Sanskrit: irregular participles?

pc2 · Post by **pc2** » 02 Dec 2006 16:29

salutations,

we would like to present 2 Sanskrit verbal roots:
गम्- gam-, which means "to go".
गा- gaa-, which means "to sing".
now, we have that their respective participles (in pradiipaka) are गत- gata- and गीत- giita-. why? it it was regular, it would have to be गमित- gamita- and गात- gaata- or गेत- geta-, right?
are these irregular participles?

TIA,

Sisyphe · Post by **Sisyphe** » 02 Dec 2006 18:30

However, "gam" is entirly unregular : gacchami, gacchasi, gacchati instead of *gamyami" (whereas it is considered as a first group verb), "gatvaa" in absolutive (but new regular forme "ganya" , etc.

"gam" is an old verb, related to angl. "come", germ. "kommen", lat. "venio", old greek "bainô" etc. All of them (unless "venio", afterly rebuild). The indo-european root is "gwH2", and the nasal is a present suffix :

*gweH2-n- > gam-

On "gam-" arme made the recent forms : gantum (infinitive), (ut)gamya (new absolutive), etc.

But the participle comes directly from indo-european, build as follow :

*gweH2- to > gata

Likewise, the vedic aorist is "agaam", which is exactly the same forme as old greek "ebên" :

*e-gweH2-m > agaat.

But classical sanskrit remakes a more regular "agamat".

Such a prevalent verb is often old and therefore unregular in the languages. French "aller" (je vais, nous irons) is monstruous, coming from three latins roots !

*

For "gaa" I do not knwow. But there must be an laryngeal in the indo-european root, as it is fo "daa" (give), "jñaa" 'know", "smaa" (swim), "paa" (drink), who aa often comes into ii, esp. in passive forms : diiyate, jñiiyate, smiiyate, piiyate, etc.

pc2 · Post by **pc2** » 02 Dec 2006 22:42

OK.

अनुगृहिताः स्मः anugrhiitaaH smaaH, which is Sanskrit for "thank you".
your answer was really very useful. how come we have never perceived "gam" is phonetically similar to "come"? it is so obvious...
the verb "to be" in Sanskrit (which has two forms, bhuu- and as-) is also very flexible. the second form (as-) is almost completely irregular. the present (asmi, asi, asti, smaH, stha, santi) is what originates the form of, for example, French (suis, es, est, sommes, ...), Portuguese (sou, és, é, somos, ...) and English (is). but bhuu- is what originates English (be) and French (fuis). that is an interesting fact... it is similar to the case of "aller" in French, isn't it?

salutations,

Sisyphe · Post by **Sisyphe** » 02 Dec 2006 23:23

the verb "to be" in Sanskrit (which has two forms, bhuu- and as-) is also very flexible. the second form (as-) is almost completely irregular. the present (asmi, asi, asti, smaH, stha, santi) is what originates the form of, for example, French (suis, es, est, sommes, ...), Portuguese (sou, és, é, somos, ...) and English (is). but bhuu- is what originates English (be) and French (fuis).

french form has no i : je fus, tu fus, il fut, nous fûmes, vous fûtes, ils furent. "je fuis" is the verb "fuir", to flee

The "bhew" root gives sanscrit "bhuu" (which is considered as one verbe, completing "asmi" but not the same one), as you said. I add : german "ich bin", old greek "phuô", to grow (but the perfect pephuka means "I am"), hence "phyton" the plant (what has grown up - so "phytoplankton"), and "physis" the nature (the set of things who grow), and so one.

that is an interesting fact... it is similar to the case of "aller" in French, isn't it?

It does. The french verbe "aller" comes from three latine verbs :

- ire "to go" : hence the futur "j'irai", the conditionnal "j'irais".
- ambulare "to walk" : hence the form with "al-" : aller, j'allais, que j'aille
- vadere "move on" : hence "je vais, tu vas".

Such a pattern is called "suppletivism" or "suppletion" (in french "supplétisme"). But there is degrees in it : sanscrit use of "bhuu" and "as-/s-" is partial suppletivism, for two verbs exist (even no having all the forms, "as-" is defective), with a little difference of meaning ("bhuu" means "to be" but aslo "to becom") and certain forms could be used concurratly to each other : "asmi" or "bhavami", I am, "syam" or "bhaveyam", may I be (optative)
That is the case also for "eimai" and "gignomai" in ancien greek. It was the case for "aller" in ancient french ; subjonctive was "que j'aille" OR "que je voise". Know only the first is correct.

Know, the functionning of "aller" (or esse/fui in latin, contrary to "as-/bh) is an achieved suppletivism. It one verb, none has the impression to use two different verbs.

drkpp · Post by **drkpp** » 07 Dec 2006 21:06

The root verb in second part is gai not gaa. It is root belonging to first conjugation parasmaipada.