28. 'Sarbojônin' and 'Sorbojonin' The number of Bengalis who, driven by excessive pedantry or hearsay, insist that the word 'sarbojônin' is incorrect, is by no means small. It would be good to know that this word 'sarbojônin' exists in Panini itself. (Sutra number 4|4|99) 'Sarbojône sadhuḥ' is its meaning. Here 'sadhuḥ' means appropriate. The suffix, according to Panini, is 'khañ'. Other sutras in the Taddhita section inform us that 'kh' will signify 'īn'. 'ñ' indicates that when the suffix is added, the initial vowel of the word will undergo vriddhi. 'Kh' and 'ñ' are it, meaning they will be elided; what remains is 'a'. Therefore, in place of 'kh' comes 'īn' + 'a', making the suffix 'īn'. Hence, sarbôjan + khañ > sarbojônin. There is also a clearer way of writing this: sarbôjan + īn (khañ) > sarbojônin. Now for the word 'sorbojonin'. Here the suffix is 'kh'. There is no 'ñ' in the anubandha, so there is no question of vriddhi of the initial vowel. 'Kh' becomes it, leaving 'a'. In place of 'kh' comes 'īn', which with 'a' becomes 'īn'. Sarbôjan + kh > sorbojonin. Written another way: sarbôjan + īn (kh) > sorbojonin. The essence of the matter is this: with the īn (khañ) suffix, the initial vowel will undergo vriddhi (sarbojônin, baishbôjônin, etc.); with the īn (kh) suffix, the initial vowel will not undergo vriddhi (sorbojonin, bishbôjonin, etc.).
29. Is 'Bôshotô' a Postposition in Bengali? The word 'bôshotô' has certain distinctive features. These are: (1) 'Bôshotô' has no independent existence as a word element in a sentence. Unlike 'prôsônggotô' or 'mulotô', which exist independently, 'bôshotô' does not. (2) In Bengali, 'bôshotô' is generally present as the latter element in compound words. Such as: okkhômotabôshotô, obhabôbôshotô, osusthôtabôshotô, osuaybôshotô, alôsyôbôshotô, irshyabôshotô, ucchbashôbôshotô, oudaryôbôshotô, krodhôbôshotô, kamôbôshotô, karônôbôshotô, chaplabôshotô, durbhagyôbôshotô, pokkhôpatbôshotô, bidbeshôbôshotô, bhromôbôshotô, bhrantibôshotô, bharôbôshotô, bhulôbôshotô, mohôbôshotô, snehôbôshotô, saujonnyôbôshotô, saubhagyôbôshotô, himsabôshotô, etc. 'Daibôbôshotô' could also occur, but it is generally written as 'daibér bôshê'. (3) The tasil suffix of 'bôshotô' indicates the ablative case of the word 'bôsh'. That is, in Bengali, durbhagyôbôshotô means due to misfortune, because of misfortune, from misfortune, etc. (4) If we remove the tasil suffix, the words should become 'osusthôtabôsh', 'durbhagyôbôsh', etc. Though such words are grammatically valid, they have no usage in Bengali. (5) Then what kind of word is 'bôshotô'? It is noteworthy that compound words like 'osusthôtabôshotô' where 'bôshotô' is the latter element all function as adverbs; for example, 'He could not come due to misfortune'. Yet 'bôshotô' itself is not an adverb; it combines with another noun to create an adverb together. This work is done by postpositions. When we break the compound and create a Bengali phrase with inflections, we seem to get a postposition in hand. Can 'bôshotô' then be said to function as a postposition in Bengali? Incidentally, the Samsad Bengali Dictionary identifies 'bôshotô' as an indeclinable. First, Sanskrit stem + Sanskrit suffix, but is there any indeclinable called 'bôshotô' in Sanskrit? Second, if we take it as a Bengali indeclinable, its sole position is as the latter element in compounds. But is this like the particle indeclinables -i, -o? But then the role of the word 'bôshotô' is unclear.
30. Ya-ta and Yemon-temon Bamandev Chakrabarti included 'amuk' among pronouns in his grammar book some time ago. He did not include the imitative word 'tamuk' of amuk, nor did he include 'iye' in the category of pronouns. But his inclusion of 'amuk' reveals his open mind and sharp observation. Today I was wondering whether 'ônyô' and 'ôpôr' are considered pronouns (before saying to another/to the other, etc.). I found that Bamandev is not behind in this matter either. 'Ônyô' and 'ôpôr' are in his pronouns. Now the question: Can the word 'ya-ta' be included among pronouns? And along with it, 'yemon-temon'? Usage: He did ya-ta with me that day. He dismissed me saying yemon-temon. Colloquial ya-ta comes from literary yaha-taha. Yaha-taha is, in my opinion, an indefinite pronoun. So many ya-ta things happen every day,/Why don't such things really come true, alas! But in colloquial language, the meaning of the word ya-ta has changed in popular usage. The word is now used in a deprecatory, contemptuous, or critical sense. Will you go to a wedding wearing such a ya-ta sari? Don't talk about Arun, he's such a ya-ta boy. I never imagined you would create such a ya-ta scene in front of everyone. In my judgment, these are all examples of pronominal adjectives. In the examples I gave above, 'ya-ta' has qualified some noun or other. If the word itself becomes directly the subject or object of a finite or non-finite verb, then it can be a noun. But such usage is rare. 'If father comes now, ya-ta will happen' (subject). 'Just saying ya-ta won't do, we need proof' (object). But I would prefer to call this 'ya-ta' an indefinite pronoun rather than a so-and-so type noun. So-and-so becomes an alternative name for an unnamed person. But behind 'ya-ta' there is an unspoken noun. It exists in the two examples above as well.
31. Kartik/Karttik Karttik - the conventional etymology: son of the Krittikas, hence with the patronymic suffix Krittika + a → Karttik. Monier Williams, Gyanendramohan, and Haricharan favor this spelling with double t. Lahiri-Shastri's 'Paniniyam', written on Panini's grammar, also says that omitting the doubling of t would change Karttik's maternal identity. Yogeshchandra Ray Vidyanidhi, Rajshekhar Basu, and probably following them, the Samsad Bengali Dictionary and the Academy Spelling Dictionary favor spelling 'Kartik' with a single t after the r, omitting the doubling of the consonant. Rajshekhar and Samsad also mention the Krittika etymology but give a single t in Kartik. Again, in Sudhirchandra Sarkar's compiled 'Pauranik Abhidhan', Kartikeya is mentioned, also with a single t. Then is it legitimate to move away from etymology while omitting consonant doubling? There's no problem with double t, since the word comes from Krittika. The problem is with the single t in Kartik. Yet on that side are Sanskrit scholars like Yogeshchandra Ray Vidyanidhi and Rajshekhar Basu. Do they then have some other etymological argument? The word comes from adding the 'ṣṇa' suffix to 'Krittika'. When the suffix is added, the initial syllable 'kri' of 'Krittika' undergoes vriddhi to become 'kar', but there is no grammatically sound reason for one 't' to be dropped from the middle syllable 'tti'. The spelling should be 'Karttik'. But the matter is somewhat complex. At Rabindranath's urging, Calcutta University formed a committee for Bengali spelling reform. The committee's first booklet was published in May 1936. One rule stated: doubling of consonants after r will be omitted. For example, instead of writing sarbb, karmm, nirddôy, suryyô, one should write sarb, karm, nirdôy, surjyô. But if understanding etymology becomes difficult, the doubling will remain as it is. 'Karttik' was cited as an example. In the second edition of the booklet published in October that year, this exception no longer remained. It was stated that no consonant after r would be doubled. 'Karttik' would also have to be written as 'Kartik'. Later, Manindrakumar Ghosh went to meet Rajshekhar Basu. The Karttik/Kartik issue came up. When Manindrababu drew Rajshekhar's attention to the grammatical inconsistency of the correction, he said with some irritation, 'Sir, I made a reform. You schoolmasters won't let anything be done!' Not only that, he also spoke of marking students' exam papers wrong if they wrote the 'Karttik' spelling. Needless to say, the word 'Karttik' found no place in his 'Chalantika'. The 'Samsad' dictionary also has only 'Kartik'. Anandabazar's dictionary has both spellings, but the one without doubling is said to be more prevalent. So where exactly does the matter stand? Will everyone write as they please? What I understood about Karttik/Kartik: 1. There is no hidden rule by which one 't' can be dropped from Karttik/Karttikik/Karttikeya. When Vidyasagar was proposed to prepare a student edition commentary on Bhattoji Dikshit's Siddhantakaumudi, or Vidyasagar proposed it, Rajendralal Mitra was enthusiastic, but Vidyasagar rejected him, saying his Sanskrit knowledge was unreliable. He gave the responsibility to his student Taranath Tarkavachaspati. Taranath did it by adding commentary called 'Sarala'. He has two dictionaries, Shabdakaustubh and a great work Vachaspptyam in 5 volumes. There, Kartik/Karttikik/Karttikeya are invariable. 2. Neither Bandyoghatiyo Sarvananda nor Rayamukut Brihaspati dropped a single 't'. They derived Karttik etc. from Krittika. 3. I noticed another interesting thing in Bhanudji Dikshit's words - the name 'Haima' appeared (Haima = Hemchandra). In his 'Abhidhanchintamani', the word /urj/ is taken as a synonym for 'Kartik'. I found two editions: (a) Chaukhamba Vidyabhavan's Hindi translation by Pandit Hargovind Shastri of Ara. (b) Another published from Bhavnagar by Jain Acharya Vijayadharma Suri. Yet there is a very old edition in German by Otto Boehtlingk und Charles Rieu [1847], where on p.27 sl.155 is /Karttik/. They probably worked from 3 manuscripts, giving no variant readings. 4. I can assume that Rajshekhar was influenced by the idiosyncrasy of being affected by Marathi Apte's native language spelling. 5. What should be done is for scholars to consider. Curious readers like us won't find more than this - we don't have trained eyes.
32. 'Sôndhye'!! The heart breaks for the y-phôla. So even in 'sôndhê' they add y-phôla to make 'sôndhyê'. The original word 'sôndhya' had its y-phôla and a-kar, that is, the i-a sound shifted to e-sound, but apparently the y-phôla remained with full glory! Moreover, since that word contains the conjunct consonant ndh, there was no consonantal doubling in pronunciation that would require retaining the y-phôla for pronunciation's sake (as in mitthê). Still, there's no escape from the y-phôla. What a predicament!
33. Together/সংগে How many more times must we see that bizarre spelling 'সংগে' — in writers' works, professors' texts, and of course in ordinary citizens' writing! There was some talk that in place of ঙ, an inappropriate anusvara might sometimes appear. That's all it took — without considering that this applies only to specific contexts, Bengalis wasted no time in shifting responsibility from one to another. When will Bengali scholars abandon the company of 'সংগে'! There are several similar errors. 'অংক', 'সংগে', 'অংগ'. All should have 'ঙ্ক'/'ঙ্গ'. When any of the twenty consonants from the cha-series to the pa-series follows, the m at the end of the first element transforms into the fifth letter of that series. For instance: sanchaya, kinnar, basundhara, sambal. This applies to the ka-series as well, though there's an alternative provision for anusvara. Thus both ahankara or ahankkara, sangeet or sangeet, sanghat or sanghat can be written. In modern Bengali, writing anusvara instead of ঙ্ has become the prevalent convention. What many don't notice is that in root words, and in compound words where the final letter of the first element is not m, anusvara cannot be written in place of ঙ্. Some such words are: kangkal, shankha, shringara, sanga, taranga, bhangur, etc. The word 'shringara' doesn't come from shrim+gara; it comes from shringa+√ri+a (in the abstract sense). 'Shankha' is probably a root word. And the word 'sanga' has its origin in √sanj+a (in the abstract sense). There's no m anywhere. Anusvara occurs elsewhere too, beyond consonant sandhi — that's a separate matter.
34. For friends who want to know 'what's the difference between khuje and khoje' or 'what's the difference between uthe and othe,' here's a simple answer: khuje is used in non-finite verbs, khoje in finite verbs. Where you say 'khuijya' or something similar in your dialect, say/write 'khuje' in standard Bengali. For instance, if you say 'tare khuijya pailam na' in your dialect, in standard Bengali you must say/write 'take khuje pelam na'. The same rule applies to other u-vowel roots like √khul, √bujh. That is, (dialectal) khuje = (standard) khoje. (Dialectal) khuijya = (standard) khuje. The same problem can occur with i-vowel roots, such as √chin, √likh. The problem here arises from the tendency to call the e-vowel 'i'. Where you say 'likhe' in your dialect, you must say/write 'lekhe' in standard Bengali — 'se bhaloyi lekhe', not 'likhe'. And where you say 'likhya' or something similar, say/write 'likhe' in standard Bengali. For instance, 'chitita likhe tarpor aschi' etc. That is, (dialectal) likhe = (standard) lekhe. (Dialectal) likhya = (standard) likhe.
35. (1) In derived verbs where there's an extension suffix 'a', such as √kara, √lafa, when the mode suffix 'iya' is added, we get 'karaiyache', 'karaiyachil', 'karaiya'. These forms evolved to become 'koriyeche', 'koriyechil', 'koriye' in colloquial Bengali. But what should have happened is karaiyache > karay্যache (vowel harmony + semi-vowel formation) > karayeche (semi-vowel deletion). (This form exists in some dialects too.) Then how did the form 'koriyeche' come about, how did the a-vowel (ra) become i-vowel (ri)? (2) Similarly, how does 'koriye' come from 'karayio'? (3) In present imperative, honorific form, the suffix is 'un'. Adding the un-suffix to the √kara root could have produced the formal form 'karaun'. Yet we see the form 'koran' in both formal and colloquial Bengali. So where did the un-suffix go? If 'u' was deleted, was it first made into a semi-vowel? Let's see. 'Koriye' came from karayio through applying that rule of a-deletion. Koran also came from karaun through the rule of vowel sound deletion after 'a' in verbs... yaun > yan, ya-en > yan, gaun > gan, ga-en > gan, yauk > yak, yais (jaish) > yas (jash). I think the vowel sounds that are deleted first become semi-vowels, that is, a gliding rule comes first, then the glide deletion rule is applied. This rule sometimes appears in historical form in nouns too—chaul > chal. The question is, how does the o-sound come in colloquial forms like egoy, pichhoy, kiloy, ninḍoy, bikoy, biloy etc.? Shudhay > shudhoy can be understood through vowel harmony, but what's the evolutionary path for bilay > biloy? Should we then consider the root in the colloquial forms of these verbs as √bilo, √biko? (That is, apply synchronic analysis?)
36. Chachhen/Chaichhen The original root is chah. From that comes chaichhen. That's standard. If the root is cha, as in some dialects, then chachhen. Rabindranath also wrote chachhen in a few places. Now the standard is 'chaichhen'. Similarly, we'll write 'gaichhen', not 'gachhen'. Considering the original root, instead of writing khaichhen, paichhen etc., we'll write khachhen, pachhen etc.
37. All this 'khabna' 'yabna' we see here and there. When I see 'pabna' (pab na), I think of Pabna district. Anyway, instead of writing them together, they should be written separately: 'khab na', 'yab na', 'pabo na'.
38. Are you sometimes thinking of writing 'এ্যা' instead of 'অ্যা' when transliterating foreign (mainly English) words into Bengali? Like writing এ্যান্ড instead of অ্যান্ড? But then you couldn't write land that way. Even if you could, it would look like lyond. Besides, the use of the 'অ্যা' symbol in Bengali (and Sanskrit) is quite extensive. Nyay, nyas, shyam, byapta, byabaharik, aranyani, shyalak, tyajya. Rather, I can't recall any use of the এ্যা (্যো) symbol right now. The word shyen comes to mind, without the a-vowel. In Bengali, the pronunciation of shyen doesn't approach অ্যা at all. However, not all অ্যা can be called a distortion of e. Bengali অ্যা has multiple sources. Apart from foreign words, in Bengali i + a > অ্যা, as in shiyal > sheyal > shyal. Why should we call this just a distortion of 'e'? Pechak > pyacha could well be. But chyachamechi? Pak > Bengali pyak. Taka > dialectal tyaka? The onomatopoetic ghyanghyan panpan syatsyat kyachkyach don't seem like distortions of e to me. If we consider only the অ্যা symbol, then it's for foreign words, can't we say that? And if we consider the /অ্যা/ phoneme, then it has four sources --- (1) original, like those onomatopoetics, (2) distortion of /e/; can't we call sheyal > shyal the second layer of this? (3) special pronunciation of Sanskrit ya-phala and ya+a, (4) foreign words. Why write chyachamechi? When there's a chencha root, can't we write chenchamechi? Will you call Sanskrit ya-phala a special pronunciation of e? The 'chencha-' root is someone's written form. The real root should be chyancha-. I know there's no a+ya+a in ant or and. But there's no e+ya+a either. However, Bengali a is a neutral vowel, not a short a like in Hindi. Therefore, to attach ya-phala+a-vowel, attaching it to a instead of e seems more logical. If all other words can be pronounced without the help of e-vowel (pyancha, handle, balance, ghyanghyan, byahat etc.), then why would we need 'e' to write antibiotic or analog? Why write এ্যান্টিবায়োটিক or এ্যানালগ? If we say the pronunciation of eka is অ্যাka, then only e or e-vowel should be given, why এ্যা? Ya-phala won't come at all. Let a slashed e or e-vowel be written to indicate অ্যা. In Hindi, they've tried to solve this problem with ai or ai-vowel. Since they say 'hyay', they write 'hai'; so they write our 'bank' as 'baink'. A writing convention has become established in Bengali; disturbing it to transliterate a few English words might not be right. অ্যা is actually a vowel symbol; its pronunciation should be possible without the help of the consonant ya. We have so much trouble because we don't have such a vowel symbol.
39. (1) In consonant-ending words like hat-bazar etc., the locative will take e-suffix. In dialectal and poetic usage, e-te together is also possible, such as: oke amader dolte niini, ghore bhramar elo gunguniye. (2) Ya is a semi-vowel, ha is a sibilant; here too e-suffix will be used. Hridaye, shilaidahe. (3) Compound consonants kr, st, tn, shn, rm, rn etc., though ending in a in Bengali pronunciation, will take e-suffix. Chakre, aste, yatne, krishne, marme, barne. (4) But if it ends in a vowel without compound consonants, te-suffix. (I-vowel, meaning the connection of te-suffix is not only with gari, bari etc.) In all cases like kolkatate garite madhute bashberte alote, te is used. (5) Te-suffix in vowel-ending words can alternatively take e-suffix (except after i-vowel and u-vowel), but since it comes after a vowel, it will take the form of 'ya' in writing and pronunciation. For example, kolkatay, aloy. This alternative isn't possible with i-vowel and u-vowel endings - garite sagute etc. must invariably have 'te'.
40. -i and -o These two morphemes attach to the end of words and impose a certain emphasis on that word. In other words, they can be called emphatic morphemes. And in imposing emphasis, they sometimes slightly alter the meaning of the word as well. For instance, 'ajoo' takes on the meaning of 'until today.' The question is: how shall we classify these morphemes like -i and -o? Should we call them suffixes, or inflections? Or should we call them word-dependent indicators like -ṭa, -ṭi? Or should we create some new technical term? If we expect a grammar book to discuss this, which chapter would it belong to? My position is not about writing or not writing 'Anil-i jabe' and such. Not about sei/se-i tai/ta-i. Generally, I am not in favor of increasing hyphens (and apostrophes). I believe the responsibility of understanding the subtle difference between the two 'tai' in "Dukher timire jodi jole taba maṅgal-alok / tabe tai hok" (ta-i) and "tai tomar ananda amar 'par" (tai) should be left to Bengalis themselves. The case of 'je' is truly quite confusing, but unless absolutely necessary in certain contexts, I prefer not to use hyphens. There is no semantic difference between 'Anil-i jabe' and 'Anili jabe,' so I don't use unnecessary hyphens. However, when I feel it necessary, I write se-i, ta-i. The Bengali who says and writes 'taijannya'—will they understand the subtle difference between ta-i and tai? Still, the fewer punctuation marks used to convey meaning, the better. I believe in this principle. Now, I write ta-i, but should I write jacchetai as jaccheta-i? What about taire-naire-na? I can see the confusion. So that type too is non-standard. Ta-i to? Is this ta-i wrong? Let me simplify. 'So/therefore' is simply tai. Ta-i in the sense of 'that very thing.' There's a storm coming, so I said, don't come today. Whatever was cooked, I ate that very thing (ta-i). Similarly, ja-i in the sense of 'whatever,' not jai. I don't go there anymore (jai na). Whatever you say (ja-i), I'm not doing the work.
(to be continued . . . )