समासानां परिचयः (Introduction to Samas (compounds))
द्वन्द्वो द्विगुरपि चाहं मद्गेहे नित्यमव्ययीभावः।
तत् पुरुष कर्म धारय येनाहं स्यां बहुव्रीहिः॥
२००८-०६-२८ शनिवासरः (2008-06-28 Saturday)
-
Himanshu Pota
Reply
Recent comments
Claire on संस्कृतं शिक्षामहै। Learn… Mahesh Rohidas Kamble on संस्कृतं शिक्षामहै। Learn… Dhaninjay on संस्कृतनिबन्धाः (Sanskrit… Ricky on तरणस्पर्धा (Swimming Comp… Madonna on तरणस्पर्धा (Swimming Comp…
Rohit, 
kishan gopal meena, 
S. L. Abhyankar 10:25 am on July 10, 2009 Permalink |
अतिसुंदरमेतत् ।
महाकविकालिदासेन मेघदूते सम्पूर्णचरण: एकेनैव सामासिकेन शब्देन रचितः यथा “बाह्योद्यानस्थितहरशिरश्चन्द्रिकाधौतहर्म्या”। अनेन शब्देन अलकानगरी वर्णिता, यत: अस्य चरणस्य पूर्वे कथितं “गन्तव्या ते वसतिरलका नाम यक्षेश्वराणाम्”।
Rohit 8:02 am on March 19, 2013 Permalink |
aapko sanskrit aati hai…..n can u tell me aap sanskrit ko aam bhasha ke rup mein istamaal kartein hain yaa nahi???
S. L. Abhyankar 10:55 am on July 10, 2009 Permalink |
अस्ति मम संग्रहे एकं पुस्तकं “समासचक्रम्” इति । एतत् १८३४ शालिवाहनशकाब्दे (१९१२ आंग्लशकाब्दे) प्रकाशितमस्ति ।
एतस्मिन् कथितं “समासाः षड्-विधाः । तत्पुरुषः कर्मधारयः बहुव्रीहिर्द्विगुर्द्वंद्वः अव्ययीभावश्चेति भेदात् ।”
तथैव कथितं,
“षोढा समासाः संक्षेपात् अष्टविंशतिधा स्मृताः ।
नित्यानित्यत्वयोगेन लुगलुक्त्वेन च द्विधा ॥
तत्राष्टधा तत्पुरुषः सप्तधा कर्मधारयः ।
सप्तधा च बहुव्रीहिर्द्विगुराभाषितो द्विधा ॥
चकारबहुलो द्वंद्वः स चासौ कर्मधारयः ।
यस्य येषां बहुव्रीहिः शेषस्तत्पुरुषः स्मृतः ॥”
किन्तु एतस्मिन् विवरणे “मध्यमपदलोपी”-समासस्य न किमपि विवरणम् । कथमेतत् ? किं अस्य “मध्यमपदलोपी”-समासस्य विवरणम् ?
aks 2:57 pm on October 28, 2009 Permalink |
tell all the facts of samas
S. L. Abhyankar 5:42 pm on October 28, 2009 Permalink |
Alomst all the facts about “Samaas” are summarised in the book “Samaasa-chakram”. I had made mention of it in my post of July 10th 2009, 10:55am.
Quoting below some scripting from that book
अथ समासचक्रं प्रारभ्यते ।
षोढाः समासाः संक्षेपात् अष्टाविंशतिधा स्मृताः ।
नित्यानित्यत्वयोगेन लुगलुक्त्वेन च द्विधा ॥
तत्राष्टधा तत्पुरुषः सप्तधा कर्मधारयः ।
सप्तधा च बहुव्रीहिर्द्विगुराभाषितो द्विधा ॥
चकारबहुलो द्वंद्वः स चासौ कर्मधारयः ।
यस्य येषां बहुव्रीहिः शेषस्तत्पुरुषः स्मृतः ॥
अथ समासविधिः कथ्यते ।
समासाः षड्-विधाः । तत्पुरुषः कर्मधारयः बहुव्रीहिर्द्विगुर्द्वंद्वः अव्ययीभावश्चेति भेदात् ।
पूर्वपदार्थप्रधानोऽव्ययीभावः ।
उत्तरपदार्थप्रधानस्तत्पुरुषः ।
उभयपदार्थप्रधानो द्वन्द्वः ।
अन्यपदार्थप्रधानो बहुव्रीहिः ।
द्विगुकर्मधारयौ तत्पुरुषभेदौ ।
समासार्थबोधकं वाक्यं विग्रह इति ।
Some typical examples of the main types of “Samaas” are compiled in the following verse.
वृक्षशाखा तत्पुरुषः श्वेताश्वः कर्मधारयः ।
रक्तवस्त्रो बहुव्रीहिः द्वंद्वश्चन्द्रदिवाकरौ ॥
तत्राष्टधा तत्पुरुषक्रमः ।
प्रथमातत्पुरुषो द्वितीयातत्पुरुषस्तृतीयातत्पुरुषश्चतुर्थीतत्पुरुषः ।
पंचमीतत्पुरुषः षष्ठीतत्पुरुषः सप्तमीतत्पुरुषो नञ्-तत्पुरुषश्चेति ॥
Various examples of all these types of Tat-purush are given. I have not scripted them.
अथ कर्मधारयः कथ्यते ।
स च विशेष्यपूर्वपदो विशेषणपूर्वपदो विशेषणोभयपदः उपमानपूर्वपदः ।
उपमानोत्तरपदः संभावनापूर्वपदोऽवधारणापूर्वपदश्चेति-भेदात् सप्तविधः॥
The examples of different types of Karma-dhaaray do recognise the “Madhyama-pada-lopee” type also. I had raised a query on this, in my post of 9th July. The examples given are -
मध्यमपदलोपी समासः यथा शाकप्रियः पार्थिवः = शाकपार्थिवः । देवपूजकः ब्राम्हणः = देवब्राम्हणः ।
अथ बहुव्रीहिः कथ्यते ।
स च द्विपदो बहुपदः सहपूर्वपदः संख्योभयपदो व्यतिहारलक्षणो दिगन्तराललक्षणश्चेति भेदात् सप्तविधः ।
अथ द्विगुः ।
द्विगुसमासः द्विविधःलृ एकवद्-भावी अनेकवद्-भावी चेति ।
अथ द्वंद्वः ।
द्वंद्वोऽपि द्विविधः इतरेतरसमाहारभेदात् ।
अथ अव्ययीभावः ।
सः यथा – तटं तटं प्रति = अनुतटम् ।
क्रमं अनतिक्रम्य वर्तते इति यथाक्रमम् ।
वेलायामिति अधिवेलम् ।
कुंभस्य समीपे वर्तते इति उपकुंभम् ।
मक्षिकाणां अभावः निर्मक्षिकम् ।
हिमस्य अत्ययः अतिहिमम् ।
Apart from the classification of Samaas’s as above, there is also another two-fold classification as Luk and Aluk, based on the structure of the compounding. In “Luk” samaas, the first part stays in its original form of the root word. In Aluk samaas, the first part stays in its declined form.
अथ लुक्-समासो अलुक्-समासश्च ।
लुक्-समासो यथा तनुरेव लता = तनुलता ।
कृष्णा एव मेघाः कृष्णमेघाः ।
अलुक्-समासो यथा वने चरति इति वनेचराः ।
पंके रुहतीति पंकेरुहम् ।
Derivation of some adjectives sounds similar to deciphering a samaas. I would think hat such words should be teated as derived adjectives and not as samaas. Two typical examples given are -
मत्वर्थीयो यथा बुद्धिरस्यास्तीति बुद्धिमान् ।
धनमस्यास्तीति धनवान् ।
As mentioned in my post of 10th July, 10:25am, a single word such as “बाह्योद्यानस्थितहरशिरश्चन्द्रिकाधौतहर्म्या” can contain a number of samaas’s. There is no binding that one compounded word should have samaas of only one type.
Rameshwar talekar 7:30 pm on February 4, 2010 Permalink |
I want This in my email
विद्याधीशः 4:56 pm on July 1, 2010 Permalink |
भवतां एषा समासविषयिका चर्चा अतीव स्तुत्या विद्यते। यदि लघुसिद्धान्तकौमुदितः काचिच्चर्चाऽत्र जाता तर्हि वरम्।
Runjhun 2:43 am on February 15, 2011 Permalink |
I went for an interveiw. There sanskrit expert asked me, YUDHISHTHHIR’s vigraha n samaas name. i answered, ‘YUDHI STHIRIH’ name ALUK TATPURUSH[YASMIN VIBHAKTI LOPH NA BHAVTI]. i am sure, this is a correct answer, but expert denied n said this is wrong ans. & [YUDDHEY STHIRAH] IS RIGHT ANS. I am not agree with her ans. becouse this is not a right ans, now plz u tell me ,am i wronge n whats its right answer
slabhyankar अभ्यंकरकुलोत्पन्नः श्रीपादः 9:49 pm on February 15, 2011 Permalink |
I presented just now following study of the word, as a part of the study of verses 14, 15 and 16 of Chapter 1 of Geetaa -
३-२७ युधिष्ठिरः “युधिष्ठिर” (= an epithet of the eldest PaaNDava, one, who is steadfast in battle) इति सामासिकं पुल्लिङ्गि नाम विशेषनाम अपि । तस्य प्रथमा विभक्तिः एकवचनम् च ।
* ३-२७-१ युधि स्थिरः इति युधिष्ठिरः । “अलुक्”-सप्तमी-तत्पुरुषः ।
* ३-२७-२ युधि “युध्” ४ आ (= to fight a war) इति धातुः । तस्मात् स्त्रीलिङ्गि नाम “युध्” (= war, battle) । तस्य सप्तमी विभक्तिः एकवचनम् च ।
* ३ -२७-३ स्थिरः “स्था” १ प (= to stay, to stay still) इति धातुः । तस्मात् विशेषणम् “स्थिर” (= still, unperturbed) । अत्र पुल्लिङ्गि । तस्य प्रथमा विभक्तिः एकवचनम् च ।
You can browse through all posts on my study of Geetaa at http://study1geetaa2sanskrit.wordpress.com/
सस्नेहम् ,
अभ्यंकरकुलोत्पन्नः श्रीपादः |
“श्रीपतेः पदयुगं स्मरणीयम् ।”
Runjhun 1:42 am on February 17, 2011 Permalink
Dhanyavadh shreeman…………..
hnbhat 1:58 am on May 17, 2011 Permalink
ह्
Pranav Narayanan 12:35 am on March 6, 2011 Permalink |
u r wrong….
S. L. Abhyankar 4:52 am on March 6, 2011 Permalink
Dear Mr. Pranav Narayanan,
Please elaborate your comment “u r wrong….”
That will help to correct whatever the misunderstandings be.
It would be good, if you can kindly help by elaborating, please.
hnbhat 2:23 am on May 17, 2011 Permalink |
I have just replied in Sanskrit. I they have in mind that since it is an epithet of Dharmaraja, it is a nityasamasa, obligatory one. Now the compound aluk- will also be of this type of Nitya-samAsa, which do not carry vigraha-vAkya with the words with which the samAsa is formed. just like in avyayIbhAva. So the explanation only can be given as युद्धे स्थिरः giving the meaning of the words, but not splitting of the words as it would cease to be an epithet of DharmarAja in that case. It is a commonly observed rule that the vigraha-vAkya and samAsa-vAkya should denote the same thing, whether adjective or substantive noun. But for epithets, will cease to be epithets when you split into paraphrases with the same words. yudhi sthiraH may mean any man steady in battle, but not DharmarAja. and yudhiShThira will be used for DharmarAja only and not for any other man steady in battle.
And it will be aluk compound only when it is used as an epithet of DharmarAja and not in other cases it will be used as such as I have already explained.
This seems to be their justifiable logical solution. applicable to the spltting of the compound by Mr.Abhyankar too.
Any more comments on this are welcome.
hnbhat 2:52 am on May 17, 2011 Permalink |
And also note that “aluk” is not the name of any “samAsa” like तत्पुरुष, कर्मधारय, बहुव्रीहि, द्वन्द्व, द्विगु which are well defined. “aluk” is just an operation of the loss of case endings of a word in a compound is not effected when the word is followed by certain words under certain conditions. So here, it is before the word “sthira” the locative case is not lost, when it is used to denote Dharmaraja, as an epithet of him (संज्ञा). Otherwise, there may not be any compound too, as yutsthira or the like. So your naming of the compound as “aluk” is also wrong. And dvitIyA tatpuruSha, tRtIyA tatpuruSha etc. names indicating the function, like “aluk” and not necessarily the part of the name of the compound. The name of the compound is only tatpuruSha. And there is no prathamA tatpuruSha, in which case there will be only bahuvrIhi or karmadhAraya.
The classification in samAsa-cakra is given for understanding the function of the compounds and not used as the names given to them in the strictest sense.
radha 1:40 am on April 4, 2011 Permalink |
plz tell me SANSKRITAM’S vigrah n smaas name……..
S. L. Abhyankar 4:12 am on April 4, 2011 Permalink |
संस्कृतम् is not a samAsa. Its grammatical explanation can be detailed as –>
“सम् + कृ” ८ उ. (= to refine) इति धातुः । तस्मात् भूतकालवाचकं विशेषणम् “संस्कृत” (= refined) । प्रायः नपुंसकलिङ्गि विशेषनाम (= name of the language संस्कृत) अपि ।
Translation of the grammatical explanation would be -
संस्कृतम् is past passive adjectival participle derived from the verb “सम् + कृ” which means “to refine”. Although by its derivation it is an adjectival participle, in popular usage, it is used as a neuter proper noun and means “name of the language संस्कृत”
For anything to emerge as “refined” there has to be something which is raw or unrefined. For example one gets aluminum by refining the bauxite ore.
Languages in colloquial usage are often unrefined. Sanskrit must have emerged from refinement of one or more languages prevalent in colloquial usage. It is however difficult to say whether Sanskrit was a refined language right from its origin or whether it emerged from refinement of one or more languages prevalent in colloquial usage.
One popular quote says संस्कृतम् नाम दैवी वाक् अनुख्याता महर्षिभिः । This means “संस्कृतम् is a celestial language inherited by the sages”. If it is a celestial language, it would be faultless and refined right from its origin.
runjhun 2:02 am on April 10, 2011 Permalink |
Sir, plz give me your phone number………….
S. L. Abhyankar 3:11 am on April 11, 2011 Permalink |
My ID is sanskrit2601@gmail.com
You can send me an email and we can interact further
HARIRPIYA 5:07 pm on April 11, 2011 Permalink |
just now i stumbled upon this site and found it very interesting. i am doing my M.A. in sanskrit and the topics discussed here are of great value for me.
hnbhat 2:05 am on May 17, 2011 Permalink |
अत्र विशेषसंज्ञायामेवअलुक्समासः,विशेषणत्वेअलुक्समासोनभवति।संज्ञायामेव समासविधानात् च, स्वपदविग्रहो नास्ति। युद्धे स्थिर इति अस्वपदविग्रह एव इति मे मतिः। अत एव प्रमाद उक्तः। धर्मराजस्य संज्ञावाचकत्वे एव समासः, अन्यथा, युधि स्थिरः इति वाक्यमेव। “गवियुधिभ्यां स्थिरः” इति षत्वमपि स्थिरशब्दे एव।
S. L. Abhyankar 10:33 am on May 17, 2011 Permalink |
नमो नमः श्रीमन् “हरि नारायण भट”-महोदय !
“युधिष्ठिर”-शब्दस्य विषये या चर्चा चलति, तद्विषये मया शब्दकोशे निश्चयीकृतं यत् “युध्”-शब्दः चतुर्थ-गणीयः आत्मनेपदी धातुः तथा स्त्रीलिङ्गि नाम अपि । तेन “युधिष्ठिर”-शब्दस्य “युधि स्थिरः” इति विग्रहः तु समीचीनः दृश्यते । “युद्धे स्थिरः” इति विग्रहः न आवश्यकः । कथमेतत् ?
भवता निर्दिष्टमस्ति यत् अलुक्-समासानां प्रयोगः प्रायः विशेषसंज्ञायामेव इति । परन्तु यतः प्रायः विशेषसंज्ञा: अर्थपूर्णाः एव रचयिताः सन्ति, ततः तेषाम् अर्थम् ज्ञातुं तेषाम् समासानां विग्रहाः आवश्यकाः इत्यहं मन्ये ।
अन्यापि शङ्कास्ति कथंविधा संहिता अत्र येन “युधि + स्थिरः = युधिष्ठिर:” । कः नियमः अस्याः संहितायाः ?
कृपया शङ्का-निरसनं करोतु भवान् ।
सस्नेहम् ,
अभ्यंकरकुलोत्पन्नः श्रीपादः |
“श्रीपतेः पदयुगं स्मरणीयम् ।”
runjhun 3:35 am on May 17, 2011 Permalink |
as i told u in my ealier mails about yudhishtirh’s vigrah n name so in my that interview sanskrit asked me yudhishtirah vigrah n name n she elaborate thatu know na who is yushtirah ? when i replied the kunti putra dharmraj yudhishtirah,then she said yes,then i gave her this answer…… yudhi shtirh……. aluk saptmi tatpurush , a detailed name yasmin vibhakti loph na bhavati…..u r saying there is no detail names but nay, upapad , alurk r also tatpurush’s bhedas like karmadhrya………….. then we can say this is only tatpurush……….
runjhun 3:40 am on May 17, 2011 Permalink |
then how can we say “this is only tatpurush samaas…..
hnbhat 2:10 pm on May 18, 2011 Permalink |
that interview sanskrit asked me yudhishtirah vigrah n name n she elaborate thatu know na who is yushtirah ? when i replied the kunti putra dharmraj yudhishtirah,then she said yes,then i gave her this answer…… yudhi shtirh……. aluk saptmi tatpurush , a detailed name yasmin vibhakti loph na bhavati…..u r saying there is no detail names but nay, upapad , alurk r also tatpurush’s bhedas like karmadhrya………….. then we can say this is only tatpurush…
======================Answer
I could not follow either your English words nor Sanskrit words. “dharmraj”
“loph” “alurk” “upapad” “tatpurush” “karmadhrya”
I would call it “tatpuruSha” or “tatpuruṣa” “karmadhāraya” “upapada” “dharmarāja” as Sanskrit words.
Please read my post once again and try to understand what I wanted you to know. I just tried to make you know why they have said you are wrong and what is the position in Grammar. You are again making a fuss again, with your fragmentary Sanglish language to add to the complications you are already having. Please clearly post your questions directly.
The simple answer to your question is yes. The name of compound can be tatpuruṣa. and nothing more or less. If you have any questions, ask directly without beating around the bush. I have already replied Mr. Abhyankar in detail to his query.
S. L. Abhyankar 4:37 pm on May 18, 2011 Permalink |
अलुक् and लुक् are two different modes of joining words, when forming सामासिक-शब्दः
When we speak of ‘types’ of समास such as तत्पुरुषः, बहुव्रीहिः etc. we are exploring or deciphering the relationship between the words (or पद-s) which are joined together. This deciphering is called as विग्रहः
Interestingly, in उपपद-तत्पुरुष type one of the पद-s may not even be a word. It could only be a prefix or suffix. For example in आमरण the two पद-s are आ and मरण.
When deciphering a बहुव्रीहि type, the meaning hints to an entity which is other than the literal meanings of the पद-s. For example, रक्तवस्त्रः = रक्तं वस्त्रं यस्य सः One who wears a red cloth is a different entity, different from रक्त the red color or from वस्त्र the cloth.
Hope, this helps.
hnbhat 1:18 pm on May 19, 2011 Permalink
Interestingly, in उपपद-तत्पुरुष type one of the पद-s may not even be a word. It could only be a prefix or suffix. For example in आमरण the two पद-s are आ and मरण.
==========================
I am afraid it is not interesting. It is अव्ययीभाव compound accoding to the Panini’s rule: आङ्मर्यादाभिविध्योः।।२,१.१३)
and it is optional to form the अव्ययीभाव compound. The sentence with आ(ङ्) as explained by the commentary.
आङित्येतन् मर्यादायाम् अभिविधौ च वर्तमानम् पञ्चम्यन्तेन सह विभाषा समस्यते, अव्ययीभावश्च समासो भवति। आपाटलिपुत्रं वृष्टो देवः, आ पाटलिपुत्रात्। अभिविधौ आकुमारं यशः पाणिनेः, आ कुमारेभ्यः।
The two meanings up to and inclusive are conveyed by the अव्यय “आ(ङ्)” The विग्रहवाक्य will be up to पाटलिपुत्र – पाटालीपुत्रम् अवधीकृत्य (the rain fall was up to it and not in पाटलिपुत्र) and in the second अभिविधि, it rained inclusive of पाटलीपुत्र. पाटलीपुत्रम् अभिव्याप्य. In the case of absence अव्ययीभाव, the use of this अव्यय takes पञ्चमी case ending with the word in proximity with it as the alternative sentences demonstarate: आ पाटलिपुत्रात्, आ कुमारेभ्यः
This is the case of आ मरण also in the usages like:
“आमरणान्ताः प्रणयाः कोपास्तत्क्षणभङ्गुराः।”
उपपद-तत्पुरुष
उपपद- is the one type of proximate words designated as उपपद समास separately formed under rule of Panini उपपदम्-अतिङ् ।।२,२.१९।। under the designation of तत्पुरुष.
The words designated as उपपद under the rule of तत्र+उपपदं सप्तमीस्थम्।।३,१.९२।।
“गतिकारकेतरोपपदानां कृद्भिः सह समासवचनं प्राक् सुबुत्पत्तेः” designs the nature of this type of compounds taking place between these उपपद-s and the participles of the verbs like कुम्भ-कारः। नगर-कारः etc. and it is नित्य समास. Hence, the वृत्ति will be अस्वपद विग्रहवाक्य as कुम्भं करोति इति कुम्भकारः and not as कुम्भस्य कारः if you follow Panini’s system.
Here is the commentary on the above quoted rule with more examples and explanations
And also सरसि जायते सरसिजम्, सरोजम् is also a case of उपपद “सरसि” + ज formed under “प्तप्तम्यां जनेर्डः”(।।३,२.९७।।.
In these both cases, the preceding word is called उपपद according to the rule quoted above. The first is called उपपद as the participle is derived with the rule “कर्मणि अण्” as the कुम्भ and नगर are the objects कर्मन् of the verb कृ, which is used with सप्तमी case-ending (as कर्मणि) in the quoted rule . In the second it is derived with the rule, in which the name of the विभक्ति i.e. सप्तमी is used in the locative (प्तप्तम्यां) in the rule, as qualifying the preceding word from which the participle ज from is derived from the verb जन् with the suffix ड. Only the two types of उपपद-s are intended when one designs the compounds as उपपद-समास unlike तत्पुरुष, कर्मधारय which will take normal विग्रहवाक्य. as राज्ञः पुरुषः – राजपुरुषः, कृष्णसर्पः, नीलोत्पलम् etc. This is the difference between उपपदसमास and other compounds.
Hope this may be interesting. Any doubts will be clarified on being raised.
hnbhat 1:26 pm on May 19, 2011 Permalink |
Because it is the name given by Panini as तत्पुरुष and the other classification by us for our convenience. Hence if asked the name of the compound, only तत्पुरुष will be the answer and if asked the type of it, you may explain it by giving the विग्रहवाक्य in cases of अनित्य समास. like राजपुरुष can be explained with विग्रहवाक्य – राज्ञः पुरुषः, and the explanation of the compound formation as षष्ठी (षष्ठी । । २,२.८। ।) – as prescribed by the rule of अष्टाध्यायी. Here also षष्ठी is not the name of the तत्पुरुष or variety of it like कर्मधारय and द्विगु.
hnbhat 1:32 pm on May 19, 2011 Permalink |
When we speak of ‘types’ of समास such as तत्पुरुषः, बहुव्रीहिः etc. we are exploring or deciphering the relationship between the words (or पद-s) which are joined together. This deciphering is called as विग्रहः
============
According to the Paninian classification the following are the types of समास-s designated by their name:
तत्पुरुषः ।। २,१.२२।।
तत्पुरुषः समानाधिकरणः कर्मधारयः । । १,२.४२ । ।
द्विगुश्च । ।२,१.२३।।
सङ्ख्या-पूर्वो द्विगुः ।।२,१.५२।।
शेषो बहुव्रीहिः।।२,२.२३।।
The others are made for the convenience of the beginners to facilitate the identification of the function of the compounds easily and finding their विग्रहवाक्य.
This was pointed by me in my first post also.
poulasti pradhan 3:05 pm on September 17, 2011 Permalink |
anaya samas charchaya aham labhanvith …. aachcaryanam krite dhanyavadah…………
poulasti
shaurya 6:58 pm on May 18, 2012 Permalink |
can i get a flow chart of samas please sir?
DHRUV 11:03 pm on August 19, 2012 Permalink |
YEP I AGREE TO PRANAV YOU ARE TOTALLY WRONG
Laserninja 8:40 pm on September 29, 2012 Permalink |
exp
Laserninja 8:43 pm on September 29, 2012 Permalink |
how to recognise tatpurush samas . plz reply me fast as my exams are appproaching
kishan gopal meena 1:58 am on February 25, 2013 Permalink |
युधिष्ठिर”-शब्दस्य विषये या चर्चा चलति, तद्विषये मया शब्दकोशे निश्चयीकृतं यत् “युध्”-शब्दः चतुर्थ-गणीयः आत्मनेपदी धातुः तथा स्त्रीलिङ्गि नाम अपि । तेन “युधिष्ठिर”-शब्दस्य “युधि स्थिरः” इति विग्रहः तु समीचीनः दृश्यते । “युद्धे स्थिरः” इति विग्रहः न आवश्यकः । कथमेतत् ?
भवता निर्दिष्टमस्ति यत् अलुक्-समासानां प्रयोगः प्रायः विशेषसंज्ञायामेव इति । परन्तु यतः प्रायः विशेषसंज्ञा: अर्थपूर्णाः एव रचयिताः सन्ति, ततः तेषाम् अर्थम् ज्ञातुं तेषाम् समासानां विग्रहाः आवश्यकाः इत्यहं मन्ये ।
अन्यापि शङ्कास्ति कथंविधा संहिता अत्र येन “युधि + स्थिरः = युधिष्ठिर:” । कः नियमः अस्याः संहितायाः ?
कृपया शङ्का-निरसनं करोतु भवान् ।
सस्नेहम् ,
अभ्यंकरकुलोत्पन्नः श्रीपादः |
“श्रीपतेः पदयुगं स्मरणीयम् ।”