Skip to main content

Full text of "Hindiisms in Sanskrit Again: A Reply to Professor Fay"

See other formats


STOP 



Early Journal Content on JSTOR, Free to Anyone in the World 

This article is one of nearly 500,000 scholarly works digitized and made freely available to everyone in 
the world by JSTOR. 

Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other 
writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the 
mid-seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. 

We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this 
resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non-commercial 
purposes. 

Read more about Early Journal Content at http://about.jstor.org/participate-jstor/individuals/early- 
journal-content . 



JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people 
discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching 
platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit 
organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please 
contact support@jstor.org. 



84 Edwin W. Fay 

In Homer the root deik 1 is of social rather than sacral import: 
deUvvTai. (salutes, welcomes, pledges with a cup) ; and in the same 
sense Scucavowro SaSurKcro ( : 8e8«rico/u.£vos) . Nor must we any 
longer, under the spell of the phonetic system that obtained 
prior to the elucidation of the long diphthong series, follow 
Wackernagel (BB 4. 269) in the mischievous correction to 
Sr/Kwrai. In Latin, the i of the diphthong has been lost alto- 
gether in decus, honor ( : Skr. dasasydti) ; but dicat (conse- 
crates) and dignus (honored, honorable> worthy) contain it; 
cf. dpi-SetKCTos and see AJP 31. 415. A secondary root dek x s 
remains in RV. in impv. dakmtd (do homage), construed (as 
sometimes das) with dative of receiver. 

9. That the root deik 1 (acclaim) is anything but a specialized 
aspect of the root written deik 1 (to point out, show, in Skr. dis), 
or conversely, I cannot believe. Clue enough to the special sense 
is furnished by the Aeschylean compound SaKTuXo-Seucros (=dig- 
itis monstratus> honored, conspicuous). I also compare our 
Biblical shew-bread. Personally I think that in the sept of 
ddsati the long diphthong series is archaic in the sacral and 
social word, and is older than the short diphthong series of dico, 
SeiWtyu. The reduplication of SaSto-Kei-o is the intensive redupli- 
cation of Skr. dedifte (displays), formally* allocated to dis 
instead of das. Again, we should not correct to S^Sto-Kei-o. 



HINDIISMS IN SANSKRIT AGAIN: A REPLY TO PRO- 
FESSOR PAY 

Franklin Edgerton 
University of Pennsylvania 

My derivation of ddesa, 'salutation,' from Hindi (or som 
related dialect) ddes evidently goes very much against the grain 
with Professor Fay ; for he thinks of at least three distinct and 
alternativ ways of avoiding it. It puzzles me to discover why 
the suggestion should seem to him a priori so improbable, as 
apparently it does. But of that later. Let me first consider his 
alternativ suggestions. 

1. He thinks ddesam dattvd need not mean 'giving a saluta- 



Hindiisms in Sanskrit Again 85 

tion,' but may mean simply 'giving a signal (to proceed).' 
The sage's response to the king's adesa is a benediction, sukM 
bhava. The like of this is regularly delivered by a saint to any- 
one (king or other person) whom he may meet, in response to a 
respectful salutation. The salutation is represented as a neces- 
sary preliminary to the blessing. If occasionally in such cases 
no prior salutation is specifically mentiond, that only means that 
it is taken for granted, because the idea of its necessity is so 
commonplace and familiar. In another recension of the Vikra- 
macarita the same king tests the omniscience of another saint by 
saluting him only mentally (that is, without words or other out- 
ward sign) ; when the sage offers a benediction, the king says 
'Why do you bless me when I hav not greeted you?' To this 
the sage replies that by means of his omniscience he perceivd 
the mental greeting of the king. (This incident is found in 
Indische Studien, 15. 285.) The royal permission is not needed 
for a religious person to address the king; on the contrary, the 
saint ranks higher than the king, and it is the king's duty to 
salute him first. This is commonplace thruout all Hindu liter- 
ature. Professor Pay's suggested interpretation of adesa is 
therefore un-Hindu. 

2. Granting the meaning 'salutation,' Professor Pay thinks 
this meaning of adesa may be derived from Sanskritic uses of 
the root (d)dis. Two of his suggestions may be groupt here. 

(a) He calls to mind the frase distyd (vardhase), a form of 
congratulation (not of salutation). The literal meaning of this 
frase is not entirely clear. But certainly disti does not mean 
anything like salutation; and indeed Professor Pay's suggestion 
implies a very violent transfer of meaning based on a very vague 
psychological connexion. Another objection is that disti is not 
adisti, and that in semasiology you cannot jump from a simple 
base to one of its compounds without hesitation. 

(b) Deserving of much more serious consideration is the claim 
that ddidesati in BV. 6. 56. 1 means 'salutes.' If this wer so, 
or if any form or derivativ of adis in Sanskrit could be shown to 
hav such a meaning, then Professor Pay would hav som appar- 
ent ground for questioning my etymology. I shal endevor to 
show in the paper which follows this that he is wrong about 
ddidesati, and that in the Rigveda at least no such meaning 
attaches to any form or derivativ of adis. Even if I wer wrong 



86 Franklin Edgerton 

in this (and after reading Professor Fay's Rejoinder I am stil 
fully eonvinst that I am right) , I do not think that the question 
of ddesa would be seriously affected thereby. The power of the 
counter-argument would be more apparent than real. Professor 
Fay has not been able to show any trace of the meaning 'salute' 
in any derivativ of ddis later than the Rigveda. Yet the word 
and its derivativs ar very common in later Sanskrit. I should 
hesitate long before jumping from the Rigveda to more than a 
thousand years a. d., with no intervening link, on a point con- 
cerning the meaning of a word which is very commonly used in 
other meanings thruout the whole of the intervening period. It 
is not unimportant, either, that the actual form ddesa does not 
occur in the Rigveda at all. So far as we kno, ddesa means, in 
all periods of Sanskrit where it occurs, 'command, instruction' 
or the like ; until suddenly, like a bolt out of the clear sky, in a 
single occurrence in a work composed more than a thousand 
years a. d., we find it meaning 'salutation.' And then we find 
that Hindi ddes means, very commonly tho not invariably, the 
same thing. To refuse to accept the obvious inference requires 
more self-denial than I hav. 

3. Professor Fay's third line of attack involvs a series of 
interesting and ingenious etymological suggestions by which he 
seeks to link ddesa in particular, and the root dis in general, 
with a number of other words in Sanskrit and related languages 
which mean 'honor, respect' and the like. His language in this 
part of his paper is not always quite clear to me. For instance, 
he says 'ddesa (greeting) may belong by honest descent to the 
sept of dasati (does homage).' If he means by this that -ddesa 
may be directly connected with das, and only more remotely (if 
at all) with d-dis, then I cannot follow him. Indeed, I cannot 
even argue with him on that point ; for it implies the non-recog- 
nition of what to me ar axiomatic principles. To my mind 
ddesa 'greeting' is either a Sanskrit word by 'honest descent' 
(or derivation) from d-dis, or it is not a Sanskrit word at all. 
A third alternativ seems to me to be entertainable only by an 
act of faith. My own view is that it is not a Sanskrit word at 
all, but a Hindi (or other modern) word. 

On the other hand, if Professor Fay only means that dis, 
'indicate, show,' belongs to a group of Indo-European words 
som of which hav developt such meanings as 'honor, revere, 



Hindiisms in Sanskrit Again 87 

salute'; then, if his etymologies ar sound (they seem to me 
pretty bold), they would indeed be of use in explaining the 
origin of this meaning of the Hindi tides. For they would fur- 
nish interesting semantic parallels for the development of this 
word from Sanskrit adesa 'direction, prescription, aim' or the 
like (but not 'salutation'). 

The only point at issue would then be whether the meaning 
'salutation' for adesa developt in Sanskrit, or whether it 
developt in a modern dialect and came into Sanskrit as a back- 
formation. Now, it is of course wel-known to all that Sanskrit — 
even much older Sanskrit than the Vikramacarita — is 'chuck 
full' of back-formations from the Middle Indie dialects, that is 
from popular speech. Buddhistic Sanskrit is the prize example 
of this ; a large part of it is only rudely and imperfectly Sans- 
kritized Pali (or som related dialect). But all periods of the 
language ar sufficiently full of the same sort of thing. Now 
then, if the very common Sanskrit word adesa never shows any 
meaning like 'salutation,' except in the one passage discoverd 
by me ; and if the verb a-dis and its other derivativs ar equally 
negativ; and if we find that, in Hindi, ades is an extremely 
familiar and commonplace word in this meaning; then — I do 
not see what dignus, decus, or even das, can hav to do with the 
question (except, as aforesaid, perhaps as semantic parallels). 
Hier stehe ich; ich kann nicht anders. 

Let me put a hypothetical question to Professor Fay. Let us 
assume that in a scolastic Latin treatise written in Bologna in 
the fourteenth century we find a common Latin word — say 
dictio — used in a sense in which it is otherwise unknown, even 
in medieval Latin, but in which its Italian equivalent is very wel 
known and common. Would Professor Fay look to Old Persian 
and Lithuanian relativs of the original Latin root to find the 
explanation of the isolated usage ? Would he even trouble him- 
self to go far afield among Plautine or Ciceronian cognates of the 
root in question — particularly among supposed cognates whose 
relationship is at best doutful, and' certainly cannot hav been 
apparent to the users of the language (as das: dis) ? The par- 
allel seems to me perfect. 

The same considerations apply to lati. No Hindi scolar, so 
far as appears, douts the fact that Hindi le-na (na is the infini- 
tiv ending, the 'root' is le) is derived from Prakritic forms of 



88 Franklin Edgerton 

labh. (See Platts, Hindustani Dictionary, s. v. ; Hoernle, Comp. 
Gram, of the Gaudian Languages, p. 70.) In Bengali the root 
is la (infinitiv la-it e), and Hindi dialects hav laind (Platts, I. c). 
The late appearance of lati, plus its correspondence with these 
words, is to my mind sufficient evidence that it is from a popular 
dialect, and that all attempts to connect it with IB. elements le 
or la ar useless and misleading. The only question open to dis- 
cussion is whether it is a Prakritism or corns from a more modern 
dialect. In favor of the latter alternativ may be mentiond the 
following facts. There is no Prakrit base la, so far as I can 
find. There is indeed a Prakrit le (Hemacandra, 4. 238; see 
reff. there quoted in Pisehel's translation), which Pischel thinks 
probably connected with lati, but which I think more likely 
belongs with Sanskrit li (as Pischel also considers possible) ; cf. 
Karpuramaiijari, ed. Konow (HOS 4), 1. 13. At any rate lati 
could with difficulty be derived from; Prakrit le. It apparently 
corns from a dialect in which the vowel was &. Cf. the Hindi 
dialect form laind, and Bengali la; the standard Hindi le is 
apparently not to be connected with Prakrit le (even if the 
latter belongs in this group at all), but its e is a contraction of 
a-i, in which the original vowel of the root appears. The com- 
pound lana (for le-ana), 'to bring,' may possibly, but in my 
opinion not probably, be the origin of lati. 

Again, the disappearance of medial intervocalic h is a familiar 
(tho not exactly common) fenomenon in the modern dialects (cf. 
Hoernle, I. c; Kellogg, Grammar of the Hindi Language, p. 54) . 
In Prakrit, on the other hand, it is rare. Indeed, Pischel (BB 
3. 246 f., Grammatik der Prakrit Sprachen, p. 184) categorically 
and dogmatically denies that it ever occurs ; but I think this is 
too sweeping, cf. Weber, Hala 1 {ARM 5. 3), p. 29; Hala 2 (ARM 
7. 4), on strofes 4, 410, 584, especially on strofe 4. This is an 
additional reason for not connecting Prakrit le with labh (la), 
besides its meaning ('to lay on'), which does not seem to fit the 
latter easily. If we bar out le, there ar no Prakritic forms of 
labh except those containing an h as representativ of the Skt. bh. 

For these reasons it seems to me fair to assume that lati corns 
from a modern, post-Prakritic dialect. This is certainly what 
Monier Williams intended to suggest in his Sanskrit Dictionary, 
s. v. Whether the suggestion has also been made elsewhere I 



Studies in the Veda 89 

am not sure. It seems to me so obvious that I feel sure it would 
hav becom commonplace ere now, but for the facts that (1) lati 
is so rare and late a word in Sanskrit, and (2) comparativly 
few Sanskritists, unhappily, kno anything about the modern 
dialects. 



STUDIES IN THE VEDA 

Franklin Edgerton 
University of Pennsylvania 

8. A-dlS IN THE ElGVEDA. 1 

No careful study of ^ a-dis and its derivativs in the Bigveda 
has yet been- made. The nearest approach to one is found in 
Oldenberg's remarks, ZDMG 55. 292, and Bgveda Noten on 6. 
4. 5. Oldenberg finds that adis as a noun usually refers to 
'feindliche Anschlage.' This I believ to be tru; but I think 
that both the noun and the verb can be more accurately defined. 

My belief is that the verb a-dis (always in RV a reduplicating 
present, adidesati, or intensiv, ddeditfe) means invariably 'to 
aim at' (with hostil intent), nearly always in the literal sense, 
'to aim with a wepon at' (with accusativ of the person or thing 
aimd at). The noun adis likewise always means 'aim,' and in 
evry case except possibly one or two it also implies hostil intent. 

Fundamental ar the two passages 9. 70. 5 cd and 10. 61. 3 cd . 
The first reads : 

visa susmena badhate vi durmatir adedisanah saryaheva 
surudhah. 

'The viril (Indra) overcoms the evil-disposed by his furious 
energy, aiming at them as an archer at opposing warriors 
( ? surudhali of uncertain meaning, but cannot affect the ques- 
tion).' — The second reads: 

& yah sdrydbhis tuvinrmno asyasrlnitadisam gabhastdu. 
'Who with vigorous strength prepares his aim with arrows in 
the hand.' 
Most of the occurrences of a-dis as a verb belong so obviously 



1 Cf. Fay, above, page 83. For the first seven Studies in this series, 
see AJP 35. 435 ff., JAOS 35. 240 ff., AJP 40. 175 ff.