[Advaita-l] A Small Composition

Vidyasankar Sundaresan svidyasankar at hotmail.com
Sun Mar 7 20:19:08 CST 2010

A little grammar excursus:

> From: anandhudli at hotmail.com

> The sentiment expressed in the verse is praiseworthy. Not to nitpick, but in the following
> line:
> Praarabdha Sagaram Mathayaami Panchaksharena Sadaa
> a correct form of the root math for the uttama puruSha-ekavachana should be  
> manthAmi (मन्थामि) or manthe (मन्थे), if using Atmanepada. The past passive participle form is mathita (मथित) or mathitA (feminine). 
> Or, if you want the causative form, the word is manthayAmi (मन्थयामि), which means 

Isn't verb root math is primarily conjugated as per the 9th group, so
as to give mathnAmi for uttama purusha ekavacana? Usually, the root
manth is described as a stronger form of root math, but I have seen
1st group like conjugation with math itself (mathati etc). In that case,
mathayAmi should technically be allowable for causative, although I
admit it looks a little strange. manthayAmi would of course seem to be
the most acceptable usage.


I notice that the Monier Williams dictionary says the form mAthayati
is found in the mahAbhArata, which also seems a bit strange. Why the
dIrgha in the first vowel?




Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free.

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list