Hindi, Sanskrit: दुष्पर्श duSHparsh

marrish

Senior Member
اُردو Urdu
आप सब मित्रों से मेरे एक हिंदी अथवा संस्कृत के संबंध में प्रस्तुत किए जाने वाले प्रश्न की ओर ध्यान देने की विनती है।
इस प्रश्न का विषय शब्द "दुष्पर्श" का शब्द-निर्माण है। यह शब्द परिभाषा-सहित आप को यहाँ प्राप्त होगा: http://pustak.org/home.php?mean=31128

दुष्पर्शवि० [सं० दुर्-स्पृश् (छूना)+खल्] १. जिसे स्पर्श करना कठिन हो। जिसे छूना सहज न हो। २. जो जल्दी मिल न सके। दुष्प्राप्य।

जैसे उपर्लिखित परिभाषा में स्पष्ट किया गया है, यह संस्कृत भाषा के "दुर्" तथा "स्पर्श" से व्युतपन्न शब्द जान पड़ता है। क्या इसका निर्माण संधि नियमों के अनुकूल उचित है?

द्वितीय स्थान में यह जानना चाहूँगा कि इस परिभाषा में उपयुक्त शब्द "खल्" का अर्थ क्या है।

उन सभी का आभारी हूँगा जो मेरी इस समस्या को सुलझाने में सहायता करने आ सकें।
 
  • Dib

    Senior Member
    Bengali (India)
    दुष्पर्शवि० [सं० दुर्-स्पृश् (छूना)+खल्] १. जिसे स्पर्श करना कठिन हो। जिसे छूना सहज न हो। २. जो जल्दी मिल न सके। दुष्प्राप्य।

    जैसे उपर्लिखित परिभाषा में स्पष्ट किया गया है, यह संस्कृत भाषा के "दुर्" तथा "स्पर्श" से व्युतपन्न शब्द जान पड़ता है। क्या इसका निर्माण संधि नियमों के अनुकूल उचित है?

    The original form of the prefix is *dus-, as can be deduced clearly from comparative evidence from other Indo-European branches (Old Persian. duš- from where modern dušman, "one with bad intentions"; Greek dys- from which "dysfunctional", etc.), if not from within Sanskrit itself. The form dur- is a Sanskrit specific more or less expected development, but before voiced sounds (including vowels) only, through the intermediary form duḥ- with visarga. In this particular example, the dur- form is thus not the appropriate form to start with. The rules of Sanskrit sandhi would normally produce दुःस्पर्श (I'd expect this to be more likely in later and Classical Sanskrit) or दुःष्पर्श (I'd expect this to be more likely in earlier and Vedic Sanskrit), both with alternative phonetic realization as दुस्स्पर्श and दुष्ष्पर्श respectively. The form दुष्पर्श is a simplification of the last form. I am not sure whether such environments were common enough to have attracted the attention of Sanskrit grammarians, but it is understandable as Sanskrit does not seem to contrast -SSC- and -SC- (S = sibilant; C = consonant) sequences. There exist comparable variations in दुःस्थ ~ दुस्थ, दुःस्पृष्ट ~ दुस्पृष्ट, etc.

    द्वितीय स्थान में यह जानना चाहूँगा कि इस परिभाषा में उपयुक्त शब्द "खल्" का अर्थ क्या है।

    That is a traditional Sanskrit grammar jargon for the suffix "-a" under certain circumstances. Typically, in traditional grammar, the suffixes are imagined as containing some mute/silent letters (called "इत्‌", in this case: kh and l) in addition to the functional morpheme (in Paninian tradition, it may even be totally different from the functional morpheme, e.g. Paninian lyu and lyuṭ functionally yield "-ana"). The silent letters are modelled as controlling many grammatical and morphological properties of the derived word (e.g. gender, the vowel grade of the root, which feminine suffix the derived word takes, etc.) Thus, while we may talk about a single primary -a suffix, which sometimes lengthens the root vowel (e.g. labh- > lābha-), sometimes does not (vadh- > vadha-), etc. traditional grammar would specify a separate suffix for each of such cases. खल् is one of such incarnations of the -a suffix.
     
    Last edited:

    Dib

    Senior Member
    Bengali (India)
    The rules of Sanskrit sandhi would normally produce दुःस्पर्श (I'd expect this to be more likely in later and Classical Sanskrit) or दुःष्पर्श (I'd expect this to be more likely in earlier and Vedic Sanskrit), both with alternative phonetic realization as दुस्स्पर्श and दुष्ष्पर्श respectively. The form दुष्पर्श is a simplification of the last form. I am not sure whether such environments were common enough to have attracted the attention of Sanskrit grammarians, but it is understandable as Sanskrit does not seem to contrast -SSC- and -SC- (S = sibilant; C = consonant) sequences. There exist comparable variations in दुःस्थ ~ दुस्थ, दुःस्पृष्ट ~ दुस्पृष्ट, etc.

    Now I have evidence that this has indeed been discussed in traditional Sanskrit grammar - or at least Vedic phonetic manuals (प्रातिशाख्य). I am quoting Macdonell from "A Vedic Grammar for Students" (p. 35; Sec. 43.3.a): "Before a sibilant immediately followed by a hard mute, a final Visarjanīya is dropped; e.g. mandíbhi stómebhiḥ (through mandíbhiḥ for mandíbhis); du-ṣṭutí f. ill-praise (for duṣ-ṣṭutí). The dropping is prescribed by the Prātiśākhyas of the RV., the VS. and the TS., ..."

    Notes on Macdonell's terminology:
    hard mute = (I suppose) voicess consonants (stops?)
    RV. = Ṛgveda
    VS. = Vājasaneyī Saṃhitā (A branch of the Yajurveda)
    TS. = Taittirīyā Saṃhitā (Another branch of the Yajurveda)

    This is, however, strictly speaking the older/Vedic practice. In later Sanskrit, the more usual forms would retain the visarga (दुःस्पर्श, etc.) as I mentioned before. However, some instances of the older practice might have survived as relics.
     
    Last edited:

    marrish

    Senior Member
    اُردو Urdu
    Thank you so much for covering this topic in every possible manner, as far as Sanskrit is concerned.

    हिंदी में यह शब्द किस ढंग से लिखना और कहना प्रामाणिक और मानक समझा जाता है?
     
    Top