2.6

---

Printed: na chEtadvidmaHa kataranno garIyo yadvA jayema yadi vA no jayeyuHa , yAneva hatvA na jijIviSHAmaste'vasthitAHa pramukhe dhArtarASHTrAHa .

jijIviSHAmaste'vasthitAHa ... [6.1.109] eNaHa padAntAdati
chEtadvidmaHa k ... [8.3.15, 1.3.2, 8.2.66] kharavasAnayo visarjanIyaHa
garIyo y ... [6.1.114, 6.1.87, 1.3.2, 8.2.66] hashi cha
no j ... [6.1.114, 6.1.87, 1.3.2, 8.2.66] hashi cha
jijIviSHAmaste a ... [8.3.34, 8.3.15, 1.3.2, 8.2.66] visarjanIyasya saHa
dhArtarASHTrAHa ... [8.3.15, 1.3.2, 8.2.66] kharavasAnayo visarjanIyaHa
chEtadvidmaHa ... [6.1.88, 1.1.1] vRuddhirechi
yadvA ... [6.1.72] saNhitAyAm
yadvA ... [8.2.39] jhalAm jasho'nte
yAneva ... [6.1.72] saNhitAyAm
kataranno g ... [6.1.72] saNhitAyAm
kataranno ... [8.4.45] yaro'nunAsike'nunAsiko vA
kataranno g ... [6.1.114, 6.1.87, 1.3.2, 8.2.66] hashi cha
vidmaHa k ... [8.3.15, 1.3.2, 8.2.66] kharavasAnayo visarjanIyaHa
jijIviSHAmaHa t ... [8.3.15, 1.3.2, 8.2.66] kharavasAnayo visarjanIyaHa

Underlying: na cha etat vidmas katarat nas garIyas yat vA jayema yadi vA nas jayeyus , yAn eva hatvA na jijIviSHAmas te avasthitAs pramukhe dhArtarASHTrAs .

---

COMMENTS:

• The parser treats 'etat' in clause A.1 as ACC-S (just as [MM2015] does), whereas [KAL2015] treats the term as 'NOM-S'. Such a treatment of the term as NOM-S by [KAL2015] may be a printing error because the verb 'vidmaHa' is a First Person Plural verb that cannot accept a NOM-S subject.
• The parser inserts an elided 'copula verb' ('as:2P:to be:VerbPresent') in clause A.7. This clause can be considered the object of the verb 'vidmaHa', with a Predicative Adjective 'garIyaHa' (i.e. read the two clauses as 'we do not know [which of the two is more important]'). [KAL2015][1] treats both 'katarat' and 'garIyaHa' as 'NOM-S' terms, in the same way as the parser does. However, the treatment of the clause is different in [MM2015] [2], in that [MM2105] treats both 'katarat' and 'garIyaHa' as ACC-S terms (in addition to the preceding ACC-S 'etat') i.e. as the object of the verb 'vidmaHa'. The treatment by [MM2015] does not explain the unlikely combination of ACC-S 'etat' with ACC-S 'katarat' and ACC-S 'garIyaHa' (i.e. read the clause as 'we do not know important that which of the two'). In view of this unlikely combination, the clause structure derived by the parser appears superior.
• The parser treats 'pramukhe' as LOC-S (just as [MM2015] does), whereas [KAL2015] treats the term as an indeclinable adverb. This is not a defect as the [MW2011] [3] dictionary treats the term as both an Adjective ('turning the face towards', etc.) as well as an Indeclinable ('before the face of', etc.) .
• The parser treats 'naHa' as 'GEN-P' in clause A.7 (as does [MM2015]), while [KAL2015] treats the term as 'DAT-P'. This does not appear to be a defect in view of the context and various translations.
• Note the Desiderative conjugation 'jijIviSHAmaHa' in clause A.5.
• The parser inserts an elided 'copula verb' ('as:2P:to be:VerbPresent') in clause A.6.
• Note also that an inferred Subject 'NOM-S:te:they' must be 'read in' in clause A.3.

---

A: na cha etat vidmaHa katarat naHa garIyaHa asti yat vA jayema yadi vA naHa jayeyuHa yAn eva hatvA na jijIviSHAmaHa te avasthitAHa pramukhe santi dhArtarASHTrAHa

A.1:

na:Indeclinable

cha:Indeclinable

etat:ACC-S:etad:Neut.:Pronoun

vidmaHa:I-P:vid:2:P:VerbPresent

A.7:

katarat:NOM-S:katara:Neut.:Pronoun

naHa:GEN-P:asmad:Masc.:Pronoun

garIyaHa:NOM-S:garIyas:Neut.:Adj

A.2:

yat:Indeclinable

vA:Indeclinable

jayema:I-P:ji:1:P:VerbPotential

A.3:

yadi:Indeclinable

vA:Indeclinable

naHa:ACC-P:asmad:Masc.:Pronoun

jayeyuHa:III-P:ji:1:P:VerbPotential

A.4:

yAn:ACC-P:yad:Masc.:Pronoun

eva:Indeclinable

hatvA:-:han:2:P:VerbGerund

A.5:

na:Indeclinable

jijIviSHAmaHa:I-P:jIv:1:P:VerbDesiderativePresent

A.6:

te:NOM-P:tad:Masc.:Pronoun

avasthitAHa:NOM-P:avasthita:Masc.:Adj:past_participle_passive_kta_1P_ava-sthA:Link_subj_te

pramukhe:LOC-S:pramukha:Masc.:Adj

dhArtarASHTrAHa:NOM-P:dhArtarASHTra:Masc.:Noun

---

---

References