Book Title: Makaranda Madhukar Anand Mahendale Festshrift
Author(s): M A Dhaky, Jitendra B Shah
Publisher: Shardaben Chimanbhai Educational Research Centre
View full book text
________________
42
G. U. Thite
Makaranda
marutāṁ pitā (cp. RV. II. 33.1 ā te pitar marutām sumnametu). For the word brahmacodani (CD II. 2. 6) compare RV VI. 53. 8. CD I. 5. 5 agnirayaṁ suniti supathāsmān susumnaiḥ satye nayatu pranetā is similar to RVI. 189.1 (agne naya su pathā rāye asmān). The phrase sutarmā nauḥ in CD II. 5. 7 is comparable to RV VIII. 42. 3 sutarmāņam adhi nāvam ruhema (cp. also AB I. 13 : yajño vai sutarmā nauh). The stylistic expressions devānām devatamah, maghonām maghavattamah, rathinam rathitamah (CD all IV.3.3); rasānām rasatamaḥ (CD IV. 3. 6); priyāņāṁ priyatamaḥ (CD IV. 3. 7); hitānām hitatamaḥ (CD IV. 3.8); gurūņāṁ gurutamaḥ (CD IV. 4.4); rşiņāṁ rşitamaḥ (CD V.3.3; VI. 4.6) are very much in tune with the Rgvedic phrases ganānām ganapatis (II. 23. 1); tavastamaḥ tavasāṁ (II. 33. 3); bhișaktamam bhisajām (II. 33. 4). When we read about Vaisvānara) in Cd V. 1. 7 ayam viśveșu bhuvanesvadhiksitah we remember adhiksiyanti bhuvanāni visvā (RV I. 154. 2). The phrase savitresitah (CD VII. 1. 1) reminds us of the phrase anvasya ketamisitam savitrā (RV II. 38.5).
Use of the pronominal particles in and sīm is a peculiarity of the Rgvedic language. In the Chandodarśana also, these particles are frequently used. Thus for im see II. 5. 2-4; IV. 2. 2-7; IV. 6. 2-5; VI. 2. 2-5; VII. 2, 1-10; VII. 3. 7; VII. 4. 1. For the use of sīm see IV. 6.1; VI. 2. 1.
!
There are some extremely queer constructions in the Chandodarśana which can neither be called Vedic nor classical. Thus for example in VI. 3. 9 we read ya ātmānamevānvajuhvata bhūyah. Here yah is singular'and ajuhvata is a plural form. In IV. 4. 1-11c everywhere we read indrasyaiva rni bhavanyanrno'nyāt. Here the form anyāt is quite strange. We expect either the form anyasmat or just as the Genitive form is used of the word indra so also the Genitive form anyasya should have been used. In I. 6. 1 and I. 7.1 the word ātmanvī is used in the sense of “possessing the self". This possessive form is irregular.
In Chandodarśana I. 4. 6 Agni is described as vedisad yo havir devebhyo nayati. Here we expect an Accusative form rather than a Dative form of the word deva. In III. 2. 2 and in III. 6. 4 there is an expression dampativaiva. Here the word dampati is a Pragshya. Still there is a euphonic combination (sandhi) between dampati and iva. Indeed we have to describe these
