Guest guest Posted October 20, 2001 Report Share Posted October 20, 2001 Dear list members, Can anyone explain the difference in meaning between the two sanskrit words hetu and hetutA preferably with a couple of simple sanskrit sentences that clearly illustrate when you would use one and when the other. Many thanks, Harry Spier 371 Brickman Rd. Hurleyville, New York USA 12747 _______________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 20, 2001 Report Share Posted October 20, 2001 The difference between hetu and hetutaa/hetutva would be analogous to the difference between v.rk.sa and v.rk.sataa/tva. The distinctive usage of hetu and hetutaa/tva, and kaara.na and kaara.nataa/tva is to be expected generally in the Nyaaya works and works of other system that have adopted Nyaaya and Navyanyaaya terminology. While one can say that each instance of cause or reason may be referred to by the term hetu/kaara.na, the term hetutaa/tva would refer to the generic property of causeness/reasonness shared by all instances of cause/reason. There is some discussion of such terminological usages in the introduction to my book The Meaning of Nouns, published by Kluwer Academic Publishers. Madhav Deshpande INDOLOGY, "Harry Spier" <harryspier@H...> wrote: > Dear list members, > > Can anyone explain the difference in meaning between the two sanskrit words > hetu and hetutA preferably with a couple of simple sanskrit sentences that > clearly illustrate when you would use one and when the other. > > Many thanks, > > Harry Spier > 371 Brickman Rd. > Hurleyville, New York > USA 12747 > > > _______________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 22, 2001 Report Share Posted October 22, 2001 INDOLOGY, mmdesh@U... wrote: > The difference between hetu and hetutaa/hetutva would be >analogous to the difference between v.rk.sa and v.rk.sataa/tva. >The distinctive usage of hetu and hetutaa/tva, and kaara.na and >kaara.nataa/tva is to be expected generally in the Nyaaya works >and works of other system that have adopted Nyaaya and Navyanyaaya >terminology. While one can say that each instance of cause or >reason may be referred to by the term hetu/kaara.na, the term >hetutaa/tva would refer to the generic property of >causeness/reasonness shared by all instances of cause/reason. >There is some discussion of such terminological usages > in the introduction to my book The Meaning of Nouns, published by > Kluwer Academic Publishers. > Dear Prof. Madhav and the list, I read in Indology @ Liverpool archives from prof. Bh. Krishnamurti that from RV onwards grammatical phenomena like -tvA, iti have been borrowed from dravidian. Any suggested references for learning about the effects of drav. in sanskrit? Thanks, N. Ganesan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2001 Report Share Posted October 27, 2001 What Krishnamurti and others have argued is that the use of -tvA in Sanskrit gerund forms lika gatvA and the use of quotative iti may be indications of Dravidian influence. But this gerund affix -tvA (historically an instrumental singular of a verbal noun ending in - tu) is unrelated to the affix -tva added to nouns to produce abstract nouns like tree-ness (v.rk.sa-tva). The other affix used to produce abstract nouns is -tA (v.rk.sa-taa). I have not seen a suggestion that these are also a result of Dravidian influence. In any case, the philosophical usage has the distinctions I referred to. Best, Madhav Deshpande INDOLOGY, naga_ganesan@h... wrote: > INDOLOGY, mmdesh@U... wrote: > > The difference between hetu and hetutaa/hetutva would be > >analogous to the difference between v.rk.sa and v.rk.sataa/tva. > >The distinctive usage of hetu and hetutaa/tva, and kaara.na and > >kaara.nataa/tva is to be expected generally in the Nyaaya works > >and works of other system that have adopted Nyaaya and Navyanyaaya > >terminology. While one can say that each instance of cause or > >reason may be referred to by the term hetu/kaara.na, the term > >hetutaa/tva would refer to the generic property of > >causeness/reasonness shared by all instances of cause/reason. > >There is some discussion of such terminological usages > > in the introduction to my book The Meaning of Nouns, published by > > Kluwer Academic Publishers. > > > > Dear Prof. Madhav and the list, > > I read in Indology @ Liverpool archives from prof. Bh. Krishnamurti > that from RV onwards grammatical phenomena like -tvA, iti have > been borrowed from dravidian. > > Any suggested references for learning about the effects > of drav. in sanskrit? > > Thanks, > N. Ganesan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 31, 2001 Report Share Posted October 31, 2001 INDOLOGY, mmdesh@U... wrote: > What Krishnamurti and others have argued is that the use of -tvA in > Sanskrit gerund forms lika gatvA and the use of quotative iti may be > indications of Dravidian influence. But this gerund affix -tvA > (historically an instrumental singular of a verbal noun ending in - > tu) is unrelated to the affix -tva added to nouns to produce > abstract > nouns like tree-ness (v.rk.sa-tva). The other affix used to produce > abstract nouns is -tA (v.rk.sa-taa). I have not seen a suggestion > that these are also a result of Dravidian influence. In any case, > the philosophical usage has the distinctions I referred to. Best, > > Madhav Deshpande Perhaps, the foll. dissertation may be of help: Patrick E. Marlow, Origin and development of the Indo-Aryan quotatives and complimentizers: an areal approach. Univ. of California, Ph.D. diss., 1997. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.