1.39

कथं न ज्ञेयमस्माभिः पापादस्मान्निवर्तितुम्
कुलक्षयकृतं दोषं प्रपश्यद्भिर्जनार्दन

Printed: kathaM na jnyeyamasmAbhiHa pApAdasmAnnivartitum , kulakSHayakRutaM doSHaM prapashyadbhirjanArdana .

kathaM n ... [8.3.23] mo'nusvAraHa
kulakSHayakRutaM d ... [8.3.23] mo'nusvAraHa
jnyeyamasmAbhiHa p ... [8.3.15, 1.3.2, 8.2.66] kharavasAnayo visarjanIyaHa
prapashyadbhir ... [8.2.66] sasajuSHo ruHa
jnyeyamasmAbhiHa ... [6.1.72] saNhitAyAm
pApAdasmAnnivartitum ... [6.1.72] saNhitAyAm
pApAdasmAnnivartitum ... [8.2.39] jhalAm jasho'nte
pApAdasmAnnivartitum ... [8.4.45] yaro'nunAsike'anunAsiko vA
asmAbhiHa p ... [8.3.15, 1.3.2, 8.2.66] kharavasAnayo visarjanIyaHa

Underlying: katham na jnyeyam asmAbhis pApAt asmAn asmAt nivartitum , kulakSHayakRutam doSHam prapashyadbhis janArdana .

NOTE: Please see Sandhi Results for details on rectifications for this stanza

COMMENTS:

• As mentioned in the Chapter Sandhi Results, the parser was able to choose the correct form when given the alternatives 'asmAn/asmAt', thereby handling the error noted above in the 'sandhi analysis' stage.
• The parser inserted the elided 'copula verb' ('as:2:P:to be:VerbPresent') in clause A.1 (the infinitive term 'nivartitum' does not licence the Nominative term 'NOM-S:jnyeyam').
• The passive potential participle term 'NOM-S:jnyeyam:must be known' has the Agent 'INS-P:asmAbhiHa:by us'. It is used impersonally (note the Singular and Neuter features, and the absence of any other NOM-S term with the same features in the clause that could be its Subject). The first clause can be read as 'How can it not be known by us'.
• The present participle term 'INS-P:prapashyadbhiHa:[while] seeing' requires an object complement (it is derived from the transitive verb 'pra-dRush:1:P:to see'), which is the term 'ACC-S:doSHam:evil'.
• Note that 'ACC-S:Neut.:doSHam:evil' is also the Subject of the passive past participle 'ACC-S:Neut.:kulakSHayakRutam:[that was] the destruction of the clan', and that these two terms must agree in Number, Gender, and Case. The three terms can be read together as (i.e. '[while] seeing the evil [that was] the destruction of the clan').
• The [MW2011] [1] dictionary mentions that 'doSHa' is usually Masculine, and rarely Neuter. If we had treated 'doSHa' as Masculine, it would have resulted in a failure to identify the Subject of the passive past participle (since a participle and its Subject must agree on Number, Gender and Case).
• Note that the infinitive verb 'nivartitum:ni-vRut:1:A:turn away' is normally an intransitive verb that cannot accept an ACC-S complement. Unless the parser can identify the arguments of the participles, it would be unable to deal with the stranded ACC-S terms 'ACC-S:kulakSHaykRutam' and 'ACC-S:doSHam'.

---

A: katham na jnyeyam asti asmAbhiHa pApAt asmAn/asmAt nivartitum kulakSHayakRutam doSHam prapashyadbhiHa janArdana

A.2:

katham:Indeclinable

na:Indeclinable

jnyeyam:NOM-S:jnyeya:Neut.:Noun:potential_participle_passive_yat_9U_jnA:Link_subj_Impersonal

asmAbhiHa:INS-P:asmad:Masc.:Pronoun:Link_gov_jnyeyam

A.1:

pApAt:ABL-S:pApa:Neut.:Noun

asmAt:ABL-S:idam:Masc.:Pronoun

nivartitum:-:ni-vRut:1:A:VerbInfinitive

kulakSHayakRutam:ACC-S:kula-kSHaya-kRuta (kulakSHayakRuta) :Neut.:Noun:past_participle_passive_kta_8P_kRu:Link_subj_doSHam

doSHam:ACC-S:doSHa:Neut.:Noun:Link_gov_prapashyadbhiHa

prapashyadbhiHa:INS-P:prapashyat:Masc.:Adj:present_participle_shatRu_1P_pra-dRush

janArdana:VOC-S:janArdana:Masc.:Noun

References