Update:
2011-11-27 02:12 PM -0400
A Practical Sanskrit Dictionary
Mac-pre.htm
in Sanskrit-Devanagari (Skt-Dev)
by A. A. Macdonell, 1893,
¤
http://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/scans/MDScan/index.php?sfx=jpg ;
¤
http://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/macdonell/
110416 , 110611
Downloaded and edited by by U Kyaw Tun (UKT)
(M.S., I.P.S.T., USA) and staff of
Tun Institute of Learning (TIL) .
CAVEAT: English transcription is in simple ASCII (without diacritics) for easy
pronunciation. Also, please note that meanings given by UHS may not exactly
match that in Macdonell.
in Burmese-Myanmar (Bur-Myan) by U Hoke Sein, Pali-Myanmar Dictionary,
{pa.dat~hta.miń-zu-ža}, 1st printing ca. 1959,
Ministry of Religious Affairs publication, Rangoon , p1180.
Not for sale.
No copyright. Free for everyone. Prepared for students
and staff of TIL Computing and Language Center,
Yangon, MYANMAR :
http://www.tuninst.net ,
http://www.softguide.net.mm
indx-E4MS | Top
Mac-indx.htm
Preface
Scope of the work
Exclusion of References
Alphabetical Order : remember abugida and
alphabet are different. Did Macdonell mean the abugidic order?
Abbreviations
Type
Transliteration
Etymology
Sources
Devanagari akshara
UKT notes :
Panini - the Indian grammarian
Contents of this page
[{p-roman05begin}]
The aim of the present work is to satisfy within the compass of a comparatively
handy volume all the practical wants not only of learners of Sanskrit but
also of scholars for purposes of ordinary reading.
When I began my task in 1886 there was no available work which supplied the
deficiency. The only one having a somewhat similar end in view, the
Sanskrit-English Lexicon of my respected teacher, the late Theodore Benfey, was
already out of print. By the time, however, that my manuscript was half
finished, no fewer than three small Sanskrit dictionaries had been published. It
may perhaps be advisable to indicate some of the points in which the present
work differs from and compares with them. In the first place, it is much more
copious. Excluding all words and meanings which occur in native
lexicographers, but cannot be quoted from actual literature, my book contains
nearly double as much material as any of the dictionaries in question. The
present work is, moreover, the only one of the four, which is transliterated. It
can thus be used, for example, by comparative philologists not knowing a single
letter of the Devanagari alphabet. None of the others is etymological in any
sense. This feature of my dictionary increase both its usefulness from a
linguistic point of view and its practical value to the student, who will always
better remember the meaning of a word, the derivation of which is made clear to
him. Lastly, this is the only one of the lexicons in question which indicates
not only with respect to words, but also to their meanings, the literary period
to which they belong and the frequency or rarity of their occurrence. This
addition I regard as both scientifically and practically important.
Contents of this page
The present dictionary is intended to supply the vocabulary
of post-Vedic literature in general, while including those portions of Vedic
literature which are readily accessible to the student in good selections. [UKT
¶ ]
UKT: What is known as "Sanskrit" is now accepted to be made of two
periods:
Pre-Panini - generally known as Vedic Sanskrit, which I prefer to call
Vedic because it is more allied to Tib-Bur (Tibeto-Burman) languages.
Post-Panini - generally known as Classical Sanskrit, which is undoubted a
IE (Indo-European) language. See my note on
Panini .
I wait for input from my peers. - UKT110709
All
out-of- the-way technical terms, such as those of medicine, botany, astronomy [UKT:
probably including astrology - one of my interests],
and ritual, are excluded, except in so far as they have found their way into
ordinary literary works, or occur in selections which I have expressly included.
Specifically legal and philosophical terms are, on the other hand, largely
represented, owing to the inclusion in my list of the most important works
belonging to the corresponding departments of the literature, Having acquired a
rather extensive experience of native commentaries in connexion with my lectures
to students preparing for the Honour School of Oriental Languages at Oxford, I
have introduced a considerable number of grammatical and rhetorical terms also,
these being necessary for the comprehension of such works as for instance the
glosses of Mallinātha. A good many words and explanations will thus be found,
which either do not occur in the Petersburg dictionaries, or are, I think, less
correctly given there. (Compare e.g. articles arthāntaranyāsa, bahuvrihi, yathā
tathā, vākyabheda, vyadhikarana,, sāpekshatva, etc.)
The list of books to which my dictionary specially refers, and which I drew up,
when planning the work, after consultation with a pupil of Professor Buhler's',
the late Dr. Schonberg, then resident in Oxford, I here append.
Books specially referred to Bhagavadgītā, Bhartrihari, Bhāshāparikkheda,
Dasakumārakarita, Gītagovinda, Harshkarita, Hitopadesa, Kādambarī,
Kamandakīya-nītisāra, Kathāsaritsāgara, Kirātārgunīya, Kullūka, Kumārasambhava,
Mahāvīrakarita, Mālatīmādhava, Mālavikāgnimitra, Manu, Meghadūta, Mitāka,
Mitāksharā (on Yāgnavalkya), Mrikkhakatikā, Mudrārākshasa, Naishadha, Nala
Pankatantra, Raghu-[{p-roman05end p-roman06begin}] vamsa,
Rāgataramgini, Ratnāvalī, Ritusamhāra, Sakuntalā, Samkara (on the
Vedānta-sūtras), Sisupālavadha, Tarkasamgraha, Uttararāmakaritra, Vāsavadattā,
Vedāntasāra, Venīsamhāṅkadevakarita, Vikramorvasī, Yāgńavalkya.
Besides all the post-Vedic selections contained in the Readers mentioned below,
the list finally includes the second edition of Böhtlingk's Indische Spriiche,
a florilegium of the aphoristic poetry in which Sanskrit literature is
pre-eminent, well deserving to be made accessible to the English-speaking
student.
With regard to Vedic literature I have taken in all that is contained in the
second edition of Böhtlingk's Sanskrit-Chrestomathie, in Hillebrandt's
Veda- Chrestomathie, in Lanman's Reader, and in Windisch's Zwölf Hymnen
des Rigveda, besides those hymns which are prescribed to the candidates of
the Honour School of Oriental Languages at Oxford (Rig-veda X, i to xxii).
Peterson's 'Selected Hymns of the Rig-veda' would also hve been taken in, had
they been published soon enough. The majority of the hymns contained in that
selection are, however, already included. Apart from passages supplied in
Readers, the Brāhmana period is represented by the Aitareya-Brāhmana,
while the Dharma-sūtra of Gautama and the Āsvalāyana and Pāraskara Grihya-sūtras
are specially selected from the latest phase of Vedic literature.
Important Vedic words, even though not occurring in the selections, have hound a
place in my dictionary mainly on linguistic grounds.
The number of hymns from the Rig-veda, being nearly all the best in that
collection, is about one hundred and twenty. As a list of them will probably
prove a convenience to students, it is here subjoined.
Mandala I: 1, 13, 24, 32, 39, 41, 42, 50, 65, 67, 85, 92, 97, 113, 115,
118, 143, 154, 161, 162, 190; II: 12, 27, 38; III: 33, 35, 59, 62; IV: 19, 27,
30, 33, 42, 51, 52; V: 11, 24, 32, 40, 81, 83, 84, 85; VI: 9, 50, 54, 74; VII:
6, 28, 33, 34, 46, 49, 54, 55, 56, 57, 61, 76, 83, 86, 87, 88, 89, 102, 103:
VIII: 14, 29, 30, 85, 91; IX: 1, 38, 41, 112; X: 1-22, 33, 34, 39, 51, 52, 85,
108, 127, 129, 137, 145, 146, 154, 168, 185.
Arrangement. In my original plan I had contemplated making a separate article of
each word, simple and compound, printed in Devaāgarī type as well as
transliterated. Reflection, however, soon led me to abandon this scheme for that
of arranging compounds in a group under a heading compounds is given in
transliteration (see, for instance, article amrita). When the number of
such compounds is large, they have been split up into several groups with
reference to the initial of the second member (see p. 173). The result of this
change has been a saving of about 100 pages on the estimate of 480 pages
according to the earlier plan, and that too although I have introduced rather
more matter than I had then intended. I believe that this saving of apace will
moreover prove an actual advantage from the practical point of view, because the
eye will find a word more quickly thus than if it had to run down columns of
separate articles. A glance at pages 173 to 175 will probably convince the
student of the correctness of this opinion. A dictionary being a means to an
end, a saving of time in its use is obviously an important object.
As to the arrangement of individual articles, the transliteration of the
Devanagari word is followed, in the case of nouns, by the derivation (in
brackets ) where this cannot be made sufficiently clear by the employment of
hyphens in the transliteration (see e.g. bhrigu, muhūrta, loka). Next
follow the meanings in close juxtaposition,, so that the eye may take them all
in at a glance if possible. My aim has been to give the senses of all words in
the historical order of development. Then come the special uses of the cases,
and last of all idiomatic combinations (see buddhi , manas). When cases are
mentioned, they are given in the order of Sanskrit grammar. The feminine form of
adjectives is given in parentheses immediately after 'a'; thus 'paurusha
,(i).' When no feminine is stated, it must be assumed to be a or else not
quotable.
Adjective compounds ending in participles are described as participles, e.g.
su-gata, srotra-peya. This enables me to make an important distinction in
sense without adding a long explanation. Thus suki-smita is described
as an adjective, because smita is here really a noun at the end of a Bahuvrihi
compound . Again, any confusion in the mind of the beginner between secondary
adjectives like samańgan-īya and future participles like bodhanīya is by
this means avoided.
At first I thought of employing figures to indicate distinct differences of
meaning. But the difficulty, in many cases, of determining a full interval of
meaning , and the large waste of space [{p-roman06end p-roman07begin}] involved,
induced me to reject their use for this purpose, especially as the need is
sufficiently met by the employment of the semi-colon( see Punctuation). I have
therefore only used figures either to distinguish words which have the same form
but differ etymologically (as verbs like ruh or nouns like sam-udra and as-mudra),
re to clearly mark off groups of meaning (as in darsana).
Unnecessary repetition has often been avoided by the use of parentheses. Thus
when samāhita-mati is defined as '(having an) attentive (mind),' the meaning
intended is, that its equivalent is strictly speaking ' having an attentive
mind,' though it may ordinarily be rendered by 'attentive.' The same object is
attained by the use of dashes, implying that an obvious word or words are to be
supplied from what precedes or follows. Thus sat-kīrti is defined as ' f. good
reputation; a having a-, which of course must be understood to mean ' having a
good reputation' ( ep. also dīrgha-sattra, pātana, vidhātaya).
Mainly for the sake of convenience in attaching suffixes and the second members
of compounds, nouns have been given in the weak or middle bases. Verbal
roots have similarly been given in their weak forms with a view to uniformity.
Though I do not think that I have been absolutely consistent in this respect, I
believe I have been sufficiently so for practical purposes.
I have sometimes been obliged to sacrifice a strictly scientific treatment to
practical exigencies by admitting such suffixes as -tā and -maya in the long
articles made up of compounds ( such as that under mitra). Otherwise I should
have been compelled to divide a long paragraph in the middle merely in order to
print an unimportant word in Devanāgarī type . Not much harm can after all
result from this, as not even the tyro would be likely to confound such suffixes
with regular words. To obviate the difficulty by placing such words out of their
regular alphabetical order would have entailed a much more serious drawback on
the practical side. In the case of important proper names I have generally added
a few concise remarks together with approximate dates as far as these can be
determined in the light of the most recent research ( see e.g. Bhavabhūti). As
definitions of technical terms are sometimes almost unintelligible without
illustrative examples, the latter have been added where it seemed necessary
(see, for instance, samāsokti).
In articles treating of verbs, the conjugational class is first stated together
with the voice in which it is conjugated. When the latter is omitted, the verb
must be understood to be both active and middle. Next comes the present base or
bases in transliteration, followed by the meanings of the verb arranged on the
same principle as in the case of nouns, the idiomatic uses being stated at the
end. After this are added the present passive (generally omitted) with the past
passive participle, the causal, the desiderative, and the intensive (when these
forms occur), with their respective perfect participles passives in this order.
The principle I had in view in treating the perfect participle passive, was to
give it under the verb when the meanings are merely verbal, but to make a
separate article of it where adjectival senses predominate. I feel that I have
not been thoroughly consistent in this respect. It is, however, not a matter of
great moment.
The verbal prepositions are arranged in alphabetical order after the last form
of the simple verb with which they are used. A scientific as well as a practical
consideration determined me to concentrate them in this manner. On the one hand,
these prefixes are separable in the Veda, while on the other a large amount of
space is saved by making a single article of verbal root and the prepositions
with which it may be combined. Otherwise separate head-lines in Devanāgarī as
well as transliteration would have to be printed. Four times as much space would
thus be occupied as under the alternative system. Nor would anything be thus
gained in convenience, unless ( to obviate reference to the simple verb) the
present base and other forms were added. This would involve a further waste of
space.
Contents of this page
I have acted on the principle that a dictionary should
give all references or none. The former alternative was, of course, out of the
question in a practical work. It might, it is true, have been useful to state
where a word occurs, out of the questions in a practical work. It might, it is
true, have been useful to state where a word occurs which is not to be found in
other dictionaries. My rare deviations from the rule are, however, solely
limited to passages in which the meaning of a particular word is unknown, or
where the definition is made clearer by the reference, as in the case of samudga or sarvatobhadra. Partial references have, I think a tendency to make
students too dependent on them in determining the meaning of a word in any given
passage. The omission of such references is more than compensated for by the
method which I have followed. I have endeavoured to limit the meaning of word as
far as possible to parallel instances by indicating the case which it governs,
the word in context with [{p-roman07end p-roman08begin}] which it is
employed, the literary period or department to which it belongs, and the
frequency or rarity its occurrence. An examination of such articles as lohita or
√ 2. ruh will illustrate my meaning.
Contents of this page
UKT: Macdonell's p-roman08 contains quite a number of Skt-Dev
words. I have added my own Bur-Myan and Romabama scripts to familiarize the
reader with the graphemes involved. Remember, Bur-Myan
{sa.}
can be either the palatal-plosive च {sa.}, or dental-sibilant ष {Sa.} - they
are differentiated only in Romabama. However, they are different as codas,
{c} and
{S}. I have to use this scheme because my work consists not only of Sanskrit
but all the four languages - BEPS (Burmese-English-Pali-Sanskrit speeches in
Myanmar-Latin-Devanagari scripts). Please note that I am avoiding IPA
transcriptions because they are entirely misleading in what are generally
known as affricates. - UKT110709
From this order (see p. xii) I have, from considerations of
practical utility, never deviated, with one very slight and rare exception. I
have sometimes transposed the order of two words, either to obviate breaking up
a paragraph or to avoid repeating a definition (e.g. smarya). The words
being in immediate juxtaposition, neither of them can be missed.
Under this head I ought to add a few remarks in order to remove some common
stumbling-blocks from the path of the beginner. Owing to variety of spelling,
especially in Indian editions, words with initial व v
{wa.} and श
s
{sha.}/
{žhya.} may not be found under those letters. They will be discovered by looking up ब
b 
{ba.} and ष sh
{Sa.} or
स s
{ža.} respectively. The reverse also
applies. [UKT ¶ ]
The alphabetical position of Anusvāra followed by a semivowel or
sibilant is before क k
{ka.}. Thus
संवर samvara
{žän-wa.ra.} and संशर samsaya
{žän-sha.ra.} precede सक saka
{ža.ka.}.
[UKT ¶ ]
On the other hand, the Anusvāra which
occurs before a mute of one of the five classes and is interchangeable with the
nasal of that class, occupies the place of the class nasal. [UKT ¶ ]
UKT: The "five classes" are the five rows of the {wag}-portion of the
akshara matrix:
r1: {ka.} {hka.} {ga.} {Ga.} {nga.} // {ngän} = {nging}
r2: {sa.} {hka.} {za.} {Za.} { ńa.} // {ńän} = {ńiń}
r3: {Ta.} {HTa.} {ša.} {Ša.} {Na.} // {Nän} = {NūN}
r4: {ta.} {hta.} {da.} {Da.} {na.} // {nän} =
{nūn}
r5: {pa.} {hpa.} {ba.} {Ba.} {ma.} // {män} = {mūm}
While I was working on this section, a friend of mine, a Buddhist monk
referred me to a book on Pali grammar (in Pal-Myan and Bur-Myan} on
{kic~sęŃ:} Sutta #31 The Basic Grammar by Ashin Zanakabi Wuntha {za.na.ka-Bi-wän-ža.},
1936, presumably Rangoon, Burma, p030. The text is reproduced above. It
states essentially what Macdonell has written. - UKT110709
Thus sam-kaksha (= saṅ-kaksha) immediately follows सघृण sa-ghrina. Similarly, the unchangeable or necessary Visarga (i.e.
preceding a hard guttural or labial) comes after a vowel before my other
consonant. Thus अन्तःकरण antah-karana and अन्तःपुर antah-pura
follow अन्त anta and precede अन्तक anta-ka.
On
the other hand, the Visarga which precedes a sibilant, and may be
assimilated to it, is treated as if it were that sibilant and placed
accordingly. Thus अधःशय adhah-saya and अधःशायिन् adhah-sāyin follow
अधश्चरण adhas-karana and precede अधस् adhas.
Contents of this page
A full list of these together with their explanations with be
found on p. xii. It is, however, perhaps advisable to add a few remarks showing
how some of these symbols should exactly be understood to apply. When a sign
such as V. (=Vedic) is added in parentheses after a form, a grammatical
symbol, or a meaning, its application is restricted to these only. Thus under √
yam, yįma (V.) means that that present base is exclusively Vedic; a. (V.),
m. (V.) signify that as an adjective or as a masculine noun, the word in
question is exclusively Vedic; when 'sįd-as, n.' is defined as (seat, place,
abode, dwelling (V.),' the meaning is that all these synonymous senses are
Vedic. The application of such notes as 'ord.mg.' (=ordinary meaning) is
similar. Thus under 1. māna, all the preceding words separated by commas, viz.
'respect, regard, honour, mark of honour,' are indicated as included in the
ordinary meaning of māna (cp. Punctuation). If, on the other hand, a symbol
followed by a colon is used before a meaning, its application is carried
on till another symbol occurs. For example, under vriddhi the sense
'growth' is indicated to be both Vedic and Classical, 'delectation, delight,'
Vedic, but all the signification from 'adolescence' onwards post-Vedic only.
Contents of this page
UKT: In the country of Myanmar, we have two words in Burmese,
{sa}
and
{sa.ka:}.
The phonemes go under the rubric of
{sa.ka:}
and graphemes under
{sa.}.
Thus, for BEPS we have: Burmese-Myanmar (Bur-Myan), English-Latin (Eng-Lat),
Pali-Myanmar (Pal-Myan), and Sanskrit-Devanagari (Skt-Dev). On extending it
to describe how an ancient Roman would speak and write, we can say it was in
Roman-Latin, and the reader should note the word "Roman type" used in the
following paragraph should be read as the "Latin type".
The reader should also note that, unlike the man on the street,
educated Burmese speakers are always careful about how they speak and we
take particular care of the way we spell a word, for the adage is "Writing
is correct (unchanging) - Speaking (or reading aloud) is just sound and is
lost as soon as it is uttered". The problem comes in when we compare Bur-Myan
to Eng-Latin, because we have 3 pitch-registers (or tones), e.g.
{sa.}
'start',
{sa}
'script',
{sa:}
'eat', and English has just two tones - the short and the long. Sanskrit
like English has only two. Because of this two-three tone problem, the
reader should note that I am more careful about the spelling than the
pronunciation in the present work.
The small Devanāgarī character is used for all articles except the verbs,
for which the large type is reserved. Ordinary Roman type is employed for
transliteration immediately following a word in Devanāgarī; but when a word
occurs n transliteration only, it is printed in thick type so as to catch the
eye at once (as in article akshara). When there is no object in attracting the
attention, as for instance when Sanskrit words occur in definitions or
explanations, they are not made conspicuous in this manner.
To the special use made of italic type, I attach considerable practical value.
Its occurrence in definitions always implies amplification or elucidation,
whereas the ordinary Roman type represent as far as is possible the exact
literal equivalent of the Sanskrit word. Thus samvarava-sarg is
defined as 'wreath given by a girl to the man of her
choice' (compare also samāna upamā). By this means needless repetitions and
waste of space are avoided, while much is gained in clearness of definition at
one and the same time.
Punctuation. The colon immediately before a transliterated word or suffix,
indicates that the latter must be attached to the end of the preceding Sanskrit
word. Thus : -ka after the heading word loshtį is to be read as loshta-ka.
This is in no way affected by the intervening special uses of cases or idioms
often added at the end of an article. Thus: -kesarin undr vi-krama must of
course be understood as vikrama-kesarin, in spite of the inflected forms of
vikrama which immediately precede -kesarin. The special significance of the
semi-colon is, in addition to marking off distinctly different meanings, to
separate within a paragraph the latter halves of the compounds which it
contains. Thus; -kakshus under lola-kara, is to be read as lola-kakshus,
and the following[{p-roman08end p-roman09begin}] ; -tā as lola-tā. Had a
colon preceded the latter, it would have meant lola-kakshus-tā. The
semicolon will sometimes be found instead of the colon when it is perfectly
obvious that nothing else could be done with the following word but attach it to
the end of the preceding one. This is for instance the case with; kāra after
loha. The comma is employed as has already been indicated, to separate more or
less synonymous meanings, while the semi-colon marks off distinct differences of
sense. The other specific use of the comma is in paragraphs with compounds to
show that the following word is to be applied exactly in the same way as a
preceding one introduced by a colon. Thus sat-kārya followed by : -vāda and
subsequently by, -vādin, must be read as satkārya-vāda and satkārya-vādin.
Contents of this page
The system is that which has been adopted in the 'Sacred Books
of the East,' and already followed by me in my edition of Professor Max Müller's
Sanskrit Grammar. Had I been guided exclusively by my own judgment I should have
preferred c
{sa.} and j
{za.} to represent the hard and the soft palatal
[UKT ¶ ]
UKT: "च c
{sa.} and
ज j {za.}"
are "tenuis-voiceless" and "voiced" respectively. They are pronounced as /
{kya.}/ and /
{gya.}/ by the Hindi speakers. As for the English and other Europeans who
could not differentiate the "tenuis-voiceless" from the "aspirate-voiceless"
they become the "affricates".
I should have
retained the italic t and d for the linguals, but made the lingual ष sh also an italic s, representing the palatal sibilant श by
ē . The
connexion of these two sibilants with the mutes of their classes would thus have
been clearly indicated. The employment of a double letter sh [UKT: I use the
term 'digraph' - I try to keep the digraphs out of Romabama because they are
always a source of problem commonly mixed up with the diphthongs in the vowels.], the latter half of
which otherwise represents an aspiration, to express the simple sound of a
spirant, is not strictly scientific, though convenient for the Anglo-Saxon. It
is , however, not a good thing to multiply systems.
UKT: I am curious how Macdonell has termed श as the palatal. I would have
it as dental-alveolar. The IPA phonemes /θ/ /s/ /ʃ/, the dental-alveolar
fricatives are sufficient to represent all respective sounds in all four
speeches. I wait for comments from my peers. - UKT 110709
I must here refer to some practical application of transliteration which I have
made.
When one or more letters in thick type are added after a Sanskrit word either in
parentheses or following a semi-colon, colon, or comma, the meaning is that that
letter of those letters are to be substituted for precisely the same number at
the end of the word in question. Thus 'paurusha, a . (i),' 'yamaka, a. (ikā)'
signify that the feminine of the former adjective is paurushi and that of the
latter yamikā. Similarly 'samāna-mūrdhan, a. (ni)' indicates that this word has
the form samāna-mūrdhnī in the feminine. The letters :i-ka, referring to a
preceding paurāna, must be read as paurāna-ka.
Accent. Wherever the accent is known from Vedic texts it has been given in the
transliteration, the Udātta (acute) accent being marked in the usual way (e.g.
vįdhar) and the svarita (circumflex) accent being indicated by a curve above the
vowel (e.g. svćr).
When an accented word is exclusively Vedic this is indicated by a V., while if
notheing is stated, it may be assumed to be post-Vedic also, e.g. vīnā. As the
meanings of an accented word may be partly Vedic, partly post-Vedic, and partly
common to both periods, this is broadly indicated by the symbols V.
(=Vedic in general), C. (= post-Vedic in general), and V. C.
(- both Vedic and post-Vedic), as for example in the article vratį. Unaccented
words may be assumed to be post-Vedic, since in the rare cases when they happen
to belong to the Vedic period, this is noted. Sometimes I distinguish
subordinate periods, as Br. = Brāhmana, S. = Sūtra, E.
= Epic, P.= Purāna. It would, however, have been beyond the scope of the
present work to go into details of this kind. That would belong rather to the
sphere of an exclusively etymological dictionary. I may mention in passing that
äna are indicated, a single occurrence in the Rig-veda, for
instance, being marked as RV.1, just as
words and meanings quotable only from native grammarians and lexicographer are
made recognisable by an asterisk. This is an important safeguard; for the
signification of the former class of words is often very doubtful, while the
genuineness of the latter is uncertain. I have frequently seen non-quotable
words, without any indication that they are such, used by comparative
philologists, as well as made the basis of far-reaching
conclusions. Thus I remember a few years ago hearing an Oriental scholar, who
was not a Sanskritist, using as an argument for Babylonian influence the word
manć, to which the older Petersburg dictionary in one passage attributed the
meaning of 'a certain weight of gold,' and which was therefore supposed to be
identical with the Greek . This meaning no loger appears in the
smaller edition of that work.
Compounds arranged under an accented heading word, must be assumed to be
unaccented and therefore post- Vedic unless any indication to the contrary is
given. Thus- ketu under vigayį is to be read as vigaya-ketu. It follows as a
matter of course that, if the second half of a compound has an accent, that is
the accent of the whole word. Thus- mįya occurring under lohį represents
loha-mįya.
Contents of this page
My original plan was to make the present work a comparative as well
as a practical Sanskrit dictionary. After a good deal of reflection I abandoned
this project on the ground that while [{p-roman09end p-roman10begin}] greatly
swelling the bulk of the volume, the etymological material would not in this
combination admit of being groped and classified from various points of view as
it should be in a thoroughly valuable and scientific etymological dictionary.
The treatment of this material in a separate volume which I had contemplated,
may be rendered superfluous by a work that is, I understand, in preparation at Strassburg. My taste for etymological studies I trace in great part to Professor
Fick's lectures on Comparative Greek Grammar, which I attended when a student at
Göttingen. Though not comparative, the dictionary is nevertheless historical and
etymological in its character. It is historical inasmuch as the meanings are not
given in an arbitrary order, as in the Indian dictionaries, but are arranged as
far as possible in accordance with their chronological development, while the
literary period to which both words and their senses belong, is plentifully
indicated. It is etymological from the Sanskrit point of view inasmuch as all
words, except the small number -- far smaller than in any other Aryan language
-- which defy analysis, have been broken up into their component parts in the
transliteration either by means of hyphens, as in yag-ńa, or of hooks
where vowel coalescences occur, as in mrigaikshana for mrigekshana.
Where these means are insufficient , the derivation has been concisely added in
brackets, as under √ mūrkh, yaksha, rūdhi. I have inserted in
brackets a not inconsiderable number of roots, the former existence of which,
though not occurring as verbs, is either deducible from Sanskrit derivatives
alone or is proved by the evidence of comparative philology also (e.g. √
mańg, √ 1. rudh). The structure of Sanskrit words being so much clearer than
that in any other Aryan tongue, I have thus availed myself of the opportunity of
supplying students of the language with an easy instrument of linguistic
training.
Contents of this page
The present work derives its material mainly from the newer Petersburg
dictionary. It could not be of much value were this not the case. I have of
course also carefully worked through Böhtlingk and Roth's older dictionary, on
account of the vast array of quotations and references which it contains. The
consultation of these was necessary in the laborious process of verifying
meanings.
The rapid strides made by Sanskrit studies during the last thirty years, are
chiefly owing to the lexicographical labours of those two great scholars.
Sanskrit lexicography being a product of the present century, it was for the
subject indeed a fortunate combination of circumstances, that the task was
undertaken in an age when strictly scientific methods had begun to be applied to
scholarship, and tat the work fell into the hands of scholars of such eminent
ability. The result has been that Sanskrit lexicography, not having had
gradually to clear away the unscientific accumulations of previous centuries, is
already in a more advanced state than that of the classical languages. This is
indeed indicated by the fact that the large Petersburg dictionary contains more
than double the mount of matter supplied by the last edition of Liddell and
Scott's Greek Lexicon.
I have also used throughout Grassmann's Lexicon to the Rig-veda, as well as a
copy of Benfey's dictionary annotated by the author himself. To the latter half
of Apte's dictionary I owe some quotable compounds not to be found in the
Petersburg dictionaries. Down to about the end of the vowels I am indebted to
Cappeller's Wörterbuch for some Sanskrit equivalents of Prakrit words
occurring in Sanskrit plays. I had reached this point when I was informed by the
author that he intended translating his lexicon when complete into English. I
accordingly at once ceased referring to it, and have not looked at it since.
From the same work I have borrowed the very convenient abbreviations - and - .
I have further consulted Whiteny's Sanskrit Roots, the glossaries contained in
the Readers of Lanman, Hillebrandt, and Windish, as well asl in Johnson's
Hitopadesa, Kellner's and Monier- Williams's Nala, Stenzler's and Johnson's
Meghadūta, and Burkhard's Sakuntalā, besides the Index to Pischel and Geldner's
Vedische Studies. I have also made use of Prof. Aufrect's Catalogus
Catalogorum, various articles in the Jorunal of the German Oriental Society
and Kuhn's Zeitachrift, as well as one by Prof. E. Leunann in the
Festgruss (to Böhtlingk, on his jubilee), and Prof. Bühler's lexicographical
notes in the Vienna Oriental Journal. In addition to what it derives from these
sources of information, my book embodies all the matter with which it is
concerned from the numerous appendices of the smaller Petersburg dictionary,
besides words, compounds, and meanings collected by myself from post-Vedic
works, such as the Pańkatantra.
For etymological purposes I have consulted the large Petersburg dictionary,
Grassmann's Wörterbuch, Lanman's Glossary, Brugmann's Gruudriss,
and Ficks's comparative Dictionary of the Indo-European Languages.[{p-roman10end p-roman11begin}]
Having utilised all these sources of information, I venture
to think that work may be regarded as registering the advance of Sanskrit
lexicography up to the present time.
Sir M. Monier-Williams's Sanskrit-English lexicon has not been consulted, partly
because it is based on the older Petersburg dictionary, and having been
published twenty years ago contains no new material, and partly because I wished
to avoid being influenced by the system of a work of which a new edition is in
preparation.
I take this opportunity of expressing my sincere gratitude to Prof. E.B. Cowell
for the kind way in which he assisted me during the course of the work in
solving difficulties I submitted to him in the departments of grammar,
philosophy, and rhetoric. It is no exaggeration to say that in combined
knowledge of these subjects he surpasses all other Sanskritists. The generous
manner in which he sacrifices his leisure in the interests of those who whish to
avail themselves of his great learning, is well known to his pupils, but not so
well known to others as it ought to be.
In conclusion I must not omit to express my belief that the fact of this book
having been printed by the University Press at Oxford, under the eye of its
Oriental Reader, Mr.J.C. Pembrey, whose skill could not be surpassed, is in
itself a sufficient guarantee of accuracy.
ARTHUR A. MACDONELL.
7 FYFIELD ROAD, OXFORD,
September, 1892
[{p-roman11end p-roman12begin}]
Contents of this page
Contents of this page
From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C4%81%E1%B9%87ini - 110711
Pāṇini (Skt: पाणिनि, a
patronymic meaning "descendant of
Paṇi") was an Ancient Indian Sanskrit grammarian from Pushkalavati,
Gandhara (fl. 4th century BC[1][2]).
He is known for his Sanskrit grammar [UKT from hyperlink: Vyakarana ],
particularly for his formulation of the 3,959 rules[2]
of Sanskrit morphology, syntax and semantics in the grammar known as
Ashtadhyayi (अष्टाध्यायी
Aṣṭādhyāyī, meaning "eight chapters"), the foundational text of the
grammatical branch of the Vedanga, the auxiliary scholarly disciplines of
Vedic religion.
The Ashtadhyayi is one of the earliest known grammars of Sanskrit, although
he refers to previous texts like the Unadisutra, Dhatupatha, and
Ganapatha.[2]
It is the earliest known work on descriptive linguistics, and together with the
work of his immediate predecessors (Nirukta,
Nighantu,
Pratishakyas) stands at the beginning of the history of linguistics itself.
His theory of morphological analysis was more advanced than any equivalent
Western theory before the mid 20th century, and his analysis of noun compounds
still forms the basis of modern linguistic theories of compounding, which have
borrowed Sanskrit terms such as
bahuvrihi
and dvandva.
Pāṇini's comprehensive and scientific theory of grammar is conventionally
taken to mark the end of the period of
Vedic Sanskrit , by definition introducing
Classical
Sanskrit.
UKT: I am forming a theory that the so-called "Vedic Sanskrit" was one of
the Tib-Bur (Tibeto-Burman) languages used by the peoples just south of the
Himalayas, which was beginning to be used by the IE (Indo-European) speakers
like Panini.
I am forming this theory based on the supposed presence of ऌ
(vocalic L) sounds in Vedic similar to the {la.}-sounds in modern Bur-Myan
(Burmese speech in Myanmar script) such as {la.}, {lya.}, {lwa.}, {lha.}, {lhya.},
{lhwa.}. However, in the Classical Sanskrit, we find a high presence of
rhotic sounds such as ऋ (vocalic R) which are absent in Bur-Myan. Since,
Pal-Myan (Pali-Myanmar) is very similar (in consonant and vowel sounds) to
Bur-Myan, I am of the opinion that it was the direct descendant of Vedic
which had come into the land of Myanmar before the time of Gautama Buddha.
It was recorded in Glass Palace Chronicle (in Bur-Myan), that a group from
India led by King Abiraza had sought refuge in northern Burma (Myanmar) long
before the time of the Buddha. If a king had come in, he must have been
accompanied by his monks (who were not Buddhists) and scribes. They would
have brought along their language, the Vedic, into the land of Myanmar. Then
in the 11th century AD. came King Anawrahta who uprooted the non-Theravada
elements and their monks (probably because of political reasons) and changed
the nature of Pal-Myan by introducing elements of Sanskrit which came in
with the Mon-Myan language from the south. Please note that I am a
scientist, and I admit my theory is nothing but a conjecture unsupported by
any other evidence. I wait for comments from my peers. - UKT110711.
UKT: More in the Wikipedia article.
Go back Panini-note-b
Contents of this page
End of TIL file