{"id":774,"date":"2013-07-13T01:30:19","date_gmt":"2013-07-13T01:30:19","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/?p=774"},"modified":"2013-07-13T01:30:19","modified_gmt":"2013-07-13T01:30:19","slug":"41-the-origins-of-aryan-speech-vol-27-supplement-volume-27","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/01-works-of-sri-aurobindo\/01-sabcl\/27-supplement-volume-27\/41-the-origins-of-aryan-speech-vol-27-supplement-volume-27","title":{"rendered":"-41_The Origins of Aryan Speech.htm"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n
\n

\nS<\/font>UPPLEMENT<\/font>   <\/span>TO <\/font>
\nV<\/font>OLUME<\/font>   <\/span>10<\/font><\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

 
\n
\nTHE <\/span>SECRET <\/span>OF <\/span>THE <\/span>VEDA
\n<\/b>
\n<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>1. <\/span>This
\ndraft of "The Origins of Aryan Speech" seems to <\/span>\n<\/p>\n

be an earlier one. It
\nwas found in this incomplete form in <\/span><\/p>\n

                                      
\n Sri Aurobindo’s manuscripts.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/p>\n


\n2. "A System of Vedic Psychology" is an incomplete study<\/span><\/p>\n

 written
\nprobably in the early days at Pondicherry,<\/span> 1910-14.<\/span>
\n <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nThe Origins of Aryan Speech<\/b><\/font><\/p>\n

            
\n<\/span><\/font>
\nI<\/font><\/b>N
\nTHAT pregnant
\nperiod of European <\/font> <\/span>knowledge when physical Science, turned suddenly
\ntowards its full strength was preparing to open for itself the new views, new
\npaths and new instruments of discovery which have led to the astonishing results
\nof the nineteenth century, an opportunity was offered to the European mind for a
\nsimilar mastery of sciences other than physical. The Sanscrit language was
\ndiscovered. It was at first imagined and expected that this discovery would lead
\nto results as important as those which flowed from the discovery of Greek
\nliterature by Western Europe after the fall of Constantinople. But these
\nexpectations have remained unfulfilled. European knowledge has followed other
\npaths and the seed of the nineteenth century has been Newton’s apple and not Sir
\nWilliam Jones’ Shakuntala or the first edition of the Vedas. The discovery of
\nSanscrit has, it is true, had a considerable effect on the socalled sciences of
\nComparative Philology, Comparative Mythology, Science of Religion, ethnology and
\nsociology; but these branches of knowledge are not sciences, they are
\nsystematised speculations. Their particular conclusions often change from
\ngeneration to generation and none of them, not even the most certain, have the
\nsame cast of certainty as a scientific generalisation in the domain of physical
\nenquiry. The law of gravitation is a permanent truth of science; the law that
\nall myths start from the sun, the law of Solarisation, if I may so call it, is
\nan ingenious error which survives at all because it pleases the poetic
\nimagination.
\n            So great has been the failure that the possibility, even, of a Science of speech
\nhas been too readily scouted. But this is an excessive deduction, the reaction
\nof disappointed expectation has exaggerated the meaning of the failure. To say
\nthat there can be no science of speech is to say that the movements of the mind
\nare not governed by intelligible processes, but rather by an in- calculable
\ncaprice – a supposition that cannot be admitted.<\/font>      
\n<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

\n 
\n<\/span>Page-163<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

towards
\na science of languages. Even the classification of tongues as Aryan, Dravidian,
\nSemitic cannot be called scientific; it is empirical and depends upon identities
\nwhich my not be fundamental. We must go deeper. European philology has started
\nfrom word-identities and identities of final word -meaning. I propose to start
\nfrom root-identities and identities of original and derivative root -meaning and
\neven from sound-identities and identities of fundamental and applicatory sound
\n-meaning. It is, I believe, possible in this way to establish the unity of the
\nAryan tongues and some at least of the laws governing the birth and development
\nof Aryan speech. My enquiry does not carry me farther. I do not pretend as yet
\nto make out the laws of speech – but only to establish from data, some facts of
\nAryan speech which may eventually help in solving the wider problem. <\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

         
\n 
\n<\/span>In another respect also the philologists seem to me to have misunderstood
\nthe conditions of their enquiry. They have been not rigid enough and yet too
\nrigid. They have been too rigid in not allowing for the flexibility of mind
\nmovements. They have sought for the same invariable sequence which we observe in
\nthe physical world and admitted a law only where such sequence seemed to occur.
\nThe laws of physical formation follow a fixed line and their variations even
\nare…a fixed fashion. But with the growth of life in matter there comes a
\ngrowing element of freedom, of a more elusive principle and a more elastic
\nvariation; for this reason science has found life more difficult to fathom and
\nanalyse than matter and her triumphs here have been far less notable than in the
\npure physical domain. Mind brings with it a still freer play, a still more
\nelusive principle and flexible application. A general law always obtains, but
\nthe application, the particular processes\u2026. .more subtly and are more
\nnumerous. Science, not taking into account this law of increasing freedom, has
\nin the domain of mind accomplished little or nothing. When we deal with the laws
\nof speech, we must remember this flexibility of all mind processes. We must
\nourselves keep a flexible mind to follow it and an open eye for all variations.
\nIt is for regularity in irregularity that one must always be on the watch, not
\nfor a fixed or a continuous regularity. On the other hand the few laws which
\nPhilology has admitted have been, by a sort of false com-<\/font><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage-164
\n <\/font><\/p>\n

\n


\npensation for their original narrowness, used with too free and even lax a play
\nof fancy. Often indeed instead of working as a law, the philological principle
\npresents itself as an ingenious means for inventing word-identities.<\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

           
\n<\/span>I have disregarded as any other error of imperfect enquiry the rigid
\nphilological divorce of the Dravidian and Aryan languages. Whether there be a
\nseparate Dravidian stock or no, it is to me a certainty that Tamil owes not only
\nmany of its most common terms but whole families of words to the original Aryan
\nspeech. Its evidences cannot be neglected in such an enquiry as I have
\nundertaken, for they are of the greatest importance. Indeed the theory worked
\nout by us took its rise originally not from any analysis of the Sanscrit
\nword-system, but from an observation of the relations of Tamil in its non-concretised
\nelement to the Greek, Latin and North Indian languages. At the same time it is
\non an analysis of the Sanscrit word-system that I have chiefly relied. I have
\nomitted from that system most of its Vedic elements. The meanings of Vedic words
\nare often extremely disputable and it would be unsafe to rely whether on the
\nsignificances fixed by the European scholars or on those fixed centuries ago by
\nSayana or even by Yaska. It is better, and quite sufficient for the immediate
\npurpose, to rely upon the classical tongue with its undoubted and
\nwell-ascertained meanings.<\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

           
\n<\/span>These are the lines upon which I have conducted my enquiry. The full
\nproof of the results arrived at depends upon a larger labour of minute
\nclassification both of root-families and word- families in all the greater Aryan
\ntongues, – a
\nlabour<\/span> which
\n<\/span>is already
\nin process, but is not yet complete. What I have written in this book, will, I
\nhope, be judged sufficient for a secure foundation. If it does no more, it may
\npossibly lead to a deeper and freer approach to the problem of the origin of
\nspeech, which, once undertaken in the right spirit and with an eye for the more
\nsubtle clues, cannot fail to lead to a discovery of the first importance to
\nhuman thought and knowledge.<\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage-165<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\nCHAPTER
\nII<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n         
\n<\/span><\/b><\/font>I<\/font><\/b>N
\n<\/b>AN<\/font>
\nordinary language which has not preserved the evidence of its origins, we are
\ncompelled to start with the full formed word as our first and earliest document.
\nWe then find words existing in very small, unconnected families, little
\nindividualistic groups which seem to have started life on their own account
\nwithout any observable growth from a common stock with other words that have,
\nphysically, a race-resemblance to them. We can all see that doceo, doctrina;
\ndoctor, docilis, documen, doctus, docte <\/i>are one family. They acknowledge
\ntheir kinship openly. From this acknowledged kinship we can draw certain
\nimportant conclusions, – especially the law of development from a common root
\nand certain fixed forms by the accretion of which to the root this development
\nwas effected. It is a beginning, but it does not carry us beyond the
\nsurface-strata of our subject of enquiry.<\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

       
\n<\/span>For when we look farther we are confronted with a serious difficulty. We
\nfind a certain number of words which, in their formation, would seem to be
\nconnected like the family we have glanced at above, though not so strictly
\nconnected – doleo, <\/i>I grieve, dolenter, <\/i>painfully, dolor, <\/i>grief,
\nare obviously so inter- connected; dolus, <\/i>fraud, dolosus, <\/i>deceitful,
\ndolose, <\/i>deceitfully, are so interconnected; dolo, <\/i>I hew, cut or
\nbreak, dolabra, <\/i>an axe, are so interconnected. But between these three
\nfamilies we have in Latin itself no proof of any connection. In languages which
\nhave so far worn away their original phonetic moulds that entirely unconnected
\nwords wear the same or a similar dress, this want of connection would not lead
\nto any farther conclusion beyond our mere inability to establish a connection.
\nBut Latin is a language which has preserved its phonetic moulds to a
\nconsiderable extent. If then these three little families are entirely
\nunconnected, then any hope of establishing or effecting Science of
\nSpeech-Origins or even a science of Aryan Speech-Origins, must be abandoned. For
\nby the supposition to which we would then be inevitably led, there must have
\nbeen three original roots, dol <\/i>to grieve, dol, <\/i>to cut or split,
\nand dol <\/i>to deceive, unconnected<\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage-167<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

with
\neach other in origins. How then did their significances come to be attached to
\nthem? By chance? by caprice? by arbitrary choice? by some obscure psychological
\nlaw we cannot trace? We can no longer hope to decide.<\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

       
\n<\/span>The hypothesis I shall start from, – and my attempt to connect the
\nsuperficially unconnected without which there can be no science must start with
\nhypotheses, – is that there can be no such want of connection, that dol, <\/i>to
\ngrieve, dol, <\/i>to split and dol, <\/i>to deceive must have been and are
\none root and not three, and the three different significances attached to them,
\nhave been developed not by caprice, chance or arbitrary selection but have a
\nnatural connection and were developed in intellect by an intelligible
\npsychological movement behind intellect from an original common meaning or
\nmind-impression created in the Aryan mind by the sound dol. <\/i>For I hold it
\nto be obvious that speech must have started from what we in India would call the
\nGuna of sound, some natural property of particular sounds to create under given
\nconditions a particular kind of impression on the mind which constantly
\nassociated with that sound, became the basis of a number of special intellectual
\nsignificances, called by us the meaning of words, much more variable, much less
\nfixed than the basic mind-significance. Afterwards the intellect playing
\nconsciously with the sound by association, by analogy, by figure, by metaphor
\nand simile, by transference, by a number of means, may carry the intellectual
\nsignificance far outside the bounds of the original mental impression. Still if
\nwe have some evidence, clues may be found and then the vagrant word may be
\ntraced back to its parent mind-impression. For this reason we have to catch a
\nprimitive language when it is young or else find one which even in its maturity
\nis more faithful than others to its primitive mould and preserves on its face
\nmuch of its ancient history. Such a language is Sanscrit; it is, in fact, almost
\nthe only language which at all answers to our need.<\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

       
\nBut a sound like dol <\/i>is not and cannot be a pure, primary and isolated
\nsound. It has congeners, at least in form, brothers, cousins, more distant
\nrelatives. Does this kinship in form involve an original kinship in
\nmind-impression and therefore in history of significance? If the theory of Guna
\nis correct there must be some<\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage-168<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

such
\nkinship. Turning from Latin to the more fruitful field, the more copious
\nevidence of Sanscrit, we find this root dol <\/i>in the form dāl (a <\/i>sounded
\nlike the English u <\/i>in ‘dull’ and represented both in Greek and Latin by
\neither ā, ū or ŏ) <\/i>meaning also to split, break and then to
\nbloom, open. We find dala, <\/i>a fragment; a blade, petal or leaf, or find dalapa,
\n<\/i>a weapon, that which splits, just as we have dalbra, <\/i>an axe from dolo;
\ndalmi, <\/i>Indra’s thunder- bolt, also the god Shiva, dalika, <\/i>a piece of
\nwood, that which is split. We find also dalbha <\/i>meaning fraud, dishonesty,
\nsin, and we have thus established that in Sanscrit also, the root dal <\/i>meant
\nto deceive as well as to split. We find also the reason why dal <\/i>came to
\nmean to deceive, for the word dala <\/i>means, not only the blade of a weapon,
\nbut the sheath of a weapon. In other words, dal <\/i>must have borne the
\nsignificance, to cover or to contain. We find from other Sanscrit instances that
\nthe idea of covering or hiding leads naturally in the Aryan mind to the idea of
\nfraud or deceit, as in chad, <\/i>to cover, chadman, <\/i>a disguise,
\npretext, fraud, dishonesty, trick. But how are the two significances, cover and
\nsplit, connected? That they are connected, is established, as a strong
\nprobability at least by the word, cha, <\/i>cutting, dividing, a fragment or
\npart, which in its feminine form cha <\/i>means covering, concealing and the
\nneuter cham, <\/i>a house, that which covers. If they are connected, the idea
\nof cutting must have led to that of cutting off, separating, screening and
\nthence to the significance we find in chadman, <\/i>covering, disguise, fraud.
\nThere is no distinct significance of pain attached to the root dal <\/i>either
\nin Sanscrit or Greek; but we do find that the word dabdha <\/i>in Sanscrit
\nmeant crushed, oppressed, trampled, and more curiously and significantly we find
\ndalanam <\/i>in the sense of tooth-ache. It is easy to see how the idea of
\ncutting, tearing, rending must have led easily to the sense first of a special
\nkind of pain and then by detrition of force to that of pain generally. But we
\nfind more. We find not only dal, <\/i>we find other words kindred in sound,
\nhaving something of the same history. For instance, dambh <\/i>means to kill,
\ndestroy, strike down; but dambha, <\/i>the noun proper to this verb, means
\ndeceit, fraud, trickery, sin, ostentation, pride (we see how starting from the
\nidea of fraudulent intention or hypocrisy we come to the very different idea of
\nostentation without fraud or pride,
\n  <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage-169<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

–
\nagain by detrition of special force); we find dambha<\/i> and dambholi <\/i>meaning
\nlike dalmi<\/i> Indra’s thunderblt, and dambha<\/i> means also like dalmi,<\/i>
\nthe god Shiva. It is impossible to avoid the conclusion that to the Aryan mind dambha
\nand dalmi<\/i> were words so closely akin that they carried easily the same
\nimpression to the mind and the same significance to the intellect. But what is
\nthere common to these two roots? It is the sound do, which must, therefore, by
\nmy theory, have had a Guna or mind-impression which naturally adhered in common
\nto the two roots dal<\/i> and dambh<\/i>.
\n        <\/span>It
\nis the second step of my theory, therefore, that not only must the three dol <\/i>families
\nbe one family, not only must one root- sound have had originally one
\nroot-meaning, but that all kindred root-sounds must also be of one family and
\nhave proceeded from the simple sound, consisting of consonant and vowel, which
\nis common to all of them, and the Guna or natural mind-impression belonging to
\nthat simple sound must havy been the basis not only of the intellectual
\nsignificances common to its progeny, but of those even which vary most from each
\nother. Da <\/i>is the simple root-sound, – the primary root; dol, dambh,
\ndabh, das, dah, daks, dans<\/i>, das, dans, dagh, dangh,<\/i> danh, dad,
\ndadh, dan, dam, day<\/i>, roots which we find or can trace in Sanscrit are its
\nderivatives, its secondary or tertiary root-sounds. The simple sound contains in
\nitself the seed-significance which it imparts to its de- scendants, whether some
\ngrandsons or remote progeny. We have thus immensely widened our basis and
\napproached much nearer to a scientific consideration of language.
\n        <\/span>Let
\nus see whether the hypothesis finds any further support in the facts of the
\nSanscrit language. We take the senses to split, burst open, cut, tear, crush-;
\ndestroy, cheat, belonging to dal<\/i>; we find the same sense, or the kindred
\nsense, such as of hurting, as in dolor, doleo<\/i>, not only in dambh<\/i>,
\nbut in dabh<\/i>, to injure, hurt, deceive, cheat, and its Vedic derivatives dabdhi,<\/i>
\nhurt, and dabha,<\/i> fraud, – if these be the right senses. We find them in
\ndam, to crush, afflict, and so to subdue, overpower, tame, conquer, restrain and
\nits derivatives dama, damaka, damathu; damana, domin, damya, danta;<\/i> the
\nlast containing a lengthening of the vowel, to which we shall have occasion to
\nreturn. We also find in<\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage-170
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

dama,
\ndamathu, damana, damya<\/i> the kindred sense of punishment, and we find in the
\nVedic sense of dama<\/i> the sjgnificance house, as in Latin domus<\/i>,
\nGreek domos, doma<\/i> (again we notice , the lengthening of the vowel), from
\nwhich at once we return to the idea of covering which we had to infer in dol<\/i>.
\nAll these are evidently kindred roots belonging to the labial variety of the da
\n<\/i>family, formed that is to say by accretion of the sounds p, ph, b, bh <\/i>(labionasal)
\nor any combination of which they are the base to the simple sound.<\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

        
\n<\/span>We turn to other subfamilies. We find in the guttural sub- family daks,<\/i>
\nto hurt or kill, daksayya<\/i>, a vulture (tearer of carrion); dagh<\/i>, to
\nkill, hurt, dagha<\/i>, burning; dangh<\/i>, to abandon or leave, which I
\ntrace to the sense of cutting off, separating, casting away, an association of
\nideas we shall find again in Sanscrit. We find in the cerebral subfamily, dand<\/i>
\nto punish, fine or chastise, <\/span>dand<\/i>,
\na cudgel, staff or sceptre, –
\nafterwards, any trunk, stalk <\/span>or
\nthing standing; fine, chastisement<\/span>; as in dama,<\/i> damathu, damana;<\/i>
\nassault, subjection, control, restraint, as in dama;<\/i> pride, as in dambha;<\/i>
\na corner or angle, apparently from the sense of cutting off, separating and so
\ncontaining which mates it in its root to dama,<\/i> a house, and dolo<\/i>
\nto feign or deceive. A number of derivatives from the dand<\/i> and danda<\/i>
\nrepeat the same sense. We find also dadaka<\/i>, a tooth or tusk and dadha<\/i>,
\na large tooth or tusk. We find in the dental subfamily danta,<\/i> a tooth;
\nalso bower, arbour (to cover), screen, shelter; dan<\/i>, to cut or divide,
\nand its derivatives danava<\/i> a Titan, danu<\/i>, a demon, also supposed
\nto mean conquering or destroying, like damana, dadhi<\/i>, a garment (to
\ncover). We find in the liquid subfamily, along with dol<\/i>, day<\/i>, to
\nhurt, and in daya<\/i>,loss, destruction, a part, share or gift. We find in
\nthe sibilant subfamily das,<\/i> to destroy, bite, overpower (dam);<\/i> to
\ndecay, waste, perish; to cast away (cf. dangh,<\/i> to abandon); and its
\nderivatives, notably dasyu,<\/i> an enemy; dasana<\/i>, tooth and dasta, <\/i>bitten;
\ndans,<\/i> to bite, sting; dansa<\/i> bite, sting, cutting, tearing, tooth,
\npungency; a limb or joint; dandasa<\/i>, a tooth; damstra<\/i> and other
\nderivatives varying these  <\/span>senses; ,dasa<\/i>
\na division, or period of time, afterwards a state or condition, age, etc. I but
\nwe find also dansana, dansa<\/i>  <\/span>and
\ndasana<\/i> in the sense of armour; dansita,<\/i> mailed or pro-<\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage-171<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

tected,
\n– dantura<\/i>, covered, overspread; which bring us back to the sense of
\ncovering. The idea of protection once ascertained and traced, we turn back and
\nfind it recur in dagh, dangh,<\/i> in danam<\/i>, protection (as well as
\ngift), day<\/i>, to protect, have pity, with its derivatives. The sense of
\ngiving which we find in daya <\/i>and can trace to the idea of cutting up,
\ndistribution or casting away, abandoning, handing over, but it can be shown to
\nresult really from the former; we get in da<\/i>, to give, danam,<\/i> a
\ngift and many other derivatives; daksina<\/i> a gift; in dad<\/i> and dadh<\/i>,
\nto give, dasma<\/i>, a sacrificer, and in day<\/i>, to grant, divide, allot.
\nWe have, in addition, dah<\/i>, to torment, grieve, burn; and its derivatives
\nin the same sense; dahara,<\/i> small, fine, young (cf. dabhra<\/i>), a
\nmouse or rat (the former), dahra<\/i>, small, fine, thin, a fire. Lastly we
\nhave proven the previous existence of an obsolete root do, the adjective da<\/i>
\nin the sense of giving, destroying, cutting off, the noun da <\/i>a gift or
\ndonation and the feminine da<\/i> in the sense of heat (dah<\/i>) and of
\nrepentance (dolor).<\/i> The evidence is almost of an oppressive
\ninclusiveness. It is a family of words which bear the same or kindred meanings
\nand seem all to go back to the root-meaning, to divide, usually with some idea
\nof completeness, force or even violence.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage-
\n172
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

(also
\nt<\/span>o speak?); dakam<\/i>, water (to
\nflow), daks<\/i>, to go or move; dagh<\/i>, to go, leap, flow, attain; danu<\/i>,
\na fluid or drop; dabh<\/i>, to go, push, impel; dabhram<\/i>, the ocean (to
\nflow); das, to shine, dasma<\/i>, beautiful (bright, shining). These
\ndissociated meanings are very few in number and rare, in occurrence. Such as
\nthey are they occur in different parts of the family, guttural, labial, dental
\nand sibilant, and their presence and distribution proves yet more powerfully the
\nnow apparent and established truth that all Sanscrit words having for their
\nbasis the sound da <\/i>are of one family, go back to the simple sound da <\/i>as
\ntheir simple root of being and derive from it all their varying senses. We have
\nto add this important fact, important for the particular root family and as we
\nshall see for the whole theory, but not affecting our general conclusion, that
\nwe must seek in the original mind-impression of the sound da <\/i>some force
\nof Guna which gives rise directly to the idea of dividing with force or
\ncompleteness and also can enter into ideas of motion and shining.<\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

  
\n     <\/span>But we have not
\nyet finished with this sound da<\/i>. For just as the derived sound dal<\/i>
\nhad its congeners, sounds kindred to it in form, so has the simple sound da<\/i>
\nother simple sounds by its side which are kindred to it in forms and ought
\ntherefore to be congeners. These
\nsounds are da<\/i> di, di, du, du, dr, dr<\/i>. <\/span>The vowel sounds e<\/i>
\nand 0<\/i>, ai<\/i> and au<\/i> are in Sanscrit merely modifications of i<\/i>
\nand u<\/i>, so that these seven roots with the lost root da<\/i> form the
\nwhole original family of simple sounds depending on and having for their common
\nbase and element, the consonant sound d. If these roots are found to be one
\noriginal family, we have gained another step and come yet nearer to the
\nfoundations of speech. My third step in the hypothesis is to accept this
\nsupposition and to lay down the rule that all simple roots, formed in sound by
\nthe accretion of a vowel to the consonant sound d are one family having the Guna
\nof that sound as their seed of meaning, just as they themselves are separately
\nthe seed of meaning to their own descendants. We get therefore a seed-sound in
\naddition to the primitive root-sound and their descendants the secondary and
\ntertiary root-sounds.
\n        Let us see how this hypothesis fares,
\nwhen confronted with the facts of the Sanscrit language. We have seen in passing
\nthat<\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage-173<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

da
\n<\/i>and da <\/i>are the same root, one a short form, the other the long form. Da
\n<\/i>has the same sense as da, das, <\/i>like das, <\/i>means to hurt, kill,
\nit means also to give. There are no senses of the da <\/i>root which are not
\nshared by or traceable to the da <\/i>root. We must therefore proceed to the
\nother vowels as forming three and not six classes of roots; we may treat in the
\nabsence of any opposing facts di <\/i>as a lengthening of di, du <\/i>of du,
\ndr <\/i>of dr. <\/i>From the da <\/i>family I have omitted the words which
\nhave for their bases the syllables dar <\/i>and dar, <\/i>yet these words
\nare of great interest. For we find dara, <\/i>the sense of tearing, rending;
\nand also, like dabhra <\/i>and dahara, <\/i>of little, small. This sense of
\ntearing, breaking, hurting we get again in daravam, darani darita, dardara,
\ndarma, darva <\/i>(injury, mischievous person, goblin, as in danu), <\/i>in dora,
\n<\/i>a rent, hole, ploughed field extending itself to darab, <\/i>a wife, daraka
\n<\/i>(also a child, infant, young animal, sense belonging also to dahara),
\ndaranam, darika, dari, dari, darita, darin, darbha, <\/i>the sharp Kusha grass, dardura,
\n<\/i>a district, province; daru, <\/i>tearing, rending, also a piece of wood,
\nwood or pine tree, and daruna, <\/i>terrible, rough, cruel, frightful, sharp,
\nsevere, violent or agonising (of grief and pain), a word of great interest as it
\nshows us how moral senses developed from the physical idea. We find too dara,
\n<\/i>a cave, daratha <\/i>and dari <\/i>(also a valley) in the same sense
\nfrom the idea of cleft or hole which we have already had in dora, daraka. <\/i>Again
\nwe have the same word dara <\/i>in the sense of a stream, darani, <\/i>an
\neddy, current, or surf, daratha, <\/i>fleeing, flight, scouring for forage, dardura,
\n<\/i>water. Connected perhaps with this sense of flight, but really expressing
\nthe oppressive troubling feeling of fear we have dara, darad <\/i>and dorado,
\n<\/i>fear, daratha, darita, <\/i>timid, frightened. We have daridra, <\/i>to
\nbe poor or needy, with its derivatives connecting the family with the sense of
\nsuffering, oppression, distress, wretchedness, burning (cf. dagdha, <\/i>distressed,
\nfamished, dry, insipid, wretched, vile, accursed) we find in the da <\/i>family.
\nWe have again daru <\/i>in the sense of liberal, a donor, kind (cf. daksina,
\n<\/i>also meaning kind). There are more curious identities. Darad <\/i>means
\namong other senses, heart; now dahara <\/i>and dahra <\/i>also mean the
\ncavity of the heart or the heart itself. Darad <\/i>means also a mound,
\nmountain or precipice; dardura <\/i>likewise means a mountain; but in the da
\n<\/i>family we have also
\n <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage-174
\n <\/font><\/p>\n

\n

da,
\n<\/i>a mountain, dasana, <\/i>the peak of a mountain; danta, <\/i>the peak,
\nside or ridge of a mountain. The identification in sense of this dar <\/i>basis
\nin its stock with the da <\/i>family is complete. Their only senses, not
\ntraceable to the common original meanings, which find no parallel in that
\nfamily, are those which spring from the idea of sound, dardara, dardarika, <\/i>a
\nmusical instrument; but we have in the Aryan vernacular the word damaru, <\/i>a
\nkind of drum, which may represent an original Aryan word not preserved in the
\nliterary language.<\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

           
\n<\/span>Now the question arises; do all these words belong to the roots dr <\/i>and
\ndr, <\/i>or are they from an original root dar? <\/i>There can be no doubt
\nas to the answer, nearly all, if not all, are avowedly children of the dr <\/i>stock.
\nIt follows then that the roots of the dr <\/i>family are one race with the
\nroots of the da <\/i>family, cousins perhaps, but members of a joint family
\nwho hold the same property in common and use it with a more than socialistic
\nindiscriminateness. Dr <\/i>itself means to hurt or kill, dr <\/i>means to
\ntear, rend, split, separate, disperse, and to fear; drti, <\/i>a skin, hide,
\nor bag; drka, <\/i>a hole or opening; drnphu, <\/i>a snake, thunderbolt (dambha,
\ndambholi, dalmi), <\/i>wheel (dalbha <\/i>also means a wheel); the shining or
\nburning sun. Drp <\/i>is to inflame, kindle or to pain, torture; drmp <\/i>also
\nmeans to torture, afflict, distress, drbh, <\/i>to fear, and drbdham, <\/i>fear;
\nfinally drs, <\/i>to see with all its derivatives. That this sense of seeing
\nwhich we find also in drp (darpana, <\/i>a mirror, darpalnam, <\/i>the eye)
\ncomes not from the idea of light in reflection but from the original physical
\nidea of discerning, separating with the eyes, is evident from the fact that das
\n<\/i>also means to see. There are two sets of associations in this word which are
\nof considerable help to us in. fixing the exact history of certain developments
\nin this family. The word drp <\/i>expresses only violent trembling emotion; it
\nmeans to be greatly delighted, wild, extravagant, mad or foolish, proud or
\narrogant (without any of that idea of ostentation attached to dambha); darpa <\/i>means
\npride, insolence, haughtiness, heat, musk (from the strong oppressive scent); drpta
\n<\/i>means proud. Dr <\/i>again means to care for, mind; desire, and so to
\nworship or respect, – its root-sense is evidently care, anxiety or excitement of
\nlove or other favourable feelings. We see more clearly now why words of this
\nroot bear the sense<\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage-175<\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

\n


\nof grief, fear, pain. The mind-impression of the seed-sound carries with it this
\npossibility of expressing any emotion or sensation, which is oppressive,
\ntroubling, disintegrating to the peace of the mind. To the pervasive root-idea
\nof strong division, we have to add the idea of oppression tending to division
\nwhich is thus revealed to our observation.<\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

       
\n<\/span>But drpta also means strong and this sense is found again in drmh, to strengthen, fortify, fasten, be firm, grow or increase;
\ndrdham is
\nfirm, fixed, solid, dense, strong, hard; drdham means iron, a fortress or
\nabundance; drbh, to tie, fasten, arrange, string together; drsad, a
\nstone or rock; drh, to be fixed or fasten, to grow, increase or prosper.
\nWe have met some of these meanings in the da family. We have found words
\nthere which.mean a mountain, and these may now be attributed to this
\nroot-meaning of firmness, solidity, size and density. We may notice a group of
\nwords which we have hitherto omitted; daman, string, thread or rope, a
\nbandage, a girdle, which also means a line or streak (from the idea of cutting);
\ndamini, a foot-rope, dama, a string or cord and damini, lightning,
\nfrom the idea of shining. We may also note, as it now appears, that the kind of
\nlight indicated by this family is only an oppressive or a sharp piercing light
\nas in damini, drnphu, dos, to shine, and the words which mean fire or to
\nburn. I have to suggest that this idea of firmness, solidity, compactness, comes
\nprimarily from a sense of close heavy contact, pressing things together into
\nfirm cohesion.
\n        <\/span>What, then, is the result of this detailed examination of the
\ndr family
\nof roots? Always the same; first, that, whatever their varieties of meaning,
\nthere is no sense the words of this house- hold bear which cannot be paralleled
\nfrom the words of the da and da household, do not either explain
\nor get explained by them and, secondly, that these varieties resolve themselves
\nto and derive from a common Guna or mind-impression variously applied.<\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

       
\n<\/span>Again, there are a certain number of compound roots with a base combined
\nof d and which it would be as well to examine here as possibly
\nkindred to the dr roots. We find drakata, a kettle-drum, dranks, to croak; druna,
\na scorpion (to sting); dru, wood, tree or
\nbranch (daru); druma, a tree; druha, a deep <\/span>
\n  <\/span>
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage-176
\n <\/font><\/p>\n

\n

lake;
\ndragh, <\/i>beat, torment, to exert oneself, be weary, stretch, also to be
\nable (cf. daks, <\/i><\/font>दक्ष्<\/font>), drakh <\/i>to be able, to become, dry (dagdha;
\ndal <\/i>to wither), to adorn, grace (to shine); drd, <\/i>to split, divide or
\nbe pulled to pieces; drapa, <\/i>mud, mire (which is really a meaning of dama,
\n<\/i>mud, mire), a small shell (dara <\/i>also means a conch-shell); (<\/font>द्राव<\/font>
\n<\/font>, heat) drava,
\n<\/i>heat; drud, <\/i>to sink or perish; drun, <\/i>to hurt, injure, twist,
\nbend; druna, <\/i>a scorpion, or rogue; drunam, <\/i>a sword or bow; druh,
\n<\/i>to hurt, bear malice; dru, <\/i>to hurt or injure; dru <\/i>gold, from
\nthe idea of brilliance; drek, <\/i>to sound (originally, a discordant sound as
\nin dranks), <\/i>to grow or increase, to be exhilarated (drp); drona, <\/i>a
\nscorpion, a tree, a bucket. We have the idea of desire, wish or longing in dravinam,
\n<\/i>wish, desire;… We have the idea of solidity or density in dravya, <\/i>substance,
\nmaterial, wealth, strength, dradhiman, <\/i>tightness, firmness and heaviness
\nin drakh, <\/i>to obstruct. All these form a goodly array of evidences,
\nshowing the family-identity of these roots with the da <\/i>and dr <\/i>groups.<\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

       
\n<\/span>There are a few isolated meanings whose connection is not so immediately
\nclear, such as dra <\/i>or drai, <\/i>to sleep, dranam, <\/i>sleep (cf. nidra);
\n<\/i>but this is probably connected in sense with dragh <\/i>to be weary or
\nheavy from exertion, and will then contain the common idea of heaviness or
\noppression; drah, <\/i>to wake; drapa, <\/i>heaven, either from shining or
\nfrom the idea of covering; and one or two others of the kind. But these may all
\nbe traced with a little difficulty to the common significations and are
\nextraordinarily few in number. One would expect in so ancient and long-lived a
\ntongue as Sanscrit a far greater number of meanings which have wandered too far
\noutside or too near to the farthest permissible verges of the country occupied
\nby their race to be easily identifiable or exactly paralleled among their
\nkindred.<\/font>
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

       
\n<\/span>Then
\nwe have a number of significations resulting from the root-sense of motion which
\nare of some importance to us. They start mainly from the two ideas of running
\nand flowing. Dru <\/i>means to run, flow, rush, attack, melt, ooze or simply
\nby detrition of special force, to go or move. This root also means to hurt and
\nto repent. We have also drun, <\/i>to go, move, dru <\/i>in the same sense, dram,
\n<\/i>to go or run about (Gr. dramos); drapsa, <\/i>a drop; dravah, <\/i>speed,
\netc., the noun proper to dru, <\/i>but meaning<\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage-177
\n <\/font><\/p>\n

\n

also play, drava, <\/i>liquefaction, melting,
\nrunning, flowing, flight, speed, and dravinam, <\/i>wealth, amusement (cf. div,
\n<\/i>lake), dravanti, <\/i>a river; dra, <\/i>to run, make haste, fly (the
\nsame word which means to sleep), drutam, <\/i>quickly, instantly, dragh, <\/i>to
\nwander about. We shall find that the idea of motion is common to all Sanscrit
\nroot-families but that in each case there are certain special significances kept
\nin the words, where their special form has not suffered detrition, which tend to
\nshow that they originally indicated a particular kind of motion. It is possible
\nand probable that swift overcoming forceful motion, "darting, dashing"
\nkindred to the idea of pressure and division, is the proper sense of motion in
\nthe roots of this family. It is even possible that the words drava <\/i>and dravanam
\n<\/i>from dru, <\/i>distilling, liquefaction by heat, etc., daks, <\/i>to do,
\ngo, or act quickly, keep the original force, and treat the other shades of sense
\nunder this head, show the gradual force of the influence of detrition, a
\nphenomenon whose study is of as great importance in the history of language as
\nthe study of detritions of sound rightly so much insisted on in Comparative
\nPhilology.<\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n


\n            
\n<\/span>After such consistent and conclusive results a very cursory examination
\nof the di <\/i>and du <\/i>families might be held sufficient. Nevertheless,
\nin order that the full force of the evidence may be appreciated, I shall devote
\nan equal care to these two households, fortunately not very numerous in their
\npopulation, as well as to the compound bases, dy<\/i> and dv, <\/i>and the
\nmodified forms de (dai) <\/i>and do (dau). <\/i>We start as in the dra <\/i>roots
\nwith dindi, <\/i>a kind of
\nmusical instrument, and then come to dita, <\/i>cut, torn, divided; diti, <\/i>cutting,
\ndividing, liberality; ditya, <\/i>a demon (also daitya, <\/i>cf. danu,
\ndanava); dinv, <\/i>to gladden, please (drp); dimp, dimbh, <\/i>to accumulate (dambh),
\n<\/i>also to order, direct; div, <\/i>to shine, play, sport (cf. drava); <\/i>squander
\n(from the sense of waste, scatter); to throw, cast; be glad, be sleepy (dra,
\ndrai); <\/i>be mad or drunk (drp); <\/i>to wish; to vex, torment, lament,
\nsuffer pain; and two new meanings, to sell and to praise, – the one associated
\nwith the idea of giving, delivering, distributing; the other with the idea of
\nlove, respect, homage (dr). <\/i>Proceeding we find div, diva <\/i>and divan,
\n<\/i>heaven, sky (which helps perhaps to solve our former difficulty drapa, <\/i>though
\nI believe that to be connected with<\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage-178
\n <\/font><\/p>\n

\n


\nVedic drapi, <\/i>a cloth or robe), dy <\/i>(also divam) <\/i>light,
\nbrilliance (the original meaning); divya, <\/i>divine etc.; deva, <\/i>divine,
\na god, quick- silver, a sense we have also in…a lover; sport, play; div <\/i>to
\nsport, gamble, lament, shine, throw or cast; devanam <\/i>in connected senses,
\nbut also meaning praise; motion, beauty, and an affair or business which
\nconnects it with daks <\/i>and daks <\/i>perhaps with the Gr. drasso, <\/i>I
\ndo[?], drama; dih, <\/i>to increase, augment, and to smear, from the idea of
\nrubbing, pressing; de, <\/i>to protect, cherish; deha, <\/i>anointing, body
\n(to.. . .); dehi, <\/i>rampart, wall, to cover or to strengthen; dai, <\/i>to
\nprotect, brighten, cleanse, purify; di, <\/i>to perish, waste; dih, <\/i>decay,
\nruin; diti, diditi, <\/i>splendour, lustre; dina, <\/i>poor (daridra), <\/i>distressed,
\nwretched, sad (dagdha), <\/i>frightened, timid (dara, darita); dip, <\/i>to
\nshine and its derivatives; dirgha, <\/i>long (cf. dragh), dirghika, <\/i>a
\nlake, big pond or well. Finally we have dis, <\/i>to give, grant, pay, assign,
\nallot, show, point out, teach, direct or order (cf. dimp, <\/i>above) daksa,
\ndesa, disa, <\/i>direction, quarter. The last root, identically with Gr. deiknumi,
\n<\/i>at once throws a light on dasa<\/i>, <\/i>understanding, daksa, <\/i>Gr.
\ndoxa, dokeo, <\/i>Latin doceo, <\/i>I teach. It is the same idea of
\ndiscernment, discretion or explanation, allotting things to their place,
\nshowing, teaching…<\/font><\/p>\n

(Incomplete)<\/i>\n<\/p>\n


\nPage-179<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

SUPPLEMENT   TO VOLUME   10   THE SECRET OF THE VEDA 1. This draft of "The Origins of Aryan Speech" seems to  be an earlier one. It was found in…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-774","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-27-supplement-volume-27","wpcat-16-id"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/774","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=774"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/774\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=774"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=774"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=774"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}