chunk 10: 14000 stem, wimpy, rolesA kadArAd ekA saJjA, nadI, wee ←
chunk 10: 14000 stem, wimpy, roles
14013 The stem of an affix is whatever it was added to originally, even if it grew afterwards.
14014
14015 Before
14017 What is before weak .
14018 But wimpy before
14019
14021 Use plural when meaning many.
14022 Dual, singular mean two, one.
14023 When meaning relationship with an action.
14024 Thingfromwhich is whatever one goes away from.
14025 Reason for fear, of roots meaning fear protection.
14026 Whatever one is fed up with, of
14032 Aim is what doer wants to connect with object
14033 With verbs that mean "to like", the pleased one .
14034 With
14042 Tool is what just helps.
14045 Location is the place .
14049 object is what the doer wants most.
14050 What is related to the verb in the same way too, even if unwanted.
14051 Some roots may take an extra object optionally.
14054 Doer is who acts on its own.
^ 
Simple example.
Rule GyApprA says "add su to
Complicated example.
So at the stage
Now some rule changes jas into zi.
Now we have
Now some rule adds num to
In
And now thanks to the fact that
^ 
Simple examples --
Harder examples --
Here, adding that sip affix made
The
and so is the
See also --
^
KAZIKA kye iti kyac kyaG kyazAM sAmAnya-grahanam. n'-.AntaM zabda-rUpaM kye parataH pada-saMjJaM bhavati. kyac rAjIyati. kyaG rAjAyate. kyaz carmAyati, carmAyate. siddhe satyArambho niyam' .ArthaH. nAntam eva kye parataH pada-saMjJam bhavati, n
^ The nounbase that is before a valAdi weak is a word, in addition to being a nounbase.
This means that nounbases before valAdi weaks behave as if they were words as far as sandhi rules are concerned.
Example. When we join together
Because this
Had the
^ Exception to svAdiSva. The nounbase that is before a weak that starts with
Example:
TA is always weak, and does not start with a val (it starts with
Therefore, whatever nounbase we add TA to, is a wimpy nounbase.
And that nounbase is not a word.
As in --
Therefore a nounbase, after we add to it a sup or a taddhita, can be in one of three situations --
(A) it can be before a strong
(B) it can be a word, if either its sup was deleted, or it is before a valAdi weak
(C) otherwise it will be wimpy, that is, before a
Okay, so
It makes no difference at all for most nounbases, such as
In that table, the ones that have "rAjñ" are the ones that had a wimpy
Remembering this general rule is far easier than memorizing the whole list of 21 words in the table.
Okay, noted down.
Nope. There ain't such a thing as a "wimpy affix". You MUST say: "
Isn't that the same thing?
No, it isn't.
^ Exception to svAdiSva. The matvartha affixes are those that mean "that has". Of those, matup vatup and
In the following examples, the lack of wordness of
and here hazica did not work --
As in --
Why do we say "
Other letters, like
Where is the
The same rules that made
KAZIKA bham iti vartate. ta-kAr%AntaM sa-kAr'-.AntaM zabda-rUpaM matv-arthe pratyaye parato bha-saMjJaM bhavati. udazvitvAn ghoSaH. vidyutvAn balAhakaH. sakArAntam payasvI. yazasvI. tasau iti kim? takSavAn grAmaH.
^ 
" many", in grammar, means "three or more". So we can't use a plural to mean two.
Examples. In these sentences, the nounbase
And the verbs here got the plural endings jhi, jha because they mean the doer and there are many doers --
And these other verbs here got the plural endings jha mahi because they mean the object and there are many objects --
Okay. So this rule tells us that we must use plural endings sometimes. But how do we know which endings are plural?
Rules supaH and tAnyeka explain that the plural endings are these six noun endings --
and these six verb endings --
May I use the plural to mean two things?
No. See next rule, dvyeka.
^ So, we must use a dual ending when two things are meant --
and singular ending when meaning one thing --
May I use the plural to mean two?
No --
"wiped his eyes with his hands and said this to
May I say
Yes.
The rule says that, to mean two, we must use a dual ending. But how do you know that the au os tas AtAm in your examples are dual endings?
^ headline. The following rules only work on words related to an action.
Example.
One of the rules below explains " location means place".
Now, if this had been said in any other part of the grammar, we would say that a forest is a location, because a forest is a place. But, actually, this rule
" location means place"
is short for
"the location of an action is the word that describes the place where the action happens".
So, in the sentence
However, in the sentence
The words that have this sort of relationships with actions are called
doer -- who does the action
object -- what gets done
tool -- what helps to do the action, and is not one of the above
aim -- what the action is aimed at, who is benefitted or harmed by it, or the purpose of the action
thingfromwhich -- the starting point of movement or the cause of the action
location -- the place where the action happens
KAZIKA kArake iti vazeSaNam apAdAnAdisaMjJAviSayam adhikriyate. kArake ityadhikAro veditavyaH. yadita Urdhvam anukramiSyAmaH kArake ityevaM tad veditavyam. kAraka-zabdaz ca nimitta-paryAyaH. karakam hetuH ity anarthAntaram. kasya hetuH? kriyAyAH. vakSyati, dhruvam apAye 'pAdAnaM grAmAd Agacchati. parvatAd avarohati. kArake iti kim? vRkSasya parNaM patati. kuDyasya piNDaH patati. akathitaM ca
What about
Yes. Grammarians consider
When you say doer, you mean whatever has first ending, yes?
No, I don't. In
^ The thingfromwhich role shows the point AWAY FROM WHICH an action of moving happens --
The word that means the action does not need to be in the sentence if it is obvious --
In the above examples,
Besides physical places that things come from, the thingfromwhich role can also mean the cause, reason, motive --
and sometimes means the thing one would like to get away from (for examples, see bhItrArthA and parAjera right below).
KAZIKA dhruvaM yadapAyayuktam apAye sAdhye yadavadhibhUtaM tat kArakam apAdAnasaMjJaM bhavati. grAmAdAgachhati. parvatAdavarohati. sArthAddhInaH. rathAt patitaH. jugupsAvirAmapramAdArthanAm upasaGkhyAnam. adharmAj jugupsate. adharmAd viramati. dharmAt pramAdyati. apAdAnapradezAH apAdAne paJcamIty evam AdayaH.
Why
^ As for instance, the word
are thingfromwhich of their verbs by this rule, and that's why they got fifth from apAdAnepaJcamI.
KAZIKA bibhety-arthAnAM trAyaty-arthAnAM ca dhAtUnAM prayoge bhaya-hetur yas tat kArakam apAdAna-saMjJaM bhavati. caurebhyo bibheti. caurebhya udvijate. trAyaty arthAnAm caurebhyas trAyate. caurebhyo rakSati. bhayahetuH iti kim? araNye bibheti. araNye trAyate.
Don't you know that in correct English we must say "afraid OF thieves"?
I do know that. I have never claimed to be using correct English. Yet, my Sanskrit is as correct as I can make it, I swear.
^ As in --
Here
When
KAZIKA parApUrvasya jayateH prayoge 'soDho, yo 'rthaH soDhuM na zakyate, tat kArakam apAdAnasaMjJaM bhavati. adhyayanAt parAjayate. asoDhaH iti kim? zatrUn parAjayate.
^ Examples. Here
because
And here the king (doer of
Here the aim words
See also --
what means purpose or result is an aim
with verbs that mean to like the pleased one is the aim
with
^ And the thing liked is the doer. As in --
Here
Exception. With
^ Therefore the person gets fourth. As in --
KAZIKA zlAgha hnuG sthA zapa ityeteSAm jJIpsyamAno yo 'rthah, tat kArakaM sampradAnasaMjJaM bhavati. jJIpsyamAnaH jJapayitum iSyamaNaH, bodhyitum abhipretaH. devadattAya zlAghate. devadattaM zlAghamAnastAm zlAghAM tam eva jJapayitum icchati ityarthaH. evam devadattAya hnute. yajJadattAya hnute. devadattAya tiSThate. yajJadattAya tiSThate. devadattAya zapate. yajJadattAya zapate. jJIpsyamAnaH iti kim? deadattAya zlAghate pathi.
This rule says that
^ This rule explains what the " tool" role is. The tool of an action is what helps to do the action but is not the doer, object, etc. Example. In --
the action is
How did
Tools get third by rule kartRkaraNa. Then --
That kartRkaraNa rule says that both the doer and the tool get third. Can I have one of each in the same sentence?
Yes --
In
Yes, because she helps. That's why the word
TBH, thinking about it,
She can be the doer --
or part of the doer --
The last three sentences have the same meaning, but the verb agrees with the doer only, and ignores the accompanier.
Should I always express the accompanier just by adding third to it?
Doing that is allowed by the grammar, by seldom done in practice, as using saha or sArdham is far more usual --
^ Example. In --
the word
Yet, in --
even though the forest is a place, the word
The Sanskrit term for location is
May I say that in the sentence
No. Yet, you MAY say that
^ Example 1. In the sentence
the cookie is the object, because Polly wants it.
Example 2. In the sentence
the cookie is still the object, because Polly still wants it.
Now please see next rule, tathAyukta.
What's that
That
My teacher says that in "a cookie is wanted by Polly", the word cookie is the subject, not the object, while in the other sentence, it is the object. I am very confused.
In English grammar, the cookie may be either "subject" or "object" depending on the form of the verb. In Sanskrit grammar, however, doerness and objectness depend on the meaning only. If Polly wants it, then it's an object. Verb affixes are irrelevant.
^ The previous rule teaches that if Polly wants a cookie, the cookie is the object.
This rule says that whatever word is related to whatever root in the same way, is also the object, even if no wanting is involved. So here too
and here the bone is an object too --
Explained in another way: when we use roots like find, hate, see, drink, etc then whatever is found, hated, seen, drunk, etc is the object. As long as it works in grammar in the exact same way as a wanted cookie, it's an object.
Where in the sentence should I place the object?
Wherever you feel like, you the object place, my young
^ 
One such special roots is
because
with the exact same meaning. Here,
Not many roots can take such extra objects. The most common are
An example with zAs --
which means the same thing as --
KAZIKA akathitaM ca yat kArakaM tat karmasaMjJaM bhavati. kena akathitam? apAdAnAdivizeSakathAbhiH. parigaNanaM kartavyam duhiyAcirudhipracchibhikSiciJAm upayoganimittam apUrvavidhau. bruvizAsiguNena ca yat sacate tadakIrtitam AcaritaM kavinA. upayujyate ityupayogaH payaHprabhRti. tasya nimittaM gavAdi. tasya upayujyamAnapayaHprabhRtinimittasya gavAdeH karmasaMjJA vidhIyate. pANinA kAMsyapAtryAM gAM dogdhi payaH. pANyAdikam apyupayoganimittaM, tasya 86 kasmAn na bhavati? na etadasti. vihitA hi tatra karaNAdisaMjJA. tadartham Aha apUrvavidhau iti. bruvizAsiguNena ca yat sacate. bruvizAsyor guNaH sAdhanam, pradhAnaM, pradhAnaM karma, dharmAdikam, tena yat sambadhyate, tadakIrtitam AcaritaM kavinA, tadakathitam auktaM sUtrakAreNa. duhi gAM dogdhi payaH. yAci pauravaM gAM yAcate. rudhi gAmavaruNaddhi vrajam. pracchi mANAvakaM panthAnaM pRcchati. bhikSi pauravam gAM bhikSate. ciJ vRkSamavicinoti phalAni. bruvi mANavakaM dharmaM brUte. zAsi mANavakaM dharmam anuzAsti.
^ Example 1.
In the sentence --
the word
Example 2.
In --
the word
Hm. Okay. But how does being the doer or not being the doer matter for anything?
Because doerness makes other grammar rules work or not work. As for instance, in the last example sentence, the nounbase
Are you saying that the doer is what English grammarians call a "subject"?
Not at all. In "cookie is wanted by polly", the "cookie" is a "subject" in English grammar parlance, but
A kadArAd ekA saJjA, nadI, wee ←
chunk 10: 14000 stem, wimpy, roles