloomington. ———. 1970b. “Review of Cardona (1969).” Language 46: 502–07. ———. 1972. A Reader on Sanskrit Grammarians. MA: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology. ———. 2005. What Euclid Is to Europe Pāëini Is to India–Or Are They? Bangalore. National Institute of Advanced Studies. Subramania Iyer, K. A. 1942. “The Conception of Guëa among the Vaiyākaraëas.” New Indian Antiquary 5: 121–30. ———. 1948. “The Point of View of the Vaiyyākaraëas.” Journal of Oriental Research 18: 84–96. 95

On the Use of Genitive Absolute in Sanskrit

Thieme, P. 1935a. Pāëini and the Veda: Studies in the Early History of Linguistic Science in India. Allahabad. ———. 1957a. “Pāëini and the Pronunciation of Sanskrit.” Studies Presented to Joshua Whatmough on his Sixtieth Birthday. Edited by Ernst Pulgram, 263– 70. ’s-Gravenhage. ———. 1957b. “The Interpretation of the Learned.” Felicitation Volume presented to Professor Sripad Krishna Belvalkar, edited by A. S. Altekar, 47–62. Banaras. Varma, S. 1929. Critical Studies in the Phonetic Observations of Indian Grammarians. London, second ed., 1961, Delhi. Verburg, P. A. 1950. “The Background to the Linguistic Conceptions of Franz Bopp.” Lingua 2: 438–68. Reprinted in Sebeok 1966, I, 221–50. Westergaard, Niels. 1841. Radices linguae sanscritae. Copenhagen. Whitney, William D. 1874. Oriental and Linguistic Studies. New York. ———. 1879, 18892. Sanskrit Grammar. Leipzig. ———. 1884. “The Study of Hindu Grammar and the Study of Sanskrit.” American Journal of Philology 5: 279–97. ———. 1893. “On Recent Studies in Hindu Grammar.” American Journal of Philology 14: 171–97. ———, ed. and trans. 1862. The Atharvaveda Prātiśākhya or Śaunakéyā Caturādhyāyikā. New Haven, CT: Varanasi. Reprinted 1962. ———. ed. and trans. 1871. “The Tāittiréya-Prātiśakhya with Its Commentary, the Tribhāshyaratna.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 9: 1–469. Wilson, H. H. 1819, 18322. Dictionary in Sanskrit and English. Calcutta.



Abhyankar, Kashinath, xxxi “actually existing”, xviii adhikaraëa, xxix, xxxii aesthetics, xvii anādara, xi, xxv, xxx–xxxi, xxxiii, xxxv, 1–2, 6, 8–13, 15, 18–19, 61, 67–68, 70 Analogy, xxv, xxviii, 26 ĀnandaVardhana, xxxi apādāna, xxviii–xxix Apte, VamanShivram, xxiv-xxviii archetypal sound, xx Bally, Charles, ix bāùyas, xxi Bhandarkar, Ramakrishna, xviii–xx Bhaööa, Nāgeśa, xviii, xxi Bhartåhari, x, xxii Bhāva, xxv, xxix-xxx, xxxii, 17–18 Böhtlingk, Otto, xiii, xvi Bopp, Franz, x, xvi–xix, xxxii, 69 Borooah, Anandoram, xix Brahmaëas, xv, xxx Brochaus, Hermann, xxxiv Brugmann, Karl, xix Buddhism, xx, xxii Bühler, Georg, xviii Burnoof, Emile, 69 Burnoof, Eugène, 69 Burnouf, Eugene, xiii, xvii, 49 Bu-ston, xxii Çaivite, xxi–xxii Candragomin/Candrācārya, xxii, xxiv, xxxi Candrakīrti, xxii Carey, William, xv, xix Causal, 16; causality, 16; causative, xxix


On the Use of Genitive Absolute in Sanskrit

Chezy, A. L. De, xv–xvi Chomsky, Noam, xvii, xxvii Classical, xxii, xxiv, xxxiii, 2, 69; classical language, xxv Cognitive, xxv Colebrooke, Henry Thomas, xv, xix colonial attitude, xix Comparative, ix, xvii–xviii; Comparative grammar, xviii; Comparative linguistics, xix, xxiv; Comparative method, xxxii; Comparative Philosophy, xvii; Comparative syntax, 2 Curtius, xix Deshpande, Madhav, xx–xxii Dharmakīrti, xxi Dhvani, xx, 23; adhvani, 23, 41 dictatore Fabio, 4 Dikñita, Bhaööoji, xv, xxi Dikñita, Ramabhadra, xxi Durkheim, Emile, ix “elémansprimitifs”, xvii extensor, 21 Faddegon, Barend, xxvii–xxviii Fillozat, Jean, xv Formulism, 27 Foster, H.P., xv–xvi Freud, Sigmund, ix Gadet, Francoise, ix, xi genitive absolute(s), ix–xii, xv, xix, xxv, xxxii–xxxv, 1–18, 21–23, 25–27, 29, 35–36, 38, 42, 47–49, 63, 67–70, 72, 79, 81, 83 Ghosh, Manmohan, xxi Gordon, Terrence, xix–xx Gorresio, 4, 27 Grammar, x, xii, xv–xix, xxi–xxix, xxxi–xxxii, 2, 7; Neo-Grammarians, xix Grammatical, xi, xxi, xxiii–xxiv, xxix, 3; grammatical knowledge, xxii; grammatical relation, xxvii–xxviii; grammatical rules, xii, xx, xxv, xxxv; grammatical system, x, xvii; grammatical tradition xviii, xxii, xxvi–xxvii; grammatical treatise, xx 98

Index (Names and Critical Terms)

Grimm’s laws, xix Guëāòhya, xxi Halde, Father du, xv Hamilton, Alexander, xvi Haradatta, xxi–xxiii History, xv, xxi Hiuen Tsang, xxi–xxii Hock, Hans Henrick, xii Hübschmann, Johann, xxxii, 2 Humboldt, Wilhelm, xvi–xvii Imitation, xxviii incognito, 40 Jayaditya and Vāmana, xv, xxii Jayāditya, xv, xxii Jayadratha, xxi Jayamaìgala, 5–6 Jinendrabuddhi, xxii–xxiv Jones, Sir W., xvi Joshi, S.D., xi Kalhana, xxii karaëa, xxix kāraka, xxvii–xxix, xxxi–xxxii karman, xxix kartaå, xxix Kāśikā, xxix–xxx Kātyāyana, xviii, xxi, xxviii Kielhorn, F., 18 Kielhorn, Franz, xviii, 18 Kiparsky, Paul, xx Kurtins, Georg, xix LakshmanaSena, xxiv Language, ix–xii, xvi–xxviii, xxxi–xxxiii, 1–2, 5, 25–26, 67 Lassen, Christian, xiii, xvi–xviii, 73 Lees, Robert, xxvii Leskien, August, xix 99

On the Use of Genitive Absolute in Sanskrit

Linguistics, ix–x, xii, xvii, xix–xx, xxiii–xxiv, xxvii–xxviii, xxxi–xxxii; general linguistics, ix–x, xii, xvii, xxxii; historical linguistics, ix; structural linguistics, xxvii literary texts, x, xix Literature, xvi, xviii; Dramatic literature, xxiv; German literature, ix; narrative literature, xii; Prātiśākhya literature, xviii; Sanskrit literature, xvi; technical literature, xix locative absolute(s), x–xii, xxv, xxviii, xxix, xxxii–xxxiii, xxxv, 1–2, 4–5, 7, 11, 17, 48 Logical, xxviii, xxxi, xxxiii–xxxiv, 5, 8, 27; logical relationship, xxxiii, 5 Mahāvir, xxix Marx, Karl, ix Menakshi, K., xii Metaphysical, 30 Monier-Williams, xvii–xix moral science, xxviii Morphological, xxvii–xxix motif, 49 Müller, Friedrich Max, xv, xvii–xix, 55 Nāgārjuna, xxii “new science”, xviii Numismatics, xxii Obermiller, xxii Occidental, xxvi–xxviii Oriental, xviii–xx, xxvi pada, xviii–xxix, xxxi, 70 Pāëini, x, xii, xv, xvii–xviii, xx–xxx, xxxii–xxxv, 1–3, 5–7, 17–18, 47; Pāëinian, xv, xvii, xxi–xxii, xxvi; Pāëinian grammar, xxiii, xv, xxix; Pāëinian rules, xxii, xxiv; Pāëinian studies, xxiv Patañjali, xi, xviii, xx–xxiv, xxviii, xxxi Phenomenon, xxiv, 41 Philology, x Philosophical, xvi, xxviii Phonetic, xxvii, xix; Phonetically, xx; Phonetics, xix; laws of phonetics, xix Phonology, ix, xxi; Phonological xxvii 100

Index (Names and Critical Terms)

Physics, xxviii Pischel, Richard, xviii, xxxii, 1, 21–22, 55 Polyglot, ix Pons, Jean Francois, xv–xvii Pragmatics, xxiii Prātiśākhya, xviii, xx, xxvi principal action, xxxiii–xxxiv, 4–8, 18, 67 Psychology, xxviii Puruñottamadeva, xxii, xxiv Purusottamadeva, xxiv quanquam, 8 Rāmānuja, 11, 18–19 Renou, Louis, xxvi Rhetorics, xxxi Romanticmovement, xvi Roodbergen, J. R.F., xi Roth, Henrich, xv, xviii Saàhitā, xviii Śabda, xx, xxiii, 23 Salisbury, Edward, xviii sambandha, ix, xxvii–xxix, xxxi; abhisambandha, xxvii–xxviii; Sambandhapada, xxix, xxxi sampradāna, xxix Saraëadeva, xxii Sarangi, Alekha Chandra, xxxi Sassetti, Filippo, xv Saussure, Ferdinand de, ix–xii, xv, xix–xx, xxiv, xxxii–xxxv Scharf, Peter M., xii Schelling, Friedrich, xvii Schlegel, August von, xvi Schlegel, Friedrich, xiii, xvi–xvii, 1 Sechehaye, Albert, ix Semantic, xxviii, xxix Sharma, Ramanath, xi, xxx Siecke, Antoine, xxxii, 1 101

On the Use of Genitive Absolute in Sanskrit

Speijer, Jakob, x, xi Staal, Frits, ix–xi, xv–xvi, xviii, xx, xxvi–xxviii, xxxi Stenzler, Adolf, xvii–xix, xxxii, xxxv, 1, 8 Sukla, A. C., xvii Sūtra(s), xvii–xxiii, 17–18, 68; devasūtra, xxi; Çivasūtras, xv, xx–xxi synonym(s), xxix, xxxiv, 10, 26–27, 49, 78, 81–82 Syntactic, xxviii–xxix, xxxiv, 2–3, 5, 27, 67 Syntax, x–xii, xvii, xxvii–xxix, xxxi, xxxiv, 1, 21, 25, 70; Comparative syntax, 2 Tantric, xxii Taranatha, xxi taxonomy, xxvii; taxonomic, xxvii tīrthikas, xxi Vāmana, xv, xxii Vasubandhu, xxii Vedas, xxii, xxiii, 69 Vedic, xxiii, xxvi–xxvii, 2, 67; vedic language, xxvi; vedic rituals, xxiv; vedic rules, xxiv; vedic scripture, xxiv; vedic texts, xxvi, xxxii vibhakti, xxviii–xxix, xxxi Vopadeva, xv vyākaraëa, xxi–xxii Weber, Albrecht, xviii, xxxii, 2, 38 Westergaard, Niels, xvi, 69 Whitney, William, xi, xviii, xxvii, xxxii Wilkins, Charles, xv–xvii Wilson, H. H., xvi Yogamitra, xxii


Ferdinand de Saussure is most famous for his Course in General Linguistics, reconstructed after his death by his students from notes of lectures he had given at the University of Geneva. He only published two books before his death, the Memoir on the Primitive Vowel System in Indo-European Languages, and the book that we publish here for the first time in English translation, On the Use of the Genitive Absolute in Sanskrit. Originally a doctoral thesis in French written while he was a student at the University of Leipzig, On the Use of the Genitive Absolute in Sanskrit was first published in French in 1881. Here, Saussure explores a neglected area in Sanskrit syntax. Already in this work we find an empirical case of the seminal principle of structural linguistics based on use, a principle for which, after his death, he was to become so famous. Editor and translator Ananta Sukla has at last rescued this book from neglect. Apart from translating the text in collaboration with late Patrick Thomas, Sukla provides an extensive introduction that clarifies several points illuminating foundation of modern linguistics in ancient Sanskrit grammars, particularly in principles of use.

Ananta Sukla is an eminent scholar in philosophy of art, religion and language. Formerly professor of English at Sambalpur University (India), Sukla has been a visiting professor at the Institute of Aesthetics, University of Uppsala (Sweden), visiting Lecturer at several European universities including Lampeter, Cardiff, and Liverpool. He has authored several books including, most recently, Fiction and Art: Explorations in Contemporary Theory. He is founding editor of the Journal of Comparative literature and Aesthetics. He has contributed three monographs to the National Literary Academy of India, and is currently working on a translation of Saussure’s Primitive System of Vowels in Indo-European Languages, also to be published by Common Ground Research Networks. Sukla has co-authored an edited volume with Common Ground entitled The Ekphrastic Turn.