Future passive participles

[Guest guest]

Dear list members,

 

IN sanskrit it is valid to use past and present participles in an absolute

locative phrase.

 

I.e. its valid to use a past participle: "After X was done by Y, A does B."

and its valid to use a present participle: "While X happens, A does B."

 

But is it also valid to use a future passive participle in an absolute

locative phrase to mean something like: "Should X happen, A does B."

 

Many thanks,

Harry

 

Harry Spier

371 Brickman Rd.

Hurleyville, New York

USA 12747

 

_______________

Set yourself up for fun at home! Get tips on home entertainment equipment,

video game reviews, and more here.

http://special.msn.com/home/homeent.armx

[Guest guest]

INDOLOGY, Message #3902, "Harry Spier"

<harryspier@H...> wrote:

> Dear list members,

>

> IN sanskrit it is valid to use past and present participles in an

absolute

> locative phrase.

>

> I.e. its valid to use a past participle: "After X was done by Y, A

does B."

> and its valid to use a present participle: "While X happens, A

does B."

>

> But is it also valid to use a future passive participle in an

absolute

> locative phrase to mean something like: "Should X happen, A does

B."

>

> Many thanks,

> Harry

>

 

 

FUTURE PARTICIPLE IN THE LOCATIVE ABSOLUTE CONSTRUCTION

 

 

Panini teaches the locative absolute by the rule yasya ca

bhaavena bhaavalakshanam II.3.37 meaning "when an action, the

time of whose occurrence is known, is used to indicate the time of

another action the word expressing the agent of the action, a noun,

takes the locative case inflection". The indicating action is

mostly expressed by a participle – present or past in the active

or passive – qualifying the noun (with the locative case ending).

By virtue of its being a qualifier the participle also takes the

locative case inflection. The noun with the locative case in

association with the participle assumes the role of a clause

expressing time, i.e. a qualifying or subordinate clause. The verb

in the principal clause may be in the past or present tense and

sometimes in the optative or conditional mood implying a present

action. Kaatyayana the author of the vaartikas sanctions the use of

the locative even in instances where the time factor is not intended

to be conveyed.

 

The participle associated with the absolute may be past

active or passive as well as present active or passive while the

verb in the principal clause may be in the past or present tense

– giving rise to eight different varieties of absolute

constructions.

 

Panini employs the locative absolute with the present active

participle in the three rules, viz. IV.1.163-165. Examples for all

the eight varieties are available in abundance in both the Vedic and

classical Sanskrit. In the Vedic language the future participle

never occurs in the clause with the locative absolute.

 

All the celebrated grammarians of the Paninian system from

the time of Patanjali, the author of the Mahabhashya, up to Bhattoji

Dikshita, the famous grammarian of the 16th and 17th centuries have

given examples of the locative absolute construction with the

present and past participles only and not with the future participle.

1) goshu duhyamaanaasu gatah meaning, `He left when the

cows were being milked'.

2) goshu dugdhaasu aagatah meaning, `He had returned

immediately after the cows had been milked'.

In his Laghusabdendusekhara, Nagesa the reputed Paninian

grammarian (of the 17th century) illustrates the rule P II.3.37 with

a future participle, besides the past and present participles.

3) goshu dhokshyamaanaasu gatah meaning `He left when

the cows were about to be milked'.

 

In all the three instances past passive participles (gatah,

aagatah) have been used actively instead of a finite verb in the

active voice: this usage is very common in Sanskrit.

 

In (1) the time of the action (leaving) expressed by the

verb in the principal clause is the same as of that (milking) by the

participle in the subordinate clause i.e. present. In other words

the actions are simultaneous. But both milking and leaving have

become actions of the past by the time the speaker refers to the

time of leaving. At the moment of leaving milking had not been

completed: it was going on, i.e. it was a present action. Therefore

the speaker uses the present participle to highlight the fact that

the action of leaving had taken place when milking was going on –

a present action.

 

In (2) the indicating action (milking) had occurred

immediately before the indicated action (returning). In other words

by the time the action of returning took place, milking had already

ceased to exist, i.e. it had become an action of the immediate past.

Therefore the speaker employs the past participle while referring to

it. Here also it is to be noted that both the actions had become

past by the time the speaker refers to the time of returning.

 

In (3) too the actions expressed by the future participle

and that by the verb in the principal clause have become events of

the past at the time when the speaker refers to the time of going.

But at the instant when the action of leaving happened, the cows

were about to be milked. In other words milking was an action of the

immediate future (next instant). Therefore the speaker uses the

future participle to convey that milking was an action of the

immediate future at the instant of leaving.

 

In the rule that teaches the locative absolute the action

indicating time is stated as action in general (bhaavena) without

any reference to its temporal character – present, past or

future. Therefore Nagesa is right in considering the word bhaavena

as conveying a future action also and that a future action – like

the present or the past – can serve as an indicator for an

immediately preceding action. An action that had not actually come

into being at a particular moment, but had emerged at the next

moment, will naturally have to be expressed by a future participle

(or verb) if the actions are to be referred to in their temporal

sequence at a time when both of them had become events of the past.

 

The use of future participle in clauses containing locative

absolute does not involve any grammatical flaw. On the other hand

Paanini's rule as understood and explained by Nagesa is

favourable towards such a usage. And it is also reasonable, as

pointed out, to employ the future participle in instances analogous

to the one mentioned by Nagesa. Therefore, in instances similar to

the one cited by Nagesa the use of the future participle is

perfectly right. We have not come across any such usage in the

standard treaties in Sanskrit literature. But the possibility of the

occurrence of such a usage in some obscure corner cannot be ruled

out.

 

Hope this helps.

Many Regards,

 

V. Swaminathan