Indo-Aryan lubh-: Homonymy or Semantic Diversity?
Journal name: Acta Orientalia
Original article title: Indoarisch lubh-: Homonymie oder semantische Vielfalt?
ACTA ORIENTALIA is a journal focused on the study of Oriental languages, history, archaeology, and religions from ancient times to the present. The journal includes articles reviewed by a senior scholar in the relevant field.
This page presents a generated summary with additional references; See source (below) for actual content.
Original source:
This page is merely a summary which is automatically generated hence you should visit the source to read the original article which includes the author, publication date, notes and references.
Manfred Mayrhofer
Acta Orientalia:
(Founded in 1922 and published annually)
Full text available for: Indoarisch lubh-: Homonymie oder semantische Vielfalt?
Year: 1966 | Doi: 10.5617/ao.5225
Copyright (license): CC BY 4.0
Download the PDF file of the original publication
Summary of article contents:
1) Introduction
The article by Manfred Mayrhofer examines the Indo-Aryan root lubh- and debates its semantic range and etymological implications. The scholarly discourse surrounding lubh- has largely concentrated on its meanings of "to desire" or "to be greedy." However, Mayrhofer argues that this interpretation may overlook its earlier Vedic meanings, which primarily expressed concepts of confusion or disorder. The author contrasts various scholarly opinions, particularly challenging claims of homonymy and asserting that deeper analysis leads to a more unified understanding of the term's evolution.
2) Semantic Shifts in lubh-
One critical concept presented in the article is the semantic range of lubh-, beginning with its original meanings in Vedic texts. Initially, lubh- conveyed notions of becoming confused or disordered, which is evident in older instances from linguistic sources such as the Petersburger W枚rterbuch. Mayrhofer highlights T. Burrows鈥� contributions to this discussion, who proposed that the term's original use centered on confusion rather than desire. While acknowledging this foundational interpretation, Mayrhofer intends to demonstrate that despite these differences, the meanings are interconnected through a gradual semantic shift from confusion to desire across linguistic history.
3) Etymological Considerations
Mayrhofer also addresses the etymological implications of lubh- and its relation to other Indo-European roots. He argues against Burrows' suggestion that the meanings 'to desire' and 'to be confused' originated from entirely separate roots, indicating that such a claim lacks sufficient supporting evidence and disregards the overall historical context. Instead, Mayrhofer posits that both meanings may have derived from a single original term, which evolved over time. This conclusion draws attention to the significance of considering syntactic and morphological patterns within the Indo-Aryan languages when analyzing etymology and definitions.
4) Competition Among Words and Semantic Neighbors
Another concept discussed is the impact of lexical competition and semantic proximity on the evolution of lubh-. Mayrhofer illustrates that as languages evolve, various synonyms emerge and may vie for conceptual space. He provides examples of competing terms in Indo-Aryan that might have diminished the usage of lubh- in its original contexts. This dynamic process could account for why "becoming confused" became less prevalent, while "to desire" gained prominence in later stages of the language. The author points to this phenomenon as evidence of the fluidity of meaning and usage within verbal roots across different contexts and time periods.
5) Conclusion
In conclusion, Mayrhofer asserts that the Indo-Aryan root lubh- embodies a rich and complex history that warrants closer examination. He advocates for a unified interpretation of its meanings rather than distinguishing entirely separate homonyms, highlighting the interconnectedness of its semantic journey from confusion to desire. The analysis suggests that the understanding of words and their meanings is influenced by historical usage, lexical competition, and etymological patterns, thus providing insights into the evolution of language within the Indo-European family. This evaluation not only contributes to our comprehension of lubh-* but also underscores the significance of broader linguistic dynamics over time.
FAQ section (important questions/answers):
What does the Indo-Aryan root 'lubh-' mean in ancient texts?
'Lubh-' primarily meant 'to become confused or disorderly' in older texts, specifically Vedic literature, differing from its later meanings associated with desire or greed.
How is 'lubh-' related to Latin and Gothic words?
'Lubh-' connects etymologically to Latin 'lubet/libet' and Gothic 'liufs', both of which share meanings associated with desire. However, Vedic 'lubh-' indicates a state of confusion instead.
Did Manfred Mayrhofer agree with T. Burrow's interpretation?
Mayrhofer challenged Burrow's claim of two distinct roots for 'lubh-'. He argued that the semantic similarities and evidence point towards a single root encompassing both confusion and desire.
What are some differences noted by Burrow concerning 'lubh-'?
Burrow highlighted variations in grammatical forms and meanings between 'lubh-' regarding confusion and desire, although Mayrhofer contested that the same forms appear across these meanings in ancient texts.
How did semantic shifts influence 'lubh-' over time?
Over time, 'lubh-' evolved from meanings associated with confusion to those of desire, possibly due to competing synonyms in the Indo-Aryan language, which may have diminished the use of its original meaning.
What is the significance of the comparison with Iranian 'aluftan'?
The Iranian verb 'aluftan', meaning to be confused or in love, suggests a shared semantic range with 'lubh-', supporting Mayrhofer's view of a common Indo-European root with multiple meanings.
Glossary definitions and references:
Oriental and Historical glossary list for 鈥淚ndo-Aryan lubh-: Homonymy or Semantic Diversity?鈥�. This list explains important keywords that occur in this article and links it to the glossary for a better understanding of that concept in the context of History, Linguistics, Religion, Philosophy, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism etc.
1) Lubdha:
A significant term from the text, 鈥�lubdha鈥� means 'confused' in the earlier Vedic context and 'desirous' or 'greedy' in later texts. This transition in meaning is focal to the argument about the semantic breadth of the root 'lubh-' in Indo-Aryan languages.
2) Dhana:
Mentioned to illustrate semantic transitions, 'dhana' typically means 'wealth' or 'money'. The text shows comparisons between different compound forms such as 鈥榙h谩na-kama-鈥� and 鈥榙h谩na-lobha-鈥�, indicating a transition in meaning from 'desire for wealth' to 'greed'.
3) Language:
A central theme, as the paper discusses the semantic evolution and homonymy in the Indo-Aryan language family. The study focuses on how meanings of words change over time and across different text corpora within a language.
4) Panjabi:
Referenced to illustrate the semantic shift in the colloquial usage of roots like 鈥榤oh-. In Punjabi, 'moh' can mean 'love', showing the evolution of 'moh-' from 'confusion' to 'attraction' or 'desire', indicative of larger Indo-Aryan trends.
5) Prati:
A prefix that signifies 'towards' or 'against' in Sanskrit. The text references the usage of 'prati-lobh谩yanti' to illustrate the older Vedic context where it meant 'confusing' or 'bewildering the mind' rather than evoking desire.
6) Aryan:
The term contextualizes the broader Indo-European linguistic family. The study traces the etymology of 'lubh-' across early Aryan (Indo-Aryan and Proto-Iranian) languages to establish historical semantic shifts.
7) Anger (Angry):
Discussed within the context of meanings and semantic fields covered by the root 'lubh-'. The comparison is drawn with words from Sanskrit indicating states of confusion or disturbance, shown to extend to emotions like anger.
8) Manu:
Refers to the 鈥楳anusm峁泃i鈥�, an ancient legal text. 鈥楲ubh-鈥� in Manusm峁泃i signifies 'desire' or 'greed', supporting arguments on shifts in word meanings from Vedic to classical Sanskrit periods.
9) Vital air:
Found in examples like SB 4,1,1,18 'pranan na lobhayati', where the term describes essential life forces in Vedic traditions. Here, its disturbance or non-disturbance contextualizes the semantic range of 鈥榣obh-鈥� meaning 'to bring in disorder'.
10) Grihyasutra (Grhyasutra):
Part of later Vedic literature focused on domestic rituals. The text uses examples from Grhyasutra to illustrate how the semantic range of 鈥榣ubh-鈥� was applied in ritualistic contexts for 鈥榗onfusion鈥� or 鈥榙isorder鈥�.
11) Brahmana:
Vedic prose texts providing explanations of rituals. The text examples from Brahmanas (e.g., Ait.-Br. 3,3) show 鈥榣ubh-鈥� used in contexts of 'confusion', highlighting shifts in semantic fields from earlier to later uses.
12) Kayamana (Kaya-mana):
Related to the verb 鈥榢a-鈥�, which implies 'desiring'. It illustrates the displacement of older terms like 鈥榣ubh-鈥� by other synonyms in classical Sanskrit, contributing to discussions of linguistic evolution.
13) Mohayati:
A verb meaning 'to confuse' or 鈥榚nchant鈥�, often found competing with 鈥榣ubh-鈥� in classical texts. Its usage illustrates how synonymous roots can shift semantic ranges over time within the language.
14) Confusion (Confused):
One of the meanings of the Vedic word 鈥榣ubh-鈥�. Used here to discuss the older usage of 'lubh-' as 'confused' or 'disordered', which later transitioned to meanings related to 'desire' or 'greediness鈥�.
15) Sanskrit:
The primary language discussed, providing critical insight through its ancient, Vedic, and classical forms. The paper explores semantic nuances and etymological developments in Sanskrit language across texts.
16) Mandala (Mamdala):
Refers to the books or collections within the Rigveda, an ancient Indian scripture. The first Mandala mentions 鈥榣ubh-鈥�, reflecting early semantic uses and indicating its ancient linguistic background.
17) Lavitra:
Mentioned to discuss etymological connections within Indo-European languages. The word 'lavitra-' in Sanskrit, meaning 'sickle', is linked to the linguistic family through roots like 鈥榣ey-鈥�.
18) Rigveda (Rgveda, Rig-Veda, Ric-veda):
One of the oldest Sanskrit texts and a primary source for Vedic terms. This text extensively cites the Rigveda to trace original meanings and uses of 鈥榣ubh-鈥� in its hymns and verses.
19) Kshubdha (Ksubdha):
Another term for 'disturbed' or 'agitated' in Sanskrit. It illustrates semantic competition with 鈥榣ubh-鈥�, showing how different roots coexisted or absorbed meanings from one another.
20) Lolupa:
A term derived from 鈥榣ubh-鈥� meaning 'greedy' or 'covetous'. This highlights later semantic transitions where earlier meanings of confusion and disorder transformed into 'desire' or 'greed' in classical texts.
21) Panini:
An ancient Sanskrit grammarian whose work illuminates on the evolving usages and meanings of words. The text mentions his observations on forms like 'lubh-' to explore linguistic shifts.
22) Sindhi (Sindh, Shindhi):
Used to illustrate modern descendants of Indo-Aryan languages. Examples show how roots like *lujjha掳 in Sindhi bear semantic remnants of ancient meanings from roots like 'lubh-'.
23) Lavana:
Appears in discussions about etymological derivations in Indo-European languages. 鈥�Lavana鈥� or related words like 'lavitra-' showcase the relationships between different root meanings in the linguistic family.
24) Lobha:
Means 'greed' or 'desire鈥� in Sanskrit. Explored within the text as part of the semantic evolution of 鈥榣ubh-鈥� from confusion to desire, indicating linguistic transitions from Vedic to classical languages.
25) Gopal:
Refers to scholar Sir Ramkrishna Gopal Bhandarkar. His contributions to Indo-Aryan linguistic studies are recognized, supporting the historical contextualization of linguistic research in the work.
26) Nasya (Nashya):
Employed in an example from Ait.-Br. 2,37, it refers to the divine vehicle, symbolizing confusion. This highlights the earlier contextual meanings of 鈥榣ubh-鈥� in Vedic texts compared to later usages.
27) House:
Used metaphorically in contexts like AV 3,10,11, suggesting structural stability or disorder. The term highlights how 鈥榣ubh-鈥� conveyed states of confusion or stability in ancient Vedic metaphors.
28) Oriya:
A modern Indo-Aryan language showcasing examples of evolved meanings from ancient roots. The term illustrates how words like 鈥榖i募ohiba鈥� in Oriya retain ancient meanings of confusion and enchantment from 鈥榣ubh-鈥�.
29) Grief:
Contextually linked to words derived from 鈥榣ubh-鈥�. Used to show how emotional states like grief remained part of the broader semantic fields covered by roots originating from words meaning 'confusion'.
30) Moha:
A term meaning 'delusion' or 'confusion' in Sanskrit. Along with 'm艒ha-', it shows the semantic closeness to 鈥榣ubh-鈥� and the shifts in Indo-Aryan languages from mental states to physical desires.
31) Caru:
A term related to beauty or desire, mentioned within the semantic fields affected by 鈥榣ubh-鈥�. Comparisons with 'liub carus鈥� in Gothic illustrate connections and semantic shifts in Indo-European languages.
32) Kama:
Denotes desire or love in Sanskrit. The term 'kama' is examined regarding its transitions and influence on meanings of related roots like 鈥榣ubh-鈥�, especially in later Vedic and classical texts.
33) Akshi (Aksi):
Means 'eye' or 'sense' in Sanskrit and related languages. Mentioned to prove how root words like 鈥榣ubh-鈥� in semantic fields of desire and perception connect across Indo-European traditions.