Guest guest Posted February 15, 2005 Report Share Posted February 15, 2005 I think second person singular imperative is definitely rude in chaste classical Sanskrit.Passive voice is the norm or, third person singular[aarohatu bhavati] Please consider the following. 1.Is any variant reading available? 2.Is it a liberty the epic language indulges in? Rajendran Dr.C.Rajendran Professor of Sanskrit University of Calicut Calicut University P.O Kerala 673 635 Phone: 0494-2401144 Residential address:28/1097,Rajadhani Kumaran Nair Road, Chevayur, Calicut Kerala 673 017 Phone: 0495-2354 624 Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 16, 2005 Report Share Posted February 16, 2005 Dear Phillip, The demands of metre in Sanskrit verse are more important than those of etiquette. I think that you will find the likelihood of such aberrances in prose, as would be found in Sanskrit dramas, than in verse, especially in Puranic (or epic) verse. Yours, Jan. phillip.ernest wrote: Hi, group. I recently read in the Yuddhakanda the verse where Sumantra asks Sita to get onto the chariot, and uses a second person singular imperative, aaroha I think. I guess it is impossible that he was being rude. So if it is acceptable for a charioter to speak this way to a queen, what difference is there in tone between this form and aarohatu, and I wonder if the usages are different in different periods and genres. Phillip Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 17, 2005 Report Share Posted February 17, 2005 What is the chapter and shloka number ? Which edition of the rAmAyaNa ? --- Narayan Prasad *********** Original Message *********************** phillip.ernest wrote: Hi, group. I recently read in the Yuddhakanda the verse where Sumantra asks Sita to get onto the chariot, and uses a second person singular imperative, aaroha I think. I guess it is impossible that he was being rude. So if it is acceptable for a charioter to speak this way to a queen, what difference is there in tone between this form and aarohatu, and I wonder if the usages are different in different periods and genres. Phillip ALL-NEW Messenger - all new features - even more fun! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 17, 2005 Report Share Posted February 17, 2005 >-- Messaggio originale -- >INDOLOGY >Rajendran C <crajenin >Tue, 15 Feb 2005 03:56:18 -0800 (PST) >Re: [Y-Indology] imperative not rude? >INDOLOGY > > > > >I think second person singular imperative is definitely rude in chaste classical >Sanskrit.Passive voice is the norm or, third person singular[aarohatu bhavati] >Please consider the following. >1.Is any variant reading available? >2.Is it a liberty the epic language indulges in? Hello, Professor. Thanks too to Dr. Brzezinski for his reply. I find that, interestingly, the critical edition has only two other imperatives for this imperative. The original line is Uttarakanda 45.19, second hemistich: aarohasveti vaidehiiM suutaH praaJjalirabraviit The variants are samaaroheti and aaroheti. I was very struck by the imperative here, so I guess I at least have not often seen the imperative used upwards across such a wide class divide, so to speak, in the itihasa. Phillip Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 19, 2005 Report Share Posted February 19, 2005 [Note: To see the devanAgarii text under Internet explorer please click: View -->Encoding -->(More-->) Unicode (UTF-8) ] << aarohasveti vaidehiiM suutaH praaJjalirabraviit>> In the giitaa press edition, it occurs in the uttarakANDa, 46.22, first hemistich. Similar idea regarding whether the use of "tvam" in place of "bhavaan" is to be considered rude or insulting has been discussed in detail by E. Washburn Hopkins in his article "Hindu Salutations", Bulletin of the Oriental Studies, London, Vol. VI, Part 2; 1931, pp.369-383. An extract from pp.375-376: ****************************************************** "But on one occasion the ever-fiery Bhiima said he would kill his brother the king and when he repented immediately afterwards he found himself in a dilemma. If he killed YudhiSThira he would sin and if he broke his word he would sin. It was then suggested to him that by calling his brother "thou", instead of saying "your honour", he would escape from his dilemma, since "thou" is equivalent, being an insult, to slaying, without its practical disadvantage....... ..............3.33.5 f. and 34.2). tvam is really not tabooed. Compare 5.23.3 f., where a messenger says to the king: diSTyA rAjaMs tvAm arogaM prapazye......" ****************************************************** तà¥à¤µà¤‚कारं नामधेयं च जà¥à¤¯à¥‡à¤·à¥à¤ ानां परिवरà¥à¤œà¤¯à¥‡à¤¤à¥ | अवरानां समानानामà¥à¤à¤¯à¥‡à¤·à¤¾à¤‚ न दà¥à¤·à¥à¤¯à¤¤à¤¿ || ---- महाà¤à¤¾à¤°à¤¤, शांतिपरà¥à¤µ, 193.25 अपने से बड़ों को नाम लेकर या तà¥à¤® कहकर न पà¥à¤•à¤¾à¤°à¥‡; जो अपने से छोटे या समवयसà¥à¤• हों, उनके लिठवैसा करना दोष की बात नहीं है | न जातॠतà¥à¤µà¤®à¤¿à¤¤à¤¿ बà¥à¤°à¥‚यादापनà¥à¤¨à¥‹à¤½à¤ªà¤¿ महतà¥à¤¤à¤°à¤®à¥ | तà¥à¤µà¤‚कारो वा वधो वेति विदà¥à¤µà¤¤à¥à¤¸à¥ न विशिषà¥à¤¯à¤¤à¥‡ || ---- महाà¤à¤¾à¤°à¤¤, अनà¥à¤¶à¤¾à¤¸à¤¨à¤ªà¤°à¥à¤µ, 162.52 संकट में पड़ने पर à¤à¥€ किसी शà¥à¤°à¥‡à¤·à¥à¤ पà¥à¤°à¥à¤· के पà¥à¤°à¤¤à¤¿ तà¥à¤® का पà¥à¤°à¤¯à¥‹à¤— न करे | किसी को तà¥à¤® कहकर पà¥à¤•à¤¾à¤°à¤¨à¤¾ या उसका वध कर डालना -- इन दोनों में विदà¥à¤µà¤¾à¤¨à¥ पà¥à¤°à¥à¤· कोई अनà¥à¤¤à¤° नहीं मानते | --- Narayan Prasad <phillip.ernest <INDOLOGY> Thursday, February 17, 2005 10:55 PM Re: [Y-Indology] imperative not rude? ...... The original line is Uttarakanda 45.19, second hemistich: aarohasveti vaidehiiM suutaH praaJjalirabraviit - <phillip.ernest <indology> Tuesday, February 15, 2005 6:07 AM [Y-Indology] imperative not rude? ................ > I recently read in the Yuddhakanda the verse where Sumantra asks Sita to > get onto the chariot, and uses a second person singular imperative, aaroha > I think. I guess it is impossible that he was being rude. So if it is > acceptable for a charioter to speak this way to a queen, what difference > is there in tone between this form and aarohatu, and I wonder if the usages > are different in different periods and genres. > > Phillip ---------- Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.1.0 - Release 2/18/2005 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2005 Report Share Posted February 21, 2005 >-- Messaggio originale -- ><INDOLOGY> >"Narayan Prasad" <prasad_cwprs >Sat, 19 Feb 2005 23:40:27 +0530 >Re: [Y-Indology] imperative not rude? >INDOLOGY >.............3.33.5 f. and 34.2). tvam is really not tabooed. Compare 5.23.3 >f., where a messenger says to the king: diSTyA rAjaMs tvAm arogaM prapazye......" It sounds from these two examples like there may have been different attitudes to tvam and its imperative, perhaps at different periods of the Bharata's composition, and the Ramayana's. The messenger's words to the king here might perhaps be ever so slightly insolent, I suppose. Could there have been a sexist double standard that allowed Sumantra to address Sita that way? I wonder if he or another of his rank ever speaks so to Rama. But on the other hand of course it is not reasonable to find a homogeneous attitude to the imperative's usage even within a single epic. I found no comment in Rama's tika on the verse. I happened to read today in Masson, Patwardhan, and Ingalls' Dhvanyaloka, a not probably by Ingalls: 'Actually, the second person active of the imperative is more violent and emotional than it would be in Latin or English. Politeness normally dictates a use of the third person passive in Sanskrit imperatives.' Unfortunately, even after having apparently adjusted this computer's settings, I was not able to covert the question marks to devanagari. Phillip 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.