The present paper deals with the origin of the late Sanskrit root vṛdh2 ‘hurt, cut’, which is explained as extracted from the compound vy-ṛdh2 ‘be deprived of smth., be 
precluded from smth., lose’, with the subsequent simplification of the difficult sequence vyṛ- --> vṛ-

Kulikov, Leonid

English

Historische fonologie en morfologie van het Indo-Europee

Kulikov, L.I.

Leiden University Scholary Publications

Skt. vrdh2 ‘hurt, damage, cut’

The present paper deals with the origin of the late Sanskrit root vr̥dh2 ‘hurt, cut’, which is explained as extracted from the compound vy-r̥dh2 ‘be deprived of smth., be precluded from smth., lose’, with the subsequent simplification of the difficult sequence vyr̥- → vr̥-

DIAL UCLouvain

Skt. vr̥dh2 ‘hurt, damage, cut’

Ghent University Academic Bibliography

LEONID KULIKOVSKT. VÀDH2 ‘HURT, DAMAGE, CUT’ *Abstract:The present paper deals with the origin of the late Sanskrit root vΩdh2 ‘hurt, cut’,which is explained as extracted from the compound vy-Ωdh2 ‘be deprived of smth., beprecluded from smth., lose’, with the subsequent simplification of the difficultsequence vyΩ-➛ vΩ-.The late root vΩdh2, homonymous with vΩdh1 ‘grow, increase’, isregistered in Dhåtupå™ha (X 112, ‘chedana-pæra∫ayoΔ’) and locatedby Sanskritists in the Epics and some classical texts (cf.BÖHTLINGK/ROTH PW VI, 790ff.). The meaning of this root is usuallyrendered, apparently after BÖHTLINGK (‘abschneiden’), as ‘cut’. The -ta-participle of vΩdh2 occurs in the Mahå-Bhårata (see OBERLIES 2003:517, where this verb is translated as ‘cut, hurt’):(Mbh. 12.74.8ab)vΩddhaμ (v.ll. viddhaμ, dvidhå, crit.ed. +vyΩddhaμ) råß™raμ bhavatikßatriyasya, brahma kßatraμ yatra virudhyate ha‘The kingdom of the Kßatriya, where the Brahma∫a is opposed to theKßatriya, becomes ruined.’* I am much indebted to A. Lubotsky, N. Nicholas and T. Oberlies for valuablecomments on earlier drafts of this paper. I acknowledge grant 275-70-009 (VENI-project) received from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO),and financial support from the Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung.204 Indologica Taurinensia, 32 (2006)The same root is said to appear in a few nominal derivatives:vardhaka-, vardhaki(n)- ‘carpenter’ (Ep., Cl.), ƒmaƒru-vardhaka- ‘bar-ber’ [= ‘beard-cutter’] (Råm.) and nåbhi-vardhana- ‘cutting of thenavel-string’ (ManuSmΩ. 2.29).The etymology of vΩdh2 has not received satisfactory explanationthus far (see MAYRHOFER, KEWA III, 157; EWAia II, 521). 1 Themeaning hardly allows for connection with vΩdh1 ‘grow, increase’.2First let it be noted that the translation ‘cut’, which opens the list ofmeanings of vΩdh2, seems to belong to the periphery of its semantics.The Mbh. passage quoted above rather suggests the translation ‘hurt,damage, destroy, ruin’. A carpenter (vardhaka-, vardhaki(n)-, on theassumption that these nouns belong here) not only cuts, but also (oreven predominantly) trims and joins (pieces of wood), creating newobjects. In any case, the meanings ‘hurt, destroy’ (which are present, forinstance, in vΩddha-, attested in the Mbh.) and ‘do carpenter’s work’ canhardly be reconciled within one single lexeme. Cutting underlies thebasic meaning of vardhana- in nåbhi-vardhana-, but even here a possi-bility for an alternative interpretation remains open: ‘cutting of thenavel-string’ suggests in fact its removal and destruction. Note also thatchedana- in the Indian lexicographic description of the meaning of thisroot (‘chedana-pæra∫ayoΔ’) refers not only to cutting, but also to split-ting, breaking, destruction. Thus, vΩdh2 rather denotes hurting, damag-ing activities, usually violating the physical integrity of the object.It seems that the editors of the Poona critical edition of theMahå-Bhårata were on the right way towards the explanation of theorigin of vΩdh2 when conjecturing +vyΩddhaμ for vΩddhaμ.Specifically, vΩdh2 may originate in the compounded root vy-Ωdh,meaning ‘be deprived of smth., be precluded from smth., lose’. 31. BURROW’s (1979: 47) explanation of this root as an extension of Indo-European *wer- ‘to cut’ (unattested in Sanskrit but allegedly preserved in Pkt.∫ivvarai ‘cuts’) does not seem convincing.2. WHITNEY’s (1885: 165) short remark concluding the lemma vΩdh ‘grow’(“Compare √ Ωdh. The asserted √ vΩdh ‘cut’ (used only of the navel-string) rests on atoo narrow foundation to be admitted; it is probably a specialized application of thisroot”) is unclear (this root = vΩdh? Ωdh?) and lacks argumentation.3. For the meaning and syntax of this compound, see OERTEL 1926: 130f.;GONDA 1951: 26; KULIKOV 2001: 276f.; see also KRICK 1982: 540, fn. 1469 on theopposition vyΩddhi-˜samΩddhi- (= “Dis-” ˜“Reintegration”).205Leonid Kulikov, Skt. vΩdh2 ‘hurt, damage, cut’The simplification of the difficult sequence vyΩ- ➛ vΩ- is attestedalready in late Vedic, noticed for the Pañcaviμƒa-Bråhma∫a byDEBRUNNER (1957 [AiG, Nachtr. zu Bd. I]: 149), 4 who groups thisform with other instances of the loss of y, such as trye∫œ / tre∫œ ‘an dreiSeiten bunt’ (WACKERNAGEL [AiG I], 267f., §232a). DEBRUNNERapparently noticed only those attestations of vΩ° ( vyΩ°) which creptinto editions, as is the case with three forms in the Pañcaviμƒa-Bråhma∫a listed below. In fact, however, v[y]Ωdh occurs in someother late Vedic and post-Vedic texts as well, attested among variantreadings in manuscripts or even as the only reading. In the Pañcaviμƒa-Bråhma∫a, vΩ° appears instead of vyΩ° in the -ya-present v[y]Ωdhyate (2x: PB 6.7.14, 15) and in the -ta-participlev[y]Ωddha- (PB 6.9.26), 5 cf.:(PB 6.7.15)yadi pratihartåvacchidyate, paƒubhir yajamåno vΩdhyate ‘If the Pratihartar is hurt, the sacrificer is deprived of his cattle.’All other occurrences of vi + Ωdhya-te in the PB (9x: PB 9.8.16;9.9.13; 16.5.2; 6.1; 8.7; 131.2; 18.11.1-3), as well as the second attes-tation of the -ta-participle (vyΩddhaμ vå PB 6.9.23), have the regularvyΩ°. A few occurrences of vΩ-forms appear in the Sætras. The -ya-pres-ent v[y]Ωdhyate occurs in Vaikh˙S 1.19:19.16, as one of the variantreadings (ms. T reads vå vΩdhyate; other attested readings are (vå)vyΩdhyate, våpyadhyate, °våpyΩdhyate). The -ta-participle v[y]Ωddha- isattested, among variant readings, in ÅpDhS 1.28.4 (ativyapahårov[y]Ωddho bhavati; mss. have vyΩddho, vΩddho and viruddho). VaitS 8.3has the correct vyΩ° in vyΩddhi- ‘mishap’ in all mss. (ådhånåd vyΩddhiƒced …), but its quotation in the comm. on Kåty˙S 4.11.1 has a vΩ°-forminstead (ådhånåd vΩddhihåniƒ ced …) (see ed. GARBE, p. 64, crit. notesad loc.). Finally, vΩddhau (loc.sg. of v[y]Ωddhi-) appears in SVB 3.9.5,in ed. BURNELL, for which ed. SHARMA (qualifying ed. BURNELL as “fullof misprints”) reads vyΩddhau, with no variant readings.➛4. See also KULIKOV 2001: 272, fn. 836.5. Note that all the three forms are found in book 6.206 Indologica Taurinensia, 32 (2006)The substitution vyΩ°➛ vΩ° was not the only way to deal with thesequence vyΩ-. At Mån˙S 1.6.5.1, several mss. have vyadhyamåna- forvyΩdhyamåna-. Another possibility is attested in ÅpDhS 1.28.4 virud-dho (mentioned above). Finally, a variety of solutions are exhibited bythe mss. of the Jaiminœya-Bråhma∫a quoted in ed. RAGHU VIRA/LOKESH CHANDRA. We find in mss. (by order of appearance in text):vyiriddhyante (JB 2.221:7)virudhyante (JB 2.221:9)viridhyante (JB 2.225:6)vœΩddhi- (JB 3.4:6)vœriddhi- (JB 3.4:6)vœriddhi- (JB 3.4:9)vœriddhi-, vœruddhi- (JB 3.4:11)viraddh[a]-, vœriddh[a]- (JB 3.279:1)Yet another way to transform vyΩ- is found in the Gopatha-Bråhma∫a. In GB 2.1.16, mss. twice read vivΩdhyate (for which ed.GAASTRA conjectures +vyΩdhyate), cf.: (GB 2.1.16:153.12-13)indriye∫a vå eßa vœrye∫å vivΩdhyate [ed. +vyΩdhyate], yasya pitåpitåmahaΔ somaμ na pibati‘The one whose father (and) grandfather does not drink soma is deprivedof power and energy.’ 6Most likely, the sequence vyΩ° was first simplified to vΩ°; then thepreverb was secondarily restored.For convenience, the variant readings attested in texts are summa-rized below: vyΩ°  ➛ vΩ°vya°viri°vyiri°viru°6. Cf. TS 2.2.1.4 néndriyé∫a vœryè∫a vy Ω`dhyate ‘… he is not deprived of power andenergy’. On this passage and the meaning of indriyáμ vœryàm, see GONDA 1987: 117f.207Leonid Kulikov, Skt. vΩdh2 ‘hurt, damage, cut’vyΩ°  ➛ vira°vœΩ°vœri°vœru°vivΩ°To sum up, we find ten variants, substituting for the originalvyΩd(d)h°, which suggest both phonetic processes (vocalisation Ω ➛ ri,ru, ra, a and/or y ➛ œ˘, yi) and semantic adaptation of the resultingsequences to the existing roots or compounds (vΩdh ‘grow, increase’,vi-rudh ‘obstruct; be opposed’).The character of this irregular variation clearly points to the pho-netic, rather than graphic, nature of the phenomenon in question.Facing the difficulties in pronouncing the sequence vyΩ°, the copyistsmay have tried different ways to resolve it. Most of these solutionshad little chance to survive, being clearly awkward and ungrammatical(cf. vyiri°, vœΩ°, vœru°). By contrast, the vΩ-variants could at least beconsidered morphologically acceptable, being formally identical withthe derivatives of the homonymous root vΩdh1. Thus, the root vΩdh2could be extracted from such forms as v[y]Ωdhyate, v[y]Ωddha- andv[y]Ωddhi-, the latter two of which are homonymous with the corre-sponding derivatives of vΩdh1, vΩddha- ‘grown, increased’, andvΩddhi- ‘growth, increase’. The semantics of some derivatives of vΩdh2 can be directly tracedto the meaning ‘deprive of smth.’ (nåbhi-vardhana- ‘depriving of thenavel-string’; ƒmaƒru-vardhaka- ‘barber’ = ‘the one who deprives ofbeard’). As for the semantic change ‘deprive of smth.’ ➛ ‘hurt,destroy, ruin; cut (away)’, it could be supported by the influence oftwo phonologically similar verbal roots denoting hurting activities,vadh ‘slay, kill’ and vyadh ‘pierce’ (cf. esp. the zero grade derivativessuch as the -ya-present vídhyati ‘pierces’ and -ta-participle viddhá-‘pierced’); these verbal roots may also be responsible for the rise ofthe ‘carpenter’-derivatives. Another form that might have contributedto the establishing of this new verbal root is vadhrí- (RV +) ‘eunuch’,which could easily be associated with the sense of vy-Ωdh ‘deprive of[manly force / membrum virile]’.208 Indologica Taurinensia, 32 (2006)AbbreviationsREFERENCESText editionsÅpDhS Ed. BÜHLER, George: Åpastambœyadharmasætram. Åpas-tamba’s Aphorisms on the sacred law of the Hindus. 3rded. … Bombay, 1932. (Bombay Sanskrit Series; 44, 50).GB Ed. GAASTRA, Dieuke: Das Gopatha Bråhma∫a. Leiden,1919.JB Ed. RAGHU VIRA/LOKESH CHANDRA: Jaiminœya-Bråhma∫a of the Såmaveda. Critically edited by RaghuVira and Lokesh Chandra. Delhi, 1986.Kåty˙S Ed. WEBER, Albrecht: The Çrautasûtra of Kâtyâyanawith extracts from the commentaries of Karka andYâjnikadeva… Berlin – London, 1859.Mån˙S Ed. VAN GELDER, Jeannette M.: The Månava ˙rautasætrabelonging to the Maitråya∫œ Saμhitå. 2 vols. New Delhi,1961, 1963. (˙atapi™aka Series; 17, 27).ÅpDhS Åpastamba-Dharma-SætraCl. Classical SanskritEp. Epic SanskritGB Gopatha-Bråhma∫aJB Jaiminœya-Bråhma∫aKåty˙S Kåtyåyana-˙rauta-SætraMån˙S Månava-˙rauta-SætraManuSmΩ. Manu-SmΩtiMbh. Mahå-BhårataPB Pañcaviμƒa-Bråhma∫a Råm. Råmåya∫aSVB Såmavidhåna-Bråhma∫aTS Taittirœya-SaμhitåVaikh˙S Vaikhånasa-˙rauta-SætraVaitS Vaitåna-Sætra 209Leonid Kulikov, Skt. vΩdh2 ‘hurt, damage, cut’ManuSmΩ. Ed. JOLLY, Julius: Mânava Dharma-˙âstra, the code ofManu… text critically edited… by J. Jolly. London, 1887. Mbh. The Mahåbhårata critically ed. for the first time byVishnu S. SUKTHANKAR et al. Poona, 1933-1966.PB Ed. A. Chinnaswami ˙ASTRI: Tå∫∂yamahåbråhma∫abelonging to the Såma Veda with the commentary ofSåya∫åchårya. 2 vols. Benares, 1935, 1936. (KashiSanskrit Series; 105).Råm. The Vålmœki-Råmåya∫a critically ed. for the first time byG.H. BHATT et al. Baroda, 1960-1975.SVB Ed. B.R. SHARMA: Såmavidhåna Bråhmana withVedårthaprakåƒa of Såya∫a and PadårthamåtravivΩti ofBharatasvåmin. Tirupati, 1964. (Kendriya SanskritVidyapeetha Series; 1).Ed. BURNELL, A.C.: The Sâmavidhânabrâhma∫a (beingthe third Brâhma∫a) of the Sâma Veda. Vol. I. Text andcommentary with introduction. London, 1873.Vaikh˙S Ed. CALAND, W.: Vaikhånasa-˙rautasætram. Calcutta,1941. (Bibliotheca Indica; 265).VaitS Ed. VISHVA BANDHU: Vaitåna-˙rauta-Sætra with the com-mentary called Åkßepånuvidhi by Somåditya. Edited, crit-ically,… by Vishva Bandhu in collaboration with BhimDev & Pitambar Datt. Hoshiarpur, 1967. (WoolnerIndological Series; 13).Ed. GARBE, Richard: Vaitâna Sætra. The ritual of theAtharvaveda. Edited with critical notes and indices byRichard Garbe. London, 1878. 210 Indologica Taurinensia, 32 (2006)Secondary LiteratureBÖHTLINGK, Otto & ROTH, Rudolf (1855-75) [PW] Sanskrit-Wörterbuch. St. Petersburg: Buchdruckerei der KaiserlichenAkademie der Wissenschaften.BURROW, Thomas (1979) The problem of shwa in Sanskrit. Oxford:Clarendon Press.DEBRUNNER, Albert (1957) Altindische Grammatik. Nachträge zuBd. I. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. GONDA, Jan (1951) Remarks on the Sanskrit passive. Leiden: Brill.–– (1987) Rice and barley offerings in the Veda. Leiden: Brill.KRICK, Hertha (1982) Das Rutual der Feuergründung (Agnyådheya).Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.KULIKOV, Leonid (2001) The Vedic -ya-presents. PhD thesis. LeidenUniversity.MAYRHOFER, Manfred (1956-80) [KEWA] Kurzgefaßtes etymologi-sches Wörterbuch des Altindischen. Bd. I-IV. Heidelberg: Winter. –– (1986-96) [EWAia] Etymologisches Wörterbuch desAltindoarischen. Bd. I-II. Heidelberg: Winter.OBERLIES, Thomas (2003) A grammar of Epic Sanskrit. Berlin, NewYork: Walter de Gruyter. (Indian Philology and South Asian Studies; 5).OERTEL, Hanns (1926) The syntax of cases in the narrative anddescriptive prose of the Bråhma∫as. I. The disjunct use of cases.Heidelberg: Winter.WACKERNAGEL, Jacob / DEBRUNNER, Albert (1896–) [AiG] AltindischeGrammatik. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. WHITNEY, William Dwight (1885) The roots, verb-forms, and primaryderivatives of the Sanskrit language. Leipzig: Breitkopf and Härtel.