Sanskrit शतुर्ङित्त्व, "śaturṅittva"?

[Kobzar]

Hello everybody,


I am trying to translate Sāyaṇa's commentary to Ṛgveda, III, 33, and I am struggling to disentangle a word or sequence of words which I have found on the following editions:


MÜLLER, F. M. (ed.), 1890 (2nd ed.): Rig-veda Samhitâ. The Sacred Hymns of the Brâhmans, Together with the Commentary of Sâyanâkârya, vol. II, London, Henry Frowde, Oxford University Press, p. 242 = 317 of the PDF, line 6 (please see first attachment): शतुर्ङित्त्वाद्ग्रहिज्यावयीत्यादिना, which probably has to be separated thus: शतुर्ङित्त्वाद् ग्रहिज्यावयि इत्यादिना । The problem lies in the first word (or what seems to be the first word, judging from Sontakke's edition; see below).


SONTAKKE, N. S.; Kashikar, C. G.; Varadaraj Sharma, T. S., & Umranikar, B. V. (eds.), 1936: Ṛgveda-Saṃhitā with the Commentary of Sāyaṇāchārya, vol. II, Poona, Vedic Research Institute, p. 347 = 402 of the PDF, line 10 (please see second attachment): शतुर्ङित्त्वात् ग्रहिज्यावयि इत्यादिना ।


At first sight I would analyse शतुर्ङित्त्वात् as the ablative singular of an alleged masculine or neuter noun *शतुर्ङित्त्व, probably a derivative through the suffix त्व, but I cannot find either *शतुर्ङित्त्व or anything similar from which it could have been derived. Seeing that ङ appears without any other guttural sound after it, I tried cutting शतुर्ङ् इत्त्वात्, assuming that, in *शतुर्ङ्, we could have something similar to the reduction of consonant groups in word end, cf, for example, *तुदन्त्स् > तुदन्(nom. sg. masc. of the present participle active). However, neither *शतुर्ङ्nor *इत्त्व appear in Monier-Williams or Böhtlingk-Roth; as for *इत्त्व, I guess it may be an abstract noun derived from इत्(syllable attached to certain roots) or from the Vedic particle इद्, but neither have I found it anywhere. I have also tried separating शतुर् ङित्त्वात्, where शतुर् could be the ablative or genitive singular of शतृ, “technical term for the ‘kṛt’ affix अत्, used in forming present participles of the Parasmai-pada,” according to Monier-Williams, s. v. But anyway ङित्त्वात्, with the initial guttural nasal, remains a mystery.


Any help will be appreciated.


Thank you very much in advance.

 

[Dib]

You have been stumped again by grammatical jargon. Sanskrit grammatical tradition uses a metalanguage extending beyond the pale of the standard Sanskrit language. So, you would not find them in normal dictionaries. You may find them in glossaries to modern editions of classical texts like Pāṇini, Vopadeva, etc.

Anyway, what you have here is:
शतुः ङित्‌-त्वात्‌ "ग्रहि-ज्या-वयि" इति आदिना

शतुः is genitive singular of शतृ, the name of the -ant suffix forming present active participles.
ङित्‌ is a property of certain suffixes, which among other things - by Pāṇini's rule 6.1.16 - requires सम्प्रसारण, i.e. the zero-grade of certain verb roots, among them "वश्‌"|

So, this comment may be paraphrased as:
"Because of the ङित्‌-ness of शतृ, by "ग्रहि-ज्या-वयि", etc..."
Note that "ग्रहि-ज्या-वयि" are the starting few syllables of Pāṇini 6.1.16 (ग्रहिज्यावयिव्यधिवष्टिविचतिवृश्चतिपृच्छतिभृज्जतीनां ङिति च). So, in a more moderner-friendly version:
"Because of the ङित्‌-ness of शतृ, by Pāṇini 6.1.16 ..."

Of course, Pāṇini must have a combination of rules which would imply the "ङित्‌-ness of शतृ" as well, but Sāyaṇa does not provide us that reference. I am also no Pāṇini expert to be able to reconstruct the whole chain of rules, but it will probably use 1.2.4 as one of its steps.

Anyways, so basically, Sāyaṇa is explaining the formation of the form उशती, present active participle feminine of वश्‌ (कान्तौ, i.e. in the sense of "desiring").

 

[Dib]

I have also tried separating शतुर् ङित्त्वात्, where शतुर् could be the ablative or genitive singular of शतृ, “technical term for the ‘kṛt’ affix अत्, used in forming present participles of the Parasmai-pada,” according to Monier-Williams, s. v. But anyway ङित्त्वात्, with the initial guttural nasal, remains a mystery.

So, in short, you were very much on the right track here! Whenever you come across phonotactically prohibited or unlikely items in a Classical Sanskrit text, they are likely to be technical terms from grammar.

 

[Kobzar]

So, in short, you were very much on the right track here! Whenever you come across phonotactically prohibited or unlikely items in a Classical Sanskrit text, they are likely to be technical terms from grammar.

Thank you very much for your answer, your explanations, and the suggestion of looking at modern editions of Indian grammarians writing in Sanskrit! I shall do that.