Madhuvidya

Author(s): S D Laddu, T N Dharmadhikari, Madhvi Kolhatkar, Pratibha Pingle
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad

Page 77

SURE DUHITA
illustrates mainly the use of the first and the second person pronominal forms me and le as Dativus Sympatheticus. His conclusion regarding the use of sympathetic dative as against the possessive genitive is that Sanskrit has very faithfully preserved the situation of the I.E. stage which was as follows: Sympathetic dative with the pronouns of the first and second person, genitive with all other pronouns, substantives and participles (p. 44). All instances collected by him also show that the use of sympathetic dative is adverbial (ein zum Verbum des Satzes gehörender Dativ' p. 20) and not adnominal. He thus translates dyáur me pita' janitä' RV. 1.164.33 der Himmel ist mir Vater und Erzeuger'14 (p. 35, also 8), sákhayas la indra viśváha syāma 7.21.9 'dir, O Indra, mögen wir stets Freunde sein' (p. 36), sapátri me pára dhama 10.145.2 "blase mir die Nebenfrau hinweg' (p. 30, also p. 19).
It is therefore surprising that suddenly in vr'sne sapálni śúcaye sábandhū ķV. 3.1.10 Havers chooses an adnominal interpretation and translates (p. 36) 'die beiden Frauen des glänzenden Stiers'. The text clearly shows that the dative is adverbial and not used as possessive genitive. Havers should have translated the expression as Geldner, in fact, has done: "Die beiden Verwandten (Himmel und Erde) sind dem reinen Bullen seine geminsamen Frauen"16. The verb Vas- or v bhū- has quite commonly to be supplied in such cases.
Since vřsnc sapátni cannot be the proper instance of the use of the dative as possessive genitive, there can be no question of finding possible support for that construction as Havers feels to do (p. 36), in súre duheitä' (daughter of the sun). Havers refers to Oldenberg (Noten) and Keith, JRAS 1910. 471, foot note 1. We have already seen that Oldenberg no doubt prefers súre as dative, but he certainly does not interpret it as Havers chooses to do. Keith says that perhaps one may think that sürel is dative used as possessive genitive. But he has already remarked that this use of dative to indicate kinship relationship is not illustrated in Whitney's Sanskrit Grammar (pp. 95-96, 1889) and Speyer's Vedische und Sanskrit-Syntax (pp. 13-15, 1896). One may add that this kind of dative is not noted for Vedic or Classical Sanskrit also by Panini (2.3.12 ff. and Liebich, BB 10.214-217, 1886, for Ait, Br, BB 11. 284-288, 1886), Speyer, Sanskrit Syntax pp. 58-67, 1886, Delbrück, Alt. Syntax pp. 140-150, 1888 (earlier also Über den indogermanischen, speciell den vedischen Dativ KZ 18.81-106, 1869), Hopkins, The Vedic Dative Reconsidered, Trans. and Proc. APA 37. 87-120, 1906, Hopkins, Aspects of the Vedic Dative JAOS 28. 360-406, 1907, Macdonell, Vedic Grammar for Students pp. 310-315, 1916, Renou, Grammaire
14 Geldner apparently ignores the argument of Havers and translates in this and the fol
lowing two passages me and te as genitive: "Der Himmel ist mein Vater, der Erzeuger", "Wir wollen allezeit deine Freunde sein, Indra", "blase meine Nebenbuhlerin fort". H. Wenzel, to whom Havers refers, translates 'einem Mannc, vermält (Ober den Instrumentalis ir Rigveda, Tübingen, 1879, p. 48). Havers' reference p. 47 to be cor
rected as p. 48. 16 Keith's reference 1.34.7 to be corrected as 1.34.5.
Madhu Vidyā/52