On the expression "zakya aham" in the BhG(11.48, 54)

[Guest guest]

Dear List,

 

In the Bhagvad-giitaa (11.48, 54) the expression "zakya aham" occurs which,

on removal of sandhi, has been taken to be "zakyaH aham". In the critical

edition of the BhiiSma-parvan, Dr S K Belvalkar remarks(p.782):

 

"zakya(H) ahaM, with the archaic saMdhi and hiatus, which seems to have

bothered scribes and students" .

 

In his "zriimad-bhagvad-giitaa-laghukoza", lakSmaNa raghunAtha

gokhale[editor & publisher, Pune, 1944] quoting the madhusuudanii giitaa-Tiikaa,

considers the elision of the visarga as chaandasa.

 

In my view, the expression "zakya aham", on removal of sandhi, is to be

read as "zakye aham". On applying P.6.1.78 [ eco'yavaayaavaH ], it becomes

"zakyay aham". Then using P.8.3.19 [ lopaH zaakalyasya ], we get "zakya aham".

This elision of "y" is asiddha with respect to P.6.1.101 [ akaH savarNe diirghaH

] and hence the diirgha ekaadeza sandhi cannot take place. Thus, in my view,

there is neither any hiatus, nor any archaic sandhi, nor any chaandasa lopa

(elision) of the visarga in the expression "zakya aham".

 

Regards.

 

Narayan Prasad

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

The expression zakya aham remains anamolous even if it is

analyzed as zakye aham, since the normal sandhi of zakye aham

would be zakye 'ham. Besides, the choice between zakya.h

aham and zakye aham, on the basis of the frequent use of zakya

as a gerundive, would be in favor of the first alternative. While

zakyate is common in Sanskrit, I have not come across the use

of the first person form zakye in any texts.

 

Madhav Deshpande

 

 

INDOLOGY, "Narayan Prasad"

<prasad_cwprs> wrote:

> Dear List,

>

> In the Bhagvad-giitaa (11.48, 54) the expression "zakya

aham" occurs which, on removal of sandhi, has been taken to be

"zakyaH aham". In the critical edition of the BhiiSma-parvan, Dr S

K Belvalkar remarks(p.782):

>

> "zakya(H) ahaM, with the archaic saMdhi and hiatus, which

seems to have bothered scribes and students" .

>

> In his "zriimad-bhagvad-giitaa-laghukoza", lakSmaNa

raghunAtha gokhale[editor & publisher, Pune, 1944] quoting the

madhusuudanii giitaa-Tiikaa, considers the elision of the

visarga as chaandasa.

>

> In my view, the expression "zakya aham", on removal of

sandhi, is to be read as "zakye aham". On applying P.6.1.78 [

eco'yavaayaavaH ], it becomes "zakyay aham". Then using

P.8.3.19 [ lopaH zaakalyasya ], we get "zakya aham". This elision

of "y" is asiddha with respect to P.6.1.101 [ akaH savarNe

diirghaH ] and hence the diirgha ekaadeza sandhi cannot take

place. Thus, in my view, there is neither any hiatus, nor any

archaic sandhi, nor any chaandasa lopa (elision) of the visarga

in the expression "zakya aham".

>

> Regards.

>

> Narayan Prasad

>

>

>