Sunday, December 25, 2005

A linguistic study of howmanieth

A Linguistic Study of howmanieth

Chinmay Dharurkar

Though many Indian languages have a separate vocable for the interrogative ordinal pronoun, as kitva in Marathi many of the world languages don’t. Hindi, English, Arabic etc. can be a list of such languages that lack the lexeme. As does Marathi, so do: Gujarati (keTlAmo), Kannada (), Telugu (), Persian (), German (), etc. have the exact equivalent.
In Sanskrit katama is believed to be the exact equivalent for it. However that is a misunderstanding (especially of the Indian Sanskritists) and not katama, but katitha is the exact equivalent for it. To prove this is one of the aims of this paper.
Many Lexicographers coin howmanieht/howmaiest (Monier-Williams, 2003/1899:246) as equivalents of katitha. So do Sanskrit-Hindi lexicographers kitnava (Suryakant, 1981) as a Hindi equivalent of katitha. This paper also aims to see if the English suffix –th (of fourth, fifth etc.) is cognate to Sanskrit suffix –thuk (as called by Panini) i.e –th of caturtha, sHasHTha, katitha & katipayatha.
Let’s see how katitha, and not katama, is appropriate to mean ‘which in the order or series’ (howmanieht hereafter) i.e ordinal interrogative sense. Probing a little will explicate the things. It was always katitha in Sanskrit that meant howmanieth whereas katama always meant which one in the many scattered things. We are going to see how this is evinced by the Sanskrit literature throughout. But let’s have a look at the Paninian sutras pertaining katama and katitha.
Panini proposes Datamac suffix being there in katama in the sUtra:
1. a) vaa bahunaam jaati-pariprashne Datamac (5.3.93)
The preceding sutra is:
b) kim-yat-tador-nirdharaNe dvayorekasya Datamac (5.3.92)
According to 1a) pari-prashna i.e interrogation is possible only in the case of kim. The two yat, tat not being interrogative pariprashna simply cannot be there in their case. JaatigrahaNa is possible. Vaa reveals the option of the forms viz. yakaH, sakaH. This sutra generates katama, yatama and tatama. The same jaatigrahaNa or pariprashna when in case of two Datarac applies and katara, yatara and tatara these praatipadakas are formed.
2) sHaT-kati-katipaya-caturaam thuk (5.2.91)
Tasya pUraNe DaT (5.2.28) this sutra proposes the ordinal suffix DaT and the following sutras describe the options, augments that happen for the suffix DaT. So is –thuk an agama (augment) for the suffix DaT, which is naked in sHasHTha, katitha, katipayatha, caturtha. The other agamas like maDAgama, tamaDAgama etc. other agamas are also seen in the forms prathama, navama, saptama along with sHasHTitama, saptatitama etc.
It is noteworthy that –tama in katama is not tamaDAgama of ordinality suffix DaT but of Datamac. The two Datamac and DaT’s tamaDAgama are different suffixes that get attached to different roots. This clarifies that katama doesn’t at all mean howmanieth but katitha alone means howmanieth. Katama simply means who or which one of many. In other words there in no sense of ordinality in katama as there is no ordinal suffix in it. So it can mean only which i.e. of jaatipariprshna. On the other hand katitha unambiguously means howmanieth. To put it in other words katama pervades a larger domain of meaning katitha however denotes a particular domain of meaning within the larger domain of katitha. It means that all the answers of the enquiry of katitha will be answers of katama but not the vice-versa. For instance ‘which boy’ may have answers like ‘tall boy’ or ‘first boy’. Both the responses will do. But ‘howmanieth boy’ cannot have ‘tall boy’ as its valid answer. Only some ordinal has to be the answer. In katama or ‘which’ not only pariprashna but also jaati is incorporated. (jaatyaa kriyayaa guNena sanjnyayaa vaa samudaayaadekadeshasya pruthak-karaNam nirdhaaraNa iti kaashikaa under 5.3.92). It is difficult to carry out this nirdhaanraNa using the ordinal suffix, as for the nirdhaaraNa of the scattered things, using katama is more appropriate, as any order is absent in the scattered things. We may insist upon putting ordinality under the head of guNa but that guNa won’t the fundamental, embodied quality of the substantive. It will have to depend upon the order that is pre-determined by the cardinal numbers, which is formally realized in ordinal numbers. In other words it will be an adjective of Identity or upalakSHaNa that is imposed upon on it in relation to the facts external or extrinsic to it.
It is intriguing that though ordinals are cognized by the human mind as adjectives their interrogation is carried out in a different way by using a separate ordinal interrogative pronoun viz. katitha, kitvaa, ennova, eShTaneya etc. (at least in case of the languages that have one of this kind). Perhaps, in the course of human evolution invention of numbers being quite a latest event it might have been contrived by some of the languages to have separate interrogative pronouns for the distinct domains of the enquiry of adjectives and ordinals. So I not only argue that which has a larger domain and howmanieth a specific, but also: number itself being an abstraction it simply cannot be an intrinsic quality of substantive, that denotation will always be relative. For example when we say ‘a fat boy’ fatness can be believed to be residing in the boy in the form of some extra layer of accumulated fats causing obesity, so is not the case in ‘fifth boy’. It is not the fifth-ness that resides in the boy but it is the boy who occupies the position marked with the cardinal number five. This is sense of occupation or filling up may be intended in Paninian term puuraNa.

The above discussion is about how katama-katitha are different from each other.
For the sake of curious readers following are the related Panini sutras:
1. tasya puuraNe DaT (5.2.48)
2. naantaadasankhyaadermaT (5.2.49)
3. *thaT ca chandasi (5.2.50)
4. sHaT-kati-katipaya-caturaam thuk (5.2.51)
5. *dvestiiyaH (5.2.53)
6. *treH samprasaaraNam ca (5.2.54)
7. *vinshatyaadibhistamaDanyatarasyaam (5.2.56)
8. *nityam shataadi-maasaardha-maasa-sanvtsaraat ca (5.2.57)
9. *sHasHTyaadeshcaasankhyaadehe (5.2.58)
(The asterisked sutras are mentioned in the later part of the paper or mere related. So far those have not been discussed.)
We discussed the semantic distinction between katama-katitha using Panini-sutras. But the occurrences from the Sanskrit literature do also support the facts that we discussed. Having found out the occurrences and the meaning of katama-katitha in Sanskrit literature from Deccan College Scriptorium of The Sanskrit Dictionary Project it was found that the two lexemes were never inter-mingled and have been in the language independently.
Katama-katitha occurrences, the text and translation:

Katama:
1. Rgveda 1.35.7
Vi suparNo antrixaaNyakhyad-gabhiirvepaa asuraH sunithaH |
Kvedaaniim suuryaH kashciketa katamaam dyaam rashmirasya tataana ||
[Construal: asuraH gabhiiravepaaH suniithaH suparNaH antarixaaNi vykhyat, idaaniim kva katamaam dyaam asya rashmiH aatataana kaH ciketa?]
Meaning: That which possesses pranas, that who has minute, intense or recondite vibrations, the one provides object in the best way, the one has good leaves/ rays – that Suurya , where is he? Who knows to which directions are his rays spread?

2. Rgveda 2.24.1
kasya nUnam katamasyaamrutaanaam manaamahe chaaru devasya naama|
Ko no mahyaa aditaye punardaatpitaram ca drsheyam maataram ca||
Meaning: Which god shall we believe to be indicative of amruta (nectar)?
The one who gives the nourishing earth and also the parents: father and mother.

3. ChaandogyopaniShat 1.1.4
katamaa katamark-katamat-katamatsaama katamaH |
katama udgiitha iti vimruShaTam bhavati ||
Meaning: Which is the Rk? Which is the saama? Which is the udgiitha? This is being thought.
(Total occurrences of katama in Upanishad (10) literature: 14)

4. Mahabharata
Total occurrences: 14
1) 1.88.9c vidyaat alakshmiiH katamam janaanaam
2) 1.224.22a jyeshThaH sutaste katamaH
3) 1.224.22c madhyamaH katamaH putraH
4) 3.123.12a tatastsyaavayoschaiva
5) 4.40.1c katamam yaasyeniikam
6) 4.45.9a katamad dvairatham yuddham
7) 4.45.11a tathaiva katamam yuddham
8) 4.50.3c katamam yaasyeniikam
9) 5.36.8c vidyaat alakshmiH katamam janaanaam
10) 5.43.24c tesHaam tu katamaH sa syaad
11) 5.101.20a kaH pitaa jananii chaasya
12) 12.262.32a etsHaam pretyabhaave tu katamaH
13) 12.263.5a tatashcintaam punaH praptaH katamad
14) 12.319.19a daivatam ktamam hyetad
Each and every occurrence of katama over here means which and nowhere howmanieth. For example we will discuss 2, 3.
2) 1.224.22a jyeshThaH sutaste katamaH katamatadanantaraH |
madhyamaH katamaH putraH kanishThaH katamascha te ||
Meaning: Which is your eldest son? Which is the one next to him?
Which is the middle one and which is the youngest one?
Also of 4) 3.123.12a tatastsyaavayoschaiva is remarkable as there is no katama in it but ekatama. This verse form Aranya parvan of Mahabharata is uttered by Ashwinas wherein the wife of Chyanvan Rshi is addressed whom they happen to see in the forest.
The complete shloka follows:
tatastsyaavayoschaiva patimekatamam vrNu |
etana samayenainamantraya varaananane ||
aavayoschaiva patimekatamam vrNu : Choose one of us as your husband.
Here ekatamam has alternative reading as ekataram or anyatamam. This is noteworthy. More discussion on this: at the end of the paper.

5.Vikramorvashiiyam –
api jnaayate katamena digbhaagena gataH sa jaalmaH
(act 1, the king addressing to Menaka)
Menaka informs Raja that a daanava kidnapped Urvashi. In response to this the king asks her the quoted question : “To which direction did the abject go?”

6. Abhijnaanshaakuntalam –
(1) atha katamam rtum adhikrtya gaasyaami
(Act 1, says NaTi to the sUtradhaara , before the shloka 3 of the act)
“Now pertaining to which season should I sing the song?”
(2) tadidaaniim katamatprakaraNamaashrityainamaaraadhayaamaH ||
(Act 1,sUtrasdhaara, before shloka 4 of the act)
“then with which prakaraNa (drama,play) are we going to entertain them (the audience)
Apart form these occurrences katama is found in the medieval Sanskrit in plenty of instances. These would suffice here. For other shades of meaning of katama curious readers may look into the Monier-Williams and the Apte V.S dictionaries.

Katitha:
1.Rgveda 10.61.18
tadbandhuÏ sÂrir divi te dhiyaÎdhÀ nÀbhÀnediÍÊho rapati pra venan
sÀ no nÀbhiÏ paramÀsya vÀ ghÀhaÎ tat paÌcÀ katithaÌ cid Àsa
Translation: Their kin, the Prince in heaven, thy nearest kinsman, turning his thought to thee thus speaks in kindness : This is our highest bond: I am his offspring. How many others came ere I succeeded?

2.Mahapurana 1.1.75 (Bhagvad-Jinasenacarya’s Sanskrit Mahapurana)
Yugasya katithe bhaage manavo manvate ca kim|
Kin vaa manvantaram deva tattvam me brUhi tattvataH||
In howmanieth part of the age what did the men believe?
Or in principle what other opinion was held by a group, O lord!
tell me that.( The present shloka is amongst the one of the shlokas wherein the
disciple is interrogating the Guru with excessive question.

3.Samaraaditysankshepa 5.840a (Jaina Champu 1268 A.D)
Kaalena katithena api pitroho panchatvam iyuShoHo|
Shrikaant-nilayaa-bhikhyam raajye nyastham nijaanujam||
After passing away of father he set his own younger brother named Shrikantanilaya on the throne in some-manieth year.

4.Dvyashrayamahakavya 18.53,54 (1100-1173 A.D)
gaNatithairiha sanghtithaa bhaTairamarapUgatithatvam ayurhataaH |
virahiteyatithaiH katithaischamUriti kinchidabudhyata tatra tu||
( The idea in the first line is that the soldiers of a side killed a number of soldiers of the opposite side, and the same is expressed in: gaNatithairiha sanghtithaaH hataaH. In the second line the question being raised is that “howmanieth soldiers of an army did kill the groups of the soldiers of the opposite?” It is answered as that was not known. The bravery of the soldiers of the army is revealed in this way.
The number of soldiers – belonging to one side, that form a gaNa killed the number of soldiers that form a sangh. So-manieth or howmanieth soldiers did kill them – this however was not known.


balkatipayathaH kopi dordvitiiyastUNastrtiiyaH saddhanushcaturthaH |
shaSHTham turyam vidvisHam nrpasy ghnanshchakre bhartraatmanasturiiyaH ||
( The verse tells that the king promoted one of the soldiers to fourth place from him. How that soldier was brave is evident from rest of the adjectives of the soldier in the verse. The use of katipayatha in the verse is remarkable.)
The one in whom the force of the many is occupied (i.e. the one who is puuraNa of the many in terms of might or force), the one whom arms are dvitiiyas, the one whom bow is trtiiya and the one who has subdued the fourth and the sixth (soldiers) – to such soldier of his own army the king promoted to the fourth position (in order to felicitate the gallantry exhibited by the soldier)

5. Shishupalvadha – 15.42c
Vihitaagaso muhuralnghyanijavacnadaamasanyataH |
Tasya katitha iti tat-prathamam manasaa samaakhyadaparaadhamacyutaH ||
Because of the promise Krishna (that he had agreed to keep to Shatvati who was his paternal aunt and Shishupala’s mother) was bound, he counted in his mind as “howmaieth sin is this one” the sins of Shishupala from one, though he had already committed many before.

From these occurrences of katama-katitha the following facts are clear:
1) katama throughout Sanskrit language (i.e. in all periods: Vedic, Classical and modern) meant which and not howmanieth.
2) Katitha is available even in post-vedic Sanskrit. This is clear from its occurrences in Shishupalvadha etc.
3) So is the difference between katama-katitha is made clear in meaning and function. So the occurrences are evinced.
DaT is originally an ordinal suffix. The rest are its agamas.( But tiiya in 5.2.54, 55 is an exception of DaT. The agamas are maDaagama ( found in saptama, navama etc.), thugaagama (found in caturtha, shaShTh, katitha and katipayatha) and tamaDaagama ( found optionally in the cardinals after 20 so we get the forms like vinsha or vinshatitama until 60. Sixty onwards there is no option for tamaDaagama.)
Now when this large is the paradigm of the tamaDaagama i.e from 20 to 60 optionally and without option there onwards, there should have been tama in the interrogative suffix of the ordinals. On the contrary when thuk has such a small paradigm of just four occurrences out of which just two are in the ordinals why then it enjoys the position in the interrogation of the ordinals?
Though not much, a satisfactory explanation of this can be that in the preceding of sutra 5.2.51 which reveals thugaagma i.e 5.2.50 : thaT ca chandasi it is informed that in Vedas the nanta cardinals get the ordinal suffix thaT . So do occur the forms like pancatha, sapthatha. By this sutra, though not much the paradigm of –tha has been increased. We cannot deny the possibility of –tha being more productive in the pre-vedic variety of Sanskrit, as the –th is productive in most of the ordinals in English form 4 onwards.
Now we may turn to the second point of the paper to see if the –th in English and the -th in thugaagama in Sanskrit are cognate?
Before turning to this question we will note an observation. In Sanskrit –tama occurs in three cases with the three different functions.:
1. tamaDaagama: aagama of the ordinal suffix –DaT
2. tamavAcaka: the superlative degree suffix as told in the sutra aatishaayane tamabiShThanau (5.3.55) found in sundartama (the most beautiful), uttama (the best) etc.
3. Datamac in va bahUnaam jaatipariprashaneDatamac (5.3.92)
-tama suffixes are going to be discussed later in detail. Here those have been just listed.
OED (Oxford Etymology Dictionary) entry for –th suffix in English follows:
“ The suffix –th in English had variations –th, -t, -d that represent an original IE
–tos (cf. Latin –quintus), understood to be identical with the superlative degree.”
The last part of the entry is intriguing directing us to think in the direction of identicality of the ordinal and the superlative suffix. And so have we already listed the tamavaacaka and the tamaDaagama above, to be considered later. Though it is not mandatory to mean the same when something sounds identical as here the ordinal suffix and the superlative suffix we are incited and encouraged to think over the similarities and differences between the ordinal suffix and the superlative suffix and the also the concept of ordinality the nature of the superlative degree. According to the above quoted OED entry IE suffix –tos is the one that is represented by the therein mentioned variations of the English suffix and it is believed to be identical with the superlative suffix. One may formulate the suffix in the PIE and then we would be able to make some definite statements about the English ¬–th and the Sanskrit –th are cognate or not.
Here we are not concerned with the –th in the English and the Sanskrit suffix but with the function it carries out while describing superlativity or tamabhaava and ordinality. We mentioned the superlative and the ordinal suffix -tama above. Let’s now discuss in detail. The similarities and the differences, between the roots, to which the -tama (both the superlative and the ordinal) gets attached and the words thus generated, are:
1. Phonetic Similarity: -tama suffix is similar in pronunciation
2. Adjectives as roots: -tama gets attached to the roots that are adjectives. (Needless to say that numbers are adjectives!)
3. Specificity : Both the words generated by the suffixation are of a peculiar kind of adjectives that determine or express the specificity of the substantive. The usual function of adjectives is isolation (vyaaavartakam visheShaNam). But the superlatives and the ordinals specify among the ones already isolated by adjectives. It is for this reason the use of article “the” is seen. ( However in “He stood first in class” here “first” is not adjective but adverb of position. Also in usage like “a fastest” a stands for the sense of “one of the fastest”.)
Now let’s see the differences:
1. The ordinal –tama denotes only the position that is occupied by some noun (it tells only the cardinal number which is occupied by something, for this occupying PaNini is saying puuraNa ). It tells only the number in the order not the embodied quality of the substantive. Whereas the superlative –tama tells the excessive presence of the quality. This means that the ordinals behave like demonstrative pronouns or articles that again behave like adjectives. ( As the tad pronoun in Sanskrit inflects differently in three genders and the articles in French, German etc. agree to the noun in person, number and gender.
2. Putting the same thing in different words: When we use ordinals there is expectancy or akaankShaa of other counting numbers or fractions and one of these is denoted in the ordinals. Whereas in the superlatives there is expectancy of the minimum three substantives that have the same qualifying adjective, and in one those the excess of the quality is expressed by the superlative. So even though the specificity is there in both the cases, the one in the superlatives is the specificity with respect to the excess of the quality and in the ordinals the specificity of the position in the order. The first specificity of quality resides in the substantive whereas the specificity of order doesn’t reside in the substantive but a mere understanding due to the cognitive consensus of believing in order which is outside or extrinsic to the substantive.

Panini names the superlative suffix tamap and the ordinal suffix –DaT , and one of the agamas of –DaT is named tamaT. The different names are for the different functions they perform.
Let’s discuss a bit about the superlative forms and the comparative forms. Actually there is no difference between the superlatives and the comparatives except for the number of the substantives under comparison. Because both the forms show the excess of quality amongst the many (i.e. two or many). To verify this we will have to search such a language that has no difference between the two forms: the superlative and the comparative.
One thing is sure that the notion of the superlative and the comparative, as a notion will be found in all of the languages, but we are interested if, unlike Sanskrit, no different marking takes place for the superlative and the comparative forms. Arabic is one such language. For instance, “Ashok akbaru min-Nishikaant” here akbaru is a derivative of the root kabura meaning to be great, old, big. First in the sense of old the form akbar is derived and to compare with someone the akbaru min such construction is done. To say the same in the superlative sense it would be said as Ashok al-akbara (Ashok is the eldest). Here ru becoming ra has no connection with the superlative form. It is due to the article Al. Most of the modern Indian languages don’t have the comparative and superlative distinct forms. In Marathi, Hinidi, Gujarati and many others the Comparative- Superlative distinction is analytical unlike Sanskrit which is morphological.
Actually, even in two an-ekatva (the notion of not-one) is there. Then why such special treatment or arrangement for two in Sanskrit, German, Persian etc by morphologically distinct superlative and comparative forms?
This might support the Rajwade’s [ Shah (edt.) 1995:40] opinion about the invention of two. Rajwade argues that man invented two far before he conceived numbers more than two. The existence of comparative forms may be hinting this posteriority of dual forms (-that may be remains of the far-before invented two as Rajwade argues).
Just related to this a note on katama and katara in Mahabhashya is significant, which will help us reconcile the occurrences and readings in Mahabharata of ekatara and ekatama. In the Bhashya and in the commentaries Pradiipa and Udyaota to Sutra vaa bahunaam jaati-pariprashne Datamac (5.3.93) there is an occurrence of katara in the sense of “which one of many” i.e. katara has occurred instead of katama. It is clear that this is non-Paninian usage. The commentary gives the usage : bahuShu aasiineShu kashcit kanchit prcchhati kataro devadatta iti. Here katara has occurred instead of katama. One explanation that can be given of this usage is that, in the mind of the one who is asking, are two sets. One set of all such individuals that are not Devadatta and the other containing single member – Devadatta. Now, within these two the enquiry takes place so, kataro devadattaH works alright. Another explanation can be that in the mid of the one who is asking are un-ordered pairs of individuals, one of which is Devadatta and the other is not. Within these two the enquiry takes place this one or this one?
Also, where Datarac should have been there, Datamac was found in the verse of Mahabharata viz. aavayoH ekatamam, which we have seen. Rajwade’s opinion can be thought over here as, once duality(dvitva) gets merged into plurality(anekatva) merging of the respective forms is natural.


References:

(A) Dictionaries-
1. Apte, V.S [1890 (1965)] The Practical Sasnkrit-English Dictionary. Motilal Banarasidas, New Delhi.
2. Deccan College Scriptorium, Sanskrit Dictionary Project, Deccan College, Pune.
3. Monier-Williams [1899(2002)] A Sasnkrit English Dictionary, Motilal Banarasidas, New Delhi.
4. Suryakanta (1981) A Practical Vedic Dictionary. OUP, New Delhi.

(B) Other-
1. Joshi, B.B (Edt.) (1992) VyaakaraNa-mhaabhaashya(kaiyyaTpradipiikaa va naageshbhaTT-krta pradiipodyat Tiikaa-sahita 6 volumes) Vajrajiivan Praachyabharati Granthmala- 23, Chaukhamba, Delhi.
2. Mishra, Narayan (edt.) (2001) Vaamanajayaaditya-krta Kashikaa. Kashi Sanskrit Granthmala- 37, Chaukhamba, Delhi.
3. Shah, M.B (edt.) (1991) Itihaasaacarya Vi. Ka. Rajwaade samagra saahitya, Vol 3, Sasnkrt-bhaaShaa va BhaaShaashaastriiya lekh (in Marathi), Rajwade Sanshodhan Mandal, Dhule.

(C) References for katama-katitha:
1. Kale, M.R (edt.) (1961) Abhijnaanshakuntal. Motilal Banarasidas, New Delhi.
2. Jain, Pannalal (edt.) (1944) Mahapurana khanD -1 Adipuarana Bhagvajjinsenaacryakrta.
3. Velankar, H.D (edt.) (1961) vikramorvashiiya. Sahitya Akademi, New Delhi.
4. Shastri, Harigovind (edt.) (1961) Shishupalvadha. Vidya Bhavan Sanskrit Granthmala – 8, Chaukhamba, New Delhi.
5. Sadhle G.S (edt.) (1987) UpaniShat-mahaavaakyakosha. Shri Sadguru Publications, New Delhi.
6. Sukhthankar, V.S, Belvalkar, S.K (edt) (1954) The Mahabharata. Critical Edition. BORI, Pune.
7. Sontakke, N.S, Kashikar, C.G. (1983) Rgvedasanhitaa. Vaidika Sanshodhan Mandal, Pune.
8. Swami Dayanand Saraswati, (1973) Rgveda. Dayanand Sansthan, New Delhi.

Note: The exact references for SamardityasankShepa and Dvyaashrayamahaakaavya not available as the title page was missing at the source i.e. Sanskrit Dictionary Project Library, Deccan College, Pune. However the books/pothis may be accessible through the title catalogue of the Sanskrit Dictionary Project Library.

शाब्द

शाब्द

About Me

My photo
मी एक आपला साधासुधा बर्‍यापैकी सुमार असा भाषाविज्ञानाचा विद्यार्थी! बाकी एखाद्या Definite Description चा निर्देश माझ्याने व्हावा असले काही कर्तब आपण गाज़वलेले नाही. हां, एवढं कदाचित म्हणता येईल की मराठीतून आंतरजालावर शीवर लिहणारा पहिला...