16. Lekhālekhi/Lekhālikhi Bengali has many compound words of this type, formed through mutual interaction (byatihār bahubrīhi). For our present discussion, we need only consider those that originally contain a root and where the derived monosyllabic consonant-ending root contains an i-vowel. Since I cannot recall all roots of this particular class at once, I must resort to Rajshekhar Bose's 'Chalantika' dictionary to list these roots for now: Kin, khĩch, gil, ghir, chin, chir, chhĩṛ, jit, jin, ṭik, ṭip, tit (only in literary, poetic usage), nib, pij, piṭ, piy (only in literary, poetic usage), piṣ, phir, bidh, bhij, bhiṛ, miṭ, mil, mish, likh, shikh, sijh/sij From these roots, the mutual interactive compounds commonly used in standard spoken/written Bengali are these: ghir > gherā > gherāgheri, chhĩṛ > chheṛā > chheṛāchheṛi, ṭip > ṭepā > ṭepāṭepi, piṭ > peṭā > peṭāpeṭi, piṣ > peṣā > peṣāpeṣi, phir > pherā > pherāpheri, mish > meshā > meshāmeshi Others may exist or could be created. Note that in all these words, the vowel sequence is [e-ā-e-i]. From this perspective, likh > lekhālekhi would be natural—but would 'lekhālikhi' be correct? If someone argues that the final i-vowel influences vowel harmony, changing le > li, as the venerable Suniti Kumar Chatterji suggested in his ODBL, then why didn't this happen in the other words? Since it didn't, should this harmonized form 'lekhālikhi' be rejected for the sake of consistency? The matter is particularly puzzling because another class of roots containing u-vowels shows nearly universal vowel harmony in mutual interactive compounds: uṛ > oṛā > oṛāuṛi, khul > kholā > kholākhuli, ghur > ghorā > ghorāghuri, etc. Even in words not derived from roots, like kol > kolākuli, we see the same pattern. The question about lekhālekhi/lekhālikhi remains. However, we take 'lekhālekhi' as standard (following the pattern of the others).
17. Sacharāchar The original meaning is "with the moving and non-moving" (char-achar-saha). Charāchar—that is, char: what moves and achar: what does not move—constitutes this entire universe. In Sanskrit, 'sacharāchar' was a noun, occasionally an adjective; examples can be found in any major dictionary from literature and scriptures. But in Bengali usage, 'sacharāchar' became an adjective/adverb, primarily an adverb meaning 'generally' or 'usually'. The sense of including the entire universe—"with all that moves and doesn't move"—led to this Bengali usage meaning 'generally'. That's well and good. But when I consider that 'sacharāchar' originally contained the inclusion of the entire cosmos, I can't help feeling that its meaning has perhaps contracted in 'generally'. Without such contraction, 'sacharāchar' might have served as the Bengali equivalent of the English 'universal' (adjective) or 'universally' (adverb). Both these words are useful in various contexts of knowledge and science, yet we have no word for 'universal' except 'bishwajānīn' (or at most 'sārbatrik'), and we have no idea what to do for 'universally'. Again, 'bishwajānīn' comes from 'bishwajan', which brings in the aspect of 'jan' meaning people, losing the impersonal quality of a universe comprising all movable and immovable things. It would have been more convenient that 'sacharāchar' belonged to that class of Bengali adverbs—like 'drut', 'pāshāpāshi', 'mājhāmājhi', 'haṭhāt'—that can be used without any inflection, not requiring the e-inflection like 'jore', 'dhīre', 'kompakshe'. Thus a universal equation might have been called 'sacharāchar samīkaraṇ', something universally valid could be termed 'sacharāchar siddha'. That opportunity no longer exists.
18. Well then, should it be 'niyamābalī' with a long ī, or 'niyamābali'? 'Rabīndra rachanābalī' or 'rachanābali'? Though ābalī/ābali are alternatives to each other, Bangla Academy says we must use ābali.
19. Yāine/yācchhine/yāsane etc. Note that this negative particle 'ne' appears in simple present first person 'yāi nā' as an alternative 'yāine', in continuous present first person 'yāchchhi nā' as 'yācchhine', and in imperative second person familiar 'yās nā' as 'yāsane'. Similarly 'karine/karisane', 'baline/balisane' etc. Their usage has now declined, like the 'um'-inflection in 'karlum', 'kartum', but in the early era of colloquial language when writing followed this speech pattern, literature would show 'khāine', 'khāsane' etc. Rabindranath used such constructions abundantly. In every tense and person/form where 'nā' becomes 'ne', this happens. We see that at the end of the verbal inflection chain, the person-marking inflection contains the high vowel 'i'. For instance, kari = kar + i, khās < khāis = khā + is etc. Then 'kari nā > karine', 'karis nā > karisane', i.e., '-i-nā > -i-ne', '-is-nā > -is-ne'; is this vowel harmony (vowel height agreement) due to the influence of the preceding vowel 'i'? If so, we must say that the preceding word in a sentence causes sound change in the following word—a most unique phenomenon. If all verbs have 'i' in their final syllable, then the 'ā' of the following 'nā' becomes 'e' by the rule of vowel harmony or vowel height agreement. Hence in certain dialects yābine, khābine, yāine, khāine etc. occur. Yāsane is actually yāis + nā, shusane is shuis + nā. This connects to a broader rule—the changes seen in phitā > phite, bhikṣā > bhikshe, bidyā > bidye etc. In verbs we'll also get forms like baline, shunine.
20. Jhagaṛāṭe, jhagaṛuṭe Bengali suffix 'ṭiyā' creates 'jhagaṛā-ṭiyā > jhagaṛāṭiyā > (through sound change) jhagaṛāṭe'. But how did this variant pronunciation 'jhagaṛuṭe' (ā > u) arise? I see no environment that would cause ā > u. However, in Sukumar Sen's 'Byutpatti-siddhārtha' I see there was a word 'jhakaṛ/jhagaṛ'. If that was pronounced as a-ending (or a-ending with 'ṭiyā' suffix), then 'jhagaṛuṭe' might have come from that.
21. 'Paṇḍitammanya'; but 'hīnammanya' or 'hīnamanya'? The word 'hīnammanya'/'hīnamanya' is not in Haricharan or Gyanendramohana. Not in Monier Williams' Sanskrit-English dictionary. Chalantika (13th edition 1389) and Samsad (edited by Subhash Bhattacharya) have 'hīnamanya'. Bangla Academy spelling dictionary has 'hīnammanya', drawing attention to the double 'm' in brackets. So 'hīnamanya' versus 'hīnammanya'—what arguments for and against? Haricharan, Gyanendramohana, Chalantika and Samsad all have paṇḍitammanya. The first two have neither hīnammanya nor hīnamanya. Chalantika has hīnamanya, not hīnammanya. But Samsad has hīnammanya, not hīnamanya. Bangla Academy's etymological dictionary also has hīnammanya and hīnammanyatā. Not hīnamanya. Now let's turn to rules. Here we have the khaś suffix. One place khaś can occur is with the √man root, when preceded by a word expressing self-reflection. In that case, an 'm' augment occurs after the upapada. If paṇḍitammanya, kṛtārthaammanya, dhanyammanya are possible, there's no reason hīnammanya cannot be. The word hīnammanya contains negativity but it's still self-reflection. Second, before 'manya' generally comes the accusative singular—I think this is the general rule. Hence paṇḍitammanya (this is also in Samsad), hence hīnammanya, ucchammanya. I write hīnammanya, hīnammanyatā.
22. It should be bayaḥkaniṣṭha, manaḥkaṣṭa, and bayaḥsandhi too. Bayaḥkaniṣṭha > bayokaniṣṭha [Skt. bayas + kaniṣṭha]. In the form without medial visarga: bayokaniṣṭha, niḥśvāsa > niśvāsa, manaḥkaṣṭa > manokaṣṭa. Which will be correct? "Bayaḥkrama" poses no problem as it follows the rules of visarga sandhi. The problem is with that o-vowel in "bayokaniṣṭha", and I cannot reconcile this with any rule. "Bayoguṇa" and "bayodharma" are correct. If the first word ends with 'a' followed by s-derived visarga, and the second word begins with the third, fourth or fifth letter of a varga or ya ra la ba ha, then according to the rule, o-vowel should occur. Thus 'bayobṛddha', 'bayoguṇa', 'bayodharma' etc. are explained. 'Bayokaniṣṭha' does not follow this rule. There's no problem with the first two letters of vargas either, if they are cha/chha, ṭa/ṭha, ta/tha. The problem arises only when ka/kha or pa/pha follow. In the latter case, visarga generally doesn't disappear. Like bayaḥkrama, bayaḥprāpta, srotaḥpatha, manaḥkaṣṭa, śiraḥpīṛā, svataḥprabṛtta. In some places 's' comes as an exception: (1) after 'namaḥ', 'puraḥ', 'tiraḥ' when followed by √kṛ-derived words; (2) when followed by words like 'kara' (śreyaskara), 'kāra' (puraskāra), 'kānta' (ayaskānta), 'kāmanā' (manaskāmanā) etc. Among these I don't see 'bayaḥ' mentioned. Even if it were, instead of 'bayaḥkaniṣṭha' we would get 'bayaskaniṣṭha', and 'bayaḥkrama' would become 'bayaskrama'. 'Bayokaniṣṭha' doesn't fit any rule. Bayojyeṣṭha, bayobṛddha, bayodharma etc. are correct. Bayokaniṣṭha is wrong. The main points: 1. After a-vowel and s-derived visarga, if the 3rd, 4th or 5th letter of a varga or ya ra la ba ha follows, the a-vowel and visarga together become o-vowel. By this rule 'bayokaniṣṭha' won't occur. 2. After a-vowel and visarga, if ka kha pa pha follow, barring one or two exceptions, the visarga remains as is. That is, 'bayaḥkaniṣṭha' is what should occur. 3. Exceptions mean if 'puraḥ' 'tiraḥ' 'namaḥ' precede, or words like 'kara' 'kāra' 'kāmanā' follow, then 's' comes in place of visarga. Like puraskāra or manaskāmanā. The word 'bayaḥ' doesn't fall among these exceptions. Even if it did, we wouldn't get 'bayokaniṣṭha', we'd get 'bayaskaniṣṭha'. 4. Therefore 'bayaḥkaniṣṭha' is the correct spelling. When 's' takes the form of visarga, if an unvoiced consonant follows, it remains visarga. Hence bayaḥkrama, bayaḥkaniṣṭha, bayaḥprāpta, bayaḥsandhi. But if a voiced consonant follows, it becomes o-vowel. Hence bayojyeṣṭha, bayodharma, bayobṛddha. With ṭa-varga it would become ṣa (like 'dhanuṣṭaṅkāra'), with cha-varga śa. With 'manaḥ' we get 'manaścakṣu', with voiced consonants 'manovedanā', 'manoniebeśa'.
23. What happens — (Verb + Post-positional Indicator 'টা') The post-positional indicator 'টা' is generally attached to nouns or pronouns, but a distinctive feature of Bengali usage is that it can also be attached to finite verbs. I am recording below several examples. Simple Present — Who/what is here? What happens here? Continuous Present — What's happening? What are you doing sitting there? Who's going there? Present Perfect — What has happened with that? What have you done by now? Who has gone there? Simple Past — What happened with that? What did you do after all this time? Who went that day? Future — What will happen doing this? What will you do going there? Who will go so late at night? The characteristics I can observe about this usage are: 1/ These are interrogative sentences, 2/ The interrogative pronoun is positioned after the verb, 3/ The verbs are finite, 4/ The subject is generally I/you, 5/ This usage is found in simple present, continuous present, present perfect, simple past, and future tenses. 6/ This usage is generally not found in past continuous, past perfect, and habitual past. 7/ This usage doesn't apply to all verbs.
24. There are two types of 'আর কি/কী'. When the answer to a question will be 'yes' or 'no', that's 'কি'. For example: 'What's the point of going there anymore?' 'Is there anything more to say?' 'Are those days still here now?' But when the answer to a question won't be 'yes' or 'no', but something else, it should be 'কী'. For example, 'Tell me, what more do you want?' 'What else could he do then?' and so on. Along with this: 'This is all', 'Stubbornness/mockery/tyranny, what else?' 'আর কি' is used as a rhetorical device in sentences. In such cases, even if 'আর কি' is removed, the sentence's meaning remains intact. For example, 'Hey, stay a little longer, will you go now!' 'I just said it casually!' and so on.
25. The Difference between উপর and ওপর The general meanings of both words 'উপর' and 'ওপর' are almost identical. Though there's no confusion about the meaning of these two words, users often get into debates about their usage. We often use the words 'উপরে' or 'ওপরে' arbitrarily in sentences. But we need to be somewhat careful about using these two words. Although the formal style 'উপর' has become 'ওপর' in colloquial style according to the rules of vowel harmony through sound change, we still cannot use 'উপর' and 'ওপর' arbitrarily. To understand this matter, we can take help from English prepositions. Just as 'Up' and 'On' are used in English, the usage of 'উপর' and 'ওপর' in Bengali is much the same. If someone can understand the difference between Up and On, they will easily be able to understand the usage of 'উপর' and 'ওপর'. To put it simply, 'উপর' is 'Up' and 'ওপর' is 'On'. Let me try to explain this with examples: Example: A (1) The fan is spinning above my head. (2) At 12 noon, the sun is right above the head. (3) A bird flew over my head. Example: B (1) Put the book on the table. (2) The clock is hung on the wall. (3) Something seems to have fallen on my eye. From 'Example A' we can see that the word 'উপর' means upper region and upward direction. And from 'Example B', the word 'ওপর' conveys being situated or positioned on some surface. Literary examples: উপর: "Above the bamboo grove the moon has risen" ওপর: "Your tears silently fell on my forehead, on my cheeks, on my chest." ওপর also indicates figurative positions. For example: "I have no complaints against you." "We shouldn't always depend on bookish knowledge." Therefore, 'উপর' and 'ওপর' cannot be used arbitrarily.
26. Regarding "Clause + comma + এবং + clause" I've spoken about compound sentences, so this clause is indeed a principal clause. Such a simple formula won't work. 'The child simultaneously laughed and cried' — this too is a compound sentence, but does it fit? The length and complexity of the sentence will be a determining factor. 'Debabrata Biswas came riding a motorcycle, sat down on the stage in an extremely unartistic manner, and in the next moment the enchantment of his voice spread among countless listeners.'
27. In Sanskrit, when 'ছ' follows a short vowel, 'চ্' is inserted before it. প্রচ্ছদ, পরিচ্ছদ, বিচ্ছেদ, তরুচ্ছায়া. When there's a long vowel, 'চ্' comes optionally. লক্ষ্মীচ্ছায়া or লক্ষ্মীছায়া. But in certain special cases, 'চ্' will invariably come after 'আ'. আচ্ছাদন. Following Sanskrit sandhi, হতচ্ছাড়া, বিচ্ছিরি, ব্যাটাচ্ছেলে were formed. However, the word ব্যাটাচ্ছেলে is used contemptuously. ব্যাটাছেলে doesn't have that contempt. ব্যাটাছেলে means a man. Boys and girls are all working shoulder to shoulder. (The word মেয়েছেলে perhaps wasn't impolite from the beginning.) In semi-tatsama words, the 'শ' of 'শ্র' becomes 'ছ', the 'র' doesn't change position, but due to metathesis a vowel appears in the middle. শ্রী>ছিরি, শ্রাদ্ধ>ছেরাদ্দ, শ্রদ্ধা>ছেরেদ্দা(?)>ছেদ্দা. In sandhi, the final letter of the first word and the initial letter of the second word combine; the second letter of the second word is irrelevant there. Whether you attach 'ছাড়া' or 'ছিরা' or 'ছেদ্দা' to 'হত', in Bengali sandhi the 'র' has no further role, just as in 'ব্যাটার+ছেলে'. The same applies to বি+ছিরি (শ্রী). The main point is having 'ছ' as the first letter of the second word and a vowel at the end of the first word, just as in Sanskrit, so too in Bengali. The question is, why then did sandhi not occur in মাত্রাছাড়া? Sandhi occurs for ease of pronunciation. This applies even more to imitative sandhi. হতছাড়া to হতচ্ছাড়া makes pronunciation convenient, but wouldn't মাত্রাচ্ছাড়া instead of মাত্রাছাড়া be painful for the tongue? This is perhaps why Sanskrit often explicitly states 'sandhi prohibited' in many cases. In the words পচ্ছন্দ and জোচ্ছনা, sandhi isn't occurring between the final and initial letters of two words, but changes are happening to two letters within the word. পচ্ছন্দ isn't heard much, at least I don't hear it. But জোচ্ছনা is quite commonly heard. What পছন্দ lacks but জ্যোৎস্না has is a 'ৎ'. The 'স' of জ্যোৎস্না changes to 'ছ' and the 'ৎ' is elided to become জোছনা. Still, perhaps the influence of 'ৎ' works in our minds. We haven't just learned উৎ+ছেদ=উচ্ছেদ, we've also learned উৎ+শল=উচ্ছল, উৎ+শ্বাস=উচ্ছ্বাস, মৃৎ+শকট=মৃচ্ছকট. Yes, though Sanskrit has provisions for 'ছ' in the case of 'শ', it doesn't for 'স'. Yet in Bengali, 'শ' and 'স' are homophonous. So in colloquial language উৎসন্ন becomes উচ্ছন্ন, উৎসব becomes উচ্ছব (মহোচ্ছব>মোচ্ছব), উৎসর্গ becomes উচ্ছুগ্য. Worth considering whether the 'চ্' in জোচ্ছনা came from the elision of 'ৎ'. Shakti Chattopadhyay wrote জোছ্ছনা instead of জোচ্ছনা.
(To be continued . . . )