sanverb-pysan remaining differences in present tense conjugation, class != 10

Question

sanverb-pysan remaining differences in present tense conjugation, class != 10

Opened this issue 8 years ago · 34 comments

akz

{
    "key": "akz pre 1P", 
    "pysan": "[akzati akzataH akzanti akzasi akzaTaH akzaTa akzAmi akzAvaH akzAmaH]", 
    "sanverb": "[(akzati akzRoti) (akzataH akzRutaH) (akzanti akzRuvanti) (akzasi akzRozi) (akzaTaH akzRuTaH) (akzaTa akzRuTa) (akzAmi akzRomi) (akzAvaH akzRuvaH) (akzAmaH akzRumaH)]"
  }

sanverb has only class 1.

akzU!:vyAptO:akz:01:0742:pa:sew:अ॑क्षूँ॑:399:416:423:akR1_akRUz_BvAxiH+vyApwO:

sanverb treats this class 1 verb AS IF it were both (a) a normal class 1 root, and (b) a root of class 5.

In fact, MW and KALE both give class 1 and 5 for akz.

pysan altered to produce Sanskritverb (with the sanskritverb_flag is True,, as it is for these comparisons).

Answer 1 · 2016-10-02T22:22:22.000Z

i class 2 (with aDi)

For the two following sanverb roots,

iN:aDyayane nityamaDipUrvaH:i:02:0041:A:aniw:इ॒ङ्:696:718:735:i2_if_axAxiH+aXyayane:
ik:smaraRe ayamapyaDipUrvaH:i:02:0042:pa:aniw:इ॒क्:697:719:736:i3_ik_axAxiH+smaraNe:

SanskritVerb conjugates with the 'aDi' prefix, even though the root-without-anubandha is 'i', and not
aDI.

Since Pysanskrit knows only the 'i', it produces the usual conjugation of class 2 i.

Sanskrit verb has a separate root for the P form of 'i' (without aDi):

iR:gatO:i:02:0040:pa:aniw:इ॒ण्:695:717:734:i1_iN_axAxiH+gawO:350

Interestingly, there is no sanverb root for the A form of 'i' (without aDi).

These differences don't seem worth changing either Pysanskrit or SanskritVerb .

For now, pysanskrit comparison simply puts this difference in the file of known differences.

Answer 2 · 2016-10-02T22:39:38.000Z

kit 3P, kft 7P, saMst 2P

The differences here are in the 1s and 1p only.

In the 1s, 1p, Pysan changes the ending 't' of the base to 'd' before the 'm' of the ending.

SanskritVerb does not make this change.

     1s (sanverb) ciketmi != cikedmi (pysan)
     1p (sanverb) cikitmaH != cikidmaH (pysan)

     1s (sanverb) kfRatmi != kfRadmi (pysan)
     1p (sanverb) kfntmaH != kfndmaH (pysan)

     1s (sanverb) saMstmi != saMsdmi (pysan)
     1p (sanverb) saMstmaH != saMsdmaH (pysan)

I can find no exemplars; but the reason Pysan does this is AntoineI, 72-4/5

72-4. A final hard consonant becomes soft before a vowel or a soft consonant.
     Example: t is hard, m is soft, so t+m -> dm
72-5(a) This rule does not apply to the final hard consonant of a verbal base or a nominal
   stem followed by a termination or a case-ending beginning with a vowel or a semi-vowel.
     example: cikit + vaH -> cikitvah  (v is semi-vowel)
72-5(b) It does apply, however, when the final consonant of a verbal base or of a nominal stem
  is followed by a termination beginning with a soft consonant (except a semi-vowel)
   e.g., marut + BiH -> marudBiH.
   In our case, cikit + maH -> cikidmaH   (THIS IS THE APPLICATION PYSAN IS USING, BUT NOT SANVERB)

So, pysan looks right in these cases to me. Dhaval?

Answer 3 · 2016-10-02T22:46:08.000Z

Rule under consideration is झलां जश् झशि.
http://sanskritdocuments.org/learning_tools/sarvanisutrani/8.4.52.htm

It is not any soft consonant which can convert this. Second letter has to
be in झश् pratyAhAra i.e. झभघढधजबगडद.

म doesnt belong to any of these letters. So no applicability.

Answer 4 · 2016-10-02T22:47:35.000Z

So the take home correction is (soft consonants - nasals).

Answer 5 · 2016-10-02T22:49:01.000Z

Sorry. (Soft consonants - nasals - semivowels) is the correct set.

Answer 6 · 2016-10-02T22:50:45.000Z

Our case is closer to cikit+vaH than to marut+BiH.

Answer 7 · 2016-10-03T01:46:34.000Z

So, Antoine's formulation is inaccurate in that his use of 'soft consonant' is imprecise.

From the fact the the word 'marut+mat' is 'marutmat' (rather than 'marudmat'), this exclusion of
nasals (as well as semivowels) seems to have wide applicability, not just to situations involving the joining
of verbal stems to endings.

pysanskrit's stem+ending logic (function conjugation_join1) changed in this detail, so kit 3P, kft 7P, saMst 2P are now in agreement.

Answer 8 · 2016-10-03T21:22:41.000Z

kuMS 4P and kuMs 4P

Could Sanskrit verb verbdata be wrong here?

kuMSa!:saMSlezaRe SlezaRe ityapare:kuMS:04:0128:pa:sew:कुं॑शँ॑:::::
kuMsa!:saMSlezaRe SlezaRe ityanye:kuMs:04:0127:pa:sew:कुं॑सँ॑:::::

Madhaviya has 'kuS' not 'kuMS' for class 4; ditto for kus.

If rootwithoutanubandha were kuS, kus, respectivelly, then sanskritverb and pysan would agree.

Current conjugations:

{
    "key": "kuMS pre 4P", 
    "pysan": "[kuMSyati kuMSyataH kuMSyanti kuMSyasi kuMSyaTaH kuMSyaTa kuMSyAmi kuMSyAvaH kuMSyAmaH]", 
    "sanverb": "[kuSyati kuSyataH kuSyanti kuSyasi kuSyaTaH kuSyaTa kuSyAmi kuSyAvaH kuSyAmaH]"
  }, 
  {
    "key": "kuMs pre 4P", 
    "pysan": "[kuMsyati kuMsyataH kuMsyanti kuMsyasi kuMsyaTaH kuMsyaTa kuMsyAmi kuMsyAvaH kuMsyAmaH]", 
    "sanverb": "[kusyati kusyataH kusyanti kusyasi kusyaTaH kusyaTa kusyAmi kusyAvaH kusyAmaH]"
  },

Answer 9 · 2016-10-03T21:35:50.000Z

kfp 1A

pysan has karpate, and sanverb has kalpate.

Changing pysan to kalpate.

Further question:
Why does verbdata have two class 1 roots:

kfpa!:krapa!m kapa!m kfpAyAM gatO ca:kfp:01:0875:A:sew:कृ॑पँ॒:465:487:493::
kfpU!:sAmarTye:kxp:01:0866:A:sew:कृ॑पूँ॒:465:487:493:kqp1_kqpUz_BvAxiH+sAmarWye:167

The present tense conjugations of both of these are identical in sanskritverb.

I find only 'kfpU' in madhaviya.

Is this a difference in authorities, verbdata grammarian v. madhaviya?

Answer 10 · 2016-10-03T21:51:12.000Z

klam 4P

Dhaval mentioned Panini sutra 3.1.70 as applying to kram and others.

However, this sutra also mentions 'klam' (acc. to Katre edition).

So, shouldn't verbdata have gana = 1 for this?

klamu!:glAnO:klam:04:0104:pa:sew:क्ल॑मुँ॑:848:867:887:klam1_klamuz_xivAxiH+glAnO:
with conjugation
klamu! pre 04.0104P:[(klAmyati klAmati) ... etc.]

Answer 11 · 2016-10-03T22:02:39.000Z

kzI 9P BrI 9P vrI 9P

pysan: kzIRAti kziRAti, etc Similarly for BrI, vrI

sanverb : kzIRAti etc. Similarly for BrI, vrI

The pysan justification is Kale section 414 which is paraphrased:

kzI  BrI and vrI have their finals shortened optionally in the special tenses.

Answer 12 · 2016-10-03T22:07:23.000Z

Kav 9p:

DIfference only in 3p:

     3p (sanverb) Kananti != Kavnanti (pysan)
sanverb present tense conjugation :
Kava! pre 09.0068P:[KavnAti KavnItaH Kananti KavnAsi KavnITaH KavnITa KavnAmi KavnIvaH KavnImaH]

Which is right?

Answer 13 · 2016-10-04T02:06:35.000Z

gA 3P

    "pysan": "[jigAti jiktaH jigati jigAsi jikTaH jikTa jigAmi jigvaH jigmaH]", 
    "sanverb": "[jigAti jigItaH jigati jigAsi jigITaH jigITa jigAmi jigIvaH jigI

I feel sure Pysan is in error. The solution is to use weak stem of jigI before
the weak-consonant endings ( 3d, 2d, 2p, 3d, 3p).

This change was made.

But I could not find justification for this in Kale, so I don't know if the change is purely
relevant to 'gA 3' or if the change in weak stem is a consequence of some general rule. Dhaval?

Answer 14 · 2016-10-04T02:11:29.000Z

gup 1A

    "pysan": "[jugupsate jugupsete jugupsante jugupsase jugupseTe jugupsaDve jugupse jugupsAvahe jugupsAmahe]", 
    "sanverb": "[gopate gopete gopante gopase gopeTe gopaDve gope gopAvahe gopAmahe]"

pysan is correct, based upon my reading of Kale.

Regarding gup. The question pertains to a difference in the 1A forms.

Kale DK shows: gup 1A nindAyAm to censure; jugupsate pre.

And in section 396, he mentions gup among 'the following seven roots form their
bases like the Desiderative in the senses indicated'.

jugupsate, etc. are the pre 1A forms used by pysan.

By contrast, Sanskritverb shows gopate, etc. for gup 1A.

(This case was mentioned preiously under #44 here)

Answer 15 · 2016-10-04T02:15:01.000Z

गा

ई हल्यघोः॥ ६।४।११३

In all third set (abhyasta) verbs ending with 'A', before weak consonant
ending, they get converted to 'I'.

Exceptions are 'ghu' verbs i.e. qudAY quDAY, dEp, dA etc. e.g. दत्तः धत्तः.

http://www.sanskritworld.in/sanskrittool/SanskritVerb/Data/allsutrani/6.4.113.htm

Answer 16 · 2016-10-04T02:15:02.000Z

gF 6P

pysan and sanskritverb disagree only in 3p:

3p (sanverb) giranti != gilanti,giranti (pysan)

    "pysan": "[(girati gilati) (girataH gilataH) (giranti gilanti) (girasi gilasi) (giraTaH gilaTaH) (giraTa gilaTa) (girAmi gilAmi) (girAvaH gilAvaH) (girAmaH gilAmaH)]", 
    "sanverb": "[(girati gilati) (girataH gilataH) giranti (girasi gilasi) (giraTaH gilaTaH) (giraTa gilaTa) (girAmi gilAmi) (girAvaH gilAvaH) (girAmaH gilAmaH)]"

Unless there is some special rule in place, sanverb looks like it should be changed in 3p.

Answer 17 · 2016-10-04T02:23:55.000Z

jYA 9P,A

Changed Pysan to use jA before the nA,nI of 9th conjugation. This now brings pysan into agreement
with Sanverb. This was mentioned in Kale as one of the irregularities of the 9th class.

Answer 18 · 2016-10-04T02:28:44.000Z

mid 4P

pysan: medyati, etc.

sanverb: midyati, etc.

medyati is confirmed for 4P by both MadhavIya and by Kale.

Suspect sanverb change needed.

Answer 19 · 2016-10-04T02:41:51.000Z

tu 2P, stu 2A, 2P and ru 2P:

The conjugations of all these differ in the forms with weak consonant endings.

pysan provides an optional I prefixed to the endings, but sanverb does not. (Rule does not
require weak consonant ending).

The pysan forms are justified by Kale section 440.

Example of tu 2P:

    "pysan": "[(tOti tavIti) (tutaH tuvItaH) tuvanti (tOzi tavIzi) (tuTaH tuvITaH) (tuTa tuvITa) (tOmi tavImi) (tuvaH tuvIvaH) (tumaH tuvImaH)]", 
    "sanverb": "[(tOti tavIti) tutaH tuvanti (tOzi tavIzi) tuTaH tuTa (tOmi tavImi) tuvaH tumaH]"

Either sanverb needs to change, or maybe sanverb is choosing to ignore this optional form.

Answer 20 · 2016-10-04T20:40:00.000Z

tur 3P:

In the weak consonantal entries, sanverb and pysan differ:

    "pysan": "[tutorti tuturtaH tuturati tutorzi tutusTaH tutusTa tutormi tuturvaH tuturmaH]", 
    "sanverb": "[tutorti tutUrtaH tuturati tutorzi tutUrTaH tutUrTa tutormi tutUrvaH tutUrmaH]"

I presume sanverb is correct here (and have changed pysan) but don't understand at two points:

Why does the base become tutUr in these forms?
Why doesn't the final 'r' of base change to 's' before t and T endings?

Dhaval, what are the rules here?

Answer 21 · 2016-10-04T20:54:18.000Z

tfp 5P.

pysan has tfpnoti , etc

sanverb has tfpRoti, etc.

Pysan is confirmed by Kale DK and Ap90. MW not as clear, may support both forms, I'm not sure.

Conclusion: pysan seems ok.

Should sanverb change, or is the choice of pn or pR optional?

Answer 22 · 2016-10-04T21:21:43.000Z

tfMh 6P

pysan maintains the 'M' in present tense : tfMhati etc

sanverb does not: tfhati

sanverb verbdata has two closely related class 6 roots, tfh and tfMh:

tfMhU!:hiMsArTAH:tfMh:06:0077:pa:sew:तृं॑हूँ॑::::wqMh1_wqMhUz_wuxAxiH+hiMsAyAm:
tfhU!:hiMsArTaH:tfh:06:0075:pa:sew:तृ॑हूँ॑:961:983:1004:wqh1_wqhUz_wuxAxiH+hiMsAyAm:

Also Madhaviya shows these two forms. And, it also agrees with sanverb in the conjugation, showing
tfhati.

Kale does not show the 'tfMh' form, nor does MW.

Conclusion: tfMh is to be treated as having stem 'tfh' (at least in the special tenses).

pysanskrit changed accordingly.

Answer 23 · 2016-10-04T21:47:03.000Z

dIDI 2A.

Pysan and sanverb are different before the vowel endings:

     3d (sanverb) dIDyAte != dIDiyAte (pysan)
     3p (sanverb) dIDyate != dIDiyate (pysan)
     2d (sanverb) dIDyATe != dIDiyATe (pysan)
     1s (sanverb) dIDye != dIDiye (pysan)

Sanverb forms are confirmed by Madhaviya, so pysanskrit is changed so the final 'I' becomes 'y'
before the vowel endings.

However, the pysan forms are due to a rule for second conjugation verbs shown in AntoineII,36:

Before weak terminations beginning with a vowel, the
 final 'i' and 'u', short or long,
  are changed respectively to 'iy' and 'uv'

Due to the confirming Madhaviya exemplar, I am changing pysanskrit to NOT follow the Antoine
rule for this root dIDI.
However, I don't know whether to think of this

as an irregularity of the particular root dIDI, or
as an application of some rule (as yet unknown by me) which in effect voids the Antoine rule in
the case of dIDI.
NOTE: The same situation with vevI. Changed pysan similarly, so now agreement with sanverb.

Answer 24 · 2016-10-04T22:00:45.000Z

df 5P

Pysan joins the 5th class 'nu' marker to the base 'df', while Sanverb joins 'nu' to 'dIr':
Also, Pysan has the usual alternate forms in 1d and 1p.

 "pysan": "[dfRoti dfRutaH dfRvanti dfRozi dfRuTaH dfRuTa dfRomi (dfRuvaH dfRvaH) (dfRumaH dfRmaH)]", 
"sanverb": "[dIrRoti dIrRutaH dIrRuvanti dIrRozi dIrRuTaH dIrRuTa dIrRomi dIrRuvaH dIrRumaH]"

Madhaviya confirms 'dfRoti'.

I don't see this verb df in class 5 in either Kale or MW.

Conclusion: pysanskrit looks correct to me, based on Madhaviya exemplar.

Answer 25 · 2016-10-04T22:20:39.000Z

Dan 3P:

Pysanskrit changes the final 'n' of the base 'daDan' to anusvara: daDaMti, etc.

SanskritVerb leaves the final 'n': daDanti, etc.

MadhavIya ,Kale, and MW all agree with SanskritVerb.

Changing Pysan.

Question:
The reason Pysan logic changed 'n'+'t' to 'Mt' was the general rule of sandhi (Kale 36a):

m and n not at the end of a pada, are turned into an Anuswara when followed by
a consonant except a nasal or a semivowel or h

Since this rule does not apply which joining daDan to ti, is it right to conclude that
when joining the stem to an ending in a conjugation, the stem is considered to be a pada ?

Answer 26 · 2016-10-05T19:23:52.000Z

pan 1A

Pysan: panate, etc.

Sanverb: panAyate, etc.

Kale DK is confusing here, since it states 1A, but shows panate and panAyati (parasmaipada form)

 pan 1A. to praise; panate, panAyati pre.
COMPARE to
paR 1A (Parasm. with Ay) stutO to praise; paRAyati, paRate

MW shows panate.

Conclusion: Cannot find justification for sanverb's panAyate.

Answer 27 · 2016-10-05T19:37:02.000Z

Bas 3P

    "pysan": "[baBasti baBastaH baBasati baBassi baBasTaH baBasTa baBasmi baBasvaH baBasmaH]", 
    "sanverb": "[baBasti babDaH bapsati baBassi babDaH babDa baBasmi bapsvaH bapsmaH]"

The two systems differ in (a) with weak consonant endings (3d, 2d, 2p, 1d, 1p) and (b) in 3p.

I can find support for both pysan:

In Madhaviya footnote and MW for 2d, baBasTaH

and for Pysanskrit

babDaH and bapsati in Madhaviya, and bapsati (3s and 3p) in MW.

Not sure how to think of the true situation here.

Answer 28 · 2016-10-05T19:45:31.000Z

BfMS 4P

Pysan: BfMSyanti, etc

Sanverb: BfSyati, etc.

I think the SanskritVerb root should be spelled without the 'M' (root with and without anubandha)

BfMSu!:aDaHpatane:BfMS:04:0137:pa:sew:भृं॑शुँ॑:::::

Reasons:

Kale has only BfS aDaHpatane 4P (same sense as verbdata)
Madhaviya sutra 4.123 shows BfSu BraMSu aDaHpatane

Answer 29 · 2016-10-05T20:06:59.000Z

vac 2P:

Differ only in 3p, where pysan prints a 'missing value' (currently printed as nil), while
sanverb shows vacanti.

pysan justified by Kale 414:

Kale #434. 'vac' (to speak) is deficient in 3rd pers pl. present
and, according to some in the whole plural, and
according to others in all the third person plurals.

Answer 30 · 2016-10-05T20:53:02.000Z

svazk 1A

The current conjugations are:

    "pysan": "[svazkate svazkete svazkante svazkase svazkeTe svazkaDve svazke svazkAvahe svazkAmahe]", 
    "sanverb": "[zvaskate zvaskete zvaskante zvaskase zvaskeTe zvaskaDve zvaske zvaskAvahe zvaskAmahe]"

I think this may be an error in verbdata

zvaska!:gatyarTaH:svazk:01:0105:A:sew:ष्व॑स्कँ॒:::::

Suggested change:
zvazka!:gatyarTaH:zvazk:01:0105:A:sew:ष्व॑स्कँ॒:::::

This would agree with Madhaviya sutra 1-77, which also shows pre. tense zvazkate.

Related objservations:

Kale has zvazk 1A to go, to move;zvazkate`
Kale also has svask 1A to go; svaskate
MW under zvazk shows:
ष्वष्क् [p= 1111] : cl.1 P. ष्वष्कति (Naigh. ii, 14) or cl.1 A1. ष्वष्कते (Dhātup. iv, 26 ; v.l. ष्वस्क्, स्वस्क् ; cf. prec. and षुक्क्, षष्क्), to go, move.
and under svask, MW shows स्वस्क् [p= 1283] : » √ष्वष्क्.

Answer 31 · 2016-10-05T21:02:21.000Z

hurC 1P

Pysan has hUrcCati, etc.

Sanverb has hUrCati, etc.

MadhavIya, MW show hUrCati

Kale spells the root hurcC and shows hUrcCati.

Changed Pysan to agree with sanverb.

Should Kale be considered (a) an error or (b) a choice.

One confusing point - since, in root spelling 'hurC', the 'C' is NOT preceded by a hrasva vowel (but
rather by a consonant 'r'), the usual reason for changing that 'C' to 'cC' would not apply. This is the
reason for wondering whether Kale's hurcC should be considered an error.

Answer 32 · 2016-10-05T21:16:37.000Z

@drdhaval2785 This finishes my review of the differences between present tense conjugations
of sanskritverb and pysanskrit. This issue, together with #50, covers all the differences that remain.

Currently, there are 53 conjugation table differences remaining (when I started this exercise, there were
about 250, as I recall).

I hope you'll be able to review these, especially to see if

some cases need changes in sanskritverb
some cases need changes in pysanskrit
some cases are differences of opinion of grammatical sources, and can be classified as
'known differences'

Answer 33 · 2016-10-05T21:22:06.000Z

Oops - here's one more difference:

sraMS 1A

Pysanskrit: sraMSate, etc.

SanskritVerb: sraMsate, etc.

I think that verbwithoutanubandha needs to be changed in verbdata:

sraMsu!:avasraMsane:sraMS:01:0857:A:sew:स्रं॑सुँ॒::::sraMs1_sraMsuz_BvAxiH+avasraMsane:

suggested change:
sraMsu!:avasraMsane:sraMs:01:0857:A:sew:स्रं॑सुँ॒::::sraMs1_sraMsuz_BvAxiH+avasraMsane:

reasons:

Kale has only sraMs in DK
the root-with-anubandha in verbdata has Ms rather than MS

Answer 34 · 2019-02-19T12:12:11.000Z

@drdhaval2785 please review the 53+1 left, I humbly ask you to.