Cognitive and Cultural Metaphors of Wholeness in the Ṛgveda

By Sanjay V. Kumar

A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the California Institute of Integral Studies in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy and Religion

California Institute of Integral Studies

San Francisco, CA 2010

CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL

I certify that I have read Cognitive and Cultural Metaphors of Wholeness in the Ṛgveda by Sanjay V. Kumar and that in my opinion this work meets the criteria for approving a dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy and Religion at the California Institute of Integral Studies.

_____________________________________ James Ryan, Ph.D., Chair Core Faculty, Asian and Comparative Studies

_____________________________________ Steven Goodman, Ph.D., Internal Reader, Core Faculty, Asian and Comparative Studies

_____________________________________ Shaligram Shukla, Ph.D. External Reader, Core Faculty, Dept. of Linguistics, Georgetown University

 

2  

© 2010 Sanjay V. Kumar

 

3  

and femininity (Monc Taracena). lexical semantics.as a cultural metaphor for wholeness that denoted health and wellness. Ph. The main chapters of the research are outlined thematically with the first three core chapters exploring how the notion of wholeness might have been cognitively expressed as metaphor for words that connote oneness. The research is a continuation of works by other Vedic scholars who have created semantic fields for concepts such as beautiful (Oldenberg). how was the notion of wholeness expressed in the lexico-semantics of this sacred corpus text? Additionally.Sanjay V. vision (Bodewitz). heat (Blair). The intention of this research is to reveal a deeper cognitive understanding behind the language of this sacred text. sameness. man.D. the concept of otherness.. Using the linguistic methodologies of the historical and comparative method. and inclusiveness. soul. The first of these chapters focuses on the Sanskrit word sarva. money (Hintze). in both Vedic Sanskrit and PIE language. the study aims to identify the metaphors for wholeness in the Ṛgveda. light. it strives to introduce certain metaphors that express these concepts in the Ṛgveda. 2010 James Ryan. The last chapter outlines how the notion of otherness became a cultural metaphor for hostility and falsehood. Specifically. and cognitive linguistics. Using the theory of semantic fields and semantic continua. the work is congruent with current scholarship in the field of Vedic studies. The following chapter outlines how the concept of otherness was in semantic contrast to that of wholeness in the lexicon of the Ṛgvedic vocabulary. woman (Kazzazi). While the work does not claim to identify every metaphor for wholeness and otherness in the Ṛgveda. Kumar California Institute of Integral Studies. The final two chapters explore how metaphors for wholeness were culturally expressed in the Ṛgveda.   4   . can linguistic methodology identify the various cognitive and cultural metaphors for wholeness in both the Ṛgveda and the earlier ProtoIndo-European (PIE) lexicon? The research also explores the semantic contrast to the notion of wholeness. Committee Chair Cognitive and Cultural Metaphors of Wholeness in the Ṛgveda ABSTRACT The concept of wholeness permeates ancient Indian philosophy perhaps evidenced in the earliest literature of the Ṛgveda Saṃhitā. individuation. as well as to offer possible insights into the early Vedic culture.

and homage to my ancestors whom I honor and continue in the long familial line of academics. whose love and presence next to my desk during the summer of 2010 when I wrote the dissertation was unwavering. Vijay Kumar). Anttila. whose mentorship and paternal guidance were the inspiration behind this work. Dr. and especially Dr. and reassurance.Acknowledgments “Within man is the soul of the Whole. This work is a legacy to her. I honor my canine spiritual muse and best-buddy. Steven Goodman for giving me the opportunity to complete my doctoral degree at CIIS after my departure from UCLA. Puhvel. Dr. whose love and dedication indelibly permeates this research. Dr. faith. her daughter (Peggy Balsawar). a testament to her proud Brahman heritage. Vine. Lastly. especially during the period when this project seemed to be in peril. and belief of many people. I am indebted to Anna Fitzpatrick for her meticulousness and assistance in both technical and copy-editing of the various drafts of the dissertation. his partner (Sheela Balsawar). James Ryan and Dr.   5   . Pico. I acknowledge my professors of Indo-European linguistics at UCLA–Dr. Ivanov. I am truly grateful to all of my dear friends. love. both near and far. my brother (Sandeep Kumar) and his wife (Molly McCracken) for your patience. for their years of support and faith in my ability to complete this Herculean task. priests.” Ralph Waldo Emerson In memoriam to my mother. I am extremely grateful to Dr. Scharfe for imparting to me their wisdom. Dr. Dr. This research would not have been possible without the support. and scholars of the sacred ancient Indian traditions. Kumud Kumar. I first wish to thank my family–my father (Dr. I dedicate this research to my first teacher of Indo-European linguistics and Sanskrit. Shaligram Shukla.

................................................................................................................................................. 40 Cultural Insights from Linguistic Methodology and Methods ................................................................................................................................................................ 16 Framing the Research Questions................................................... 43 Remarks on Transliteration and Phonetic Representation .................................... 22 Methodology .............................................................................. 34 Inclusion/Exclusion of Texts ........ 50   6   ................................................................................................................................ 18 Examples of English Whole ......... 23 Semantic Fields.............................................................. 46 Search Engines and Parameters for Literature Review.. 25 Cognitive Linguistics ...................................................................................................................... 22 Diachronic and Synchronic Change.................................................................................. 26 Cognitive Metaphor ........................ 48 Framing the Questions for the Literature Review... 29 Methods............................................... 1) Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 37 Data Analysis and Interpretation of Meaning ................................................ 12 List of Figures..................... 27 Cognitive Metonymy.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 List of Tables ............................ 49 Review of Works ...................................................................................................................................................... 15 Wholeness in Ṛgvedic and Indo-European Language and Thought ..........................................................................................................ABSTRACT............................................................... 24 Semantic Continua................................................................................ 46 Criteria for Inclusion/Exclusion of Literature ................................................................................ 23 Lexical Semantics...... 34 Data Collection: Lexical Algorithm for Inclusion/Exclusion of Data ..................................................................................... 47 Objectives of Literature Review ..Error! Bookmark not defined............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 28 Similar Methodolgies in Vedic Studies ............... 22 Historical Linguistics and the Comparative Method ................................................................................ 20 2) METHODOLOGY AND METHODS ............ 44 3) LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................................................................................................................................................

....................... whole’........................... 76 ‘Wholeness/Oneness’ and ‘Otherness/Twoness’ as Semantic Fields ....... year’.....................................in the Ṛgveda ............................................................................................................... 98   7   ....................................and Sa...............Books ...............................................and Sa.............................. 88 Ékam Idám ................in the Ṛgveda .....................................................as Deictic Roots ............................‘whole direction.................... 68 PIE Concept of ‘One’. 61 4) Chapter Overview....................................................................................... 81 Samvatsará ....... i................................................... 77 Reflexes of PIE *sem...... 84 Archaic Morphology of Vedic Saṃ............................................. 85 Éka.........................................and *sem................ 74 PIE *sem.................................................................................................................................................... 91 6) Wholeness as Metaphor for Inclusiveness and Being .... every................................ 50 Articles from Journals................................................................................e........................... i............................................. 69 PIE *sem........................................................................‘self......... perpetually...................................‘in one whole place....................................................................................................... 71 PIE Concept of ‘Two’ ............................. 69 PIE *oi..................................................................................... 89 Ékam Víśvam ..................e................................. completely’ ..................................... wholly..................................................... 83 Simá......... by one whole manner....................................................................................................................... 68 PIE *oi.................. i............................................... 82 Satrā́ ..........................in the Ṛgveda ................................ 78 Saṃ.................................................................and *du................................. 56 Dissertation....................................... 89 New Conceptual Model of ‘One’ and ‘Two’ in PIE and Vedic Sanskrit ....................................... 87 Tád Ékaṃ ...................... 96 Reflexes of this Binary Pronominal Distinction in Vedic Sanskrit........... 82 Sádā.................................................................e................................................................................. 97 The Conceptual Distinction between the Dual and Plural Category .. wholly.. 95 Inclusiveness versus Exclusiveness in PIE Language .. 70 The Semantic Development of PIE *oi......................................‘one whole duration............................... all.........................and *oi.................. 64 5) Wholeness as a Metaphor for Oneness ........................ 79 Samvát...........‘always.................. landscape’ .......................................and *sem................. continually’...........................................................

............................... 124 7) Wholeness as a Cognitive Metaphor for Individuation and Interiocity .......................... 106 Semantic distinction between Vedic Sanskrit √as................................. 137 Reflexes of PIE *Hes-.................................................... 101 Connection between Grammatical Inclusiveness and Conceptual Wholeness ............................................. 133 PIE Reflexive Markers as Innovation Replacing the Grammatical Middle Voice...............’ *H(e)su..........................‘To Be.......................................................................................................’ and *Hsṷe..... 131 Semantics of Vedic Sanskrit su......... 114 PIE *Hēs.. 104 Binary Feature of Active versus Inactive in Vedic Sanskrit ...........................................and Vedic Sanskrit √ās.............................. 132 The PIE Reflexive Marker *(H)sṷe.......................... and *(H)sṷe as Metaphors for Wholeness in Ṛgvedic Language and Thought ....................... 110 The Morphosemantic Connection of PIE *Hes. 102 Binary Feature of Active versus Inactive in PIE Verbal System...................and √bhū.............................................. Good..................................in the Ṛgveda............................................................... 120 Vedic Sanskrit svāsasthá........................................and Vedic Sanskrit √as......................and Vedic Sanskrit sva............. 136 PIE *(H)sṷe........................ 133 Semantic Connection in PIE and Vedic Sanskrit between ‘One’s Own’ and ‘Dear..as Verbs..............and Vedic Sanskrit svásar........... 140   8   .....................The Dual as Late Innovation in PIE..as Inactive Verbs.......... Oneself’ ....... 126 The Linguistic Features of Individuation and Interiocity................. Beloved’ .........................................................................................as Nouns................ 108 The PIE root *Hes.. 128 PIE *Hes...................................in the Ṛgveda .......... 121 Chapter Summary ..........................‘To Be’ .......‘sister’............................... *(H)su-........................... from Afar’ as a Metpahor for Exclusiveness and Otherness... near’ as Inclusiveness and Wholeness.......................... 139 PIE *sṷesor........................ 126 The PIE Concept of Wholeness as a Metaphor for Individuation and Interiocity.................................................................. 107 Semantic distinction between Vedic Sanskrit √as............‘Good........................................‘One’s Own. 135 The Semantics of Vedic Sanskrit priyá....... Oneself’ as a Morphological Derivative of *Hes...‘One’s Own...with *Hēs.................. 117 Vedic Sanskrit dūrā́t ‘from a Distance.....and √bhū.................................. 115 Vedic Sanskrit āsā́t ‘from the proximity..................‘well-located nearby’ ...................................‘Own’ as Lexemes of Individuation and Interiocity ...........................................................................................

........ 152 Chapter Summary ................‘To Be’ and *(H)su... 166 PIE *deuHs.........‘Bad...................................................................................and Vedic Sanskrit sva......................... 147 The PIE suffix *-u..........‘Bad’ and *du̯oH(u)‘Two’ .as ‘Being... 149 PIE *Hsont.......................and English farther versus further ................................ Be Distant......... Deficient........................ 180 Twoness and Duality as Metaphors for Badness........ 144 Further Evidence of the Morphosemantic Connection between PIE *Hes.............................................................................................. 166 Ṛgvedic dūrá.and Ṛgvedic sá(n)t............................................................................‘Good’ .................................................. 150 Semantic Concatenation from Hittite aš......... 155 8) Otherness as a Metaphor for Twoness ............................................... 159 The Morpho-semantic Relationship between PIE *du(H)s.... Separated’ as an Expression of Otherness and Separation .. 148 Semantic Concatenation and Continuum of Wholeness and Being .............‘Good......................... 159 Binary Contrast between ‘Good’ and ‘Bad’ in PIE Language................................ 170 Hittite duianalli.......................................... *du(H)s-.....................‘father-in-law’.....and Vedic Sanskrit śváśura................ 146 The Evidence in Archaic Hittite Texts .............................‘Lack................ 161 The Morphological Relationship of PIE *deuH(s)-...............................................................‘Far off.................... 160 PIE *deuH(s).. 170 Homeric Greek deúteros .......................as a Cognitive Expression of Individuation and Interiocity and Metaphor for Wholeness ............ Remote............ Reality............... 175 Morphosemantic Connection between PIE *du(H)s.........as Schwebe Ablaut .......... and *du̯oH(u)-..................................................and *deuHs...... 172 The Connection between PIE *dueHs. Hostility.............................. 173 Vedic Sanskrit dávīyas................................................................. Inferior’ ....in Vedic Sanskrit and other IE Languages ......... Dear................as the Missing Morphological Link . and *du̯oH(u)-............................................ Distant.PIE *sṷeḱuros....................................................................................and tūṷa-...................‘To Be’ to Hittite aššu...................... 181   9   ...................as a Metaphor of ‘Secondness’.......................... *du(H)s..........versus dvitā́ .................................. Foul’ and *du̯oH(u)‘Two’ ........ 165 Reflexes of *deuHs............................... Favorable’... 143 PIE *(H)sṷe............ and Enmity.................................................. and Truth’ .............................. 163 The Semantic Relationship among PIE *deuH(s)-......

..............in the Ṛgveda......as a Desired State of ‘Wholeness’................................................................................in Vedic Texts – ..................................................................................................................................................... 213 10) Wholeness as a Metaphor for Non-Duality and Truth .......................... 194 Sárva.........................‘Lack........ 226 Dvayúm.............................................................................................................in the Ṛgveda ................................................................................................................................................................... Be Separate’ to PIE *du(H)s‘Bad..................................................................................................................................... 193 Sárvam idáṃ as ‘the Whole............................................... 222 Dvayāvín-............................................................................................................................................................................................ 211 Chapter Summary ................................................................................................................................... 231 Ádvayant-................................................................................................ 217 PIE Semantics of Duality and of the Number ‘Two’ .................. 203 Sárva... 230 Ádvaya.............. 196 Sarvátāti............................................. 197 Sarvátāti............................................ 186 9) Wholeness as a Metaphor for Health and Salvation ................................ 219 PIE *du̯ō(u)....................... 185 Chapter Summary .......................................in Compound Words.........................................................................Semantic Concatenation from PIE *deuHs............................................................... 204 Sárvāṅga... 232   10   ......................................................as ‘Duplicity’....... Foul’ ....................................................................... 184 Reconstructing the Semantic Field of PIE *du............... 228 Dvayá............................... 205 Sárvavīra............ 208 Vedic sarvátāti and Avestan haurvatāti -......................................................................................................................................................................................as ‘Safety and Security’ ...................... 217 Duality as Metaphor for Fragmentation of the Psyche and Cosmos ............. 189 Lexical Frequency of sárva....................................................................... 230 Ádvayaḥ-................................... 192 Textual Evidence in the Ṛgveda .................................................................................... 206 Sarvadhā́.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. the All’........................... 188 PIE *solṷos and Ṛgvedic sárva.......‘Two’ as Metaphor for Falsehood in the Ṛgveda......... 221 Dvayá-.......................................................................................................................................... 210 Ásarva..........

.................... 235 Chapter Summary ................................................................................................Ádvayāvin-................................................................................................................................................................ 234 Ȧdvaya....................................................................................as the ‘Whole Truth’ ............... 243   11   ................. 238 Works Cited......................................................................................................................... 233 Ádvayu-.................................................... 236 11) Conclusion ..............................................................................................

...................................................................105   Table 3 .................................................114   The Inactive and Stative Grammatical Feature of PIE *Hes...........154   Metaphorical Expressions of PIE *Hes..........104   Lexical Expressions and Reflexes of the Grammatical Features of Inclusive and Exclusive in PIE and Vedic Sanskrit ....................................105   Inactive versus Active Verbs in PIE and Vedic Sanskrit.........123   Table 5 ..................................................................................................104   Table 2 ....................................................................................151   Table 7 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................151   Semantics of Vedic Sanskrit sá(n)t and ása(n)t...............174   Table 9 ...............................and Vedic Sanskrit √as.........................................................................................................................................................................154   Table 8 .............................................................................................................................................................................................................and *dṷ(e)H.......as Schwebe Ablaut ...................................114   Table 4 .................174   Allomorphs of PIE *deuH........................................................................146   Reflexes of the Grammatical Features of Individuation and Interiocity in PIE and Vedic Sanskrit ...........and Vedic Sanskrit √as...............................List of Tables and Figures Table 1 ...................................in Vedic Sanskrit .........................................................123   Reflexes of PIE *Hēs....................186   Lexico-Semantics of *du...................................................186     12   ...........................................in PIE and Vedic Sanskrit ..................................................................................146   Table 6 .................

..............com/newrv/find........sanskrit-lexicon.40   13   .............................pl?q=sarv&acc=no&lang=ved&stratum=all&show=yes ............................. 2................................................. Sample Webpage of Online Ṛgvedic Search Engine http://meluhha................Fig....de/mwquery/ .. Sample Webpage of Online Monier-Williams Online Sanskrit-English Dictionary http://www... 1...........uni-koeln..............38 Fig..

  14   .

However.1) Introduction Throughout the nearly 4. this vision of undivided wholeness came to inspire the entire [Hindu] tradition. In his “All. Mahony. Ātman. scholars and philosophers have discussed how the concept of wholeness has been an integral component of religious thought in Indian literature and in the religious traditions of both Hinduism and the earlier Vedic period. Koller. The world of distinct and separate things and processes is seen to be a manifestation of a more fundamental level of reality that is undivided and unconditioned…this undivided wholeness constituting the ultimate reality is called by various names…developed initially in the Vedas and Upaniṣads.” Gonda believes that it is in the Upaniṣadic and the early Vedāntic literature where concrete lexical evidence of this notion of wholeness begins to occur with regularity.000 years of Indian philosophy. Tattva and Puruṣa (6). he talks about the Vedic worldview by saying. (6) Koller advances that throughout much of classical Hindu thought this notion of wholeness (additionally referred to as totality. According to Gonda. With regard to the early Sanskrit lexemes that expressed the concept of wholeness. scholars of Indian philosophy conjecture that even the Upaniṣadic and Vedāntic concept of wholeness may likely have evolved from a pre-existing Vedic notion. Elizarenkova. or the All) has been conveyed with certain lexical terms such as Brahman. part of the greater Asian Perspective Series. in her seminal work Language and Style of the Vedic Ṛṣis   15   . oneness. Universe and Totailty. which can be identified in the Ṛgveda by the phrases tád ékam and idám sárvam. nonduality. In Koller’s The Indian Way. synthesis. thusness. and Miller this Vedic notion of wholeness was grounded in an intimate alignment of the individual with the cosmic oneness.

Languages are living entities that evolve from previous forms   16   .states. I also hold the view that the Ṛgvedic meaning of a word within the greater semantic field of lexemes that conveys the meaning of wholeness cannot be taken or established in isolation. As metaphors convey a figurative. In private discussions with Shukla. he refers to this spectrum of various metaphorical senses of a specific word as a sensuous continuum. Metaphors tend to be specific to a certain time and place. rather than a literal.and the microcosmic levels can be manifested. but one that is also semantically vast and continuous that expresses wholeness as metaphor. or Cosmos’ as opposed to Chaos…The isomorphism of the macro. meaning there expressions in language are contextual to the language and thought of its speakers. Alternatively. in the identification of the units of different levels. meaningful existence are in some way connected to each other in a mysterious and complicated yet systematic whole” (3). such as myth and ritual” (74). Thus the concept of wholeness in the Ṛgveda can be viewed as a sensuous continuum of metaphors that become expressed through certain lexemes. “By using the word universe I refer to the Vedic idea that all things in the various realms of a sacred. “The semantic invariant in this series may be defined as ‘to create an ordered universe. Mahony holds a similar position in his Artful Universe when discussing his view of the Vedic universe when he says. which I believe reveal both the cognitive and cultural insights into language and thought. for instance. Wholeness in Ṛgvedic and Proto-Indo-European Language I believe that the Ṛgvedic concept of wholeness is not one that is limited to a set of specific lexemes.

Avestan.) that evolved from a common proto-language. Fortunately. to position how these possible terms for wholeness in the Ṛgveda may have evolved lexico-semantically from their PIE source. et al. According to the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) hypothesis. a fundamental component of this research places a substantial position on the role that PIE had in shaping the lexemes of wholeness in Ṛgvedic language and thought.g. mythology.   17   . is but one of a number of descendent languages (e. thus. Based on the PIE hypothesis. Ancient Greek. In addition to identifying the specific lexemes that express the concept of wholeness as metaphor in the Ṛgveda. cosmology. it is equally important. provide an additional support for identifying such lexemes in the language of the Ṛgveda. it is possible that the lexemes for wholeness in the Ṛgveda are cognate with forms in other Indo-European languages and. in my opinion. the language of the Ṛgveda. and culture. therefore. Despite the span of millennia and vast geographic distance scholars have established that these correlative languages share a common vocabulary. This process assists my attempt to reconstruct not only the semantic meaning of lexemes for wholeness in the Ṛgveda but also within a possible Indo-European (IE) semantic sphere for wholeness. However.and do not arise in isolation. Vedic Sanskrit. Latin. I. the abundance of ethnographic and mytho-religious data in the Ṛgveda enables the linguist to establish the semantics of a lexeme and to place it properly within a specific semantic field or continuum. Hittite. believe that it is important to know the psycho-socio-cultural context within which the lexemes for wholeness in the Ṛgveda evolved and became expressed metaphorically. This idea is not to say that all the metaphorical lexemes for wholeness in the Ṛgveda exclusively have a PIE progenitor.

there currently appears to be no definitive work or comprehensive study that explores the lexical terms for wholeness in the Ṛgveda as metaphors from both a philosophical and cognitive linguistic perspective. Framing the Research Questions This study is both a linguistic and philosophical examination and identification of possible lexical terms used to convey the concepts of wholeness.The question now arises whether it is possible to identify specific lexical expressions of this concept of wholeness back to the earliest period of Vedic literature. linguistic typology. Gonda. While previous works on Vedic studies have identified the notion of and recognized the importance of   18   . there is. Yet despite the tremendous value that each of these scholars has contributed to the field of Vedic studies and Indian philosophy. in my opinion. Some of the most noted scholars that have explored this topic of wholeness in Vedic thought include Chosky. This work attempts to shed new light on the topic. and lexical semantics assist in reconstructing the notion of wholeness and its corresponding lexemes in the earliest Indian literature of the Ṛgveda? While there is no one specific lexeme in the Ṛgveda that fully connotes the concept of wholeness. by regarding the various lexemes for wholeness in the Ṛgveda as cognitive and cultural metaphors that perhaps continued from an earlier stage of PIE language. where others have not. in the earliest Vedic Sanskrit text of the Ṛgveda. cognitive linguistics. Mahony. Specifically. a cluster of lexemes in the Ṛgveda that constitute a larger semantic continuum. can the methodologies of comparative linguistics. as well as its semantic opposite of otherness. and Miller.

its literature review. If so. If there was a Vedic notion of wholeness. 1. methodology. 1. and data collection. Is it possible to identify a semantic field for wholeness. can it further be revealed by comparing it to the semantically opposite notion of otherness? 3. How do the concepts of wholeness and otherness become cognitively and culturally expressed as metaphor in Ṛgvedic thought? From the perspective of cognitive linguistics and lexical semantics these other questions become relevant.wholeness within Vedic thought. there are newly posed questions that are integral to and drive this research. What exactly is the Vedic notion of wholeness and how was it conceptualized as metaphor in the Ṛgveda? 2. From the philosophical perspective the following questions arise. or do they straddle more than one field? 4. along with its possible semantic counterpart of otherness? 2. Are these possible lexemes collectively contained within the same semantic field for wholeness. Are the various lexemes for wholeness in the Ṛgveda possibly lexicosemantic derivatives from even earlier reconstructed morphemes from PIE?   19   . do specific lexemes exist in the Ṛgveda expressing the notion of wholeness either explicitly or through conceptual metaphor? 3.

Truth. e.g. all of which have evolved from a proto-Germanic form *koilos. e.’                                                                                                                           1 The English word whole is actually cognate to the word health.’ 4. While the semantic relationship between health and whole is no longer apparent to speakers of Modern English. the word whole in Modern English applies to a number of concepts that span more than one semantic field.g. the word whole has now become a metaphor for health.’ 2. body and spirit. free from sin and temptation. e. sum. Expression of extent. ‘The saint was said to have lead a wholesome and pure life. e. Purity. Health. ‘I wholly support your decision. totality.g.’ 5. I provide an exercise that explores how the English word whole is expressed literally and metaphorically.g. 1. Expression of fullness.g. Expression of entirety.’ 3.g. As a result.g. e. the original linguistic connection would have likely existed in the cognition of early speakers of the various Germanic languages.’ Similarly. I have collected a partial list of the various connotations that the word whole can express in Modern English usage. singularity. heal. and weal. ‘I saw the whole movie from beginning to end. ‘The story you’re about to hear is whole and true. In English the word whole exists as one point within the greater semantic continuum of wholeness. Expression of health and wellbeing. and oneness.’ 3. ‘It is a goal to be whole1 in mind. e. e.g. rather than 1%. ‘The doctor declared Jill to be whole and sound to go back to work.’ 2. e.Examples of English Whole To help illustrate the various points and linguistic devices outlined in the previous sections. as a metaphor. for the recipe. hale. ‘Use whole milk. Expression of purity. ‘Mary felt a whole lot better later in the day after her nap.   20   . 1.

  21   . truth. English whole is further expressed conceptually by the words ‘totality. unbroken. and purity. At the same time. English whole also becomes a metaphor to connote a variety of other concepts that straddle other semantic fields such as health. oneness. I believe that an analogous approach can now be applied to studying the Ṛgveda in order to identify the cognitive and cultural metaphors of wholeness evident in the lexico-semantics of the Vedic Sanskrit language. all. the Modern English word whole is just one word within the larger semantic field of the concept of wholeness. integrity. Additionally. the semantic field within which it resides can be conceptualized as wholeness. entirety. truth. totality. health. etc.It is now possible to frame the English lexeme whole within the context of the linguistic devices of semantic fields.’ that constitute an ever-changing semantic continuum. continua. fullness. Based on the various connotations expressed by Modern English whole. etc. purity. and metaphor. The sensuous continuum of the word whole within the socio-cultural parameters of present day English encompasses the metaphorical sense of wholeness. safety.

Methodology There are two distinct but interrelated methodologies utilized in this dissertation—historical linguistics and cognitive linguistics. the methods are the direct ways in which the methodology is applied to the research. methodology is the theory or principle that the research employs in conducting the research. Historical Linguistics and the Comparative Method Historical linguistics studies the various ways languages change—both across time (diachronic) and within the same time period (synchronic). The methods for the research establish the plan and the specific techniques that I use to apply the methodology. Specifically.2) METHODOLOGY AND METHODS There is an important conceptual distinction between the methodology and the methods of research. Furthermore. The methodology for the research sets the general research parameters and the framework for interpreting the methods. On the other hand. both diachronic and synchronic analyses provide the essential tools to explore how the concept of wholeness is lexically and semantically conveyed in the Ṛgveda. At its most basic level. As an aid to the reader. historical linguistics is subdivided into the subfields of the comparative method and of lexical semantics. the distinction between diachronic and synchronic change will be defined in greater detail in order to demonstrate their effectiveness as tools of methodology.   22   .

both of these approaches distinguish two important aspects of language development. In the field of historical and comparative linguistics. the basic lexical unit of meaning of a word. In Cruse’s introductory chapter of his work Lexical Semantics he states.Diachronic and Synchronic Change It is helpful to define the key linguistic jargon used frequently throughout this study. Within the field of   23   . The value of lexical semantics is its ability to relate lexemes to sentence structure and syntax by identifying the function of the lexeme within the semantic field. Synchronic linguistics permits the researcher to examine these same features limited to within the same temporal stratum. which studies the meaning and connotation of lexemes. Ferdinand de Saussure. Diachronic linguistics focuses on the development of language(s) over time. Diachronic linguistics allows the researcher to explore the semantic change and development of linguistic features over various strata of time. the greater context within which the lexeme occurs. Both of these tools are necessary when doing lexical and semantic analyses. “…it is assumed that the semantic properties of a lexical item are fully reflected in appropriate aspects of the relations it contracts with actual and potential contexts” (1). while synchronic linguistics explores the state of language(s) at any given time in history. whether they are tangible things or concepts. an important distinction is made between diachronic and synchronic approaches. Lexical Semantics Another important and valuable tool for research is the field of lexical semantics. First used by the famous nineteenth-century Swiss linguist.

possible to implement the tool of semantic fields specifically for Vedic texts.   24   . Each field is viewed as a partial region of the whole expanse of ideas that is covered by the vocabulary of a language.lexical semantics are the two important concepts of semantic fields and semantic continua that are of great value to the linguistic methodology of this research. It was in Trier’s Der deutsche Wortschatz where the linguistic discipline of semantic fields arose. the Semantic Fields. a word meaning is determined by the network of relations established with other words.e.” provides an elegant description of what exactly a semantic field is. Semantic Fields The notion of semantic fields has existed for nearly a century with de Saussure and Trier being the first ones to introduce this concept into linguistics. which he identified by the term Wortfeld. i. Gliozzo elaborates more on semantic fields in his Semantic Domains. Internally to each field. He elaborates that a lexicon can be structured into groupings or clusters of concepts and ideas that are very closely related to one another. In Roesler’s “Theory of Semantic Fields” he demonstrates that it is. (2) It was. Such areas are referred to by groups of semantically related words. Roesler’s article on the application of semantic fields into Vedic texts that inspired the genesis of this current research that explores the semantics of wholeness in the Ṛgveda. He states. Vassilyev’s “Theory of Semantic Fields. Semantic Fields are conceptual regions shared out amongst a number of words. indeed. These clusters or grouping of words that are conceptually and semantically related to one another are semantic fields (Vassilyev). however. where he describes Trier’s original concept of a semantic field by saying. The meaning of a specific word within this grouping can only be determined in relation to all the other words in the cluster.

the exact meanings of the single lexical items and the contextual. he provides another definition of a semantic continuum as a structure   25   . (308) Intimately connected to the notion of semantic continua exists the concept of semantic componential analysis. e. According to Roesler. for the lexical field of the verbs of movement. which can be summarized in the following manner: In the synchronic perspective the semantic range of a natural language can be regarded as a continuum that is internally subdivided by its single lexical items.. The exact meaning of each co-hyponym becomes clear only in contrast to the other co-hyponyms of the same field. etc. be subsumed under a superordinate term. and ‘to walk.Linguistic theories can provide useful methods for examining the lexical meanings and the possible usages of words within different settings. As Roesler advances. this model has been described by TRIER in the metaphor of mosaic. Trier’s original theory of semantic fields includes the notion of semantic continua. stylistic and poetical variations we find within the texts. to run. The words that belong to a lexical field can often. but not necessarily. In Schumann’s abstract Real Logic and Semantic Continuum. It seems to me that especially the theory of semantic fields offers an interesting tool for arriving at a more precise understanding of the Vedic vocabulary. the verb ‘to move’ would be the superordinate term. where the meaning of a lexeme can be viewed as a grouping or a cluster of sub-sets of shared semantic components within the greater semantic field or continuum.g. to skip’. in the Vedic texts the goal of using semantic continua and semantic components is to establish the “distinctive features that constitute the differences between similar words and expressions. would be the co-hyponyms that constitute the internal structure of the field.” which he further states can be “presented in the form of semantic ‘axes’ or scales that indicate the relative semantic value of the lexical items” (309). (307) Semantic Continua Another valuable aspect to the field of lexical semantics is the notion of a semantic continuum..

the situation with semantic shift is less tangible.containing all meanings of a word or a concept that have to be considered in relation to each other with those meaning being semantically marked from highest to lowest (1). Lexical semantics. along with semantic fields and continua. While phonological and morphological shift within language can be easily traced both diachronically and synchronically. Evans et al. the mind and socio-physical experience” (1).   26   . The intention behind semantic fields and the reason for their use as a foundation of this research. “…a modern school of linguistic thought and practice…concerned with investigating the relationship between human language. both diachronically and synchronically. Cognitive Linguistics The study also enters deeply into the field of cognitive linguistics as a methodological research tool. its semantics are going to change. define cognitive linguistics as. Semantic fields also provide the opportunity to determine the specific semantic continuum and components regarding the notion of wholeness in Ṛgvedic thought and language. Cognitive linguistics further provides support for the tools of lexical semantics semantic fields and continua. When constructing the proto-form of a lexeme. is that they offer an approach to explore the lexicon of the Ṛgveda. Rather than constructing a single proto-semantic form of a word or concept. the discipline of cognitive linguistics attempts to map out the full semantic continuum of the lexeme in question. collectively provide the researcher with the methodological tools to classify and analyze the similarities and differences in meaning of lexemes.

therefore. implied and not one where the lexeme can be taken literally. which encompasses the semantic continuum. A cognitive metaphor can best be described as a conceptual view of a lexeme or a group of lexemes that semantically connects one word or idea for another. a cognitive metaphor transfers the meaning of a word onto something else from a literal to a figurative sense.   27   . a word can be cognitively expressed both in a literal and a metaphoric meaning. The semantic comparison is. Cognitive Metaphor Within the semantic continuum. In the English example ‘John is a pig when it comes to house-keeping. Whenever speaker(s) of a language perceive of a word or a concept.Cognitive linguistics is intimately connected to the notion of semantic fields and continua in the following manner. cognitive linguistics believes that the semantic field. its semantic meaning is not fixed but rather carries a plurality of meanings along a semantic continuum that is bound within a defined and specific semantic field. As a linguistic device.’ John is not literally a pig but is characterized in a way that figuratively describes him to have the same conceptual attributes of a pig. is relatively fixed in its structure. Thus while the semantic continuum may always be changing according to the cultural and social parameters of the speaker(s) of a language.

Metonymy and metaphor also have fundamentally different functions. While metaphor and metonymy vary slightly in their definitions. metaphor is about understanding and interpretation: it is a means to understand or explain one phenomenon by describing it in terms of another. There is. Metonymy is about referring: a method of naming or identifying something by mentioning something else which is a component part or symbolically linked. An example of a conceptual metonymy in English is the phrase ‘The Pentagon announced the withdrawl of US troops from Iraq’ where Pentagon replaces the concept of the United States government. enable the Vedic scholar to   28   . According to Jurewicz. semantic continua. Roesler substantiates this position by saying that semantic fields and continua. metonymy “is a strategy that allows one to replace the concept of one thing with the concept of another thing. Related to methodological tools of historical linguistics and of lexical semantics. In contrast. cognitive metaphors. but distinct from cognitive metaphor. however.Cognitive Metonymy Related to. and metonymy facilitate the exploration into the lexicosemantics of wholeness in the Ṛgveda. is the notion of cognitive metonymy. which both form a whole or which are closely connected” (606). cognitive linguistics attempts to provide an explanation behind the intimate connection between a culture’s language and the conceptual socio-physical experience of its speakers. Knowls and Moon in their Introducing Metaphor differentiate between the two terms by saying. they both are linguistic devices that are vital aspects of this research as part of the methodological approach to identify the terms for wholeness in the Ṛgveda. (54) Both cognitive metaphor and metonymy are important semantic devices contained within the fields of cognitive linguistics and lexical semantics. an important distinction between cognitive metaphor and metonymy. along with cognitive metaphors. As research tools the various linguistic devices of semantic fields.

All this makes semantic field theories appear to be a promising approach for describing the semantic structure of the vocabulary at large” (309). As the main objective of this research is to identify these lexemes within their semantic fields and semantic continua that encompass the notion of wholeness. Similar Methodolgies in Vedic Studies The methodological tools of historical linguistics. Both the methodological approaches of historical linguistics and cognitive linguistics offer possible insight into how the lexico-semantics of wholeness were shaped in PIE and Ṛgvedic thought. which in turn reflected in the PIE and Ṛgvedic language. and cognitive linguistics are relevant tools for the present research. the tools of lexical semantics and cognitive linguistics are appropriate for such an endeavor. and they can even help to describe poetical figures like metaphor. In their   29   .explore “relations like synonymy and antonymy as well as polysemy. lexical semantics. the disciplines of historical linguistics and cognitive linguistics provide the important research tools to explore the intimate connection between language and thought in human cognition. and possibly to an earlier stage of the PIE language. where a semantic component of one item is transferred to another…. One of the primary tasks of this research is to reconstruct conceptual and semantic meanings that lend themselves to various connotations of wholeness that were expressed lexically in the Ṛgveda. Collectively. which scholars of both IndoEuropean and Vedic Sanskrit have employed in their respective academic works. it corresponds well to the findings of cognitive linguistics that the words of a language are learned and remembered in fieldlike structures.Moreover.

The most direct means to illumine these developing notions of the self with minimal presupposition is to comprehensively analyze each passage which includes one or more of the terms…” (32) This dissertation adopts a similar approach to Gardner’s study of the specific lexemes and meaning for the various terms for self in the Vedic texts by adapting it to the study for terms denoting wholeness. Another renowned academic scholar in Vedic studies who employs similar methodologies as a framework for this research is Elizarenkova. when studying the poetic languages of the early Indo-European literature. two specialists in Indo-European poetics. While Elizarenkova is primarily a Vedic scholar. she acknowledges the similar methodological techniques. In her pioneering book Language and Style of the Vedic Ṛṣis. scholars have implemented one or more of these methodological tools in dissertations. books. A brief overview now follows of some works specific to Vedic studies that have employed one or more of these methodologies. He states. She states in her work that each of these scholars agrees that simultaneous synchronic and diachronic   30   .research. Elizarenkova concurs with both Watkins and Campanile. In Gardner’s dissertation Terminology of the Self in Vedic India he relies heavily on diachronic and synchronic linguistics and lexical semantics to present his findings. By combining synchronic analysis of the occurrences of the terminology in a given passage with diachronic comparison of these occurrences between texts and over time this study shows that there are several developing—or even competing—ways of discussing existential presence in the Vedic religion. and research papers. utilized by the larger Indo-European academic community. Elizarenkova also takes an integral approach in the academic study of the poetic language of the Ṛgveda. who share Elizarenkova’s premise.

Using lexical semantics as her primary methodological tool. along with the antecedent Indo-European. Roesler’s article “Semantic Fields as a Tool for Vedic Research. Linguistic theories can provide useful methods for examining the lexical meanings and the possible usages of words within different settings.” which had the greatest influence for this work. (307) In Roesler’s research he explores the lexico-semantics of verbs that express the notion of shining in the Ṛgveda. Elizarenkova’s methodology recognizes the importance and validity of understanding the connection between the Vedic poetic language.study of the early Indo-European poetic language is necessary. Elizarenkova examines how the Ṛgvedic vocabulary. performed in a manner that is both historically comparative and analytically descriptive (5). with its society and culture. she demonstrates that the Vedic Ṛsis crafted the Ṛgvedic language and used its linguistic and semantic components as sacred instruments of poetry to express their cosmology and mythology. In his work. Elizarenkova successfully uses the linguistic methodological tools of lexical semantics and diachronic/synchronic analysis to offer a rare insight into the earliest realms of Vedic and Indo-European thought. stylistic and poetical variations we find within the texts. Additionally. It seems to me that especially the theory of semantic fields offers an interesting tool for arriving at a more precise understanding of Vedic vocabulary. the exact meanings of the single lexical items and the contextual. Regarding the usefulness of semantic fields as a methodological tool Roesler states. he uses the tool of semantic fields to construct a semantic continuum of Ṛgvedic verbs that both literally and metaphorically convey the   31   . morphology and syntax are intimately connected to the semantics of the Vedic poetic language. uses both the theories of semantic fields and continua as tools for research.

which allows us to take one phase of an event for another (and vice versa). 9–10 soma is perceived as a cow or bull about to be yoked and sacrificed. “…I would like to propose a method of Rigveda interpretation which.97. In a similar approach.101. the   32   . (606–7) Thus in the Ṛgveda.46 to Soma to demonstrate how cognitive and conceptual metaphors are used as poetic devices in the Ṛgveda. The method applies cognitive linguistics with its principal notions of conceptual metaphor and metonymy” (606). Jurewicz in her article “The Rigveda. Roesler also employs the discipline of cognitive linguistics. the name of the actual plant soma by the semantic device of conceptual metonymy is expressed as both the juice and the deity. In the context of the Ṛgveda. the distinction between metaphor and metonymy can be further witnessed. both metaphor and metonymy are frequently found as poetic devices in the text. The Sanskrit word soma is the name of a plant that was ritually pressed in the Rigvedic sacrifices. Jurewicz focuses on the single stanza 9.meaning of shining. Additionally. In this regard. As she states. This word also denotes the juice of the plant. As Jurewicz herself states. sheds some light on the thinking of the Rigvedic poets. In addition to the soma plant being conceptualized as the juice and the deity. The same thinking underlies the usage of the word soma to denote the god of the plant: in this case the divine essence of entity is identified with it. An example in the Ṛgveda that Jurewicz illustrates to employ metonymy is the Vedic Sanskrit word soma. The reason why the same name can be used to denote the beginning of the process and its result is metonymic thinking. Using the discipline of cognitive linguistics. in my opinion. This results in their conceptual identification and in the possibility of constructing a general notion denoting them. the cognitive linguistics” utilizes the methodology of cognitive linguistics to explore the poetic language of the Ṛgveda. Using the same example of soma in the Ṛgveda. it is also metaphorically expressed as a sacrificial animal. In stanzas 10.

It nevertheless preserved many features of oral texts that go back to earlier times. possible that certain lexemes or metaphors for wholeness in the Ṛgveda may have antecedents in the earlier PIE language. since its final codification. and Campanile. I believe that a similar situation might also exist with the concept of wholeness to reveal its cognitive and cultural expressions in the Ṛgveda. cognitive linguistics. the Rigveda was transmitted orally in its unchanged form. therefore. The oral character of the Rigveda is the next reason justifying the application of cognitive linguistics. beginning with Indo-European times. and metonymy to map the semantic fields and continua of other Ṛgvedic concepts. While my goal is not to comment on every scholar that has used linguistic methodology in Vedic studies. It is. Jurewicz demonstrates that the Ṛgveda’s usage of metaphor and metonymy reveals the hidden cognitive and cultural expressions inherent in the Vedic culture. Just as the concept of soma is subject to metaphor and metonymy. Watkins. In addition to Roesler’s mapping of words for shining and the metaphorical interpretation of   33   . It seems that the usage of cognitive linguistics in the investigation of the Rigveda is justified not only because this method is useful in the analysis of texts of different cultures and of poetical texts. who all concur that many of the poetic and cultural features of the Ṛgveda reflect the earlier PIE poetic tradition. when it was not so rigidly codified. (611) Similarly. Jurewicz states. Jurewicz takes a similar perspective to Elizarenkova.soma plant also appears in stanzas 11–12 of the same hymn as a metaphor of sexual fluids. metaphor. there are a number of other prominent works that have employed the notions of lexical semantics. It is generally assumed that. the premise of this current work adopts a congruent opinion that certain aspects of PIE language remain as relics in early Ṛgvedic lexcion and as conceptual metaphor. Furthermore.

Jurewicz with the word soma, other relevant works that examine Vedic lexico-semantics include words for beautiful (Oldenberg), heat (Blair), light, soul, vision (Bodewitz), money (Hintze), man, woman (Kazzazi), and femininity (Monc Taracena). Based on the methodological approaches used in Vedic scholarship by Gardner, Elizarenkova, Roesler, Jurewicz, and those of other scholars previously listed, the current research continues this tradition by following a similar line of inquiry. My methodology parallels their works by employing the various tools of historical linguistics, lexical semantics, and cognitive linguistics to explore the lexemes and metaphors for wholeness in the Ṛgveda and their possible development from earlier PIE language and thought.

Methods In addition to discussing the various linguistic methodologies employed as a framework for this research, it is important to outline the specific methods that are the tools for this methodology. The methods to be discussed for this research specifically determine why certain texts are to be included or excluded, what is the lexical algorithm to collecting data, and how best to analyze and categorize the data.

Inclusion/Exclusion of Texts This study is restricted to an intratextual analysis of the Ṛgveda. The primary reason is to have access to a defined set of lexical data from a relatively monolithic but sufficiently large text. While it is certainly possible to compare the lexical data of the Ṛgveda to other Vedic texts, such as the Atharvaveda, Samaveda, or Yajurveda, doing so would expand the nature of the study to variables beyond the scope of a dissertation. For
  34  

example, much of the language of these other Vedic texts is considered to be composed in the Middle and Late period of Vedic Sanskrit, while the relatively homogeneous linguistic structure of the Ṛgveda falls into the Early stage of Vedic Sanskrit. Other Vedic scholars, specifically Roesler, substantiate this method of an intratextual approach to the Ṛgveda. Roesler labels the language of the Ṛgveda as a corpus language. Roesler believes, “That it is generally possible to conduct a semantic field study in the case of corpus languages has been proved by the numerous studies from the field of classical philology” (311f). It is the relatively synchronic feature of the language employed in the Ṛgveda that makes it a corpus language. Furthermore, the research is also limited to the lexical data found only in the Ṛgveda Saṃhitā, and not in its ancillary texts of the Brāhmaṇas, Āraṇyakas and the Upaniṣads. While the Saṃhitā reflects the original orally composed metrical language of the Ṛgveda, the other texts were commentaries on ritual and meaning produced in prose language. Additionally, the prose language of the Brāhmaṇas, Āraṇyakas and the Upaniṣads are composed in a stage of Middle and Late Vedic Sanskrit, while the poetic metrical language of the Saṃhitā belongs to the Early Vedic period. Roesler concurs on this matter of confining the text to only the Saṃhitā. He states, When studying a corpus language, we need a reasonable set of texts stemming from (approximately) the same period, because field structures operate on a synchronic level and may change during time. For my study, I have chosen the corpus of the Ṛgveda. Though we cannot speak of a corpus that was composed exactly at the same time, nevertheless, this choice has the advantage that we are dealing with a stylistically rather homogeneous text collection (we do not, e.g., compare metrical language with prose, which might lead to incompatible results). Moreover, the relative chronology of the Ṛgveda is quite well established, which gives us the opportunity to notice and to describe diachronic changes. (311)

 

35  

I am in accordance with Roesler’s statement that introducing the lexicon of the Saṃhitā’s ancillary texts as possible data expands the parameters of inquiry to a broader diachronic pool of lexemes that are beyond the scope of the current research. Furthermore, limiting the study to just the Ṛgveda Saṃhitā and excluding the prose commentaries further enhance the methodologies of cognitive linguistics and lexical semantics as tools for exploring wholeness in the poetic metrical language of the Ṛgveda. Another factor to mention is the different śākhā, the various recensions or schools, of the Vedic texts. Among the five śākhā of the Ṛgveda that are believed to have originally existed, only three (the Śākala, Aśvalāyana, and Kauṣitaki) śākhā are still known to exist. Among these three versions, only the Śākala recension is believed to have preserved the original content of the Ṛgveda Saṃhitā. It is also this version of the Ṛgveda Saṃhitā metrically restored by van Nooten and Holland into the work Rig Veda: A Metrically Restored Text With an Introduction and Notes that is available in its entirety online at http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/RV/. It is this specific recension of the Ṛgveda Saṃhitā that is the most widely excepted version used in Vedic scholarship. Thus, the methods of determining the inclusion or exclusion of texts among the entire Vedic corpus of literature now limit the lexical data specifically to the Śakala Ṛgveda Saṃhitā. Even though this study is an intratextual examination of the Ṛgveda, rather than an intertextual one between different Vedic texts, synchronic and diachronic analyses can still be used as part of the methodology. This approach is possible due to the chronological layering evident within the Ṛgveda itself into early, middle and late Ṛgvedic stages of the language. Based on notable differences in lexicon, morphology and

 

36  

1. Witzel in “Tracing the Vedic Dialects” and “Development of the Vedic Canon” has identified three distinct temporal strata within the Ṛgveda itself.1-66 and 1. There are two approaches by which the lexical algorithm is achieved. Middle Ṛgvedic / Stratum 2 – Books 3.51-191 3. Late Ṛgvedic / Stratum 3 – parts of 8. 8. Early Ṛgvedic/ Stratum 1 – Books 2. parts of 8. 4. nevertheless. the relatively synchronic perspective of the Ṛgveda Saṃhitā.49-59 and Book 10 Based on these points. like the study of limited realms of vocabulary during a limited period of time” (311). 9. “But even if we cannot describe language as a whole in all its aspects. and its retention in the Śākala recension that substantiate this lexico-semantic inquiry on the concept of wholeness. 6 2.67-103. His hypothesis chronologically structures the language of the Ṛgveda into three linguistic strata. It is the bound lexical quality of the Ṛgveda composed in a corpus language.grammar. The other involves a thorough reading of the entire Ṛgveda in both the original Vedic Sanskrit and in both its English and German translations. the Ṛgveda stands alone among the Vedic literature as a self-contained corpus text with its unique lexicon and poetic devices. semantic field theory may be useful for more modest purposes.   37   . The first method entails using established Ṛgvedic lexical search engines to identify the possible terms for wholeness. Data Collection: Lexical Algorithm for Inclusion/Exclusion of Data Another critical method is the lexical algorithm to determine the inclusion and exclusion of certain terms that convey wholeness. This feature of the Ṛgveda permits Roesler to state that. 5. 7. 1.1-50.

i. Fig. Sample Webpage of Online Monier-Williams Online Sanskrit-English Dictionary http://www.unikoeln.de/mwquery/   38   . a search for the English word whole is placed in the search parameter of the Monier-Williams dictionary.de/mwquery/) along with a secondary online Ṛgvedic lexical search engine. 314 different lexemes.sanskrit-lexicon.The first way in which the dissertation conducts this process utilizes the online Monier-Williams Sanskrit-English dictionary (http://www.e. The search engine then lists a total of 314 dictionary entries. 1. Both of these online search engines are widely accepted electronic tools utilized by Vedic scholars.uni-koeln. The online dictionary further indicates in which texts the specific entries are located (refer figure 1). requesting all entries of Sanskrit terms in the entire Sanskrit literary corpus that connote this concept. for Sanskrit terms that contain the word whole in their definition. For example.sanskrit-lexicon.

From this narrowed set of lexemes.is now used as an example to describe the third step. If the lexeme also occurs in either Lubotsky’s index and Grassman’s Vedic dictionary. ordered in each of the 10 books and temporal strata.itself. the Sanskrit word sarva.yields a total of 126 instances of this lexeme in the Ṛgveda. I use the following Ṛgvedic lexical search engine http://meluhha.com/newrv/find. In order to capture all morphological forms of the word sarva. etc. Typing in the lexical stem sarv. rather than the full word sarva. as the figure below indicates. and the entire line in which the lexeme occurs in the entire Ṛgvedic corpus. Once a specific lexeme has been defined using the online Monier-Williams Sanskrit-English dictionary and cross-referenced in both Lubotsky’s and Grassman’s sources. I review all 314 entries and cross-reference each of them in both Lubotsky’s 2-volume work.in the search parameter would result in the omission of its variant allomorphs. Through this cross-referencing process. its morphological variants. such as sarve.   39   .in the search engine. it is necessary to type just the lexical stem sarv-. A Ṛgvedic Word Concordance and in Grassman’s Wörterbuch zum Rig-Veda. sarvāni. This process narrows the data field by excluding all lexical entries for words that connote whole that occur outside the Ṛgveda.pl?q=sarv&acc=no&lang=ved&stratum=all&show=yes This process now identifies all instances of the Sanskrit word sarva-. the 314 entries for lexical entries returned by the Monier-Williams dictionary are narrowed down to about a dozen entries. along with the line where the word occurs. Simply typing in the word sarva.Next. it is included as part of the data set.

Doing so not only narrow the lexical data. everything. the next step is to read the entire line.com/newrv/find. more importantly it   40   .Fig.include. every. the meaning of all. in just the Ṛgveda alone. like many words in the Ṛgveda. Sample Webpage of Online Ṛgvedic Search Engine http://meluhha. An important aspect of the lexical algorithm is to exclude all semantic meanings of sarva. This task is achieved by carefully reading all of the 126 original Ṛgvedic passages in which the word sarva. only one of which is the notion of whole. stanza and hymn in the original Vedic Sanskrit to see if the lexeme in question in this specific context connotes the meaning of whole. everywhere. Other meanings of sarva.pl?q=sarv&acc=no&lang=ved&stratum=all&show=yes Data Analysis and Interpretation of Meaning Once the word is identified and located in its specific line of stanza.that do not convey the meaning of whole. and entire. It is important to remember that the word sarva-.occurs. is multivalent: The word sarva. 2. everyone.conveys several meanings.

rather than the literal. Just as   41   . I employ the German translation by Geldner and the English one by Griffith to determine the semantics and connotation of a specific term. not used. it cannot yield possible undiscovered terms for wholeness in the Ṛgveda. While using various lexical search engines specific to the Ṛgveda might prove helpful. Furthermore. It is important to clarify that both of these translations are rather outdated. The second approach for the lexical algorithm entails a thorough reading and interpretation of the entire Ṛgveda through the methodologies of cognitive linguistics and lexical semantics. their work was not published in time as part of this research and is. Since this research explores the cognitive and cultural expressions of wholeness in the Ṛgveda evidenced in language and thought. The main objective of this research is to identify terms for wholeness that have not yet been revealed by previous scholarship.structures the methods of the dissertation to focus exclusively on the relevant Ṛgvedic lexicon for words that connote wholeness. it is the figurative and metaphoric connotations of wholeness. that I attempt to identify as part of the method. the lexical search engines only identify the literal and relatively transparent connotations for wholeness in the Ṛgveda and do not reflect their expressions as conceptual metaphors. I point out that they did not exclusively determine the inclusion or exclusion of a specific lexeme. While a modern English translation of the Ṛgveda began in 2004 by Jamison and Brereton. While the translations by Geldner and Griffith assisted in the method of this research. The method for determining whether a term is included to connote wholeness is achieved by examining its context within the specific stanza or hymn itself. therefore. In addition to reading the Ṛgveda in the original Vedic Sanskrit.

a note on the English translations found in this research. As previously mentioned. totality. the current translations by Geldner and Griffith are anachronistic in their language and do not reflect recent findings in Vedic scholarship. Griffith and Geldner appear to have excluded the methodologies of cognitive linguistics and lexical semantics when translating the original Ṛgvedic passages. the translations along with my own nuanced interpretation of the original text offer the undiscovered metaphorical expressions of wholeness as part of the data collection methods. Furthermore. The same lexical algorithm and interpretation of the data will be used for possible words for whole isolated to the Ṛgveda. the lexemes that I identify and include in this research are those established from my own discerned and nuanced interpretation of the Ṛgveda examined through the lens of conceptual metaphor and lexical semantics. I wish to make clear that these translations. the reader   42   . While the Ṛgvedic lexical search engines provide the literal interpretations for words that express wholeness. terms that express concepts semantically similar to the notion of wholeness. Rather. along with its semantic opposite of otherness and twoness will also be searched using similar methods. Finally. are still adapted from and resemble those of Geldner and Griffith. as they are my own based on the interpretation of the lexical data. I provide my own English translations of the specific stanzas with single quotes cited in this research that underscore the lexico-semantics of wholeness in the Ṛgveda.with previous translations of the Ṛgveda. For these reasons. much of them are based on individual interpretation of the original text. In this same manner. The translations also should not be taken as authoritative. such as oneness. and inclusiveness. Additionally. while my own. sameness.

ritual. and thought. the various linguistic methodological tools themselves are the key that provides the researchers the most effective means to examine its lexicon. With regard to the cultural revelations that methodological tools of cognitive linguistics and conceptual metaphor offer Jurewicz states. is advised to consult Geldner or Griffith for alternative translations.contained corpus language. the primary piece of evidence used in exploring the earliest records of the Vedic culture is the Ṛgveda itself. language. Lastly. “The poets refer to the mythological. In addition to the cognitive expressions of wholeness evident in the Ṛgveda via metaphor. As there exists little physical archaeological evidence of the early Vedic people. what makes my own translations of value to the field of Vedic scholarship and perhaps of interest to the reader is their unique interpretation through the methodological tools of cognitive linguistics and lexical semantics that reveal how the concept of wholeness is expressed in Ṛgvedic culture. As the form of Vedic Sanskrit evident in the Ṛgveda is considered to be a self.should view the translations that occur throughout the study as an adjunct to the major theme of this research and. the various linguistic methodologies provide a deeper cultural insight into the way in which these cognitive metaphors were expressed. and social contexts that   43   . Cultural Insights from Linguistic Methodology and Methods The question now arises how can the linguistic methodologies of cognitive linguistics and lexical semantics along with the methods outlined in this chapter provide any cultural insight into the early Vedic culture and the cognitive perspective of speakers of the language? Jurewicz raises an interesting point regarding the application of cognitive linguistics as an insight into Vedic culture.

common beliefs about the world shared by a community. as the lexemes that express the concept of wholeness are manifest in both the cognitive and cultural realms of Vedic thought. in turn. what and how people who speak in this language think. It is for this reason that the current research is an exploration into both the cognitive and cultural metaphors of wholeness in Ṛgvedic language. there is a tight connection between the thought and the language. are based on experience and on cultural models. Nor is it easy to reconstruct the way the poets thought” (606). i. we can begin to understand.According to cognitive linguistics. They are manifest in language and its particular expressions…. These mental strategies.e. Remarks on Transliteration and Phonetic Representation I provide two important final notes regarding the transliteration of the Vedic Sanskrit language and phonetic representation of the PIE roots. The second matter pertains to phonetic representation of PIE words and roots. I use the currently accepted Roman transliteration of the Devanāgarī script for academic work.are now lost and not easy to reconstruct. When we analyze the language and when we get to know mental strategies characteristic of human thinking. The first point is throughout the study. at least to some extent. (606) Similarly. In current scholarship. the various linguistic methodologies of cognitive linguistics and lexical semantics reveal the hidden extra cultural dimension of the Vedic people. in addition to identifying the ways in which the concept of wholeness was cognitively expressed through metaphor in the Ṛgveda. Jurewicz further elaborates that tools of cognitive linguistics and conceptual metaphor “are mental strategies that enable people to recognize the world and organize their knowledge about it” (606). the phonetic representation of PIE roots and words can vary depending on the author or the particular school of Indo   44   . except for their very basic features.

I opt to use the generic symbol *-H. This option is merely stylistic based on the particular school of Indo-European linguistics under which I was trained.European studies. the phonetic representation of the PIE laryngeals has a number of variant forms encountered within IE linguistics. like myself.to represent all the reconstructed three or more laryngeals. I represent the PIE phoneme *-w.to represent all laryngeals in this study.   45   . other scholars whose works I cite will use the alternative representations of the various laryngeals by *h1-. Unless an author whose work I cite uses the form *-w-. use the generic phoneme *-H. the form *-ṷ.in this study.or additionally by the schwa symbol *-∂-. Similarly. For example.by its equally accepted but alternate form *-ṷ.is employed throughout this work. While some scholars.-ha. These two points on transliteration are meant to alleviate any confusion on part of those readers who are not familiar with PIE phonetic representation.-h2-.-h3-. Unless I am citing an author who employs a variant form.

Dandekar. focus on just one specific lexical term such as ṛta. there are even fewer academic works that utilize linguistic analysis in exploring the lexical terms of Vedic wholeness. Hopkins. sat. For   46   . Criteria for Inclusion/Exclusion of Literature A number of criteria were used to define the parameters for the literature review. Deshmukh. or matrix to connote the concept of wholeness. thus limiting the many ways in which this concept of wholeness is lexico-semantically expressed in the Ṛgveda. all. however. those that do. Keith. (Basham.3) LITERATURE REVIEW This section explores and reviews the current. Additionally. authors use words such as harmony. There are many works within the field of Vedic studies that discuss this topic in some form. Oberlies) There are relatively few academic works dedicated to this topic. and those are the focus of this literature review. Koller. while there is an abundant discussion of the notion of wholeness in Indian philosophy. Second. only works that pertain to Vedic studies are included. order. works that are neither scholarly in nature nor use accepted academic methodology are excluded. Masih. While many of these works may not have the word wholeness in their actual title. most of the research on the topic is limited to just a single section of a chapter or to a few sentences interspersed sporadically within works that survey the greater scope of Vedic philosophy and Hindu religion. sarvam. relevant academic literature concerning the Vedic concept of wholeness as expressed in language and thought in the Ṛgveda. or ekam. First.

and German are included. For journal articles. due to the author’s knowledge of these languages. the field of Vedic studies was not very well established from the perspective of utilizing linguistic methodological research.example. the Arts and Humanities Citation Index. Veda wholeness. while these works certainly discuss the Vedic idea of wholeness and may be important pieces. the University of Chicago Database. only works that have been published within the past 150 years are included. such works are excluded from this dissertation. Ṛgveda wholeness. The different categories of academic works required the use of specific search engines. they also tend to lack academic objectivity. I used the Library of Congress. For books. Third. Vedic cosmology. Questia. works that only dedicate a few paragraphs or sporadic sentences on the topic are excluded. original works written in English. JSTOR South Asia Titles. I used a number of online journal indexes to find articles: JSTOR. World Cat. as prior to this. I investigated articles in specific peer-reviewed academic journals that are either dedicated to the field of Vedic studies or regularly publish articles on   47   . Fifth. there are articles and dissertations that discuss the Vedic notion of wholeness from a metaphysical or Hindutva perspective. Therefore. Papers First. In particular. French. and Genamics Journal Seek. and Vedic oneness. Search Engines and Parameters for Literature Review The first step employed various search engines to perform a Boolean word search of key phrases such as Vedic wholeness. and MELVYL. Fourth.

which will help in designing the dissertation study. Dissertations were retrieved through Proquest and First Search. Indo-Iranian Journal. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies. Third. Journal of Asian Studies. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies (London). Journal of the Benares Hindu University. First. Fourth. Objectives of Literature Review This literature review has a number of objectives and supporting reasons. this literature review may offer a new perspective on the topic. Journal of Indian Philosophy and Religion. International Journal of Hindu Studies. as well as to determine if there are new variables and challenges to the topic. it will also position the research in a context that relates any new   48   . and Philosophy East West. a thorough literature review is necessary to argue the significance and importance of the topic as well as the need to explore the topic in a new way. Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. History of Religions. this review will help to identify the existing methodological perspectives and research methods. Journal of Asian and African Studies. Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies. this chapter will help to frame the context and research question for the dissertation and to identify how the research intends to contribute a significant advancement to the field of Vedic studies. there is a need to differentiate research that has already been conducted on the topic from that which needs to be conducted. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society.Vedic studies: Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes. Fifth. Second. Orientalia. one that has not been previously explored. Journal of the American Oriental Society (Univ. of Michigan). EJVS (online).

1. What are the central theories that have been advanced in the academic literature to demonstrate the notion of wholeness in the Ṛgveda?   49   . In the academic literature.findings to existing findings of previous research. Are there any methodological recommendations from previous research that require consideration? 4. Finally. this literature review is useful in formulating a new theoretical framework in the field of study. Framing the Questions for the Literature Review In the course of this literature review. What research methods have been used previously to identify the concept of wholeness in the original Vedic texts? 3. how and in what way has the concept of wholeness been studied in Vedic studies? 2. there are four specific questions that are central to the research and are explored through the works that have been included and critiqued in this review.

It was the role of the Vedic seer. especially in the “self-purifying” Soma ritual known as the soma pavamāna. to “image” this unseen and intangible order of wholeness as an expression of art via ritual. the ṛṣi. The order in which the works appear within each section is based on their relevance to the study. Mahony introduces this idea by saying. but also that this structure of being is one in which all things fit together properly. transcendent reality that binds the multifaceted Vedic universe into a structured formless Absolute. As the universal (artistic) principle that gives rise to and joins all things together into a smoothly fitting whole. myth. continues with articles and finishes with the sole dissertation relevant to the research. this ritual was of paramount importance to the Vedic people “because it reintegrated what had become a multiverse.” Mahony presents the case that the Vedic ritual was a sacred act of reintegration of the individual back with the undivided wholeness of cosmic order. By artful I want to suggest not only the general notion that Ṛta is universal truth and ritual order. ritual transformed a fractured and disjunctive existence into a unified and harmonious whole” (132). By using the word universe I refer to the Vedic idea that all things in the various realms of a sacred. According to Mahony. (3–4) In the subsequent chapter. meaningful existence are in some way connected to each other in a mysterious and complicated yet systematic whole. Ṛta stands as the foundation of the world as universe rather than as a chaotic multiverse. This notion is congruent with and   50   . poetry. “The Priest as Artist. Books Mahony’s The Artful Universe offers a construct of Vedic thought and cosmology with the central belief of an underlying.Review of Works The discussion of the academic literature begins with books. The role of the Vedic priest was that of an artist.’ if you will. smoothly and harmoniously—‘artistically. and sacrifice.

but also of the English harmony as well as of art and thus artful. go’ and ‘to connect. Additionally. While his work claims to be a survey of the Vedic literature. middle. one had to properly understand the context in which the term was being used in order to determine if it conveyed “that which has moved” or “that which has connected. (3) Although what he states is accurate. Grassmann. ‘to move. Mayrhofer. he does not classify his texts into early. fasten. and Religion. Mahony is excused for only briefly (in the course of a single paragraph) exploring the etymology of the Vedic term ṛta and explaining its semantic connection with the cosmic wholeness. Although it is insightful and academically researched. The word ṛta literally means ‘that which has moved’ in a fitting manner…It may be of interest to note in this regard that the word ṛta is a distant relative not only of the English rite and thus of ritual (both of which signify actions that lend or establish dramatic order to the disorder of life as it is often experienced). Elizarenkova. there are some critiques of Mahony’s methodology that are worth mentioning because they differentiate it from the present study. A second critique of Mahony’s methodology is confusing synchronic and diachronic analysis of the texts. and later Vedic. not realizing the distinction in connotation the word holds in certain contexts. which according to other scholars and Sanskrit dictionaries (DeVries.   51   . Monier-Williams) had two meanings. Smith’s “Ritual and Reality” chapter of his work Reflections on Resemblance. most notably B.” Mahony conflates the two semantic meanings in his work. He rightfully states. Ritual.builds upon the works of other Vedic scholars. he fails to explain that the Vedic word ṛta derives from the Vedic Sanskrit root √ṛ-.’ As other books and dissertations on Vedic ṛta demonstrate. As he does not claim to present a linguistic study of the Vedic literature.

  52   . with Smith and Thompson exposing several errors in his research and methodology. Universe and Totality” and “Reflections on Sarva. the semantics of this specific word have evolved throughout the course of the Vedic literature. The five reviews that were located (Findley. Regardless of these issues. the other reviewers seem to be far more critical. Gonda.in Vedic Texts”).’ As other scholars. Mahony appears to take the position that the “artful imagination” of the Vedic priests remained static throughout this period of over a millennium. One has to assume that the semantics of a specific lexical term would change over the course of time. As scholars of Vedic studies are aware. Miller) When demonstrating a point of his central thesis. have accurately demonstrated. Werner) offer a conflicting assessment of Mahony’s work. such as Gonda (“All. in his attempt to create a synchronic perspective of Vedic imagination over the course of the span of Vedic literature. however. Likewise. If Mahony had chosen to take just a diachronic approach to his methodology rather than claiming to take a synchronic approach.500 years of literature. While Patton has nothing but praise for the book. Mahony juxtaposes passages from texts separated by over a thousand years. but Mahony’s translation of the word sarvam remains fixed as ‘the All. Smith. Thompson. Patton. he inadvertently takes a diachronic view of the texts. most scholars concur that Vedic thought was correlated to language both of which considerably evolved from the earliest writings of the Ṛgveda to the later Upaniṣads.he includes the Upaniṣadic and Tantric texts and even Patañjali’s Yoga Sūtrā in his data. the Vedic texts themselves span a period of nearly 1. (Elizarenkova . his findings and research would have been more accepted by other Vedic scholars.

Miller skilfully advances the field of Vedic studies with this work. mythology. Additionally. More known as coauthor with Georg Feuerstien of many works of Yoga philosophy. Despite the various advancements the book offers in the field of Vedic studies and on the proposed research topic. linguistics. The Vedas: Harmony. ṛta in the form of yajña is the path toward restoring wholeness of man and of gods within the harmony of the cosmic order. she explains that ṛta is the way in which order is achieved in the Vedic vision. it must be cautiously used for the proposed research due to its methodological limitations and moderate lack of linguistic analysis of the Vedic material. Miller chooses not to do a full translation of the hymns that she uses to illustrate   53   . Miller demonstrates her adeptness in using various approaches in a discussion of complex aspects of the Vedic literature. While this is a work of scholarship. A similar discussion on the topic of Cosmic Order in the Vedas occurs in Jeanine Miller’s The Vision of Cosmic Order in the Vedas. ritual. and religion as methodological tools in her study. there exists some criticism of Miller’s methodology and methods. psychology. As in her earlier work on the Vedas.Mahony’s efforts should be duly noted and his work is a good introduction for anyone seeking to explore the concept of Vedic imagination and religion from a nonphilological perspective. In this well-written and nicely researched book Miller expertly integrates diverse fields such as philosophy. and language. In the subsequent chapters. Meditation and Fulfilment. Miller’s opening chapter presents her central hypothesis suggesting that the Vedic vision was identified with the concept of ṛta in various manifestations—astronomy.

asat. While this is an interesting taxonomy of the “Vedic vision. Another work whose title would appear to contribute to the Vedic concept of wholeness and to the current research is Ṛta: The Cosmic Order. Miller’s work remains a noteworthy piece of scholarship and greatly contributes to a better understanding of Vedic wholeness and order. Miller’s work is distinguished from the proposed research topic by her lack of comprehensive lexical analysis of the plurality of ways in which Vedic language connoted the concept of wholeness. This concept is not new. her focus on equating the Vedic concept of ṛta with cosmic order ignores other lexical terms that were also reflected in the Vedic language to connote this concept. rather she isolates a certain phrase or line of a stanza without presenting its greater context. Edited by Madhu Khanna. and ṛta. Despite this matter. such as sarva. what distinguishes Miller’s book from others that explore the concept of ṛta is her methodology of using the texts themselves as the means to structure her thesis. such as dhī or vāc. Further. other works on examining ṛta and the idea of Vedic order tend to rely on conjecture and assumption to arrive at a conclusion. in the book she presents a notion that all aspects of Ṛgvedic vision can be categorized into four distinct but interconnected modes of expression: sat. However. with only limited criticism of Miller’s approach. The sole review of this book by de Nicolás (89–91) is very laudatory.” it limits the discussion of other modes of expression in Vedic thought and religion. yajña. While there are some relatively minor issues with the work.or tad ekam. While her methodological research is sound and her information very relevant.her point. the work is a compilation of articles from a seminar that focused on the origins   54   . as it is borrowed from the work of de Nicolás in his book Mediations through the Rg Veda.

There is no discussion of the nature of wholeness from the viewpoint of the Ṛgveda or the earlier Vedic literature. they do not have any significance for the proposed research. they provide no support to the current research. but in fact they are not. with no linguistic methodology. Pitman’s book explores the concept of wholeness from the framework of the Indian medical system of Ayurveda. While Mishra’s work explores the notion of cosmic wholeness in Vedic texts. Therefore. The articles tend to focus on how ṛta relates to the cognition of order in temporal and spatial expressions of the arts.of the concept of ṛta and its relationship to the various aspects of sociocultural-religious life in Indian culture. While some of these articles touch upon aspects of Vedic studies. the titles of Pitman’s The Nature of the Whole and of Mishra’s The Cosmic Matrix: In the Light of the Vedas would appear to be relevant to this review. Similarly.   55   . as not a single article in the compilation delves into lexical or linguistic aspects of Vedic language. Even though the titles of Pitman’s and Mishra’s works topically suggest the study of Vedic wholeness. this book can be dismissed based on the parameters of the review. past and present. the book focuses on Vedic cosmology and phenomenology.

” similarly uses lexical evidence to explore the plurality of lexemes used to convey the notion of “all” in the Indo-Aryan languages.Articles from Journals There are numerous articles that discuss the Vedic notion of wholeness through various methodological perspectives—history of religions.” he uses linguistic evidence from the Avestan material. cosmology. In fact. and Make Whole. Purify. As these articles are most relevant to the current research. Another article by Schwarzschild.in Vedic Texts” he produces the first study on the nature of Vedic wholeness that uses lexical evidence to support his argument. art. but he also explores the meaning of sarva. their articles are included in the search criteria as they provide valued insights into how the methodology of historical linguistics can be successfully used as a tool for research in the examination of the Vedic texts.   56   . of which the two most noted are by the famous Indologist. and later Vedic. as his primary methodology. “Some Indo-Aryan Words Meaning ‘All’. Only a handful of these copious articles focus on linguistic methodology. Jan Gonda. the section begins with a discussion of both of them.in early. as do Gonda’s articles. ancient and modern. this piece inspired this inquiry into the notion of how wholeness was expressed in Vedic Sanskrit. middle. What distinguishes Gonda’s article and makes it valuable for this research is the methodology that he undertakes by surveying the entire Vedic literary corpus from both a synchronic and diachronic approach. In Gonda’s seminal article “Reflections on Sarva. philosophy. Not only does Gonda examine the lexico-semantics of the word sarva. Even though the focus of Schwarzschild’s and Chosky’s research do not explicitly focus on the Vedic corpus.in various texts of the same time period. In Chosky’s article “To Cut off. closely related to the Ṛgveda in language and content. etc. spirituality.

complete.’ As Gonda states in his article.with IndoEuropean *solwo. Gonda presents a cogent argument that while there is polysemy of this lexeme in Vedic Sanskrit.and Avestan haurvapoint back even further to a common Indo-European form *solwo. sarva. In later Vedic and in Classical Sanskrit the semantic boundary between the two terms began to erode. Gonda declares that Vedic scholars have variously translated the term sarva.and viśva-. being complete.pointing out the inability to proceed after a certain number has been counted.’ Gonda also arrives at a second important conclusion that in early Vedic there was a clear semantic distinction between the two lexemes sarva.emphasizing the idea of wholeness and completeness and the inability to discern defectiveness” (54). the texts suggest that its basal meaning was ‘whole.and that it is not uncommon for even the same author to translate this word differently in particular contexts.’ He continues that this meaning of sarva. undivided.are crucial to the proposed research.and its original semantic distinction from Vedic viśva. Furthermore.and subsequently developing into a pronoun. with the former meaning ‘whole.whose reflexes occur in Greek. safe. In his final paragraphs. Both points were arrived by using linguistic analysis and direct   57   . with sarva. Gonda’s conclusions connecting Vedic sarva. complete’ and the latter meaning ‘all. Latin.as ‘whole(ness)’ is a continuation of its common meaning in Indo-Iranian with considerable semantic overlap with the Avestan term haurva-. and every. and Balto-Slavic and whose meaning is ‘to become whole. entirely.In his research. each. Gonda stats that the shared Indo-Iranian semantics of Vedic sarva.eventually becoming interchangeable with viśva.with Avestan haurva. “…viśva.

Universe and Totailty. In Gonda’s other noted work “All. whole.probably meant ‘complete. it still only focuses on the lexeme sarva-. Prajāpati is identified by the term idam sarvam ‘This All. Expanding on his research in his previous article “Reflections on Sarva-. In the ŚB as well as in the other Brāhmaṇas and Upaniṣads. unhurt.” Gonda examines the Vedic myth of creation in the famous Prajāpati myth.” he continues the philological analysis of lexical terms within the semantic sphere of wholeness. sound. in a long. brings evidence from many sources to show that Vedic sarva.and its connotation with the concept of wholeness. which is the primary methodological approach of the proposed research topic. “Gonda. but his research is still very thorough and offers the solitary academic work on the Vedic term sarva. Fowler states. Based on these points. not entirely linguistically reasoned article. which is clearly the goal expressed in the title. The ŚB is the commentary prose discussion of the Śukla Yajurveda.’” (288–89) As this review reflects. Gonda’s article is very relevant to the research and offers a framework upon which a greater discussion can be built regarding the lexical evidence for other words that connote the Vedic sense of wholeness.evidence from the Vedic texts themselves. Even though Gonda’s discussion of wholeness in the Vedic texts is exemplary. There appears to be only one scant review of Gonda’s article by Fowler (Language 288-289) in which Gonda’s work is limited to just one sentence among a larger piece of several other articles that Fowler reviews. specifically in the early Indian text of the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa (ŚB) and in the later Vedic language. Gonda’s article may not meet the criteria of study for academics within the field of pure linguistics.’   58   . a compilation of mantras necessary to be recited at the Vedic yajña ceremonies.

Currently. whereas the proposed research topic is limited to the early Vedic text of the Ṛgveda. There is. sampūrṇa). totality. samasta-. In Brøndal’s hypothesis.expanded its semantic meaning from the early Vedic period of the Ṛgveda. this article is widely cited in subsequent academic works discussing the notion of wholeness in both Vedic and post-Vedic literature of India. where it predominantly meant ‘wholeness. its focus is again on later Vedic and post-Vedic literature. one noteworthy point in which Schwarzschild cites Brøndal’s article “Omnis et Totus” that classifies the idea of “totality” in Latin into four distinct semantic categories. Gonda does a thorough job using textual evidence to support his claim that the term sarva. however.’ While this is a tremendously resourceful article. sarva-) and in Classical Sanskrit (sakala-. both past and present.’ to a larger meaning in the later Vedic and Upaniṣadic literature to encompass a connotation of ‘all.   59   . the main body of the research identifies words in works later than the Vedic period. and universe.   Another relevant article for this research is Schwarzschild’s “Some Indo-Aryan Words Meaning ‘All’. no reviews of this article have been located. however. While the author does identify some lexical terms in Vedic Sanskrit (sama-. which are not of interest to the proposed research. śaśvat-.which in turn is semantically distinct from sarvam ‘whole. viśva-. akhila-. each of these specific semantic notions of totality is expressed in Latin by four distinct lexical items: completeness. totality’ as the desired state to which Prajāpati returns.” The study touches upon the Vedic concept of wholeness but expands the lexical survey among all the Indo-Aryan languages. samagra-. or totus.

This article is relevant as Brøndal’s methodology of classifying Latin terms to connote totality could also be applied to the Vedic notion of wholeness. Another relevant article is Chosky’s “To Cut off. *teks-. made pure (pāk. Often adjectives of completeness tend to be used gradually to express universality. In particular. or omnis. a similar taxonomy might be applied to the Vedic concept of wholeness. Such developments have taken place in Indo-Aryan as much as in Romance and elsewhere. Of interest to the proposed research. and generality. Chosky uses mythological. and Make Whole. *tem-) from death.’ Chosky elucidates by saying that “within the architecture of ritual space.   60   . and even when they do there are frequent transitions from one subsidiary meaning to the other among words used to express totality. Languages do not necessarily distinguish between these notions. Chosky argues that the possible connection between the notion of wholeness. and linguistic evidence to advance a hypothesis that the role of the purification ritual was to “make whole” that which is impure and unholy. which in turn restored the Cosmic Order. The liveliest. or quisquam. life is cut off (taš-. or quisque. In the early Vedic texts. theological. most expressive and on the whole most easily replenished group of these words is that which expresses completeness. one finds the terms pāvaka and pavamāna used in the context of the Soma ritual to connote the concept of ‘purification. Purify. and later they may become iterative or be reduced to a vague general meaning. (13) One of the central aspects of the proposed research is to classify the semantic categories of the various lexical terms used to define wholeness in Vedic Sanskrit. a distributive or iterative quality. specifically the concept of the Comsic Order ṛta and the notion of purity.” Even though Chosky deals with Zoroastrian religion and Avestan language. as reflected in both Vedic and Avestan texts. ritual purification. and Cosmic Order is an aspect of reconstructed Indo-Iranian religion. As Schwarzschild states. there are aspects of this article that apply to the Vedic notion of wholeness.universality.

cosmology. This article sufficiently documents Avestan linguistic evidence to support the ritualistic concept of purification as an act of “making whole. *kailo-) again—actions fundamental to the cognitive metaprinciple of order (aša-. *teks-) or rendered whole (kay-. While Chosky delves deeply into the concept of purification as an intimately linked element of wholeness in Zoroastrianism. no reviews of this article are available. DeVries’s research is ambitious in its attempt to document the complexities behind the meaning of the Vedic term ṛta and its hypothetical semantic connection with the term sat(ya)-. and refashioned (taš-. he uses a comparative philological approach of the Ṛgvedic   61   . His approach takes two important methods: first. DeVries’s work is the most relevant study published on the topic of Vedic wholeness that employs sound philological and comparative linguistic methodology. semantic. and conceptual connection of Vedic ṛta and its Avestan counterpart aša. there is relatively little discussion of the parallels to Vedic language. *ar-)” (39). and religion. Presently. second. Dissertation The only dissertation retreived from the search engines that demonstrated relevance to the proposed research is DeVries’s Vedic Ṛta and Avestan Aša.*peu∂-). The proposed research attempts to document if a similar component exists on the Vedic side of the Indo-Iranian religion. he uses an intra-Vedic analysis of passages from the Ṛgveda exploring how ṛta is conveyed in various contexts.” but it only does so from the ancient Iranian perspective. The central hypothesis of the dissertation explores the linguistic.

and sat(ya)-. depending on the context. By using evidence from within the Ṛgveda and comparing these concepts both etymologically and semantically with their Avestan counterparts. general meaning in the Ṛgveda of a spatio-temporal connection of ordered continuity and movement between the rodasī. Lastly. In chapter one.’ Thus. ‘to go’ and ‘to connect. DeVries questions the previously assumed semantic connection between ṛta. there is one important methodological critique of this work that requires discussion. Subsequent chapters of the dissertation explain that in Indo-Iranian there were two homophones of the verbal root √*ṛ-. his methods can be applied to identify other key lexical terms used to connote the sense of wholeness in the Ṛgveda. he states that these two terms are not universally equivalent.and sat(ya)-. He is either   62   . While DeVries limits his discussion to the Vedic terms ṛta. DeVries concludes his analysis of the lexical data of Vedic ṛta and Avestan aša by stating that originally the two terms held separate semantic meaning in the common Indo-Iranian language and religion.data with the Avestan material to extrapolate a common Indo-Iranian protosemantic meaning. what makes this work of great value is the philological and comparative linguistic approach DeVries used to reach his conclusion. Eventually the two distinct homophonic verbs collapsed into a larger. aša and haiθya. the two faces of Heaven and Earth. Vedic ṛta could connote ‘connection’ or ‘movement’ in its original meaning. DeVries does not track the intra-Ṛgvedic semantic evolution of the word ṛta nor does he correlate the data to the various ten books of the Ṛgveda. The methodology that DeVries employs in his dissertation is congruent with the proposed research.

unaware of or perhaps wrote his dissertation prior to the currently accepted notion of the chronological layering within the Ṛgveda. such as Witzel and Elizarenkova have revealed there indeed exists polysemy and semantic variation of the same lexical item within the various books of the Ṛgveda. DeVries’s work offers a tremendous resource in its similar approach to philological methodology.   63   . attributed to both diachronic and synchronic factors. Overall. It is necessary to incorporate this important component of methodology into any work that examines the lexical and semantic aspects of the Vedic language. The proposed work recognizes this chronological stratification of the lexicon and will properly utilize it as part of the analysis of data. Vedic scholars.

The second chapter continues the exploration of wholeness from the perspective of the grammatical feature of inclusiveness. semantically. it examines how the grammatical binary feature of inclusiveness versus exclusiveness might have become lexically expressed in the PIE deictic roots *sem. The first four discuss the cognitive metaphors of wholeness and otherness in the Ṛgveda within the context of linguistic and grammatical features. now’   64   . here. Specifically.’ The lexical data offer a new conceptual model in the Ṛgveda that positions the semantic field of wholeness and oneness in semantic contrast to otherness and twoness. and lexically in PIE between ‘one’ as an existential concept of wholeness with ‘one’ as a numerical concept. Specifically how the notion of ‘one’ became differentiated cognitively.‘one.with the number éka.‘one. The discussion begins by examining the PIE and Ṛgvedic notion of wholeness as a metaphor for oneness.and sa.4) Chapter Overview The main part of the dissertation is structured in a thematic way into six chapters.’ This cognitive distinction in PIE between ‘one’ as wholeness with ‘one’ as the number appears to have left relics in the lexico-semantic contrast between the Vedic Sanskrit prefix sam. It utilizes Gamkrelidze and Ivanov’s framework of linguistic typology to explain the origin of ‘one’ as a numerical concept due to a cognitive and grammatical reaction by the development of the number ‘two. specifically reflected in the first person nonsingular pronoun and the dual category of PIE and Vedic Sanskrit. while the last two chapters focus on how the concept of wholeness and otherness became culturally expressed as metaphors in the Ṛgveda.

and *du. The third of the main chapters explores the linguistic features of individuation and interiocity as another way that possibly reflects the concept of wholeness in both PIE and Ṛgvedic lexicon. other. If this assertion is correct. stative verb PIE *Hesproduced Vedic Sanskrit √as.‘to be’ and *bhuH. existence. that possibly reveals a deeper metaphorical meaning of *(H)sṷe.‘one’s one. an example of which are PIE *Hes. separation. and badness.to produce the PIE reflexive marker *(H)sṷe. The last of the four chapters explores the concept of twoness as a metaphor for otherness. it provides the semantic concatenation that cognitively links the ideas of being. and one’s own as conceptual metaphors into a semantic continuum within the semantic field of wholeness. in binary semantic contrast to oneness as a metaphor for wholeness.as a cognitive expression of individual and collective intertiocity of one’s own group.‘two. The PIE root *(H)su. truth.‘good. The chapter cites lexical evidence throughout the IE branches that possibly attests to a deeply grounded cognitive model that metaphorically equates the PIE concept of duality and twoness as otherness. dear.‘to become.’ In a cogent argument outlined by Lehmann.occurs in an isolated number of kinship terms. good. reflected in Vedic Sanskrit. exclusiveness. in contrast to exclusiveness and becoming.‘to be.’ Another binary feature that Gamkrelidze and Ivanov point out as a linguistic feature of PIE is inactive versus active verbs. there.‘to be’ along with derivational morphemes in the Ṛgveda that appear to connote wholeness as a cognitive metaphor of inclusiveness and being.’ As an inactive.’ The PIE morpheme *(H)sṷe. beloved’ appears to be a morphosemantic derivative of the PIE verb *Hes. he presents the case for the probable extension of PIE *(H)su. inferiority. This cognitive   65   . oneself.

The first of these chapters explores the concept of wholeness as a socio-cultural metaphor for health and wellbeing. Specific stanzas from the Ṛgveda underscore this idea of how health and wellness is one cultural metaphor expressed within the semantic continuum of wholeness.metaphor of twoness as otherness appears to reflect in a number of Ṛgvedic words that derive from the PIE deictic marker *du.‘two.was the primary morpheme that possibly encompassed a large number of derivational morphemes within a semantic continuum and semantic field of otherness. reflected by PIE *solu̯os and in Vedic Sanskrit by sárva-. The discussion concludes with how the Ṛgvedic word ádvaya. This notion is perhaps evident in various passages of the Ṛgveda that contain the lexeme dvayá-.‘reality. existence’ and satyá-‘truth.’ The evidence suggests that the PIE deictic root *du. which itself is a reflex of PIE *du̯o-iom that literally means twoness. semantically congruent with the other Ṛgvedic words sá(n)t.and the numeral *du̯oH(u). This notion of otherness was primarily reflected by the Vedic Sanskrit word dvayá-. the next two chapters focus on how wholeness and otherness were culturally expressed as possible metaphors in Ṛgvedic perception. The last chapter before the conclusion examines how the concept of wholeness in the Ṛgveda was a cultural metaphor in semantic contrast with the metaphor for otherness. Having discussed the cognitive metaphors of wholeness and its semantic contrast with otherness as a conceptual model embedded in Ṛgvedic language and thought.’ This observation possibly reveals a   66   .became a possible metaphor for truth and reality. The chapter explores how the PIE lexemes for twoness and otherness became culturally perceived to be a fragmentation of the individual human psyche and of the individual from the cosmic whole.

deeper socio-cultural expression in Ṛgvedic language and thought of how truth might be a semantic metaphor that explains an existential and cosmological concept of oneness and wholeness.     67   .

Gvozdanović adheres to this point by stating in “Remarks on Numeral Systems” that Numerals are language signs.   68   . In most languages. This conceptual differentiation was perhaps evident in the Ṛgvedic lexicon as a possible remnant from earlier PIE language.’ is a linguistic process that occurs throughout many languages. One of the ways the Ṛgveda possibly conceptualized the notion of wholeness was perhaps as the idea of oneness.5) Wholeness as a Metaphor for Oneness The next three chapters of the study identify the ways in which wholeness possibly manifests as cognitive metaphors in Ṛgvedic language and thought. especially the numbers ‘one’ and ‘two. with forms and meanings which fit in with the language structures in which they occur. numerals are characterized by relatively transparent form-meaning relations. what this chapter attempts to demonstrate is the cognitive and semantic distinction between oneness as a numerical concept versus oneness as an existential. which enable us to study patterning of numeral meanings (also referred to as “numbers”) in a relatively straightforward way (1). an explanation of the PIE concepts of ‘one’ and ‘two’ is a prerequisite. The manner by which speakers of a language conceptualize and semantically express the lexemes for numbers is intimately connected to human cognition and socio-cultural experience. While the concept of oneness can be understood as a metaphor to convey wholeness in a general sense. metaphorical notion in the Ṛgveda. To better understand the lexico-semantics of oneness as a metaphor for wholeness in the Ṛgveda. PIE Concept of ‘One’ The conceptualization of numbers.

(206).   69   . *ṷo. are also possibly the Vedic Sanskrit relative pronouns yás.and *-ko.that occur in the IndoEuropean branches that I list below.and *semIn Martínez’s “The Indo-European System of Numerals. and the Sanskrit adverb i-ha. PIE *oiMartinez posits that the root *oi.’ Martínez elaborates that the PIE form *oi.(200).‘it’ (207). he believes that the pronominal root *i. yā́-. originally i-dha.appears to have continued in Vedic Sanskrit in a variety of forms. meaning ‘here.is reflected in the Sanskrit pronouns ay-ám (masculine). i-yám (feminine) and i-dám (neuter) meaning ‘this here’ (107–9). Macdonell conjectures. PIE *oi. In Macdonell’s A Vedic Grammar for Students. yád. The archaic PIE root *i.’ as the ancient Indo-European languages attest to there being two different roots—*oi. from PIE *i-o-.is a morphological derivative of the deictic pronominal root *i. Added to these forms. Pokorny also identifies the numerous reflexes of these suffixed extensions of PIE *oi.This ability of numerals being ‘language signs’ offers a linguistic inquiry into the semantics and development of the numerical concepts of ‘one’ and ‘two’ in PIE and its development into Vedic Sanskrit.eventually became enlarged with the derivational suffixes *-no-.and *sem.” he concurs with mainstream Indo-European scholarship that it is not possible to reconstruct a single word in PIE for ‘one.

Greek—oínē ‘ace’ (on dice) c. Greek—oí(ṷ)os ‘solitary. Sanskrit—evá ‘truly. eins (German).and *sṃ-. iva ‘as.‘one’ c. one (English) ‘one’ e.   70   . Sanskrit—e-na. Old Church Slavic—ino ‘one’ g. Latin—OINOS (Archaic Latin inscription). just so’. Lithuanian—víenas ‘one’ 2. Avestan—aēva. Vedic Sanskrit—éka.also appears in many of the Indo-European languages to express the general concept of oneness. along with its allomorphs *som. Old Irish—oin ‘one’ f. it’ b. she. alone’ b. like’ 3.1. *oi-noa. only.‘one’ (639–46). the unaccented pronominal form for the third person singular ‘he. PIE *semIn addition to PIE *oi-. *oi-ṷoa. ūnus ‘one’ d. A sampling of the reflexes of PIE *sem-. are cited by Pokorny in the following forms. the root *sem. indeed. exactly. *oi-koa. Mitanni Aryan—aika-vartana ‘one turn’ b. Germanic—ains (Gothic).

in sám-iti ‘also’. sem. saṃ. joined as one-whole’. united.in há-paks ‘once’ 5.‘once (and never again)’.in sim-plex ‘simple’ 6. samá‘even. ha.in samana ‘together’ (Gothic). Vedic Sanskrit a.‘once. along with’ 2. i. identical’ b.and *oi.1. alike’ b. Homeric Greek a.in sem-per ‘always’ b. metaphor for meeting or coming together of water’. samúdra‘ocean. sahá-.‘going together.and *semThe lexical data gathered by Pokorny and from other IE resources suggest that the distinction between PIE *sem. ha. satrā́ñc. sadha. sa.‘together. Avestan a. sambháraṇa. hom.e.in hama ‘equal. same (English) (2091–93). Germanic sam. Latin a.in sakṛt. The Semantic Development of PIE *oi.among the major branches of Indo-European was   71   . sim < *sṃ. ham. Hittite šanna.in homós ‘common. one’ 4.in ha-k∂r∂t ‘once’ 3. same’ b.‘bringing-together’.

existential unity and wholeness. NE one and the same).denotes …singularity and uniqueness.not geographical. What then was the semantic distinction between PIE *sem.and *oi-. In this regard. as reflexes of both roots occur simultaneously throughout many of the attested ancient languages.in the earliest stage of the PIE language? Sihler attempts to clarify the distinction by saying that PIE *oi. it was predominantly used to express the basic meaning ‘together’ (206). I believe that PIE *sem. Additionally. is in the opinion that PIE *sem-   72   . one and the same’ (2091).was the lexeme that eventually expressed the idea of numerical unity. This kind of ‘one’ is briefly called ‘one alone’…PIE *sem. whose views are congruent with those of my own. (404) Martínez takes a similar position with Sihler by suggesting that while the PIE root *sem. there was likely a cognitive or semantic distinction between PIE *sem.developed as indefinite pronouns in the Indo-European languages. and unity in a counting sense.was ‘one-together.possibly connoted a deeply embedded meaning of conceptual.as ‘together as one. Having conjectured a semantic and cognitive distinction between PIE *oi. is it possible to determine which one of these roots was the original PIE lexeme? Sihler. I conjecture that instead of an areal factor.and *sem-. namely in the sense that ‘nine’ is ‘one more’ than eight. that is. several things taken as a whole. or several things are regarded as interchangeable in some way (cf. this development of two separate roots expressing the notion of ‘one’ possibly arose from the roots originally being cognitively distinguished and conceptually differentiated in the minds of the PIE speakers that necessitated two distinct lexemes. This assertion is further substantiated by Pokorny who advances a proto-semantic meaning of *sem.and *oi. distinct from the numerals two and higher. while PIE *oi. unified as one. or considered a unit for some purpose (as when several people ‘speak with one voice’).

as the proto-form to express the PIE concept of oneness? By positing *sem. (405) What.is characteristic of relics. Sihler states.is the original root in all senses. and Toch.explains why there was no single reconstructed lexeme for ‘one’ in PIE.) while *oyno. then. The assertion of there not being a single word to express the concept of ‘one’ is not unique or isolated to the Indo-European languages and to reconstructed PIE. Similarly. these same scholars suggest that the absence of a single lexeme to convey the concept of the numeral ‘one’ occurs in other reconstructed proto-languages such as the   73   . and an abundance of derivatives and combining forms of ancient type.was the likely candidate for being the original form that expressed ‘one’ as unity and wholeness. Second the geographical distribution of *sem.is a derived form—one of several such. *sem. In fact. In favor of this view are two good arguments. Gamkrelidze and Ivanov offer ample evidence that in the earliest attested written human language. and *oy(no). Sumerian.as the hypothetical original PIE lexeme that expressed the idea of conceptual and existential (rather than numerical) ‘oneness.was a subsequent innovation and semantically distinct root from *sem.is found in a large and contiguous area.is an underived form with an archaic type of root inflection (294. discussed in greater detail later in this chapter. is the importance of identifying *sem. there also lacked a single word to convey the concept of ‘one’ (741). Additionally.is a later innovation. whereas *oyno. as it occurs in two widely separated areas (G/Arm. The principal competing view of PIE ‘one’ is that *sem.’ it establishes a typological framework of understanding the cognitive process of the early PIE speakers. in fact. First. In my opinion the significance of this connotative and cognitive differentiation between the two roots also possibly accounts for the semantic connection between wholeness and oneness in the Ṛgveda. hypothesizing that *oi(no).1).

Subsequently. Counting or enumeration of objects per se begins with two or more. Mallory and Adams reconstruct the numeral ‘two’ in PIE as *du̯oH(u). while ‘one’ is not for counting but simply naming the object by means of its special designation. The lack of a special numeral ‘one’ in the counting systems of these languages becomes understandable if we consider counting from a typological perspective. Before examining the lexical and semantic evidence in the Ṛgveda to support my belief that the PIE root *sem. it is also necessary to explore the origin of the PIE concept of ‘two. however. there appears to have existed a proto-semantic concept of wholeness and oneness as an archetype of human consciousness. Gamkrelidze and Ivanov further go on to state.(310).was the original lexeme that cognitively and conceptually expressed the notions of oneness and wholeness. that PIE   74   .Semitic and Proto-Kartvelian macro-family (741).’ PIE Concept of ‘Two’ Based on lexical evidence from the extant Indo-European languages. (742) To put Gamkrelidze and Ivanov’s academic explanation into a simpler language: The concept and the word for the numeral ‘one’ cannot exist without the concept or word for the number ‘two. I suggest that in PIE this archetypal concept of wholeness and existential oneness was originally expressed by the root *semand not by *oi-. and *du̯iH. There is evidence to suggest. This is the cause of the disparity in words for ‘one’ among related dialects. *du̯oiH-. such names become specialized words meaning ‘one’ and enter the numeral series as the first numeral.along with its allomorphs *du̯eiH-.’ This hypothesis infers that prior to the invention of counting and enumeration by the human mind and its eventual expression through lexemes in language as numerals.

Greek déka-. along with Martínez. Avestan dasa-. cūnctus.(206–07). rather than the alternate form *d(u)-..were secondary developments that were eventually used exclusively for enumeration.appears also to reflect in the o-grade form ḱomt. Sihler further states. and Ivanov. who deconstruct PIE *deḱṃt as a compound word of *d(u̯)e ‘the other.*du̯oH(u). The PIE root ḱemt.’ and tu-wa ‘distant. “Among the most persuasive of these suggestions is the connection of *penkwe ‘five’ with *penkw-to-. This view is also advanced by Gamkrelidze and Ivanov.’ which he believes is possibly reflected in PIE *deḱṃt-. Martínez continues to say that the original semantic meaning of PIE *du. or as Martínez believes possibly *d(u).may itself have been a later development from an original root *du. The PIE numeral *deḱṃt yields Sanskrit dáśa-.   75   . I. a similar semantic differentiation may have also occurred between PIE *du.in the pan-Germanic word for hand.and *oi-.’ + ḱṃt (zero-grade of ḱemt-) ‘hand’ (747).’ Sihler cites further lexical evidence of PIE *du. the reconstructed form for the number ‘ten’3 (402). Hittite pa-an-ku-uš.e. not this one here’ as evidenced in the Hittite words da-ma-a(i). Gamkrelidze. whole’ (L. Just as there was a conceptual distinction between PIE *sem.conveying a sense of ‘the other. is used in this study.and *du̯oH(u).‘all. *penkwu. i. Latin decem Gothic taihun.and *du̯oH(u)-. 2                                                                                                                           2 3 The PIE reconstructed form *du-.’ dan ‘second. etc.) that is ‘five’ = ‘the whole [hand]’” (402).‘(an)other. conjecture that the forms *semand *du.might have meant ‘the other one. Sihler.were originally lexemes to express spatio-temporal reference while *oi.

while the new PIE root *oi. since *oi.’ ‘now.‘two.’ whose deictic semantic features can be evidenced in the phrase ‘Where are you? I am over here.’ and ‘three’ were roots of deictic origin and meaning (206– 7. The lexicalization of ‘1’ as a numeral can only have taken place under pressure of the roots *du ‘two’ and *tri-. do not completely coincide. Examples of deictic words in English are ‘this. reiterating Gamkrelidze and Ivanov’s hypothesis. I’ll meet you there then. 210). Indo-European scholars posit that the PIE roots *sem.and *du.PIE *sem. Indic and Iranian.as Deictic Roots Martínez. Martínez.‘that other one (not here and now)’ possibly was the root that developed into the numerical lexeme *du̯oH(u).’ In contrast.’ ‘there. Similarly.in Iranian while *-ko. and even two groups which are otherwise so close. there.is extended by means of *-wo. states.is used in Indic.‘three’) may have originally been deictic in nature.and *du. who suggest that the numerals ‘one. existential oneness.(and also PIE *tr(i). (210–11)   76   . to which it was opposed…It can be realized that this process is relatively recent in Indo-European by the fact that the Indo-European languages use two different roots for this numeral. Okay. the deictic root *sem. The PIE deictic root *du.‘this one (here and now) whole’ never semantically developed into the numerical lexeme ‘one’ but rather retained its semantic meaning of conceptual.became the semantic marker for numerical oneness.’ ‘two.’ ‘that.’ and ‘then. Deixis is basically defined as a linguistic phenomenon by which the semantic understanding of a word is contextually dependent on the referential perspective of the position in time and space of the speaker(s). is in general consensus with other Indo-European linguists.’ ‘here. and then’ are contextual and can only be understood relative to the place and time of the speaker(s).’ In this example the meaning of ‘here.

closed. and possibly in PIE. I.’ The following exercise perhaps might help to illustrate the semantic contrast in English between this set of words that connote other with those for non-other. rather than in semantic binary opposition. there is a semantic continuum of lexemes in contrast to the word other. not I. this. the concept of otherness in English. as a concept in cognitive contrast to the idea of otherness. and possibly in other languages.’ it yields the semantically contrasted set ‘not one. I suggest that a model begins to unfold that semantically posits the idea of wholeness. represented by PIE *du-.’ all of which convey a semantic meaning of something or someone that is ‘other. This semantic framework can perhaps better be understood by exploring the underlying concept of otherness and the lexemes that connote its semantic opposite of non-otherness. lexically expressed by PIE *sem-. here. down. right. not whole.’ Based on these lexico-semantic observations. can be seen to be in semantic contrast to the idea of wholeness. not this. In English.’ etc. Some possible words in English within this semantic continuum of nonotherness might include ‘one.. whatever is not part of ‘the one whole’ is conceptualized as being ‘the one other.’ ‘left. In English.’ ‘open. there is actually no one specific lexeme in semantic opposition to the word other. female. Unlike with certain words that have a pure binary semantic value such as ‘up.‘Wholeness/Oneness’ and ‘Otherness/Twoness’ as Semantic Fields In essence. I   77   . whole. Thus. Instead. we. instead of there being just one word.’ ‘male. this. the same binary opposition does not exist with the word other. we. the word other in English can better be said to be in semantic contrast to other words.’ as well as the first person pronouns ‘I.’ In this manner. whole. Placing the English word ‘not’ before the set of words ‘one. not we.

I believe that this conceptual model can now be extended to the lexicon of the Ṛgveda. specifically within the Vedic Sanskrit language of the Ṛgveda. linguistic relics of this idea appear to have remained in the   78   . duality. as it becomes possible to identify and define the set of lexemes of wholeness by contrasting this set to the group of lexemes that expressed the idea of otherness. etc.was perhaps the morpheme embedded within the semantic field that connoted otherness. I further conjecture that PIE *sem.and *oi. integration. totality. PIE *du. and fragmentation. In the Ṛgveda the set of lexemes that expressed the notion of wholeness were in possible semantic contrast to the set of lexemes that conveyed the concept of otherness.to express respectively ‘one’ as singularity versus ‘one’ as wholeness.are morphemes contained within the respective semantic fields that contrasted wholeness with otherness. Understanding this general conceptual binarism between the idea of wholeness and otherness as distinct semantic fields might provide a deeper understanding of the concept of wholeness in both PIE and in Vedic Sanskrit. It is possible that PIE *sem.have chosen the semantic field of otherness to be in contrast to the set of lexemes for wholeness in the Ṛgveda. This conceptual distinction between the semantic fields of wholeness and otherness became further expressed through lexicon in the descendant IE languages. twoness. separation. Reflexes of PIE *sem.and *sem.in the Ṛgveda Having established the theoretical framework within PIE of the development and cognitive distinction between *oi. oneness.was the morpheme that expressed the notions of wholeness.and *du. unity. Conversely.

Ṛgvedic lexicon.e. “The ograde o-stem derivative *somo. This assertion is voiced by Sihler who states. Within the Ṛgveda the morphemes samá-.in the Ṛgveda The PIE root *sem.is used in this research. Furthermore.’ the preposition sám ‘together with.48.)” (406). one together.in the form *somH-o and not from som-o.and Avestan hama.possibly connote the fundamental semantic concept of ‘oneness’ as wholeness and unity.derives from the e-grade ablaut of PIE *sem-. which in the Ṛgveda likely became semantically distinct from those lexemes that expressed ‘one’ as wholeness.occurs 65 times in the Ṛgveda with a generally consistent meaning wherever it is found to convey the sense of equivalency and similarity between two or more objects. Sihler substantiates his argument by citing Bruggman’s Law whereby PIE *o-grade roots in open syllables yield Indo-Iranian -ā-. while sa. While Martínez and other IE linguists reconstruct the PIE forms *sem-. For the purpose of consistency and simplicity the PIE form *sem. as one.and Sa. i. Saṃ. The Vedic form samá.‘equal.is widely attested in the meaning ‘same’ as in Ved. isolation and uniqueness.‘co-. followed by the laryngeal -H. saṃ-. paró hí mártiyair ási samó devaír utá śriyā́ abhí khyaḥ pūṣan pŕ̥tanāsu nas tuvám ávā nūnáṃ yáthā purā (6.expressed the concept of ‘one’ as a number and as singularity. Conversely.19)                                                                                                                           4 The prefix saṃ. and sa. like.’ shows reflexes in the Ṛgveda as the word samá.’4 As an adjective and noun the word samá. as otherwise the reflex would have been xsāma-. etc.adheres to proper CVRC morphophonemics of the reconstructed proto-language. together. it is more likely that the root was *semH-.‘one whole. *semH. Av.can only be based on a morpheme with a closed syllable. similar. forms point to *somH-o.derives from the zerograde ablaut of PIE *sṃ-. samá-. not -a-.and sa.’ and as the prefixes saṃ.   79   . the Vedic Sanskrit lexeme éka. same. hama-…(The InIr. as evidenced in the following verse in a hymn to Puṣan.

help us now just as in the past. and shared likeness between different people or ideas. in its sandhi formation of samás-. the semantics of the prefixes saṃ. 1473–74.that convey the sense of oneness as a metaphor for wholeness. with. 1463–64.in the Ṛgveda conveys the sense of ‘co-. I choose the following examples of words in the Ṛgveda to demonstrate a possible underlying original semantic quality of the prefixes sam. joined. together.’ While the meaning of the substantive samá. 1459–60.and the roots sam. 1481. This point can be seen in the following verse of a hymn to Indra. you (Indra) were born together with the Dawns. You. as well as in other instances in the Ṛgveda the word samá.’ In the preceding verse the word samó.and sa.’ however this meaning is not universal.expressing wholeness and collective oneness.’ whose semantic function is prepositional and requires that the noun it modifies be in the instrumental case. 1485–1500). favor us in battles. united as one.and sa. (Indra) creating bright form to the unformed. Certain instances of the prefixes saṃ.and sa-in the Ṛgveda. has the semantic function of comparing Puṣan as being ‘equal’ to the gods in splendor.‘You indeed are beyond mortals.   80   . Here.3) ‘O mortal ones. Puṣan.are more contextual and not as readily transparent as with samá. similarity. ketúṃ kṛṇvánn aketáve péśo maryā apeśáse sám uṣádbhir ajāyathāḥ (1. thus.6.and the preposition sám are relatively straightforward. are connected with the original PIE root *sem.expresses equality. creating shape to the shapeless. For a full attestation and frequency of the word sama. 1467–68.and sa. in splendor equal to the gods. A similar situation occurs with sám ‘together with.and sám.and sa. refer to Lubotsky (1454–55.in the Ṛgveda possibly reflect instances where they might convey a sense of wholeness and. The predominant meaning of the prefixes sam.

The semantic meaning of saṃvát.e.’ udvát. May He. landscape’ aṃhoyúvas tanúvas tanvate ví váyo mahád duṣṭáram pūrviyā́ya sá saṃváto návajātas tuturyāt siṃháṃ ná kruddhám abhítaḥ pári ṣṭhuḥ (5. whole directions. (Agni) newly-born.’ As Macdonell states in his Vedic Grammar the suffix -vat “forms a few f[eminine] abstract substantives.as a noun that derives from the root saṃexpressing a locational sense of wholeness and omni-directionality from the referential perspective of the speaker(s). the deictic roots saṃ. below’ occur in their most fundamental morphological form when attached to the suffix -vat. i.e. slope.+ the suffix -vat to form the feminine abstract noun samvát-. forward. depth.’ In each of these instances. all. inflected here in this verse as the accusative plural saṃváto < saṃvátas to mean ‘all.’ The word samvát. spread out in omnidirection (i. mountain.’ and ni. height.15.e.‘up.as ‘omni-directional.breaks down into the word saṃ.‘upward direction. i.Samvát. like (those who spread out) standing around an angry lion. expressing local position” (263–64). above.‘down.   81   . i.e. This situation likely implies a very archaic morphology of these words and indicates the fundamental and original semantic meaning of saṃvát. i.‘whole direction.’ ud.’ pra. almost exclusively from prepositions.‘forward direction.‘whole.’ and nivát‘downward direction. ahead. throughout the whole lands). whole direction’ can also be extrapolated by examining the other Ṛgvedic words where the suffix -vat occurs–pravát.‘toward.e.3) ‘(Their) bodies free from distress (they) present the great incomparable food (of the sacrifice) to the ancient one.

completely’ tuváṃ tám indra párvatam mahā́m urúṃ vájreṇa vajrin parvaśáś cakartitha ávāsr̥jo nívr̥tāḥ sártavā́ apáḥ satrā́ víśvaṃ dadhiṣe kévalaṃ sáhaḥ (1. god of rain.’ in the context of the words saṃvátand saṃvatsará. i. You have wholly made for yourself all absolute power.’ that is. the frogs have uttered forth (their) voice inspired by Parjanya. year’ saṃvatsaráṃ śaśayānā́ brāhmaṇā́ vratacāríṇaḥ vā́cam parjányajinvitām prá maṇḍū́kā avādiṣuḥ (7.implying the concept of something as ‘one whole. an astronomical year. split that wide massive mountain piece by piece with the vajra as weapon.1) ‘After having lain (quietly) for a whole cycle (year) like brahmans performing a vow of silence.but is used metaphorically to signify the concept of a ‘year. with.e. You let loose the enclosed waters to flow. complete cycle.‘one whole duration. which can also occur in its alternative allomorph -san (150).conveying a meaning of ‘together.literally means something that is saṃvat. the word saṃvatsará. the word saṃvatsará. Satrā́ .’ As Burrows claims in The Sanskrit Language.57. In this instance.‘in one whole place. i.’ has its etymological origins traced back to the PIE root *sem.Samvatsará . wholly.plus the suffix -sa + the heteroclitic marker -r/-n to produce the thematic adjectival affix -sara-.’ In this verse.is comprised of the word saṃvat.the form echoes the original meaning of wholeness and totality found in the PIE root *sem-. vajra-weaponed Indra.’   82   . Rather than the root sáṃ.103.e. which is often translated by the Sanskrit dictionaries as ‘year. the word saṃvatsará-.6) ‘You. by one whole manner.

In this verse the word satrā́ appears as an archaic locative form in an adverbial syntactic sense conveying the meaning ‘by one whole manner, i.e. wholly, fully, completely.’ The breakdown of the word satrā́ is sa- + the suffix -trā́. According to Macdonell, the suffix ‘forms adverbs with a local sense, mostly from pronominal or cognate stems” (213). In the Ṛgveda, the suffix -trā́ (or sometimes as -tra) is additionally evidenced in a handful of roots that express manner and location. Examples of these words are á-tra ‘here in this respect, in this way, here at this time,’ anyá-tra ‘elsewhere, otherwise, in another manner,’ viśvá-tra ‘everywhere, always,’ asma-trā́ ‘among us,’ puru-trā́ ‘by many means, many times, variously,’ and bahu-trā́ ‘in many ways or places, amongst many.’ It is from the meaning of these other affixed words, formed by the suffix -trā́ on to a base root, that a meaning of satrā́ becomes more visible. In the context of this word satrā́ in the preceding verse, if the root sa- were to mean ‘joint, common,’ satrā́ would mean ‘by joint manner, in a common way.’ This meaning is not conveyed in the hymn above, rather the sense is of Indra wholly and fully manifesting his own power. From this context it is possible to see that the root sa- in the word satrā́ derives from the PIE meaning of *sṃ- meaning ‘whole, as one.’

Sádā- ‘always, perpetually, wholly, continually’ nū́ me bráhmāṇi agna úc chaśādhi tuváṃ deva maghávadbhyaḥ suṣūdaḥ rātaú siyāma ubháyāsa ā́ te yūyám pāta suastíbhiḥ sádā naḥ (7,1,20) ‘Agni, now lead up (to the gods) my prayers; you, O God, keep the munificent ones aright. May you favor us both. You (gods), protect us wholly (always) with well-being.’

 

83  

The word sádā- breaks down into the parts sa- + the suffix –dā. Just as with the case of the suffix -trā́, the suffix -dā, again according to Macdonell, forms “adverbs of time almost exclusively from pronominal roots” (213). Examples in the Ṛgveda of words with the suffix -dā that express temporal adverbial meaning are i-dā́ ‘now, at this moment,’ ta-dā́ ‘then, at that time,’ ka-dā́ ‘when, at what time,’ ya-dā́ ‘whenever,’ and sarva-dā́ ‘at all times.’5 Similarly, it is possible to extrapolate a meaning of sádā- as ‘one whole time, i.e. always, perpetually, continually.’

Simá- ‘self, all, every, whole’ tám ít pr̥chanti ná simó ví pr̥chati svéneva dhī́ro mánasā yád ágrabhīt ná mr̥ṣyate prathamáṃ nā́paraṃ váco asyá krátvā sacate ápradṛpitaḥ (1,145,2) ‘They ask of him that one does not indeed ask oneself what the wise one grasped with his own mind. He does not forget the first nor the last word, he continues without carelessness by his own mental ability.’ In this final example of the PIE root *sem- reflecting in Vedic Sanskrit with the sense of oneness as wholeness, there exists the very interesting and curious word simá-, a pronoun that means ‘all, every, whole, entire.’ Its etymology is uncertain, but attempts have been made to connect simá- with the other words samá-, saṃ-, and sa-, and accordingly to the PIE root *sem-. Gamkrelidze and Ivanov demonstrate that there are similar lexical instances in Vedic Sanskrit where PIE *e, in addition to yielding Sanskrit a also produces Sanskrit i. Not only does this vowel alternation occur between Vedic
                                                                                                                         
5

There also exists in the Ṛgveda the word sádam, based on the root sá- plus the suffix -dam in a similar temporal adverbial meaning of ‘always, wholly, perpetually’ as in pāhí sádam íd viśvā́yuḥ ‘protect (us) wholly lifelong’ (1,27,3).   84  

Sanskrit simá- and samá-, other examples include sínam ‘provisions’ versus sanóti ‘he obtains’ (from PIE *senH-); and śíkvan- ‘capable, smart’ versus śákvan- ‘powerful, able, mighty.’ Gamkrelidze and Ivanov attempt to explain this peculiar root alternation by saying that, “These forms may be interpretable as relics of another ablaut grade” (226f). Thus, in addition to the full-grade of PIE *sem-, *som- and the zero-grade *sṃ-, there may have also existed a PIE reduced grade of *sem-. While Vedic Sanskrit samá- derived from PIE *som(H)-, saṃ- from PIE *sem-, and sa- from PIE *sṃ-, the word simápossibly may have derived from PIE *sem(H)-o. While the morphology of Vedic simá- is still uncertain, what is clear is its semantic relationship to the words samá-, saṃ- and sato express oneness in a pronominal reflexive sense. The meaning of simá- does not carry the sense of ‘joint, common, together’ but rather expresses a reflexive meaning of ‘whole self, each self, one’s self.’

Archaic Morphology of Vedic Saṃ- and SaHaving now cited lexical evidence of certain key lexemes in the Ṛgveda that contain the forms saṃ- and sa-, a possible pattern emerges. In addition to the words samvát-, saṃvatsará-, satrā́, sádā, and simá- sharing a semantic connection expressing oneness as wholeness, there is another salient feature among this set of lexemes. What these words in the Ṛgveda possess in common is an archaic morphological structure. In the case of samvát-, saṃvatsará-, satrā́, and sádā the indeclinable deictic PIE root *semor its zero-grade allomorph *sṃ- is directly affixed to PIE suffixes that are as equally archaic. The numerous examples of words in the Ṛgveda where the forms saṃ- and saappear as the first member of compound nouns (e.g. saṃvíd- ‘whole-knowing, i.e.

 

85  

A different situation results when the roots saṃ.< *sem-udr-ó3. If what Gamkrelidze and Ivanov suggest is correct regarding the origin of simá.e. 1. saṃvatsará. saṃvatsará-. In the words samvát-. satrā́.is   86   . and samád. and sádā. sádā < PIE *sṃ-deH With the matter of the Ṛgvedic word simá-.as the relic of a rare PIE reduced-grade root *sem-. rather than ‘co-.‘maddening-together. satrā́ < PIE *sṃ-tro. the situation also attests to a very old root structure. joined.e. and sádā.and sa. with. saṃvatsará-. satrā́. i. *sṃ-treH (feminine) 4.< saṃ.‘one-water.< *sem-ṷíd2. 1.+ -vát < PIE *sem-ṷṇt 2.are not prefixed first members of compounds.consciousness’.and sa. the forms saṃ. this would place the word simáinto the same archaic morphological category as samvát-.’ Since PIE *sem. but are actually the original roots themselves extended with suffixes. ocean’. Their respective PIE morphological root structures are outlined below. it is now possible to understand why these words convey the meaning of wholeness and oneness. saṃvíd. samudrá. the word samá. i. together. If this assertion is correct and these words are relics of the extremely archaic PIE deictic root *sem-. samád.is also a late morphological derivative based on the thematic o-grade root *som(H)-ó-.< PIE *sem-ṷṇt-so-r-o 3.< *sṃ-madAdditionally. samudrá. saṃvát. battle’) are likely late derivational morphemes in PIE.occur in their original deictic root form.

Only in the very archaic words samvát-.‘one. sádā.in its neuter form becomes ékam when used as an adjective to modify a neuter noun.   87   . together. and simá. equal.in the Ṛgveda While the Vedic Sanskrit word éka. saṃvatsará-.“…is an underived form with an archaic type of root inflection…and an abundance of derivatives and combining forms of ancient type” (405).’ Éka. similar’ is likely a later semantic development reflected generally in lexicon with late PIE derivational morphological structure. he regards that the root formation of PIE *sem.to express the sense of ‘with. However.had a general meaning of the numeral ‘one. satrā́.’ The possible semantic explanation for this lexical exception follows.’ remnants of this original semantic meaning would likely be preserved in only those morphemes that possess an extremely old morphological structure. when the numerical form éka.has the original meaning of oneness as a metaphor for wholeness likely been retained. The word éka.’ there is an exception in the Ṛgveda where the word conveys a sense of oneness as a state of wholeness and totality. Recalling Sihler’s assertion from earlier in the chapter. This new semantic usage of *sem. The meaning of *sem.to express collectivity and similarity possibly occurred in late PIE after the creation of the PIE numeral *oi.conjectured to be the original root to express the abstract concept of ‘one.is made into a neuter abstract noun and occurs in apposition with the neuter pronouns tád and idám as well as with the neuter abstract noun víśvam in the Ṛgveda it expresses the idea of ‘The One.

2) ‘There was no death nor immortality. the precursor to the concept of Brahman. there was nothing whatsoever.129.10.2.18. at that time.62. the phrase tán mahinā́jāyataíkam contains the sandhi variant of tád ékam.3) ‘Darkness was in the beginning hidden by darkness. the Hymn of Creation. this Whole was water.Tád Ékaṃ As a neuter adjective the word ékam occurs 79 times in the Ṛgveda.129.129. while the phrase tád ékam as the concept to express wholeness is limited to only the following instances–5. 88     . 7. 10. indistinguishable. That which came into being was covered with the void. one finds the concept of tád ékam beginning to express the nascent philosophical concept of ‘The One’ as Universal Being.33.3. and 10.17. The One. the phrase tád ékam does not exclusively express the meaning of ‘The One’ as Universal Being. breathed by its own making. Furthermore. even in these relatively few stanzas.’ táma āsīt támasā gūḷhám ágre apraketáṃ saliláṃ sárvam ā idám tuchyénābhú ápihitaṃ yád ā́sīt 6 tápasas tán mahinā́jāyataíkam (10. breathless.’ and even those instances where they do occur are in the late Ṛgvedic language.1. 7.’                                                                                                                           6 In this stanza.129.129. Other than that. In the Ṛgvedic hymn 10. The One arose through the power of heat. There was no distinguishing sign of night and of day. Only in the following stanzas is there a clear connotation of tád ékam expressing the sense of ‘The One (Universal Being). ná mṛtyúr āsīd amŕ̥taṃ ná tárhi ná rā́triyā áhna āsīt praketáḥ ā́nīd avātáṃ svadháyā tád ékaṃ tásmād dhānyán ná paráḥ kíṃ canā́sa (10.

2) “One fire burns in many ways.‘one alone. can be likely explained through usage of the abstract noun ékam in post-Ṛgvedic literature.’ Based on the evidence in the IndoEuropean languages for oneness as wholeness and totality being expressed by PIE *sem-.54. éka evā́gnír bahudhā́ sámiddha ékaḥ sū́ryo víśvam ánu prábhūtaḥ ékaivóṣā́ḥ sárvam idáṃ ví bhāti ékaṃ vā́ idáṃ ví babhūva sárvam (8. as originally conveyed by PIE *oiko. mahó devā́n bíbhratī ná vyathete éjad dhruvám patyate víśvam ékaṃ cárat patatrí víṣuṇaṃ ví jātám (3. The One All rules over anything born differently that stirs.Ékam Idám The word ékam is also found in conjunction with the word idám in the following stanza of the Ṛgveda.expressed numerical singularity and uniqueness. one sun illumines everything.58. it would be expected that the ancient Indian concept of ‘The One’ in the Ṛgveda would be expressed by an allomorph of Vedic saṃ-.   89   .” Ékam Víśvam In another verse. This One verily becomes the Whole.’ In the examples cited the word ékam is used not as the numerical neuter adjective but as an abstract neuter noun to express an existential state of oneness as unified wholeness and totality. The use of ékam. is fixed. rather than a Vedic Sanskrit reflex of PIE *sem-. the word ékam is paired with víśvam. moves or flies. one dawn shines upon the All.8) ‘(Heaven and Earth) do not waver bearing the mighty gods. This notion is a noted exception that goes against the previously stated position that Vedic éka.

singularity. It is also appropriate that the word should be a negative qualification. this was Being alone. in its very interior is nondual.1 sad eva saumyedam agra āsīd ekam evādvitīyam ‘In the beginning. indivisibility and unity rather than the semantic set of words that express one as numerical value. The ultimate object of any human experience is one…This One. sam-.’ As Pannikar reflects in The Vedic Experience regarding the concept of ékam. one only without a second.   90   .2. that is. which has no other one at its side. for only in this way is it possible to qualify the eka without destroying its internal unity…The eka of this Utterance is indubitably without a second. (656) It is now possible to understand how the concept of tád ékam as ‘the One’ falls into the same semantic field of words that connote wholeness. which in itself.’ In this one passage the phrase ekam evādvitīyam suggests that ékam means not ‘one’ as part of a numerical series. Even grammatically the word is painstakingly chosen to denote. is qualified in a very special way. where the phrase tád ékam ‘The One’ likely expresses the concept of ‘The One (without a second). The word advitīya or nondual has sometimes been considered to stem from a monistic world view. this ekam. advitīya. This is a unique oneness.’ This assertion becomes plausible when considering the semantic development of tád ékam in later Vedic literature. totality. but ‘one’ as something that is advitīyam. It is in fact the qualifying word. but a-dvaita. The phrase tád ékam becomes very frequent in later Vedāntic texts to express the philosophical concept of Brahman as witnessed in the line from Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6. and most important. but this is not necessarily so. and differentiation. that oneness which has no second. which renders the affirmation of oneness fruitful and rescues it from being a barren tautology. As previously established. not ekatva.The process that is likely taking place with the noun ékam in the Ṛgveda is ellipsis. ekātma. dear son.and the groups of words samá-. negation of all duality. there was a semantic distinction in the Ṛgveda between the words éka. and the like. kaivalya. literally meaning ‘(having) no second.

respectively. the root *oi.’ Only in the later period of the Ṛgveda did ékam become semantically congruent with sárvaṃ. wholeness and totality originally expressed by PIE *sem-. united. both of which in the post Ṛgvedic literature became synonymous with the notion of Brahman.to distinguish between ‘one’ as the number and ‘one’ as wholeness.was the result of a linguistic necessity in   91   .continued its essential conceptual semantic meaning of ‘together as one.becomes the abstract neuter noun ékam it expands its original numerical meaning of representing the number ‘one’ to express the existential state of ‘Oneness. However.and sa. as ‘one alone’ and ‘one together. when the root éka. In this sense. It is now conjectured that the PIE root *oi. the Universal One Being. the phrases tád ékam.was likely a later development than the root *sem-. Prior to the connotation of ékam to mean ‘The One. New Conceptual Model of ‘One’ and ‘Two’ in PIE and Vedic Sanskrit All of this evidence regarding the lexico-semantic evolution of the numerals ‘one’ and ‘two’ in PIE and Vedic Sanskrit allow a new conceptual model to be formed regarding the concept of wholeness. ékam idám.’ that is.’ The root *oibecame the lexeme in many of the IE languages to express the numerical concept of ‘one. united. as it occurs in the late Ṛgvedic language of Maṇṇdala 10. and ékam víśvam suggest that the idea of ‘The One’ was a metaphor in the Ṛgveda and in the subsequent Vedic literature to express the cosmological concept of wholeness. whole. The use of the abstract neuter noun ékam to express cosmological and existential oneness is likely late.’ the phrase that originally conveyed this meaning was likely (idáṃ) sárvaṃ ‘the (Undivided) Whole. both of which carried distinct semantic meaning.’ Furthermore. whole.’ while *sem.

’ Prior to the existence of *oirepresenting the number ‘one. PIE *oi.were deictic markers denoting a spatial. collectivity.‘not part of the whole’ as ‘that.’ and ‘now.also a deictic root that denoted a contextual sense from the referential perspective of the speaker or the group as ‘there.’   92   .‘whole’ as ‘this. and totality. wholeness. 1.’ there was no concept of ‘one’ as a number. between *sem. and oneness’ represented by the PIE root *sem-.‘two.was a root to express the concept of ‘one’ as a state of wholeness. This model now enables a better understanding of the semantics of wholeness both in PIE and in Vedic Sanskrit. unity. As Martínez.was the root *du. other.semantic contrast to the newly created morpheme *du̯oH(u). here. respectively.’ 3.’ which possibly developed from the deictic root *du-.’ and ‘then (both past or future). then. Semantically contrasted to PIE *sem. which can be summarized in the following way.’ ‘that one. Gamkrelidze and Ivanov previously stated. but only as an existential and conceptual state of ‘unity.‘two.and *du. In this sense PIE *sem. now’ and *du.as the number ‘one’ filled the conceptual ‘gap’ in the numerical series with the semantic development of *du̯oH(u). temporal and conceptual distinction that semantically differentiated. there. PIE *sem.’ ‘this one. It was originally a deictic root that denoted reference in space and time from the relative perspective of the speaker(s) in the context of ‘here.’ 2.

cognitively expressed otherness. while the morpheme *du.‘one’ eventually became the predominant lexeme for enumeration and counting in the IE languages by means of suffixation of *-no-. between the original PIE lexeme for conceptual ‘oneness’ as *sem. PIE *sem.to express the numerical concept of ‘two’ as a metaphor for ‘the other (separate from this here and now).and *du. there arose a lexico-semantic void and the necessity for a root to express the numerical concept of ‘one. and *-ko-. Eventually the deictic root *du. With the conceptual innovation of *du̯oH(u).were likely the morphemes contained within the respective semantic fields that connoted wholeness and otherness. *u̯o-. Both PIE *sem. A semantic distinction now occurred in late PIE.4. and totality. unity. collectivity.   93   .’ This numerical imbalance was resolved by usage of the PIE root *oi. The root *oi.‘this (one) here and now.morphologically developed to the root *du̯oH(u).and the newly created lexeme for numerical ‘oneness’ as *oi-. which eventually became reflected in the descendant Indo-European languages.’ 6.‘one. and division. twoness. 8. 5. separation.was the morpheme that cognitively expressed the idea of wholeness as metaphor for oneness.’ 7.’ a morphological extension of the PIE deictic pronoun *i.to express the numeral ‘two’ having now occurred.

and sa.9. but as deictic roots with suffixes.as ‘one’ for counting and enumeration and by saṃ-. not as compounds. totality and unity.as ‘one’ in a collective sense of wholeness.’ Similarly. This demarcation is evident in Vedic Sanskrit by the words éka. the lexemes in the Ṛgveda where the original semantic meaning of PIE *sem.conveys a sense of wholeness is in the neuter abstract noun ékam ‘The One. The exception where the Vedic Sanskrit numeral éka. 10.   94   .continues to express wholeness are those exhibiting the most archaic morphological structure.

primarily evident in the first person plural pronoun. The second is the binary feature found in the PIE verbal category between the inactive versus active distinction of certain verbs. grammatical and lexicosemantic. The first is the notion of inclusiveness and exclusiveness.   95   . between the idea of ‘one’ as wholeness and ‘two’ as otherness. as contrasted to otherness. Gamkrelidze and Ivanov believe that the typological feature of binarism is very archaic and forms an essential foundation of PIE grammatical structure. The deeply embedded typological structure of binarism is one that Indo-Europeanists believe permeated through various grammatical categories of the original PIE language. The objective is to determine if the grammatical binary features of inclusiveness versus exclusiveness and of inactive versus active offer important clues as to how the concept of wholeness. The binarism appears both in the presence of doublets in the lexicogrammatical system and in binary opposition on the content plane of Proto-Indo-European. When the earliest system of Indo-European grammatical categories — inflectional and derivational — is studied it becomes obvious that features of binarism penetrate the entire linguistic system. two of which are discussed in detail as part of this chapter. it is now possible to explore another fundamental and important linguistic feature of PIE–that of grammatical binarism. developed in Ṛgvedic language and thought. (233) This typological feature of binarism manifests in a variety of ways in PIE. relics of which are possibly evident in Vedic Sanskrit grammar and lexicosemantics.6) Wholeness as Metaphor for Inclusiveness and Being Having established the conceptual and semantic distinction in PIE and in Vedic Sanskrit. remotely evident in many of the descendant languages. They state.

where the pronominal system. reflecting the Indo-European opposition of two noun classes. which arose only much later when the individual dialects developed. where the referents belong to different classes). and Dravidian languages. like the nominal system. common and neuter. many Amerindian languages. as they are both speech-participants) and the other first plus third but not second person (exclusive ‘we’. The original binary nominal classification of Indo-European is also evident in the fact that the pronominal system has an inclusive/exclusive category…(as in most Australian. but toward a classification based on two basic groups. active and inactive. shows a grammatical classification into two genders. Austronesian. one expressing first plus second person (inclusive ‘we’. conceptual and semantic distinction by which speakers held a fundamental notion of speech participants being ‘inclusive’ or ‘exclusive’ of one’s ‘whole’ group. The binary classification of nouns into active and inactive classes reconstructed for the earliest Proto-Indo-European can be seen with particular clarity in the pronominal system. (253) I believe that it is possible now to reframe Gamkrelidze and Ivanov’s ideas into a corollary hypothesis regarding the principle of wholeness–there perhaps existed in PIE a grammatical. and Caucasian languages). The personal pronouns of Indo-European are oriented not toward grammatical gender oppositions.’ As Gamkrelidze and Ivanov assert. active and inactive…The evidence of these dialects coincides with the Hittite data. (253) These scholars’ hypothesis is noteworthy as it now establishes a conceptual framework within PIE language that extends this distinction between active versus inactive classes of nouns as an important binary distinction between inclusiveness and exclusiveness within the PIE pronominal system. some African languages of the Niger-Congo group. The inclusive/exclusive category involves an opposition of two first-person plural pronouns. As Gamkrelidze and Ivanov further state.Inclusiveness versus Exclusiveness in PIE Language I conjecture that the pronominal system of PIE is where the conceptualization of wholeness versus otherness manifests as a binary distinction between the ‘inclusive’ versus ‘exclusive’ pronoun ‘we. This new model proposes that the concept of ‘we’ in PIE was originally   96   . The following sections explore a possible alternative model to that of Gamkrelidze and Ivanov. where the referents belong to the same class.

Based on lexical evidence gathered by Gamkrelidze and Ivanov. This binary pronominal opposition between inclusiveness and exclusiveness is what PIE likely indicates. This original binary bifurcation and cognitive distinction of the first person non-singular pronoun was not retained in Vedic Sanskrit.’ Lexical data from Vedic Sanskrit and from the other IE languages might support this view. this pronominal binarism in the first person nonsingular pronoun can be reconstructed as PIE *ṷei-/*ṷes.’ Despite the fact that different languages reflect only one of the two PIE roots to represent the first person nonsingular pronoun.can be found among the IE descendant   97   . Reflexes of this Binary Pronominal Distinction in Vedic Sanskrit Gamkrelidze and Ivanov expand on their model of grammatical binarism by stating that the “Indo-European linguistic system. nor in the other IE branches.‘inclusive we’ and *mes‘exclusive we’ (254). what occurs in the extant IE languages is the predominance of either one of the two root pronouns to express the concept of ‘we’ in both dual and plural forms. should show traces of an inclusive/exclusive opposition in the pronominal system” (253). Instead.g.contextualized in a way that distinguished speech-participants who identified themselves as either included in the ‘one whole group or clan’ versus those who were excluded from the ‘one whole group or clan. in Lithuanian mēs ‘we.and *mes. e. Thus in Vedic Sanskrit. Gamkrelidze and Ivanov conjecture that PIE *ṷei-/*ṷesbecame the primary form reflected in the words vā́m ‘we two’ and vayám ‘we all.’ while other branches favored PIE *mes. linguistic fossils of this original grammatical and semantic distinction of the PIE morphemes *ṷei-/*ṷes. with its binary classification of nominals into active and inactive classes.

the PIE root *ṷes. the oblique stem of the pronoun vayám. asmá-d.may likely reflect in Vedic Sanskrit as the verbal ending of the first person dual -vas as in bhávā-vas ‘we two become. The Conceptual Distinction between the Dual and Plural Category Having established the possibility of the PIE roots *ṷei-/*ṷes. if indeed the first person plural verbal ending. what then is the possible connection of these PIE binary markers with the notion of inclusiveness versus exclusiveness in PIE and Ṛgvedic language? There is no question among Indo-Europeanists that the grammatical system of the earliest IE languages appeared to have verbal. and pronominal categories to express the notion of the                                                                                                                           7 The o-grade root of PIE *mos-. While Vedic Sanskrit vā́m and vayám likely derived from the PIE root *ṷei-. In addition to the PIE binary roots *ṷei-/*ṷes. as in asmā́-n. It is possible that PIE *mes-.’ etc. bhávā-mas(i) ‘we become. Certain lexical forms from Vedic Sanskrit suggest that both PIE roots appear to have been retained in the Indic language branch.and *mes-.coexisting in the Vedic Sanskrit first person non-singular pronominal and verbal system. and asmá-bhyam (254). is the likely origin of the first person plural verbal ending evident in Vedic Sanskrit -mas(i).languages. Gamkrelidze and Ivanov posit that the PIE pronominal root *mes. reflected in certain Vedic Sanskrit pronouns.’   98   .7 Similarly. also becomes the Latin ending –mus as in su-mus ‘we are’ and fuī-mus ‘we were. I hypothesize that this binary root distinction might have also left relics in the verbal endings of the descendant IE languages.’ Sihler lists a more full attestation of this verbal root in the Indo-European languages (454).likely occurs in Vedic Sanskrit -asma-. or in its o-grade form *mos-.as in s-más(i) ‘we are’. nominal.and *mes.

Reference to speaker and speech-participant(s) whom the speaker conceptualized as being ‘inclusive’ member(s).‘two’ he states that it is itself a dual nominal form (105). According to Forschheimner. in Fortson’s reconstruction of PIE *du̯oH(u). b. PIE singular first person 2. All of these points now indicate a possible model regarding the conceptual development of the first person pronoun into two distinct grammatical categories–singular and nonsingular. This possible notion is outlined below. an important aspect in linguistic typology is the belief that in languages in which a distinction between inclusiveness and exclusiveness occurs it is limited to the first person.’ and Lithuanian výr-u ‘two men’ as just few examples (115). Similarly.dual.   99   .’ Old Church Slavic grad-a ‘two cities. with the non-singular category further differentiating the speech-participants as being either conceptually inclusive or exclusive in the cognitive framework of the speaker. In fact. evidence of the dual abounds in the Ṛgveda with the category being used to refer specifically to objects. 1. Reference to speaker and other speech-participant(s) whom the speaker conceptualized as being ‘exclusive’ member(s). “only the first person distinguishes a form for one and a form for a group of which that one is a part…with a lexical plural in the first person and no plural in the other persons and in nouns” (65–66).as d(u)ṷ-ō. Fortson cites this dual category in Vedic Sanskrit dev-ā́ ‘two gods.’Homeric Greek anthrōp-ō ‘two men. body parts or deities that formed natural pairs such as the nouns padé ‘two feet’ and mitrā́-váruṇā ‘Mitra-Varuṇa. PIE non-singular first person a.’ With regard to the PIE pronouns.

’ 2. the notion ‘plural’ is not suitable for words like we. regardless of number. Two or more ‘exclusive’ speech-participants–speech-participants conceptually consider some. as ‘inclusive’ members of the ‘whole.This model now provides a possible explanation of the tripartite grammatical distinction in the IE languages of singular. regardless of number. in my view. One speech act participant–reference to the speaker as the pronoun ‘I. dual. and plural as ‘grammatical number. Two or more ‘inclusive’ speech-participants–speech-participants conceptually consider everyone. 1. Rather than the IE languages categorizing singular. Cysouw believes that this conceptualization of the first person non-singular pronoun into a further sub-division between inclusive and exclusive is far more accurate based on his assertion that “semantically. to reframe the above model based on Cysouw’s paradigm. It is now possible. but also from the perspective of cognitive linguistics.’ an alternative model is for languages to conceptualize speech-participants as being either inclusive or exclusive.’ This category likely produces the grammatical category of the first person dual pronoun and verbal endings.’ This category likely produces the grammatical category of the first person plural pronoun and verbal endings.   100   . because we is not the plural of I” (296). dual. as ‘exclusive’ members of the ‘whole. 3. and plural not from just linguistic typology.

and number congruence was carried out for both substantives and verbs” (201-202). (155)   101   . As Fortson declares. in part. With regard to the PIE pronominal system Shields believes “that dual forms were absent in the early Indo-European set of personal pronouns” and “that the dual inflectional category emerged at a very late date–an argument based. One would ordinarily expect that the older known languages of the family should resemble the proto-language the most closely. and that the traditional reconstruction of PIE is perfectly valid. Indo-Europeanists generally concur that the dual as a distinct grammatical category is an innovation that occurred in late PIE prior to the separation of the major language groups. Another important piece of grammatical evidence that indicates the notion that the grammatical category of the dual was a late PIE innovation is the lack of the dual in the Anatolian branch of PIE. the Anatolian branch of PIE was likely the first member to split off from the proto-language. Absent are apparently such bedrock IE formations as simple thematic verbs. the aorist…the dual…One interpretation of these facts is that the forms missing from Anatolian were simply lost. But evidence has been growing that Anatolian split off at a time when the development of some of these categories…was only nascent. In Lehman’s Pre-Indo-European he advocates a similar belief and states that the dual category “was not consistently applied in late PIE and the early dialects. Subsequently application became more regular. According to current IE linguistic scholarship. on the attested underdevelopment of specific inflectional forms and the variety of attested dual markers” (58). and it’s true that Anatolian does preserve a number of important archaisms…But most striking are the forms and categories that it does not have.The Dual as Late Innovation in PIE Despite the strong usage of the dual categories in many ancient IE languages. The main difference posed by Anatolian for Indo-Europeanists is the fact that its structure is quite different from that of PIE as traditionally reconstructed.

pronominal. but a category established on cognitive and conceptual binarism inclusiveness and exclusiveness by speech-participants. I hypothesize that this binarism was perhaps grounded in a deeply rooted cognitive paradigm of identifying and categorizing speech-participants as either inclusive or exclusive of the speaker’s conceptual ‘one whole. united. If this assertion is correct. then the dual grammatical category expressed by actual morphemes and roots is a much later innovation in PIE.’ If the speech-participant(s) was in some way ‘joined with.Given the commonly held opinion that the Anatolian languages diverged from the common proto-language at an extremely early period. this scenario would now account for the lack of the dual grammatical category in both Anatolian and in the very early PIE language. was based not on grammatical number. This point adds to the hypothesis that the dual grammatical category in PIE might have developed from an earlier grammatical and conceptual model: One that. at one’ with the ‘whole’ (reflected by the PIE morpheme   102   . and plural but one that categorized all speech-participants into a fundamental conceptual inclusive/exclusive distinction. dual. I advance. I suggest a possible connection between the binary features of inclusiveness with the notion of wholeness. Connection between Grammatical Inclusiveness and Conceptual Wholeness Based on the points presented in the previous sections. The late innovation in PIE of nominal. and verbal categories of the dual marker indicates the possibility that early PIE originally employed another way to express the grammatical morphemes for the non-singular category. This feature was based not on a tripartite grammatical distinction between singular. in addition to a cognitive relationship between exclusiveness and otherness.

the binary feature does not explicitly reflect in lexicon or grammar of the descendant IE languages. there perhaps existed in PIE language the idea of exclusiveness as being a cognitive metaphor for otherness and separation. if the speech-participant(s) was considered in some way ‘disconnected. However.*sem-) to which the speaker belonged. Similarly. While this binarism between inclusive and exclusive is possibly evident in the early PIE morphemes *ṷei-/*ṷes. the PIE language may have reflected a cognitive process of PIE speakers who perceived a conceptual distinction between inclusiveness and exclusiveness to those who were ‘with the one whole group’ and those who were ‘other than the whole group. Furthermore. separate. Only much later after the divergence of the Anatolian branch from the proto-language. while the ‘exclusive non-singular’ morpheme was the PIE root *mes-.’ As subsequent chapters discuss in greater detail. other’ from the ‘whole’ (represented by PIE *du-) to which the speaker belonged. did the PIE roots *ṷei-/*ṷes. the binary category of inclusiveness and exclusiveness creates the basis for a possible deeply embedded grammatical structure that conceptually unifies the notion of wholeness as a metaphor for inclusiveness in early PIE language. the ‘exclusive non-singular’ grammatical morphemes were used. Conversely. In PIE this ‘inclusive non-singular’ morpheme was perhaps the root *ṷei-/*ṷes-. In essence.and *mes-. or exclusive.develop into a new grammatical function as the non-singular first person pronouns of the dual and plural. part of the whole. the factors that likely determined if members were identified as being inclusive. respectively. the appropriate grammatical morphemes of ‘inclusive non-singular’ were used. I believe that relics of this archaic grammatical feature might still appear in the Ṛgveda.and *mes. separate   103   .

from the whole. were perhaps based on cognitive and cultural factors. Table 1 Lexical Expressions and Reflexes of the Grammatical Features of Inclusive and Exclusive in PIE and Vedic Sanskrit Proto-Indo-European (PIE) Expression Grammatical feature Cultural Inclusive Part of the ‘One Whole’ Exclusive Separate from the ‘One Whole’ Semantic Wholeness Oneness Otherness Twoness Lexical PIE root *ṷei-/*ṷesPIE root *mesReflexes in Vedic Sanskrit Pronouns vā́m ‘we two’ -asma. The following table now summarizes this hypothesis that describes the important feature of inclusive and exclusive binarism and its semantic connection to the idea of wholeness in PIE and Vedic Sanskrit. These scholars theorize that this binary feature of the verbal system into active and inactive is an expected linguistic extension of a similar grammatical opposition in the nominal system between animate versus inanimate nouns. Gamkrelidze and Ivanov point out that another deep binary grammatical split occurred in the PIE verbal system between active versus inactive. They state   104   .(the oblique stem of the pronoun vayám Verbal endings -vas ‘dual ending’ mas(i)‘plural ending’   Binary Feature of Active versus Inactive in PIE Verbal System In addition to PIE having a binary opposition in the conceptual and grammatical distinction between inclusive and exclusive.

> Vedic √bhū.> Vedic √(a)r‘is fitted.‘to be(come) ‘to lie’ *ḱei. However. a position outlined in detail by Sihler (443).> Vedic √sad‘to sit. The original semantic principle for classification of the Indo-European verb forms was not transitivity. (255) The grammatical and semantic distinction between active versus inactive appears to have been lost from the original PIE language. but a semantic classification into active and inactive. being replaced eventually by an opposition based on transitivity or on aspect (active versus eventive) in the verbal system of the descendant IE languages. dwell’ Active   105   . I have created the table below.The division of verbs into two subsets implied by the binary noun classification leads naturally to a semantic grouping of verbs into two classes based on whether they expressed active or inactive semantics.> Vedic √ās‘to sit down’ *sed. depending on the nature of the verbal action or state expressed. supported’ *steH.> Vedic √sas‘to sleep’ ‘to stand’ *Hor.> Vedic √śī‘to lie’ *ses. remnants of these binary sets of verbal roots in the extant IE branches support Gamkrelidze and Ivanov’s notion that an opposition based on active and inactive did exist in the early PIE verb. Table 2 Inactive versus Active Verbs in PIE and Vedic Sanskrit Verbal Meaning Grammatical feature Inactive ‘to be’ *Hes-> Vedic √as.‘to be’ *bhuH. adapted on lexical data by Gamkrelidze and Ivanov (255) that lists examples of these binary verbal roots in PIE and their reflections in Vedic Sanskrit.> Vedic √sthā‘to stand’ ‘to sit’ *Hēs. which is a semantic opposition independent of nominal classification.

While these scholars convincingly present lexical evidence demonstrating the grammatical and semantic binary opposition between certain sets of verbs that are active or inactive. It is for this reason that in the table above I contradict the lexical data presented by Gamkrelidze and Ivanov by opting to place both PIE *Hes‘to be’ and *Hēs.‘to sit’ in the inactive verbal category and not as active verbs. who believe it is actually the contrary that is perhaps the likely case. My opinion appears to match that of some other IndoEuropeanists.Before proceeding further. was originally inactive and developed into the active category at a later period in the proto-language (108). Instead. not all IndoEuropeanists agree with their verbal categorization. textual evidence suggests that this demarcation likely became obscured in Vedic Sanskrit. it is important to clarify a point of disagreement that I take with one part of Gamkrelidze and Ivanov’s model. Binary Feature of Active versus Inactive in Vedic Sanskrit As with the collapse of the grammatical distinction in the PIE pronominal system between inclusive and exclusive in the IE branches. Gamkrelidze and Ivanov’s classification that PIE *Hes.is an inactive verb has an opposing perspective. a similar absence of an explicit and overt semantic distinction occurs with reflexes of PIE active and inactive verbs in Vedic Sanskrit. it appears that the Vedic Sanskrit verbal system developed binary opposition based on transitivity and   106   . Bader in her research on the PIE roots for the verb ‘to be’ postulates that PIE *Hes-. in addition to a handful of other archaic PIE verbal roots that grammatically and semantically behave as active verbs.is an active verb and that PIE *bhuH. Even though PIE originally held a grammatical and semantic distinction between binary verbs based on active versus inactive meaning.

2) ‘O Vastoṣpati.and √bhū. be(come) dear and easy-going for us.as Verbs The verbal roots √as.1) ‘O Vastoṣpati.on aspect (stative versus eventive).in the Ṛgveda.and √bhū. However. favor us with it. acknowledge us. The second is due to both verbal forms being identically conjugated in the second person singular present active imperative.can both be generally translated as the verb ‘to be’ in the Ṛgveda. the following two stanzas possibly demonstrate a semantic distinction between Vedic Sanskrit √as.’ I purposefully chose both of these stanzas for two reasons. Rejoice in us like a father toward (his) sons. O Indu. which as stated in the Methods chapter is composed in older Ṛgvedic and thus likely reflects an earlier stage of the Vedic Sanskrit language. vā́stoṣ pate práti jānīhi asmā́n suāveśó anamīvó bhavā naḥ yát tvémahe práti tán no juṣasva śáṃ no bhava dvipáde śáṃ cátuṣpade (7.as relics of the archaic PIE verbal dichotomy between active versus inactive. Whatever we desire of you. a point evidenced with the semantic distinction of √as. due to the forms belonging to the same   107   .versus √bhū.54. May we be ever-young in your friendship. Both of these points minimize any possible semantic variance. You. be our bestower increasing domestic wealth in cattle and horses. Semantic distinction between Vedic Sanskrit √as.versus √bhū. The first pertains to both stanzas coming from the same hymn in Maṇḍala Seven.54.’ vā́stoṣ pate pratáraṇo na edhi gayasphā́no góbhir áśvebhir indo ajárāsas te sakhiyé siyāma pitéva putrā́n práti no juṣasv (7. remover of the amivā-disease. Be(come) auspicious onto us in (our) bipeds (humans) and quadrupeds (animals).

59. stative quality expressing a permanent state of existence. as the following stnazas of the Ṛgveda indicate.occur in their root forms in the Ṛgvedic words sv-as-ti and bhū-ti. The use of bhava implies that the deity Vastoṣpati ‘become. remain. eventive quality. both verbs being affixed with the suffix -ti directly on to the root. and similarly diminish any likely grammatical variance. there still exist certain.is not uniform in the Ṛgveda. índrāvaruṇā saumanasám ádr̥ptaṃ rāyás póṣaṃ yájamāneṣu dhattam prajā́m puṣṭím bhūtim asmā́su dhattaṃ dīrghāyutvā́ya prá tirataṃ na ā́yuḥ (8.7)   108   . instances where this grammatical and nuanced semantic distinction did occur.and √bhū. As with the verbal forms cited above.synchronic and stylistic period.occurring in nominal formations. Semantic distinction between Vedic Sanskrit √as. Conversely. The verbal roots √as. come into being. abide’ and likely has an intransitive. it appears that both bháva and edhi bear a subtle semantic distinction in their respective usage.and √bhū.as Nouns Further lexical examples in the Ṛgveda suggest a possible semantic distinction between Vedic Sanskrit √as. In the two stanzas presented. auspiciousness’ and create the abundance into existence. However as the above example hopefully demonstrates. the semantic distinction with the nominal reflexes is also subtle.and *bhuH. in the second stanza the imperative edhi translates as ‘be. In the first verse. but admittedly rare. The archaic PIE distinction between active versus inactive in the verbal roots *Hes.and √bhū. due to the forms sharing identical inflection. produce’ and has more of a transitive. the imperative bhava can translate as ‘become. generate’ śáṃ ‘happiness. generate.

’ further highlighting the earthly and worldly qualities behind the word bhūtí-. abundance of wealth on to those performing sacrifice. physical. Vedic Sanskrit √bhū. the dative feminine singular of suastí-. In the first stanza to Indra and Varuṇa the objects of desire tend to be material and physical. Grant on to us progeny. the origin of English physi-cal. even though Puṣan is called rayír bhágaḥ ‘the dispenser of wealth’ and suastí sarvadhā́tamaḥ ‘Hail.’ Again.11) ‘Let Puṣan.connotes material.also produces Ṛgvedic bhū́mi‘earth. which harkens back to the physical character of Vedic Sanskrit bhūtí-.as something that is tangible is underscored by the attestation of PIE *bhuH. come. e.is more conceptual and existential.g. This semantic meaning of bhūtí. both of these stanzas were purposefully chosen.’ puṣṭím ‘nourishment. the one best bestowing wholeness. Wide is the road toward wellbeing. earthly concepts. health and prosperity. originally phútis. the one best bestowing wholeness.’ aítu pūṣā́ rayír bhágaḥ suastí sarvadhā́tamaḥ urúr ádhvā suastáye (8. Ancient Greek phúsis is. Hail.’ the sole thing being requested is suastáye ‘for well-being. nourishment. Rather suastí.’ prajā́m ‘progeny. and fortune. póṣaṃ ‘abundance.’ In this instance suastáye. the dispenser of wealth.’ and bhūtim ‘(physical) fortune’ for the performers of the sacrifice. additionally.‘O Indra and Varuṇa. grant comfort without arrogance. ephemeral connotation behind Vedic Sanskrit suastí-. is not anything that is physical or tangible. While the stanzas implore the Vedic deities for abundance. In the second stanza.being the root that yields Ancient Greek phúsis. to minimize diachronic semantic variance. there exists a distinction between the characteristics of what is being granted.   109   . while bhūtí. Prolong our lifespan toward longevity. due to their position in the same Maṇḍala. Furthermore. an exact cognate to Vedic Sanskrit bhūtí-. in contrast to the existential.31.

‘to become. Meanwhile. stative verbs and their metaphorical connection to the concept of wholeness. remain. to grow. 2392) and by Adams and Mallory (336). that enumerates the partial lexical reflexes of PIE *Hes. stative grammatical category to express concepts of ‘being’ and existence of the non-physical world.in various IE languages and its derivational morpheme as the present participle *Hsont‘being. abide’ as the relic of the inactive PIE verb *Hes.‘to be. it is now possible to explore in greater detail the semantics of PIE *Hes. The PIE root *Hes. The PIE root *bhuH. to come into being’ as the remnant of the active PIE verb *bhuH-.(bhū-ti) and suastí (su-as-ti) may possibly reflect an original PIE grammatical and semantic binarism.and Vedic Sanskrit √as. I have created the following list. whose reflexes appear throughout all of the IE branches. eventive grammatical category and connotes transformation and concepts attributed to the physical. of a nuanced semantic distinction between Vedic √as.’   110   . compiled from lexical data by Pokorny (706-708. although subtle.is a very prolific root with numerous derivational morphemes.as inactive.in contrast with Vedic √bhū.as Inactive Verbs Having established the linguistic framework of binarism in the PIE verb between active and inactive. PIE *Hes. PIE *Hes. earthly world. The examples outlined in this section demonstrate that it is possible to locate instances.‘to be’ belonged to the inactive.and of Vedic Sanskrit √as.was a member of the active.I now believe that the semantic distinction between the verbal forms bhava and edhi and between the root nouns bhūtí.

1. *Hes- ‘to be’ c. Sanskrit—√as-; ás-mi ‘I am’ d. Avestan—√ah-; ah-mi ‘I am’ e. Armenian—em ‘I am’ f. Homeric Greek—eimí ‘I am’ (originally *ēmí from PIE *es-mi) g. Tocharian—ste ‘he is’ (originally from PIE *es-ti) h. Hittite—e-eš-mi ‘I am’ (originally from PIE *es-mi) i. Albanian— jam ‘I am’ (originally from PIE *es-mi) j. Latin—es-se ‘to be’; s-um ‘I am’ (originally from PIE *s-om) k. Germanic—im (Gothic), em (Icelandic), am (English) ‘I am’ l. Old Irish—am ‘I am’ (originally from PIE *es-mi) m. Old Church Slavic—jesmь ‘I am’ (originally from PIE *es-mi) n. Lithuanian—esmì ‘I am’ (originally from PIE *es-mi)

2. *(H)sent-, *(H)sont-, *(H)sṇt- (zero-grade form of the present participle) ‘being, truth, reality, right, goodness’ a. Sanskrit—sánt, sát- ‘truth, reality, being, existing’; satyá- ‘true, right’ b. Avestan—hánt, hát- ‘truth, reality, being, existing’; haiθya- ‘true, right’ c. Homeric Greek—eónt- ónt- ‘being’’; tà ónta ‘reality’ d. Hittite—aš-ša-an-za (assanz) ‘being’ e. Albanian—send ‘thing, being’

 

111  

f. Latin—prae-sēns ‘presently’, ab-sēns ‘absent’ g. Germanic—*sanÞa- (Proto-Germanic), sōð (Old English), sand (Old High German) ‘true’; soðian ‘show to be true’ (Old English) > soothe (English) ‘to mollify, quiet someone back to one’s state of being’ Referring to this vast set of words, Adams and Mallory state, “This entire complex is usually derived from *h1es- ‘to be.’ The same verb provides the basis for a word for ‘true’, *h1sónt-, the participial of *h1es- ‘be’…” (337). Even though IndoEuropeanists concur that this set of words shares a common derivational morphology, very little suggestion has been offered to explain their semantic connection. Having earlier outlined the grammatical meaning of PIE *Hes- as having an inactive, stative meaning, in contrast to the active, eventive meaning of PIE *bhuH-, I believe that it is now possible to postulate a possible semantic distinction between the two PIE verbal roots. This explanation can likely be based on the premise previously stated that early PIE held a cognitive distinction between inclusive and exclusive, as well as between active and inactive. Recalling the statement mentioned earlier by Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, The original semantic principle for classification of the Indo-European verb forms was not transitivity, which is a semantic opposition independent of nominal classification, but a semantic classification into active and inactive, depending on the nature of the verbal action or state expressed. (255) If the assertion that PIE *Hes- ‘to be,’ as an inactive verb, expressed the state of ‘being’ in contrast to its active counterpart, PIE *bhuH- ‘to become,’ I conjecture that the inactive quality of PIE *Hes- can now be conceptualized to express a verbal meaning of

 

112  

‘in a state of being,’ in contrast to the active sense of ‘in a state of becoming’ reflected by PIE *bhuH-. This fundamental semantic nature that underscores the inactive, stative meaning of PIE *Hes- ‘to be’ can now be defined by the phrase ‘in a state of being and existing one and whole.’ It is the very connotation of the concept of ‘being, existing,’ as an inactive verbal state, that implies something being ‘one and whole.’ In contrast, the phrase ‘in a state of becoming one and whole’ implies that something is no longer ‘one and whole,’ that it was once ‘one and whole’ but no longer is. According to the observations stated earlier by Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, proper PIE grammatical rules state that the inactive PIE verb *Hes- ‘to be’ would, therefore, be the correct verb required to express the inactive qualities of truth, being, oneness and wholeness. In essence, the dictates of early PIE grammatical construction necessitate the usage of PIE inactive *Hes- ‘to be,’ and not active *bhuH- ‘to become,’ as the corresponding verbal form to produce the PIE derivational inactive abstract nouns to connote the concepts of ‘oneness, wholeness, truth, being, goodness, etc.’ This syntactic concordance of PIE nouns and verbs requiring to agree in their inactive grammatical function now possibly explains the semantic development of the PIE verb *Hes- from its original inactive meaning of ‘to be’ to its derivational morphemes *(H)sónt- and *(H)sónt-io-. I conjecture that the semantic expansion of PIE *Hes- to express concepts of ‘oneness, wholeness, truth, being, goodness’ becomes evident by understanding the grammatical feature of *Hes- as an inactive and stative verb in the proto-language. The following table summarizes this hypothesis.

 

113  

exist’ might likely be contained within a larger semantic field of the proto-language. The following sections present the case for a possible semantic unity of these verbal forms that might reveal the archaic PIE grammatical function of inclusiveness as a cognitive metaphor of wholeness in the Ṛgveda.and its derivational morphemes *(H)sónt. along with PIE *Hes.with *HēsAdditional lexical evidence from Vedic Sanskrit and the other IE languages provides another important semantic function of the PIE verb *Hes. and being.‘to sit.Table 3 The Inactive and Stative Grammatical Feature of PIE *Hes. wholeness.and *(H)sónt-io-. abide.   114   . be present.‘being. to remain.‘to be’ sát.and Vedic Sanskrit √asProto-Indo-European (PIE) Expression Grammatical feature Cultural Inactive Being in a State of Stative ‘One Whole’ Semantic Being Reality Truth Lexical *Hes-‘to be’ *Hsónt‘being (real and true)’ *Hsónt-io‘truth’ Reflexes in Vedic Sanskrit √as.‘to be.’ that collectively express the idea of oneness. the PIE verbal root *Hēs. inclusiveness. Specifically. reality’ satyá‘truth’ The Morphosemantic Connection of PIE *Hes.

then there exists both a morphological and semantic unity between the PIE concepts ‘to be’ and ‘to sit. as in the OInd. attested in a number of verbal forms in Vedic Sanskrit and in the various descendent IE languages. and Indo-Iranian attest *h1ēs. As MacDonnell attests. Hit ēsa ‘sits’. Grk ēsthai ‘sit’. “Greek. In the historical languages.‘be’…” (296).PIE *Hēs. The semantics of verbal reduplication is particularly intriguing.(e. however.. āszi ‘stays. Av āste ‘sits’. Intensives… (268–69) To this point Kukilov in his “Reduplication in the Vedic Verb” states. being formed from over ninety roots in the Saṃhitās. The morphological derivation of intensive roots in PIE and in Vedic Sanskrit is generally a result of verbal reduplication. Anatolian. is left’. No wonder it has been subject of numerous speculations from the very   115   .‘to sit. Skt ā́ste ‘sits’) which appears to be an intensive of *h1es.’ Intensive verbs in PIE are created in a specific derivational process and possess a nuanced semantic meaning. They are common. remains. and implied in the original PIE language.’ which I along with other Indo-Europeanists alternatively represent as *Hēs-.g. intensive verbs in Vedic Sanskrit.‘to be’ (296). and about twenty-five roots in the Brāhmaṇas” (201). …with this type total (intensive) reduplication often occurs. a fact supported by Szemerényi. semantically “are meant to convey intensification or frequent repetition of the action expressed by the simple root. as it is probably the only morphological device which can be treated as iconically motivated by the meaning.and Vedic Sanskrit √āsMallory and Adams claim that PIE *h1ēs. is a derivational verb with intensive meaning based on the PIE verb *Hes. If this assertion is correct. Discussing the morphological and semantic development of intensive verbs in PIE he states. a sense of repetition or intensity was doubtless connected originally with reduplication in general. The same scholars continue by saying. in which the vowel and first consonant are repeated…On the semantic side. this is so only in the case of total or almost total reduplication. etc.

which copies the root in the most complete and transparent fashion). the Lexicon der Indogermanischen Verben (LIV) reconstructs the PIE form *h1eh1s. PIE *Hes. here the lengthening effect of the laryngeal disguises the underlying short (full grade) vowel. The newly created root *HeHssubsequently loses the second -H.and. (441–42) The intensive semantic quality of PIE verb *Hēs. from PIE *eH1s.‘is sitting’.now reveals the original PIE reduplicative nature of the verb from the original PIE *h1ēs-. (134) In essence. While Mallory and Adams reconstruct *Hēs. is likely the result of compensatory lengthening.> -ē-. that is.‘to be’ reduplicates to form a root *HeHs. 1.‘sitzen.‘to sit’ deriving from the original PIE verb *Hes. an ordinarily-formed reduplicated present exactly parallel to *dhe-dhH1.beginning of Indo-European comparative grammar.‘to be’ reduplicates. to *ste-stH2-). the only verbal formation where the iconic character of the reduplication is unquestionable is the intensive (note also the type of the intensive reduplication. However.that appears in the root *h1ēs-. The morphological and semantic connection between the PIE verbs ‘to be’ and ‘to sit’ can be summarized as follows. according to the formula explained by Sihler. The long vowel -ē. Much more questionable is the iconicity of the other reduplicated formations. The LIV version of the root *h1eh1s. to form *HeHs-. more to the point. Hitt e-ša. to sit’ (206). to be (again and again).‘to intensely be. Ved ā́ste. namely as *H1eH1s-. Both the intensive and frequentative meanings (which are ascribed to this formation in Vedic) can be readily associated with the repetition (redoubling) of the root.   116   .‘to sit’ by the form *h1ēs-.‘to be’ can now be explained morphologically through the process of verbal reduplication. the original PIE root *Hes. Av āste.laryngeal and compensates by lengthening the preceding vowel resulting in -eH. (NB: this stem has also been analyzed quite differently. The same phenomenon underlies G ēstai ‘sits’. e-ša(a)-ri. Sihler further elaborates on this process affirming.

shifts from its original intensive connotation to a new metaphorical meaning ‘to sit. While the actual Vedic Sanskrit verb √ās. etc.‘to sit.’ and *Hes.’ (and for that matter also lost its original inactive meaning) what the two verbal forms still share is their greater semantic expression of ‘being.‘to be’ and *Hēs.2.and √as-. near’ and svāsasthá.’ Vedic Sanskrit āsā́t ‘from the proximity.’ Despite the semantic obfuscation between Vedic Sanskrit √ās. sá no dūrā́c ca āsā́c ca ní mártiyād aghāyóḥ pāhí sádam íd viśvā́yuḥ (1. abide. 3.’ no longer explicitly reflects the original intensive semantic quality of PIE *Hes.‘to be.’   117   . the common denominator is likely the understanding of the inactive. existing. etc.’ So how does the semantic connection between PIE *Hes. remaining.’ relate to the greater concept of wholeness? Again. etc.27. exist.‘to be’ may have left a relic in the Ṛgvedic words āsā́t ‘from the proximity. near’ as Inclusiveness and Wholeness The Vedic Sanskrit word āsā́t occurs only twice in the following stanzas of the Ṛgveda.‘well-located nearby.‘to sit. The newly created reduplicated form *HeHs. stative quality that both of these verbal roots convey.through loss of medial laryngeal and compensatory lengthening produces the new verb *Hēs-. the archaic semantic connection between PIE *Hēs.‘to sit. etc.and Vedic Sanskrit √as.3) ‘From afar and from near. The semantic meaning of *Hēs. (Agni) protect us life-long completely from the sinful man.

in the proximal location.‘to be’ and √ās.’ In both of these stanzas the word āsā́t. separated’ from the position of the speaker.20. overcoming enemies in conflict and in battles. distance. and Avestan āh-. appearing here in its respective sandhi-forms āsā́c and āsā́d. Even though the Ṛgveda offers evidence of an adjective dūrá. it may provide the missing semantic link between the Vedic Sanskrit roots √as.meaning ‘far off. wholeness. is joined with the Ṛgvedic word dūrā́t to form the stylistic couplet dūrā́t āsā́t ‘from afar and from near. armed with the vajra-weapon (and) with the mightiest ones.’ Hittite a(y)is-. and of inclusiveness. It is important to mention that the word āsā́t should not be confused as an inflected form of the Ṛgvedic noun ā́s. Additionally. remote. exist. remain. etc’ of the speaker.’ While the words dūrā́t and āsā́t exist in binary semantic opposition.(175). it conveys ‘separation from āsa-’ while dūrā́t expresses ‘separation from dūrá-.‘to sit. from’ a locational place. all of which mean ‘mouth’ and reconstructs back to PIE *h1óh1(e)s.ā́ na índro dūrā́d ā́ na āsā́d abhiṣṭikŕ̥d ávase yāsad ugráḥ ójiṣṭhebhir nr̥pátir vájrabāhuḥ saṃgé samátsu turváṇiḥ pṛtanyū́n (4. Additionally.‘mouth’ that Mallory and Adams relate with Middle Irish ā. Latin os ‘mouth. come in our favor. the unattested form xāsá. In the case of āsā́t.1) ‘O mighty Indra procuring help. they are in morphological congruity.’ whose meanings will now be explored. distant. for grammatical reasons it is unlikely for the word āsā́t   118   . Both forms appear in the ablative singular case as thematic nouns implying ‘separation. whether from afar and from near. there is no lexeme in the Ṛgveda for its semantic binary opposite.whose meaning might have been ‘near. (He is) the Lord of men.’ I believe that this poetic phrase reveals a deeper semantic structure and cognitive relationship among the PIE notions of being. abide. close.

the noun ā́s. in   119   . substantive ablatives behaving adverbially. Although the word xāsa.is textually unattested in the actual Ṛgveda. Macdonell cites similar adverbial ablative formations in Vedic Sanskrit.may have been part of the spoken language in order to account for the adverbial ablative form āsā́t in the Ṛgveda.’ As Macdonell demonstrates.’ paścā́t ‘from behind. etc.’ Since the meaning of Vedic Sanskrit dūrā́t is rather certain to mean ‘from the distance. in fact.’ of the speaker can only be deduced from the word āsā́t by its position in semantic contrast to dūrā́t. The morphological shape of the word āsā́t would indicate that it derives from an unattested thematic substantive xāsá-.‘mouth.‘mouth’ is an athematic s-stem neuter noun. While āsā́t and dūrā́t appear on the surface as thematic ablative nouns. whose ablative singular form would have to be āsás (58-59).’ uttarā́t ‘from the north. again whose meaning of ‘near. or for that matter in Vedic Sanskrit. Macdonell states that both āsā́t and dūrā́t are indeclinable words formed from a rare set of Vedic Sanskrit nominal and pronominal stems that grammatically function as adverbs.’ and sanā́t ‘from of old’ (211). in the proximal location.‘to be. Based on Macdonell’s observations. from the proximity. Having established the semantic meaning of āsā́t as ‘from near.to derive from Vedic Sanskrit noun ā́s.and with Vedic Sanskrit √as. it is possible to conclude that there likely existed a Vedic Sanskrit word xāsa-. from afar.’ However. they are. close. (210-211). it is possible to conjecture that xāsa. from close by. the word āsā́t would imply ‘distance from xāsa-’ while dūrā́t would express ‘distance from dūrá-. Furthermore.’ in addition to the position of āsā́t appearing in binary semantic opposition to dūrā́t in the stylistic phrase āsā́t dūrā́t. some of which include ārā́t ‘from a distance.’ it is possible to reveal the deeper semantic connection of Ṛgvedic āsā́t with the PIE verb *Hes.

likely derives from the PIE root *deu.connotes the sense of something or someone located ‘far off.occurs in the Ṛgveda.is likely connected in form and meaning to the PIE numeral *du̯oH(u). Thus. The word dūrá.occurs in a subsequent chapter on ‘Otherness as Twoness. distant. Alternatively.expresses a                                                                                                                           8 If dū-rá derives from either *duH-ros or *dṷeH-ros . the loss of the PIE laryngeal (-H-) would in Vedic Sanskrit regularly produce the long vowel due to compensatory lengthening of -uHr. separated’ from the position of the speaker(s). distant.and its possible semantic connection to the PIE grammatical category of exclusiveness and its cognitive expression of otherness. along with the comparative dávīyas. The PIE root *dṷ(e)H.order to do so. *deu-. it is necessary to discuss briefly the Vedic word dūrá. remote.   120   . from Afar’ as a Metpahor for Exclusiveness and Otherness The Vedic Sanskrit word dūrá.‘more far away’ and the superlative adjective daviṣṭhá. Vedic Sanskrit dūrá.‘two’ and conveys distance and separation from the speaker(s).with the suffix *-r. the morpheme *dṷ(e)H. Mallory and Adams construct an etymology of Ṛgvedic dūrá.> ūr-.and *deu̯(ā)-.‘very far away.are all valid reconstructed forms that can readily account for the Vedic Sanskrit roots dū-/dav-.’ For the current discussion. Regardless. PIE *duH-. or *dṷ(e)H. I posit a basic definition of PIE *dṷ(e)H. remote (from the ‘here and now)’ of the speaker.plus the thematic ending *-os.’ The etymology of this word. A detailed discussion on the morphology and semantics of the PIE root *dṷ(e)H.as ‘be separate. Vedic Sanskrit dūrā́t ‘from a Distance.or from one of its allomorphs *deuH. according to both Pokorny (477) and Mayhrhoffer (56–57).from either the zero-grade form of PIE *duHros or from the e-grade root *dṷeH-ros8.

etc’ as a semantic and morphological extension of the PIE root *Hes.‘to be’ connotes a sense of ‘existing. otherness. The Vedic Sanskrit word svāsasthá-/suāsasthá. being. the PIE root *Hēs. situated on a good seat’ and by Monier-Williams (1284) as ‘sitting on a good seat. that is.and *Hēs. wholeness versus exclusiveness. and inclusiveness of the whole ‘here and now. closeness.’ there is another word in the Ṛgveda that might support the existence of this form.2)   121   .cognitive perspective in the mind of the speaker(s) of remoteness. proximity. to sit’ with *dṷ(e)H.ultimately reflects as the relic lexical couplet in Vedic Sanskrit āsā́t dūrā́t. etc. abiding’ in the nearness.‘to be.with *dṷ(e)H.‘well-located nearby’ In addition to the lexical evidence of Ṛgvedic āsā́t pointing to the conjectured existence of a Vedic Sanskrit noun xāsá. this semantic and cognitive polarity between *Hes. *Hēs. and exclusiveness from the whole of the ‘here and now. otherness underscores the semantic opposition in the PIE roots *Hes-.‘to sit.’ with this word attested only once in the following verse of the Ṛgveda.has been translated by Grassman (1638) as ‘auf gutem Sitze sich befindend.’ Both of these Vedic scholars break the word into the components su-āsasthā-. literally translated as ‘good-abiding/sitting-location. close.‘to be separate remote.‘near.’ Furthermore. residing.’ Conversely.13. separation. Vedic Sanskrit svāsasthá. yamé iva yátamāne yád aítam prá vām bharan mā́nuṣā devayántaḥ ā́ sīdataṃ svám ulokáṃ vídāne suāsasthé bhavatam índave naḥ (10.’ This binary semantic contrast of inclusiveness.

the word suāsasthé is declined in the feminine dual and is in apposition to the word yamé.’ which comprises the central morpheme of the word su-āsa-sthā.’ I provide a different interpretation. close. like twin sisters. The following table summarizes the points presented in this section of the semantic and morphological relationship between Vedic Sanskrit √ās. Knowing your own place. etc.‘near.’ While the traditional translation of suāsasthé as ‘sitting on a good seat. The context of this particular verse and hymn pertains to the Soma-ritual and represents a core practice of the Vedic sacrifice. the verb ā́ sīdataṃ in this verse derives from Vedic Sanskrit √ā́+sad.as an original intensive verb of the root √as. the twin-sisters. sit toward. it lacks the more nuanced semantic precision conveyed by Vedic Sanskrit x āsá. engaged (in the sacrifice)..’ is not incorrect. Based on the semantic and morphological evidence of Vedic Sanskrit √ās. Furthermore.‘to be’ as reflections of the original PIE grammatical feature of inclusiveness and as a cognitive metaphor of wholeness. an alternative translation of suāsasthé should take into account this new information.‘When you two came. near. sit near and be well-abiding locations for our Soma.’ The verbal prefix ā́ functions as a prepositional morpheme to express ‘direction toward. exist’ with √as. etc. etc.‘to sit.’ In this passage to the Havirdhānas. well-situated close (to the sacrifice).‘to be’ and of the semantic opposition between āsā́t with dūrā́t. While translators have chosen to provide a general meaning of suāsasthé as ‘sitting on a good seat.   122   . I posit that it is not impossible to translate suāsasthé as ‘nicely located near. reside. the devout mortal worshipers brought you two forward. in proximity to the speaker(s)’ in the Ṛgvedic word suāsasthé.‘to sit near. close.’ and can now substantiate the deictic expression of the root x āsá-‘near.

remain. separate’ *dṷ(e)H-rós *dṷ(e)H-rōt   123   .Table 4 Reflexes of PIE *Hēs. from afar’ *Hēs-ōt - Exclusive Otherness Twoness There and then Away from the whole *dṷ(e)H‘to be distant.’ āsā́t ‘from the proximity. etc. separated’ dūrā́t ‘from the distance. remote.‘to abide.‘far off.‘near. distant.‘to sit. from near’ No explicit verbal accounted for in Vedic Sanskrit dūrá.in Vedic Sanskrit Proto-Indo-European (PIE) Expression Grammatical feature Cultural Wholeness Inclusive Oneness Semantic Here and now In the whole Lexical *Hēs. exist’ *Hēs-ó Reflexes in Vedic Sanskrit √ās.and *dṷ(e)H. close. abide. remain (in the here and now)’ x āsá.

In the verbal category of PIE. The cognitive expression of inclusiveness in lexicon and grammar was determined whether a speaker conceptualized the speech-participant as either part of the collective one whole or as separate and other from one’s whole. This grammatical binarism was reflected in both the pronominal and verbal system of PIE. as contrasted to otherness. 5. between √asand √bhū-. 2. stative verb semantically evolved to convey a metaphorical sense of ‘being’ in an existential state of wholeness and oneness.   124   . as an inactive. 6. a binary semantic opposition of inactive and active might possibly reflect in the distinction between *Hes.’ 4. PIE *Hes-.’ which later becomes evident in the Ṛgveda both verbally. 3.Chapter Summary The main points of this chapter can be summarized in the following way. which eventually came to express the concept of wholeness.‘to be’ and *bhuH. was expressed as a distinction between inclusive versus exclusive and between inactive versus active. A natural evolution of the grammatical binary features of inclusive/exclusive and of inactive/active is their development into the lexico-semantics of PIE language. There existed in the archaic structure of the PIE proto-language the concept of grammatical binarism that. and nominally. between su-as-ti and bhū-ti. The fundamental representation of the inclusive/exclusive grammatical feature may be evident in the first person non-singular pronouns that cognitively distinguish between the ‘inclusive we’ versus ‘exclusive we.‘to become. according to Gamkrelidze and Ivanov. 1.

remain.’ PIE *Hēs‘to be (part of the one whole)’ can therefore be conjectured to be in semantic contrast to *dṷ(e)H. there may have existed the PIE notion of exclusiveness as conceptually linked to otherness and separation.‘to be separate.7.’ a cognitive state that the speaker identified as ‘inclusive’ of the ‘one whole.’ This cognitive and semantic distinction between inclusiveness and exclusiveness occurs in relic lexical fragments in the Ṛgveda. Similarly.‘to sit. exist in a place of wholeness.’ and ‘to sit.and √ās-. to be in two. as reflected in PIE *Hsónt.’ reflected in Vedic Sanskrit √ās.‘to be separate (from the one whole). dwell. I hypothesize that the archaic PIE binary category of inclusive and exclusive forms the cognitive and cultural basis for a possible deeply embedded PIE idea that conceptually equates wholeness as a metaphor for inclusiveness and being one whole. from PIE *dṷ(e)H.’ The form āsā́t was in semantic opposition to Vedic Sanskrit dūrā́t. whose meaning evolved ‘to sit.developed into a secondary verbal form as the intensive verb *Hēs-. the notion of inclusiveness can likely be seen to reflect in the Vedic Sanskrit verbs √as.produced derivative morphemes with semantic expressions of inclusiveness and wholeness. Specifically. from the place of wholeness and inclusiveness. PIE *Hes.’   125   .’ 8. that mean respectively ‘to be.> Vedic Sanskrit sá(n)t‘being. The PIE language may have reflected the cognitive process of PIE speakers who perceived a conceptual distinction between inclusive and exclusive speech-participants as those who were ‘with the one whole group’ and those who were ‘other than the whole group.’ In summary. dwell (in a place or state of oneness and wholeness). and their derivatives. PIE *Hes. abide’ and in āsā́t ‘from nearby.

‘to be. This chapter explores another possible metaphor for wholeness in PIE and in Vedic Sanskrit as an ameliorative semantic connotation of ‘good.’ Furthermore. dear. is another one postulated by Comrie. beloved’ further developed semantically in PIE and Vedic Sanskrit to connote a reflexive and possessive meaning of ‘one’s own’ in both an individual and collective sense. Lexical evidence from Vedic Sanskrit and from other IE languages will be provided to demonstrate the possible cognitive and cultural expressions of wholeness as metaphors for individuation and interiocity in PIE and Ṛgvedic language.   126   .‘to be’ became a possible metaphor for the notion of wholeness in the Ṛgveda. The way in which these notions of endearment and reflexivity may have been lexically expressed was by certain derivational morphemes of PIE *Hes. textual evidence from both PIE and Vedic Sanskrit explore the possible notion of how the concepts of ‘good.’ This chapter explores the grammatical features of individuation and interiocity in linguistic typology to provide another explanation of how the PIE verbal root *Hes. dear. beloved.and Vedic Sanskrit √as.7) Wholeness as a Cognitive Metaphor for Individuation and Interiocity The previous chapters presented the case that the notion of oneness and inclusiveness were cognitive metaphors of wholeness conveyed in both grammar and lexico-semantics within PIE and Vedic language. The Linguistic Features of Individuation and Interiocity An alternative hypothesis to Gamkrelidze and Ivanov’s framework of grammatical binarism based on an axis of animacy.and of Vedic Sanskrit √as.

relatively atemporal region in   127   . Connecting the linguistic process of individuation with human cognition. definiteness. Human cognition is conceived here as a particular form of cognition. “An entity has been defined as an individuated. “…the reason why animacy is of linguistic relevance is because essentially the same kinds of conceptual distinction are found to be structural relevance across a wide range of languages” (185). Furthermore. produce symbolic forms. one that characterises organisms that in the course of their interactions. social. Comrie states. so that a single phenomenon in a given language…may require reference to both animacy and. He substantiates this point by saying. However. defining the specific physical. in Ferreira’s abstract of her dissertation she discusses the nature of individuation in language acquisition.whose comprehensive study on language universals and linguistic typology adds that another distinction can be based on the grammatical feature of individuation. Frawley discusses the notion of conceptual individuation in language by saying. Salience relates to the way in which certain actants present in a situation are seized on by humans as foci of attention. One of these linguistic parameters that Comrie identifies in linguistic typology is that of individuation. less individuated objects (199). a hierarchy of salience. cultural and linguistic environments in which they evolve…individuation is presented as inherent to the semiotic process that grounds any form of cognition” (abstract page). what is essentially the same. in many languages. Adding to Gamrelidze and Ivanov’s perspectives on animacy. rather than being relevant entirely on its own. for instance. only subsequently attention being paid to less salient. A second possibility would be to try and reduce the animacy hierarchy to a hierarchy of individuation or. “animacy interacts with other parameters. Speaking on the nature of human cognition and language she states. He believes that instead of a classification based on animacy. Comrie also claims that the linguistic feature of animacy provides only a partial understanding of the grammatical and lexico-semantic structure of a language. or topicality (186).

in more philosophical terms. This is specificity. How then do the linguistic concepts of individuation and interiocity. which he defines as “the containedness of an entity or the way that an entity differentiates its inside from its outside” (125). I employ the word individuation in this study in a very specific way that slightly differs from its traditional definition in lexical semantics and other disciplines. which Stein defines as. In the semantic sense of the word. The problem discussed above of how this singling out is effected is thus a problem concerning semantic individuation. “The process of psychic development that   128   . to individuate an object is to single it out for reference in language or in thought. By contrast. Frawley elaborates on the concept of individuation by connecting it to the linguistic notion of interiocity.conceptual space. manifest in PIE language and in the Ṛgveda with regard to the concept of wholeness? The PIE Concept of Wholeness as a Metaphor for Individuation and Interiocity Before discussing the notion of wholeness in PIE and Ṛgvedic language. it is important to define explicitly how I use use the terms individuation and interiocity in this research. Languages may also make reference to the degree of individuation of an entity. the other metaphysical. the individuation of objects has to do with ‘what grounds their identity and distinctness’” (3). in the metaphysical sense of the word. the uniqueness of the entity or. To these definitions can be added another usage of the word individuation found in Jungian psychology. In a study of individuation and identity Linnebo posits distinct meanings of the word individuation by stating that there exist two …senses of the word ‘individuation’—one semantic. the relative singularity of the denotation” (69). evident in human cognition and language.

which combines Frawley’s definition of a speaker(s) cognitive sense of contaidnessness with a definition of the degree by which a speaker(s) distinguishes between what is part of the individual’s conceptual whole. active/inactive into one based on individuation/division and interiocity/exteriocity. Similarly.’   129   . I posit a new conceptual model of wholeness in PIE that later perhaps reflected in the Ṛgveda. the word interiocity has a specific meaning that I use. cultural and                                                                                                                           9 It is interesting that the etymology of the word individuation derives from Latin in-dividus ‘not separated in two. which I conjecture. as all three fields pertain to the study of human language and cognition. philosophy. The work’s use of the word individuation can be seen in PIE language as a synthesis of lexical semantics that establishes a speaker’s cognitive identity within the conceptual landscape combined with the meaning of individuation in the fields of psychology and metaphysical philosophy where the speaker(s) establishes a conscious distinction between one’s self and the other.leads to the conscious awareness of wholeness” (233)9. My use of the word individuation in this research is integral spanning all three distinct meanings found in linguistics. whereby speaker(s) conceptualizes the physical.e whole and integral. social. In my opinion it is possible to reframe Gamkrelidze and Ivanov’s PIE linguistic model of binarism between animate/inanimate. and psychology. i. Based on Comrie’s postulation that the grammatical feature of animacy can be reframed by an axis structured on individuation and on Frawley’s assertion of the connection between individuation and interiocity. In this possible theoretical model the notion of wholeness in PIE and Ṛgvedic language is framed within a specific cognitive parameter–one.

may have developed into various cognitive metaphors to connote something perceived as divided. possibly may also have become a lexical expression for the grammatical features of individuation and interiocity. The PIE deictic root *sem‘one whole.’ Furthermore. dear.possibly expressing individuation and interiocity.cosmological environment based on a cognitive and linguistic distinction of individuation and interiocity in contrast with division and exteriocity.’ as opposed to *du. oneself’ follows with lexical evidence of their reflexes in the Ṛgveda and other IE languages.’ eventually reflected in Vedic Sanskrit as the root saṃ-.and its possible other derivative *(H)su-e ‘own. oneself’ may reveal a deeper cognitive and semantic expression of wholeness as a metaphor for both individuation and interiocity.as the deictic marker for ‘there and then. Conversely. beloved’ and the grammatical morpheme for reflexivity *(H)su-e ‘one’s own. The earlier chapter on ‘Wholeness as a Metaphor for Oneness’ presented the hypothesis that PIE *sem. other. the PIE root *du.and *(H)su.’ and its numerous morphological derivatives both in PIE and Vedic Sanskrit. the derivational morphemes *H(e)su. A detailed discussion of the PIE morphemes *H(e)suand *(H)su. I now present the case that a cognitive expression of individuation and interiocity as a metaphor for wholeness may likely be further evident in PIE *Hes.‘separate.‘good.was originally a deictic marker conveying the meaning of ‘here and now. Adding to this notion of PIE *sem. distinct and exterior from the referential perspective of the speaker(s). there and then.‘to be. here and now.’ I believe that this binary conceptual distinction in PIE possibly implies a deeper cognitive phenomenon by which the speaker(s) differentiate between grammatical morphemes not only based on animacy but on individuation and interiocity.   130   .

dear’ e. right. favored.’ *H(e)su. beloved.(originally from *(H)su-) ‘good. *(H)su. excellent. *H(e)su-.‘good.and Vedic Sanskrit √as.‘To Be. right. whose reflexes appear throughout all of the IE branches in some form. well. dear. well. Avestan—hu. excellent. dear. right. Homeric Greek—eu. useful’ d. The list below offers a partial attestation of their reflexes in IE languages.’ and *Hsṷe. virtuous’ c. it is possible to contextualize these roots within the additional grammatical feature of individuation and interiocity.‘good. eū́s (originally from *H(e)su-) ‘good. PIE *Hes. virtuous’. dear. dear.is a very prolific root with abundant derivational morphemes. they present the case that the PIE root *H(e)su-. In Mallory and Adams’ PIE World. excellent.and its allomorph *(H)su-.‘Own’ as Lexemes of Individuation and Interiocity Building upon the evidence outlined in the previous chapters that established the PIE root *Hes. Tocharian—sa. based on lexical data by Pokorny (706–8.‘to be’ (337). excellent. so-‘good’   131   . With regard to the reflexes of PIE *H(e)su. well.as an inactive verb with stative meaning. virtuous’ b.‘good’ f. 2392) and by Mallory and Adams (336).‘good. and its zero-grade allomorph *(H)su-.PIE *Hes.‘good. are morphologically connected to PIE *Hes. Old Irish—su-. well. Sanskrit—su. beloved. beloved. As has already been attested in the previous chapter. beloved’ a.‘Good. Hittite—āššu.

in an adjectival and adverbial sense. beautiful.’   132   .‘good’ i. respectively meaning “beautiful. tüchtig. very.‘one’s own.‘good’ h.in the Ṛgveda Vedic Sanskrit appears only to attest the reflexes of the PIE zero-grade *(H)suwith no apparent relics of the full-grade *H(e)su-.e *Su. Germanic—su.in the Ṛgveda occurs in Costa’s I Composti Indoeuropei con *Dus. PIE *(H)su. well.’ A comprehensive list of the usage of the prefix su. the semantic connection between these two roots has not yet been adequately explained. oneself. good. dear. whose meaning Grassmann lists as schön. *(H)su -.‘to be’ and su.‘to be’ and *H(e)su-.‘good. While the morphological connection between PIE *Hes.and in Lubotsky’s work (1530–60).and the PIE reflexive pronominal marker *(H)sṷe. Lithuanian—sū. *(H)su poses no issues among Indo-Europeanists. and its allomorph sū-. sehr. wohl. In order to provide a possible explanation into the semantic affinity between PIE *Hes. quite. The attestations of this prefix in the Ṛgveda are profuse with a unifying ameliorative semantic connotation of expressing ‘good. etc.‘to be’ and *H(e)su-. efficiently” (1526). gut.occurs in the Ṛgveda as the prefix su-. recht. and their reflexes as Vedic Sanskrit √as. Old Church Slavic—sъ.‘good’ Semantics of Vedic Sanskrit su.’ it will be helpful to explore the possible morphological and semantic connection between PIE *H(e)su.g.

and Greek have an adjective with the two-fold meaning ‘dear’ and ‘own’ (Germanic swaēs.. Accordingly.‘oneself’ and that the two forms are both morphologically and semantically connected (1037–38). and Greek phílos). she adheres to Lehmann’s hypothesis that the PIE reflexive marker had a covalent semantic expression to mean both ‘dear’ and ‘own. Oneself’ There have been considerable discussion and debate among Indo-Europeanists as to the origin of the PIE reflexive marker *sṷe-/*sṷo. dear. good’ is the zero-grade form of PIE *sṷe-/*sṷo. beloved’ might have developed semantically to PIE *(H)sṷe.‘own. oneself’ to become the grammatical marker for reflexivity. pleasant.and Vedic Sanskrit sva.‘well. Mezger 1948…) propose a nominal etymology on the basis of kinship names like *swesor ‘sister’ and *sweḱuros ‘father-in-law’. Lehmann’s assumption is further supported by evidence from Hittite…by the ‘reflexive’ marker -za. Sanskrit priyás. while Lehmann (1992) suggests that *s(e)we.has given rise to even more discussion. Lehmann assumes that the meaning ‘dear’ is original and that ‘own’ only developed as a reflexive possessive when the middle. Since *swe. dear. (169) Semantic Connection in PIE and Vedic Sanskrit between ‘One’s Own’ and ‘Dear. Pokorny is in the belief that PIE *(H)su.The PIE Reflexive Marker *(H)sṷe.g. In Puddu’s informative study on reflexives in ancient IE languages.‘good. Sanskrit.‘One’s Own. both as a pronoun and an adjective. whose function was among others reflexive.’ Bauer states. Beloved’ The question now arises as to how specifically PIE *(H)su. Good. started to diminish and eventually disappeared. the original adjectival meaning ‘dear’ (<*swe-) was readapted and used as a possessive reflexive.was an adjectival stem with the meaning of ‘good. she states. The original meaning of *s(e)we.’ (256) In Bauer’s research on archaic syntax in IE languages.‘oneself. In order to   133   . Many scholars (e. Observing that Germanic.’ which I conjecture can be equally be reconstructed as *(H)sṷe-.in this meaning is widespread in Indo-European languages its use must be early (Lehmann 1992:144).

’ He cites evidence primarily from Germanic. beloved.e. In Lehmann’s original study of the PIE pronominal reflexive marker. agreeable.’ This dual semantic   134   . specifically Old English. pleasant.’ The English word kind and the first part of the compound gentleman span both meanings and express simultaneously the meaning ‘dear. (one’s) own dear. or to dear companionship” (742). it is helpful to share Lehmann’s research on this topic in greater detail. I cite the words kind and kin. i. or the Latin borrowings into English by the words gentility and gentle. kin. oneself. Furthermore. which both Pokorny (373–75) and Watkins (19) state are semantically and morphologically related and go back to PIE ǵenH. Lehmann begins his thesis by stating that PIE *sṷe. which he represents as *sṷe-.explore this issue. whose meaning according to Bosworth and Toller’s Anglo-Saxon Dictionary is ‘(one’s) own. family. etc’ and ‘one’s own people. kind. race. Bosworth and Toller expand on one of the definitions of swǣes by saying it “is used mostly in reference to the connection that belongs to relationship by blood or by marriage. agreeable. and other IE languages to elucidate this point. good’ and only in later PIE did it become a grammatical marker for reflexivity to mean ‘own. gracious. To illustrate this point using an example in Modern English. pleasant’ (139).‘to give birth. beget.’ The semantics of English kin and kind and with gentility and gentle parallel the covalent meaning of Old English swǣes meaning both ‘dear’ and ‘one’s own.produced Old English swǣes. (one’s) dear. he establishes a case that the morpheme originally held a semantic meaning of ‘dear.

race.‘tribe. Discussing the grammatical and semantic connection between the PIE verbal category of the middle voice with reflexivity Lehmann states. In the earlier verb system. beloved. Lehmann explains the situation of Ancient Greek phíl(i)os and Vedic Sanskrit priyás simultaneously expressing semantic and grammatical reflexivity due to the gradual loss of the middle voice in the verbal category within the late stage of PIE.g.10 PIE Reflexive Markers as Innovation Replacing the Grammatical Middle Voice Returning back to Lehmann’s thesis.As grammarians have long noted. Old English cyn ‘family. gens.’ in the same manner as did Old English swǣes.’ but also were the morphemes that conveyed a reflexive semantic meaning of ‘one’s own’ (140). kind. gentle.developed from an original meaning of ‘dear. the middle voice had functions subsequently expressed by reflexive and reciprocal                                                                                                                           10 PIE *ǵenH. still poorly incorporated in the verb system in Vedic Sanskrit. Ancient Greek phíl(i)o-. e.and Vedic Sanskrit priyá. The middle form alone indicates the reflexive possessive…. he continues his argument that the PIE reflexive marker *(H)sṷe.‘to give birth.quality of English kin(d). etc. gentilis ‘of the same family or clan’ > English generous. and of Old English swǣes reflects in many of the IE languages. Latin genus. The passive is a later development. kind’ > English kin. He reveals in his findings that both Ancient Greek phíl(i)o.   135   . generis. clan. and Vedic Sanskrit priyá-. beget’ shares a dual semantic quality to express both a meaning of endearment and familial membership. two voices were distinguished in Proto-Indo-European and the early dialects: the active and the middle.not only expressed the meaning of ‘dear. people’ > English gentility. beloved. both ancient and modern. etc. gentle.

sich jemand. beloved. became a productive feature by the time of the Ṛgveda.’ I chose this stanza specifically due to word priyá. oneself.’ while the second usage of the word grammatically refers back to the pronoun vayám ‘we’ to express a reflexive.g.and ātmán-. erwünscht. priyó no astu viśpátir hótā mandró váreṇiyaḥ priyā́ḥ suagnáyo vayám (1. dear. dear.’ This notion of grammatical reflexivity.   136   . e.occurs in the following stanza of the Ṛgveda. (140–41) The Semantics of Vedic Sanskrit priyá.’ An example of the nuanced semantic meaning of Vedic Sanskrit priyá. the god is referred to as priyá. May we (be ones who have) a good fire for ourselves. tanū́.pronouns and by pronominal adjectives.in the Ṛgveda With regard to the semantic meaning of the Vedic Sanskrit morpheme priyá-. desired.occurring twice in the same stanza with bivalent semantic meaning of ‘dear’ and ‘own. as illustrated in archaic passages of Sanskrit and Greek verse. Mayrhofer (378–79) and Grassmann (889–91) provide the meaning of this word respectively as ‘own. beloved’ and ‘lieb.26. middle connotation of ‘we (for) ourselves. originally expressed by the PIE middle voice and eventually being displaced in Vedic Sanskrit by specific grammatical morphemes. that is.7) ‘Let (Agni) be our own (dear) protector of the dwelling.’ In this passage to Agni. both Gardiner and Kulikov expound upon this phenomenon in their respective dissertations that explore how the usage of certain words in Vedic Sanskrit. the pleasant desirable priest. beliebt. dear. express the notion of ‘self’ as reflexive markers replacing the original middle verbal category of PIE.with the reflexive sense of ‘our own. For a detailed and excellent discussion on this topic.

began to lose its significance.replaced the diminishing grammatical function of the middle voice to express reflexivity and reciprocity in the early IE languages.This covalent semantic meaning of priyá.. beloved’ and a reflexive meaning of ‘one’s own. beloved’ and ‘one’s own’ underscores Lehmann’s argument that the reflexive adjective and noun priyá. Lehmann further posits that a similar situation occurred in Homeric Greek and in late Hittite where the middle voice. Referring to this grammatical shift in PIE Lehmann states that.’ and the new grammatical quality of reflexivity. Ancient Greek phíl(i)os. beloved. Oneself’ as a Morphological Derivative of *Hes‘To Be’ Returning back to Lehmann’s primary point of his study.all share the identical semantic feature to convey simultaneously a meaning of both ‘dear. or possible   137   . “such adaptations are introduced when a pattern for expression of reflexivization loses its force. Recalling the semantic meaning of PIE *(H)su. etc.in the Ṛgveda as ‘dear.‘good.‘One’s Own. he now posits that Old English swǣes. as a distinct grammatical expression for verbal reflexivity. and Vedic Sanskrit priyá.’ Based on this lexical evidence in these IE languages. originally governed by the PIE middle voice. etc. oneself. dear.’ I concur with Lehmann. oneself’ as a derivational morpheme. could also have held a covalent semantic meaning in PIE to express both ‘dear.‘one’s own. he conjectures that PIE *(H)sṷe-. the origin of Old English swǣes. as did the middle in the Indo-European dialects” (143). PIE *(H)sṷe. who conjectures that it is both semantically and morphologically plausible to posit PIE *(H)sṷe.

enable a deeper insight into the lexico-semantics of these roots in PIE and Vedic Sanskirt. I further posit that these morphemes are metaphors for wholeness and oneness in early PIE language.‘to be’ and *(H)su. oneself. dear’ and *(H)sṷe. As previously stated. oneself. furthermore.‘to be. This statement leads Lehmann. “At the same time such examination provides insights into the cultural views of its speakers” (145). (144-145) Lehmann’s findings on the grammatical and semantic nature of PIE *(H)sṷe. the adaptation of the adjectival *swe.’ I believe that it is possible that the original PIE root *Hes. dear. self. Again.’ With Lehmann’s and Pokorny’s conjectured morphological and semantic relationship between PIE *(H)su. advance that it is possible to account for *Hes. of PIE *(H)su-.‘good’. new devices had to be introduced for expression of reflexive and reciprocal meaning.’ which in turn exist within the larger semantic continuum of wholeness and oneness. as well as a revalation into Ṛgvedic culture.’ *(H)su. dear’ and *(H)sṷe. “*suis zero grade to *sṷe-” (1037–38). and proceed to the conclusion that the middle already was losing its force in the protolanguage…. Pokorny holds a similar opinion by stating that.‘good. dear.‘good. reflected as   138   .On the loss of the middle voice. to declare. Since derivatives of *swe.‘own. Lehmann agrees with this assertion by saying. If related to PIE su.in possessive force may well be comparable to that of priyás. existence. good.are found as possessives in many Indo-European languages. we must posit it in this sense for Proto-Indo-European. Indo-Europeanists generally concur of the established morphological connection between PIE *Hes.’ Previous scholarship has ignored the hypothetical relationship among these three morphemes.allomorph.’ and *(H)sṷe-‘own. beloved. in turn. dear. as proposed by the handbooks. I.‘good. either having overlooked or dismissed their possible morphological and semantic connection.‘to be’ could be the likely progenitor of both *(H)su. oneself’ as related morphemes that collectively connote ‘being.‘good. truth. own.and Pokorny’s opinion of the root being the full-grade of PIE *(H)su.‘own.

‘to be.‘dear. kin’ (from *sū.’ *(H)su.’ (220–21) There are certain words in the Ṛgveda that contain the Vedic Sanskrit root sva‘dear. etc.‘to be. everything belonged to the extended family. oneself. which differs from the opinion of Lehmann.’ the discussion can now focus on the cultural and cognitive expressions of these roots reflected in the Ŗgveda as possible metaphors for wholeness.‘good. dear.‘be born’)11 and the adjectival form *swo-s meant ‘belonging to the family’ = ‘own. and *(H)sṷe as Metaphors for Wholeness in Ṛgvedic Language and Thought The PIE roots *Hes. own.) there was of course no personal ownership. This was called *swe-/*swo.semantically held a cultural expression that conveyed a sense of ‘wholeness. *(H)su-.’ *(H)su. dear. oneself’ respectively produce the Vedic Sanskrit verb √as.‘one’s own.Szemerényi points out.‘to be. Having outlined a theoretical model on the morpho-semantic connection among the PIE roots *Hes.’ which possibly reveal a deeper semantic expression of wholeness                                                                                                                           11 Szemerényi reconstructs a different etymology for PIE *swe-.’ and the adjective sva. Reflexes of PIE *Hes-. This lack of consensus.‘good.‘good.’ and *(H)sṷe.   139   . however. does not diminish the fact that Szemerényi still concurs that PIE *swe. Pokorny and of this author. oneself. oneness’ within the social unit.relics in Vedic Sanskrit and in the other ancient IE languages.’ and *(H)sṷe-‘one’s own.‘family. oneself. own.’ the prefix su. This usage has its explanation in the social system of the extended family: in regard to any external possessions (in contrast to ‘my foot’.’ The metaphorical extension of these three roots to convey a cognitive and cultural expression of wholeness in Ṛgvedic language and thought is possible by exploring the socio-cultural environment in which the early speakers of PIE lived. With regard to a semantic understanding of the PIE reflexive morpheme *(H)sṷe.

she states that “Many scholars (e.   140   .and Vedic Sanskrit svásar. Among these are personal pronouns. Specifically.‘sister’ and śváśuraḥ. It is this understanding of the highly retentive feature of kinship terms that fosters an explanation into the possible archaic semantic meaning behind PIE *sṷesor.and oneness in the cultural and cognitive framework of Vedic society.‘sister’ Recalling Puddu’s statement from earlier in this chapter. the Vedic Sanskrit words svásar. This point is echoed among the general Indo-European academic field with the understanding among comparative and historical linguists that certain basic vocabulary terms possess high rates of semantic retention. PIE *sṷesor. “One of the bestattested areas of the reconstructed lexicon pertains to the family and kinship relations” (203). Trask defines a language family’s core vocabulary by saying that they are “words in a language which are of very high frequency…which are more resistant to lexical replacement than other words. Germanic (English) sister. the lower numerals.as Vedic Sanskrit svásār-. It is precisely these kinship terms that permit a deeper semantic unveiling and possible insight into early Vedic culture and cognitive thought.. As Mallory and Adams state. kinship terms…” (39). body-part names.‘father-in-law’ are likely semantic relics of an original PIE cultural and cognitive metaphor of wholeness and oneness. reflected later in the Ṛgveda.g. Mezger 1948…) propose a nominal etymology on the basis of kinship names like *swesor ‘sister’ and *sweḱuros ‘father-in-law’”(256). Celtic (Old Irish) siur. Latin soror. Clackson identifies some of the reflexes of the PIE kinship term *sṷesor.‘sister’ as a cultural metaphor of wholeness and oneness in PIE language.

Gamkrelidze and Ivanov. whereupon she entered another family and formed new. and Slavic (Russian) sestrá (202).‘king’) (666). All of this lexical evidence enables Gamkrelidze and Ivanov to conclude that PIE *sṷesor.‘woman’ with the literal meaning of ‘one’s own woman’ (666).Baltic (Lithuanian) sesuō.as a compound broken into the reflexive pronoun * (H)sṷe. any female consanguine.’ as I believe this distinction underscores a deeper cognitive expression of the PIE root *(H)sṷe. The widespread lexical evidence of this PIE word and its low degree of morphological variance among several of the IE branches attest to *sṷesorlikely being an archaic form in the PIE language.‘three (fem.   141   . Gamkrelidze and Ivanov add Tocharian A ṣar. Avestan xvanhar-. Tocharian B ṣer. Furthermore the same scholars posit that PIE *sor.‘woman’ (from original *srī-).‘queen’ (in contrast to haššu. interiocity. To this list.‘one’s own’ plus *sor. until she married.to connote notions of inclusiveness. and individuation of one’s own clan as ‘one whole’ social unit. “In ancient Indo-European society a woman remained ‘one’s own’.‘woman’ is a marker for the PIE feminine grammatical gender evident in such forms as Vedic Sanskrit ti-srá.expressed a cultural connotation of a “…woman of one’s own clan or family” and that.)’ and strī́. and Greek éor ‘female relative’ (666). affinal kinship relations outside of her birth family” (666–67). along with Hittite haššu-šara. or any female member of the extended family’ and reconstruct PIE *sṷesor. It is noteworthy to point out Gamkrelidze and Ivanov’s specific use of the phrases ‘a member of one’s extended family’ in contrast with ‘outside of her birth family. offer a meaning of this word as ‘sister. a member of one’s extended family. and other Indo-Europeanists.

Another example within PIE that I argue reinforces this notion of familial inclusiveness and interiocity in PIE language and thought is the Old Irish word for daughter ingen. Pokorny (373–75) reconstructs ingen from PIE *en-ǵenH-, which I translate as ‘one who is born inside (the clan).’ In this sense, the Old Irish word ingen ‘daughter’ parallels the semantic function of PIE *sṷesor- as a term denoting the perceived interiority and inclusiveness of a woman as within ‘one’s own’ clan. Friedrich substantiates my position by stating that the reflexive meaning of the PIE prefix *(H)sṷe‘own, one’s own’ in *sṷesor shares a semantic meaning with Old Irish ingen by, “Illustrating a somewhat similar conceptualization, the Pre-Irish form for ‘daughter’ can be analyzed as ‘the one born inside’ (some sort of kinship group)” (9). The PIE term *sṷesor-, therefore, can be considered to express two distinct kinship terms. The first meaning of the PIE term *sṷesor- described a woman who was originally part of the unified, whole social structure, until the point when she becomes married and is required to leave the conceptual familial ‘whole.’ At that point of departure from the ‘whole’ clan, she is no longer conceived of as being *sṷesor- and is cognitively considered to be ‘outside, separate, and divided’ from the ‘one whole’ social unit. Conversely, the second meaning of PIE *sṷesor- likely indicates a new woman entering into the cohesive social unit from the ‘outside,’ most likely through marriage, and becomes cognitively perceived by all members of the social unit as their *sṷesor-, literally a woman who is now part of ‘our own’ unit. A modern day example of this archaic concept might perhaps still be reflected in the modern French word belle soeur ‘sister-in-law,’ whose literal meaning ‘beautiful, beloved sister’ echoes the semantic connotation of PIE *sṷesor- as meaning both

 

142  

‘beloved, dear woman part of the clan’ and ‘sister.’ Friedrich substantiates this important point by saying, “In all these discussions it must be remembered that ‘brother’ and ‘sister’ probably referred not only to the true siblings but to the members of the classificatory units analyzed above as ‘own woman’ or ‘clan sister’ and as ‘clan brother’” (26).

PIE *sṷeḱuros- and Vedic Sanskrit śváśura- ‘father-in-law’ Another PIE reconstructed term of kinship is the word *sṷeḱuros-, the word for ‘father-in-law,’ which also attests a corresponding feminine noun *sṷeḱruH- ‘mother-inlaw.’ Clackson identifies reflexes of *sṷeḱuros- as Vedic Sanskrit śváśura-12, Greek hekurós, Latin socer, Germanic (Gothic) svaihr, Celtic (Welsh) chwegrwn, Slavic (Russian) svekor, Baltic (Lithuanian) śēśuras, Albanian vjehër, and Armenian skesrayr (204). More precisely, the PIE kinship terms *sṷeḱuros- and *sṷeḱruH- refer respectively to the ‘father and mother of the husband.’ Gamkrelidze and Ivanov assert this point by saying, “Analysis of the Proto-Indo-European affinal terminology reveals one essential feature of Indo-European kinship: only terms for husband’s relatives in relation to the wife can be reconstructed; words for the wife’s relatives in relation to the husband are entirely lacking” (663). This linguistic peculiarity of the asymmetrical structure within
                                                                                                                         
12

The Sanskrit phoneme -ś- in the beginning of Vedic Sanskrit śváśura- ‘father-in-law’ and śváśrū́- ‘mother-in-law’ is likely due to regressive assimilation of the following -ś- in the second member of the compound -śura- and -śrū́-. Thus, śváśura- and śváśrū́- were originally *sváśuraand *sváśrū́-, as corroborated by its cognates in the other IE dialects. The case of regressive assimilation of Sanskrit -s- > -ś- is also evident in the Vedic Sanskrit word for ‘beard,’ śmáśru- < *smáśru-.

 

143  

PIE kinship terms has led Indo-Europeanists, such as Mallory in his In Search of the Indo-Europeans, to state, “All linguistic evidence suggests that Proto-Indo-European society was patrilineal in descent and male dominated….This suggests that the residence rules of the Proto-Indo-European involved the woman going to live in the house of her husband or with his family” (123). This feature of PIE culture likely being patrilineal and patrilocal now permits a better understanding of the PIE words *sṷeḱuros- and *sṷeḱruH- in a cultural context based on individuation and interiocity. According to Gamkrelidze and Ivanov PIE *sṷeḱuros- can be segmented into the reflexive marker *(H)sṷe-‘one’s own’ plus the morpheme *ḱ(u)r- ‘head,’ which they state, “could thus have meant ‘head of family, head of one’s own people….This can be seen as an indication of the dominant position of the father in the extended family, with his sons and their wives subordinate to him” (663). Expanding on the semantic import and cultural significance of the PIE morpheme *(H)sṷe- in the term *sṷeḱuros-, Friedrich states, Swe- (discussed above in connection with sweso:r) appears to have been conjoined with a morpheme for ‘chief, power’ (ḱrwH-), plus affixes denoting sex gender…Such etymological transparency suggests that at some time during PIE unity…the woman shifted from a previous usage to these special descriptive compounds for the husband’s parents. Paralleling this hypothetical but likely development, we find that as late as Homeric and Vedic times men were still using generic terms with the notion of ‘own, attached’ for the wife’s father (Homeric pentherós and Vedic sambándhin, both deriving from PIE bhendh‘bind, attach’). (11)

PIE *(H)sṷe- and Vedic Sanskrit sva- as a Cognitive Expression of Individuation and Interiocity and Metaphor for Wholeness Based on the established scholarship of the semantic and cultural expression of PIE *(H)sṷe-, evident in the archaic kinship terms *sṷesor-, *sṷeḱuros-, it is possible to
  144  

expressed lexically by *(H)sṷe-. etc.’ In this sense the PIE social unit. that is. I posit that *(H)sṷe. and interiocity that bound an individual into a social unit together as a conceptual ‘one whole. group. it establishes a speaker’s cognitive identity within the conceptual terrain enabling the speaker(s) to make a conscious distinction between what is *(H)sṷe-. perceived as the ‘other. reflected in *sṷesor. individuation.did not merely mean ‘one’s own. containedness. what belongs to one’s own self. inclusiveness.conceptualize a deeper cognitive meaning of PIE *(H)sṷe.and its Vedic Sanskrit reflex sva-. versus what is *dṷe(H)-. in cognitive contrast to all those who were perceived to be ‘outside. or community.   145   .’ but perhaps expressed a deeper cognitive connotation of unity. became ‘individuated’ and ‘interiorally selfcontained’ as a clan or familial group.’ Recalling my usage of the term individuation. that is. oneself.’ I summarize these points discussed in the following table.and *sṷeḱuros-.

‘one’s own. Lexical data from the Ṛgveda and from other   146   .‘Good’ Having outlined the likely morphological relationship among the PIE roots *Hes‘to be.‘good.’ and *(H)sṷe.Table 5 Reflexes of the Grammatical Features of Individuation and Interiocity in PIE and Vedic Sanskrit Proto-Indo-European (PIE) Expression Grammatical feature Cultural Semantic Individuation Individual Wholeness and Oneness collective selfidentification Interiocity Individual and sense of selfcontaindness Bounded Integral Lexical *(H)sṷe‘one’s or the collective’s own’ *sṷesor‘one’s or the collective’s woman.’ the task is now to establish the possible semantic link that these roots might share.’ *(H)su. i. i.e. self’ svásar‘sister’ śváśura‘father-inlaw’ Further Evidence of the Morphosemantic Connection between PIE *Hes. sister’ *sṷeḱuros‘one’s or the collective’s head.‘own. husband’s father’ Reflexes in Vedic Sanskrit sva.e.‘To Be’ and *(H)su.

specifically Hittite. while in its zero-grade ablaut *h1h1s-u produces Ancient Greek eús and Vedic Sanskrit sú. it is now possible for Indo-Europeanists to reconstruct PIE *(H)su./ āššaṷ.is an alternate representation by some Indo-Europeanists of PIE *Hes147     .early IE dialects.’13 As a reduplicated e-grade ablaut *h1e-h1s-u-. etc. dear. According to the Hittite Inherited Lexicon there exists the Hittite verbal root āšš. favourable’.‘good. dear.‘good.(266–67). dear’ as the                                                                                                                           13 *h1es. dear. Furthermore.‘to be. but the exact connection is unclear” (257). Based on the argument presented by the Hittite Inherited Lexicon. “must in some way be cognate with the substantive āššu. might provide a plausible explanation unifying these morphemes into a larger semantic continuum of wholeness and oneness. this form now is able to account for Ancient Greek ēús. the same work claims that the PIE reconstructed form *h1oh1s-u.’ ‘good. specifically in the Hittite language./ āššaṷ.‘to be loved.is a reduplicated morpheme from the original PIE root *h1es. to be good.’ which this source states. The Evidence in Archaic Hittite Texts The earliest lexical evidence of the possible semantic connection among the notions of ‘being.’ ‘dear.’ and ‘own’ in the IE languages might be found in the Anatolian branch. conjectured for the PIE language.’ one has to reconstruct āššu. favourable’ is the original morpheme in Anatolian. The same work resolves this question by arguing that if the Anatolian form āššu‘good. This uncertainty refers to whether the verb āšš. and therefore. ēús ‘good’ and Vedic Sanskrit su‘good.’ is to be cognate with Greek eús.‘good.‘to be loved. to be good’ or the substantive āššu.as deriving from a reduplicated o-grade ablaut form *h1o-h1s-u-.

the importance of which now becomes evident. hatku. huišufrom hueš. dear.‘good.‘rise’)” (67).[just quoted]14. shut’.and not the other way around” (267).‘live.’ All of this evidence permits the Hittite Inherited Lexicon to state. In Puhvel’s “Hittite aššu” he presents further lexical evidence within Hittite and the reconstructed PIE language to explain how the PIE suffix *-u. He states that there exists a “collaterality of primary verb and u-stem adjective” in both the Anatolian branch and the reconstructed PIE language (66).‘good. “…a productive relationship persists between basic verbs and u-stem derivatives (e.’ 148     . šarku. He continues to say.‘prominent’ from šark. The PIE suffix *-u.‘hostile’ from harp. “…it is likely that the verb āšš-a(ri)…’to be loved’ is derived from āššu. dear.as the Missing Morphological Link Returning to the main point of inquiry. to be good.product of the zero-grade ablaut form *H-Hs-u. dear’ is an archaic morpheme in PIE.‘to be’ offer possible insight into any semantic affinity between these roots with regard to the concept of wholeness? The morphological missing link may likely be the PIE suffix *-u-.‘tight’ from hatk. this conclusion enables IE scholars to posit that PIE *(H)su.and its zero-grade allomorph *H-Hs-u. how does the morphological connection between PIE *He-Hs-u.‘separate’.‘good. favorable’ is original to the verbal form āšš.‘to be loved. In turn.reflects in a number of derivational morphemes that produce adjectives from original verbal forms.‘live. harpu.‘good.‘squeeze. I believe that Puhvel’s evidence now provides a missing element to the findings of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon that the substantive āššu. dear’ with PIE *Hes.g.’ While the Hittite Inherited                                                                                                                           14 huišu. raw’ from hueš.

‘good. favorable’ produced the secondary denominative verbal form āšš. dear’ as a derivational u-stem adjective from an original PIE verb *Hes. expressed by PIE *Hes. as a semantic concatenation that constitutes a larger semantic continuum of wholeness and oneness. Based on Puhvel’s observations on the collaterality between early Hittite verbal forms with their derivational u-stem adjectives.and by Vedic Sanskrit √as-.‘good.Lexicon conjectures that the adjective āššu. to be good. in the same process that other u-stem adjectives originate from basic verbs.’ Puhvel’s model can now be applied to the PIE language confirming PIE *(H)su. In Puhvel’s work he establishes a semantic chain in Hittite that conceptually links the notion of being with the idea of good as part of a greater semantic continuum.‘to be.’ Semantic Concatenation and Continuum of Wholeness and Being It is now possible to conceptualize the PIE and Ṛgvedic notion of being. etc. good’ is the Hittite verb aš.‘good’ can be established in the following manner–‘being’ > ’real’ > ‘true’ > ‘good’ (67).as a derivational morpheme from an even earlier Hittite verb. In his article Puhvel cites textual examples from the Hittite corpus where the word ašant ‘being’ can   149   .’ as a metaphorical development from *Hes. Indo-Europeanists are able to postulate that the progenitor of the Hittite adjective āššu.‘to be.‘good.’ Puhvel’s hypothesis would have to place the Hittite adjective āššu.‘dear.‘to be loved. dear.‘to be. He states that “a chain of semantic developments” linking the Hittite verbal participle ašant ‘being’ with aššu. dear.’ Puhvel’s research into the Hittite language and the findings of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon are relevant as they assist in establishing an explanation for the possible semantic evolution of the archaic u-stem adjective (H)su.

the one which is true and (up)right Soma indeed favors.’ PIE *Hsont.’ anyád adyá kárvaram anyád u śvó ásac ca sán múhur ācakrír índraḥ mitró no átra váruṇaś ca pūṣā́ aryó váśasya parietā́ asti (6. Similar to the semantic covalency of Hittite ašant to connote both ‘being’ and ‘truth. non-being). and Truth’ In the Ṛgveda the semantic development of Vedic Sanskrit sá(n)t. Reality. another tomorrow.as ‘Being. Varuṇa. Here for us is Mitra. and Pūṣan. The example Puhvel uses to demonstrate his assertion is a line from the Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazköi (KUB) texts of the Hittite corpus in the Hittite phrase ašanza memiaš (KUB XXXIII 109 I 5).and its zero-grade ablaut allomorph *Hsṇt.’ is the parallel development in Vedic Sanskrit of the word sá(n)t-.to express the simultaneous notions of ‘truth’ and ‘being’ is evident in the following stanzas.24.are reflexes of the reconstructed PIE present active participle *Hsont.‘to be.from the verb *Hes. being) from the untruth (unreal.‘to be.and Ṛgvedic sá(n)t.’   150   . Just as Hittite ašant ‘being’ is the present active participle of the original Hittite verb aš.be shown to connote a meaning of ‘true.‘to be. the subduer of the enemy’s will. the two words oppose each other.’ Both Hittite ašant and Vedic Sanskrit sá(n)t.12) ‘For the person who perceives it is easy to discern the truth (real. Indra in every moment transforms nonexistence to existence.5) ‘Another act today.’ analogous in both form and meaning to Ṛgvedic sá(n)t-.the present active participle of √as.104.’ so too is Vedic Sanskrit sá(n)t. Of these two. suvijñānáṃ cikitúṣe jánāya sác cā́sac ca vácasī paspṛdhāte táyor yát satyáṃ yatarád ŕ̥jīyas ít sómo avati hántyā́sat (7. he destroys the untruth (nonbeing). which Puhvel translates as “the matter [is] true” (67).

Table 6 Semantics of Vedic Sanskrit sá(n)t and ása(n)tsá(n)t-   Wholeness Otherness   Order   Truth   Being   Existence     ása(n)t-   Otherness Twoness   Chaos   Falsehood   Non-Being   Non-existence     151   .‘non-reality.‘to be’ and the notion of truth is further evident in the word satyá.is an expression of a deeper binarism between wholeness versus otherness.3. which can be summarized succinctly in the following way.and ása(n)t.’ Conversely. This binary semantic contrast between sá(n)t.In both of these stanzas the semantic force behind the Vedic Sanskrit participle sá(n)tunderscores its covalent meaning of ‘truth. existence. falsehood’ occurs in semantic opposition to the participle sá(n)t-. as evidenced in the famous verse asato mā sadgamaya ‘Lead me from the Unreal to the Real’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 1. non-existence. I believe that the semantic distinction between Vedic Sanskrit sá(n)t.becomes a common motif throughout the subsequent Vedic and Upaniṣadic philosophical literature.28).and ása(n)t. in both of these stanzas the word ása(n)t. reality. The semantic link between Vedic Sanskrit √as.‘truth’ as a derivational morpheme of the participle sá(n)t-.

“From ‘favored.Semantic Concatenation from Hittite aš.LUGAL āššuš ‘what man (is) in favor with king (and) queen’….‘Good. Puhvel offers a plausible semantic connection from the notion of ‘favored. beloved. 2 (OHitt. dear’ the meaning developed to ‘favorable. Dear.‘good. favorable’ became part of the semantic concatenation of the Hittite verb aš. dear.’ He states.g. does not basically denote that which is intrinsically and objectively good (as would inherently IE *Ẹsú-15) but rather that which is felt to be agreeable…It is therefore advisable to start with the sense ‘favored. : KBo III 22 Vs. Based on the textual evidence in the Hittite corpus. dear’ which is so prominent with aššu-. KUB XIX 26 I 17 kuiš-a antuwahhaš ITTI LUGAL SAL. His argument substantiates the semantic concatenation that he posits earlier–‘being’ > ’real’ > ‘true’ > ‘good. KBo XVII 65 Vs. Hittite aššu-. dear. 2 (OHitt.’ 152     . on the other hand.’ Using Puhvel’s                                                                                                                           15 This is Puhvel’s representation of PIE *(H)su.g. Favorable’ Puhvel also discusses how the semantic meaning of Hittite aššu.‘to be.) DIM-unni āššuš ēšta ‘he was dear to the storm-god’.‘To Be’ to Hittite aššu. KBo XXII 22 Vs.) ūk-wa a[tt]i-m[i] [natt]a āššuš ‘I (am) not dear to my father’. e. KUB XXVI 12 II 25 [š]umēšš-aš āššuš kuedanikki ‘he is favorable to one of you’.’ He continues to say. dear’ to a general sense of ‘good’ expressed by the Hittite word aššu-. agreeable’ (e. 55 mašiwan A NA EN SISKUR.SISKUR āššu ‘as much as [is] agreeable to the sacrificer’) and thence to ‘good’ in a “utilitarian” sense” (67).‘good.originally had a connotation of ‘one who is favored. Puhvel demonstrates that the semantic meaning of Hittite āššu. (67) Citing the above texts from the Old Hittite corpus.

model as a framework. beloved.‘one’s own. oneself’ being the morphological and semantic derivative of PIE *(H)su.‘good.’ Expanding upon Pokorny’s and Lehmann’s findings and hypotheses.’ The corresponding lexical expressions of this semantic concatenation in PIE and Vedic Sanskrit can be summarized in the following table. favorable.   153   . I embellish upon his fundamental structure by integrating Pokorny’s and Lehmann’s hypotheses of PIE *(H)sṷe. dear. I expand Puhvel’s semantic concatenation in the following manner–‘to be’  ‘being/real/existence’  ‘truth’  ‘good/dear’  ‘one’s own.

cognitive expression Wholeness Oneness Inactive Inclusiveness Stative Existential Reflexes in Vedic Sanskrit Vedic Sanskrit Lexeme √asVedic Sanskrit Meanig ‘to be’ PIE Lexeme *Hes- PIE Meaning ‘to be’ *Hsont*Hsṇt- ‘being’ ’real’ ‘existence sántsát- ‘being’ ’real’ ‘existence Totality Permanence *Hsṇt-io ‘truth’ satyá- ‘truth’ Endearment Reflexivity *(H)su- ‘good’ ‘dear’ su- ‘good’ ‘dear’ Individuation *(H)sṷeInteriocity Containedness ‘one’s own’ sva- ‘one’s own’   154   .and Vedic Sanskrit √asProto-Indo-European (PIE) Grammatical.Table 7 Metaphorical Expressions of PIE *Hes. semantic.

One such inactive verb that I conjecture is the PIE root *Hes.‘to be. which I define as the degree of individuation the speaker(s) places on the denotative object.Chapter Summary It is now possible to broaden the theoretical framework regarding the PIE and Ṛgvedic cognitive metaphor of wholeness by viewing it through the grammatical features of individuation and interiocity. In Frawley’s study he uses the term ‘degree of individuation’ to express the extent by which speaker(s) place on the ‘relative singularity of the denotation’ (69).and √as. It has already been discussed in previous chapters that the PIE grammatical concordance between nouns and verbs dictated the use of inactive verbs to express inactive nouns and concepts. What is the relation between the semantic notion of individuation and the notion of a criterion of identity? According to the approach to the problem of reference with which I will be concerned.and its Vedic Sanskrit reflex √as. I coin the terms relative oneness and wholeness of the denotation.’ The lexical evidence within the Ṛgveda and in the other early IE texts suggest a possible grammatical function of *Hes. To single out an object   155   . person. there is a very close relation. The degree of individuation by which speaker(s) perceives individual and collective identity as a state of wholeness within the conceptual landscape frames and determines the way these denotative objects become lexically expressed within one’s specific language As Linnebo asks. with a cultural expression of endearment and of group-identity. It is by means of criteria of identity that semantic individuation is effected. Adapting Frawley’s statement within the context of this current research. The grammatical feature of individuation is intimately linked to the cognitive and cultural notion of both self and communal identity. or entity.as an original inactive verb with stative meaning to convey a cognitive expression of individuation and interiocity.

’16 The grammatical and cognitive concept of individuation can further be constructed within a semantic concatenation based on the PIE verb *Hes-.‘family.’ This semantic continuum from PIE *Hes.‘own. I belive that this cognitive process existed in PIE language that enabled speaker(s) to identify those members of the ‘one whole’ via                                                                                                                           16 I also conjecture that the deictic root *sem. dear.‘one whole. dear. kin’…and the adjectival form *swo-s meant ‘belonging to the family’ = ‘own’” (220-221). I suggest that in PIE language. united’ may also have expressed a similar cognitive notion of individuation and interiocity. which further develops into the PIE reflexive pronoun *(H)sṷe. beloved. “…what is essentially the same.‘to be. beloved’ by the PIE root *(H)su-.meaning ‘to be.‘to be’ to the PIE lexeme *(H)sṷe. a hierarchy of salience” based on “foci of attention…” (199). and subsequently reflected in the Ṛgveda.   156   . beloved. whether personal or collective. This semantic chain begins with PIE *Hes. dear’ can be explained as a cognitive process by which the speaker(s) indentifies a conscious distinction between what belongs to one’s self or to one’s own group in cognitive contrast to what is perceived as ‘the other. As Comrie states the grammatical and cognitive feature of individuation is established by the speaker identifying. “…there was of course no personal ownership. This was called *swe-/*swo. connected.for reference involves being able to distinguish this object from other possible referents (3).’ To recall Szemerényi’s statement regarding the cultural and cognitive expression of PIE *(H)sṷe-. was likely expressed through the verbal root *Hes. everything belonged to the extended family.to express the meaning of ‘own. the notion of individuation and identity. being’ with the other end of the chain expressing ‘good. Intimately connected to the linguistic function of individuation is the notion of interiocity.

established on conceptual boundaries of wholeness.’ Furhermore. he expresses it as “the containedness of an entity or the way that an entity differentiates its inside from its outside” (125).‘good.’ These loci of attention were perhaps physical. oneness. I conjecture that while individuation was likely based on cognitive ‘foci of attention. individuation and interiocity were perhaps expressed by the PIE verb *Hes.’ Additionally. part of.‘to be’ and through its derivational morpheme *(H)sṷe. determined by geography. dear. or possibly cognitive. In this sense the linguistic feature of interiocity semantically unites PIE *Hes. and wholeness. In my opinion it is therefore possible to conceptualize wholeness and oneness in PIE language and thought as a continuum of personal and collective identity based on relative degrees of individuation and interiocity. or as the same foci of attention or loci of proximity in relationship to the speaker(s) are more individuated and interior than those who are identified as being separate from the whole. I postulate that PIE language equated interiocity as that which speaker(s) conceptualized as being one’s own.’ interiocity was perhaps established on cognitive ‘loci of attention.‘one’s own.various ‘foci of attention’ based on the salience of ‘sameness. in Frawley’s definition of the grammatical notion of interiocity.‘one’s own’ to encompass all which is cognitively interior and contained within the foci and loci of the individual or collective boundary. beloved. all which or whom speaker(s) cognitively identify as being close to.’   157   .‘one’s own. In summary. In the PIE language. Whatever or whoever was contained within the physical or cognitive locus of attention from the relative perspective of the speaker(s) was termed by the PIE lexeme *(H)sṷe.‘to be’ with *(H)sṷe.’ as they were perceived also to be *(H)su.

cognitive.overtook the function of the PIE middle verbs to connote reflexivity.   158   .possibly expressed simultaneous grammatical. sva.was structured around personal and collective individuation and interiocity as a metaphor to connote wholeness and oneness in Ṛgvedic language and thought. The morpheme’s cognitive function assisted Vedic Sanskrit speaker(s) to identify denotative objects as either ‘one’s own’ or ‘part of the collective whole. the Vedic Sanskrit word sva.In the Ṛgveda. and cultural functionality. etc.’ as the reflex of PIE *(H)sṷe. Grammatically..’ while the cultural function of sva. oneself.‘one’s own.

together’ and *Hes. “The prefix *dus.‘bad’. and cultural context within the Ṛgveda.‘to be. whole. I also suggest that the numeral *du̯oH(u). the discussion now turns to how the notion of otherness was possibly a cognitive metaphor that expressed twoness in PIE and Ṛgvedic language.’ The conjectured antonym of PIE *(H)su.is cognate with the other PIE root *deuH(s). is well attested across the Indo-European world (e. I conjecture that it is possible to posit the semantic contrast between wholeness versus otherness as binarism between the notions of ‘one’ and ‘two’ in a larger cognitive.’ A point that I discuss further in this chapter.‘two’ was in semantic contrast to both PIE *sem‘one.‘good’ was a metaphor that developed morphologically and semantically from PIE *Hes. deficient. Furthermore.’ Mallory and Adams state. conceptual.that I use in this research reflects the possible position that *du(H)s.   159   .‘lack.expressed the concept of twoness as a cognitive metaphor of otherness. In this chapter I present the case that PIE *du̯oH(u). foul.                                                                                                                           17 The representation of this morpheme is generally *dus-. be distant.g.expressed the concept of twoness as a cognitive expression of otherness reflected in both the grammar and lexico-semantics of early PIE language. or in English terms. inferior.is *du(H)s-17 ‘bad. The alternative representation of the medial -H. Binary Contrast between ‘Good’ and ‘Bad’ in PIE Language I have already suggested that PIE *(H)su.8) Otherness as a Metaphor for Twoness In the chapter on “Wholeness as a Metaphor for Oneness” I suggest that the PIE numeral ‘two’ *du̯oH(u).‘to be’ as cognitive expressions of wholeness. Just as the concept of wholeness was perhaps a cognitive metaphor of oneness.laryngeal in *du(H)s. ‘un-’ or ‘ill-’.

mis-’. foul’ can be reconstructed from an even earlier PIE root.may be cognate here (339). mis-’). OE tor.‘bad.held an ameliorative semantic connotation of ‘good. Indo-Europeanists agree that PIE *(H)su.‘bad.< *Hes-. The question now arises if the PIE prefix *du(H)s.connoted a pejorative semantic connotation of ‘bad.’ In order to ascertain if PIE *du(H)s. *dwoh3(u)-.   160   . akin to *(H)su.‘two.encountered in *du̯ō(u)-.’ The Morpho-semantic Relationship between PIE *du(H)s.’ while *du(H)s.’ is the origin of the PIE numeral *du̯oH(u). foul’ and *du̯oH(u).‘bad.‘good’ originating from PIE *Hes‘to be?’ To current knowledge a definitive response and detailed examination on this issue appear to be lacking in IE scholarship. other. Skt duṣ. Lat dif. etc. “The number ‘two’ was *dwoh3(u)(neuter: *dwoih1)18 which may have originally been *du but was progressively extended by suffixes to indicate ‘duality’…” (310). I favor the alternate reconstruction *du̯oH(u)-. Grk dus.‘two. it is helpful to explore the morpho-semantic connections between PIE *du(H)s ‘bad.‘bad.and the prefix *du(H)s.[verbal prefix]. they posit the reconstructed laryngeal cluster *-oh3-. which is phonologically equivalent to the reconstructed phoneme *-ō. Despite the dearth of research on this specific question.‘there. with the missing morphological and                                                                                                                           18 In Adams and Mallory’s reconstruction of the basic PIE root *dwoh3(u)-. mis-’.was perhaps a morphological derivative from a conjectured earlier root. and *du̯ō(u)-. foul?’ I conjecture that it is possible. in a manner analogous to PIE *(H)su.‘bad. If this assertion by Mallory and Adams is correct and PIE deictic root *du. also written as *du̯oh3(u)-.’ can a similar connection be established between PIE *du.‘Two’ In Mallory and Adams’ PIE World they state.‘Bad’ and *du̯oH(u). Av duš. mis-’.‘bad.‘un-’. NHG zer.OIr do. equivalent in form to *du̯oh3(u)-.

English tire < Germanic *teuzōn.as ‘to lack. In this sense. 20 Mallory and Adams (and a number of other IE scholars) opt to reconstruct this root without the -H.’ is perhaps the PIE verb *deuH(s). Deficient. Inferior’ With regard to PIE *deuH(s). Greek dein < de(u)in.‘bedürfen.laryngeal. 21 PIE deṷ∂.‘two.’19 PIE *deuH(s). dū.(477). deṷ∂-21. dṷā-. “There are a series of terms for lacking or poverty (*deu(s). Mallory and Adams.‘Lack. fade [of colours]’ > NE tire. deficient. pass’ and reconstructs the various allomorphic roots *deu-. They add that in the PIE language. it indicates a more general ‘lack’ in Grk déomai and not only ‘want’ but also ‘crime’ in Indic (Skt doṣa-)” (274). I favor the form *deuH(s). that is.                                                                                                                           19 This definition of PIE *deuH(s). and the LIV. want’ (12). Watkins. be wanting’ and states that English tire originally meant ‘to fall behind’ and is cognate with the Greek verb dein ‘to lack.semantic link that places *du(H)s.is my own. be distant.into the same semantic field of otherness along with PIE *du̯oH(u). grow weary. lack’ (107). while Pokorny and the Hittite Inherited Lexicon reconstruct the laryngeal. In addition to this semantic definition of PIE *deuH(s)-. ermangeln. “Although *deu(s)-20 indicates lack of energy or colour in OE tēorian ‘faint.‘lack.Mallory and Adams state in PIE World. In Watkins’ Indo-European Roots he defines *deu. The LIV lists the root as *deus. 161     . Pokorny adds the meaning ‘to move forward.‘be lacking’…” (285). inferior.can also be written as *deuH-. Either way is valid and can still account for the various reflexes of the original PIE form among the descendant languages. to need. synthesized from those by Pokrny. Be Distant.in this research.

duṣ-.possibly appears once in the Ṛgveda as the verbal root √du-/dav.are all morphologically and semantically related tracing back to PIE *deuH(s). one who goes to remote far places.’ In this sense the original connotation of PIE *du(H)s. inferior’ now becomes more transparent. In Vedic Sanskrit the PIE root *du(H)s. i.developed into the prefix duḥ-.‘bad.‘lack.‘to be. PIE *deuH(s). dū.e.as a cognitive expression of lack.5). The semantic connection between the two morphemes can perhaps also be readily explained. Just as PIE *(H)su. along with its allomorphs dur-. unpleasant.in the form daviṣāṇi (10.’ The conjectured original meaning of *du(H)s. evil.‘far. inferior.’ dūtá‘messenger. inferiority. blemished. deficient. foul’ is a later development in                                                                                                                           22 Vedic Sanskrit du. inferior’ yielded the Vedic Sanskrit roots du-22. inferior. i. etc. foul’ with *deuH(s)‘lack. if one takes *du(H)s.perhaps had an original connotation of something that is ‘lacking.e. to express the semantic qualities of ‘bad. be one whole.e. evil. i. deficient.’ PIE *du(H)s.‘bad.to express something as not one whole can be understood to be in semantic binary opposition to *(H)su-. foul. wanting. distance.   162   . remote. be distant..‘lack.‘good’ became the metaphorical extension from the PIE verb *Hes.34. dū-.’ Similarly. remoteness.and Sanskrit doṣa. ill. which might originally have expressed good as that which is perceived as one whole. be distant.‘very far away. possibly eventually extended by metaphor to mean something ‘bad. deficient. not one whole. I conjecture that PIE *du(H)s. incompleteness.’ and daviṣṭhá. etc.and dav. etc.’ The morphological connection between PIE *du(H)s. deficient.reflected in Ṛgvedic dūrá. foul. etc.’ If this assertion is correct. be distant.as the zero-grade allomorph of *deuH(s)-. distant.

PIE language having evolved metaphorically from an original PIE *deuH(s).and of vocalic thematization by the theme-vowel -e-.‘two. foul’ and *deuH(s)‘lack.‘there.itself is a possible derivational morpheme from the archaic PIE deictic root *du.> *deuH-s-. inferior.’ The Morphological Relationship of PIE *deuH(s)-. *du̯iH-.‘bad. foul’ the “connection with deus.‘lack. Having established the probable morpho-semantic connection between PIE *du(H)s. and *du̯oH(u)As the above section suggests. other. Similarly. and *deus.‘bad. *du̯oiH-.> *deu-H.‘lack.’ a point supported by Mallory and Adams (310) and by Sihler (407).can now also possibly account for and justify the various reconstructions of the allomorphs *deu-. My proposed model of *du. a plausible explanation now exists to account for the morphological connection between PIE *deuH(s).by Pokorny (219–20) and by Mallory and Adams (273–74) as merely alternative representations of PIE *deuH(s)-.’ as the result of suffixation by -H-s. may also have derived from the original PIE deictic root *du. *deṷǝ-. *du̯ā-.> *deu.extension of an original root *deuH.   163   . deficient. inferior’ is likely the -s.‘lack’ is very probable” (227).. He further comments that with regard to *du(H)s. *du(H)s. I propose that PIE *du̯oH(u).’ the question still lingers as to the possible relationship of these forms to the PIE numeral *du̯oH(u).> *deuH-s.(219). deficient.and *du(H)s. I suggest the likelihood that *deuH(s).’ along with its allomorphs *du̯eiH-. be distant. deficient. Thus a possible morphological development might have been *du. be distant. be distant. other.‘two. On this matter Pokorny comments that PIE *deuH(s).> *deu-H.‘there. *dū.> *deu. inferior.as the result of various suffix extensions on to the zero-grade root *du-.’ Furthermore.

in order to mark it grammatically as a thematic dual noun. *du̯oiH-.   164   .‘bad.(the masculine dual form derived from *du̯oH(u)-) and as dvé.‘two. Ernout and Meillet hold a similar position to that of my own. there are others who favor that the original root for the numeral ‘two’ was simply the basic root *du-. In the opinion of Ernout and Meillet. It is for this reason that Vedic Sanskrit expresses the number ‘two’ as both dvā́and dvaú.was the form that appears in the Vedic Sanskrit prefix dvi-.Regarding the morphological structure of PIE *du̯oH(u).‘there. other. of which the last syllable is considered to be the dual ending” (136). The assertion of PIE *du. “The name of the indo-european numeral ‘two’ is generally reconstructed as *duō(u)-. according to the dictates of PIE morphology.’ Villar explains that. The interpretation of Villar’s statement is that the PIE ending *-oH(u). and *du̯iH-.’ While certain IE scholars reconstruct the original form for the PIE numeral ‘two’ as *du̯oH(u)-. The variant allomorphic forms *du̯oH(u)-. therefore. *du. the allomorph *du̯iH. appear to be various grammatical markers for the numeral ‘two’ that I conjecture originally go back to the PIE deictic root *du.being the origin of the numeral *du̯oH(u).was a secondary development on to the original PIE root *du. Even though current scholarship can substantiate the possible lexical evidence to support the morphological connection and etymology among the PIE roots *du(H)s.(the feminine and neuter form from *du̯oiH-). Additionally.represents the original form and reflects a PIE archaism as it is attested laterally among many of the IE branches (146).due to “markers to indicate gender distinctions as it was declined” (310).‘two’ is again substantiated by Mallory and Adams who assert that the allomorph *du̯oiH.can be explained as the neuter form of PIE *du̯oH(u). Along with Mallory and Adams.

evil. “…‘leave’ in the sense of ‘go away’ is found in *deuh4-. foul. (For the sake of convenience. be deficient. etc. and *du̯oH(u)Mallory and Adams posit that the PIE morpheme *deuH(s)-. remote. *deuH(s)-. inferior.g.and *du(H)s-) How then is it possible to account for all of these seemingly variant semantic expressions of *deuHs.’ and *du̯oH(u). from hereon the PIE form *deuHs.in the early Indo-European languages. Skt dávati ‘goes’. especially in Vedic Sanskrit. based on the findings presented earlier on the possible morphological derivation of *du(H)s. Homeric Greek and Hittite. distant. tire. and the LIV. etc. The Semantic Relationship among PIE *deuH(s)-.that encompasses a pejorative semantic expression of badness.   165   . which they represent as *deuh4-.represents the consolidated roots *deuH(s).‘bad. far’. in order for this assertion to hold validity it is necessary to account for their semantic affinity.’ *deuH(s). separated.’ no definitive study has yet to establish a possible semantic connection among these roots. be distant.becomes ‘lack. If scholars are able to explain the morphological relationship among *du(H)s-. *du(H)s-. might reveal an answer. remote’” (401). illness. Hit tūwa ‘to a distance’. e. go away.‘two’ as derivatives of the PIE proto-root *du-. there exists an even larger semantic continuum of *deuH(s). inferior.foul. conveys the semantic meaning of ‘leave.with those suggested by Pokorny.‘two. a broader semantic meaning of *deuH(s). danger.’ from *deuH(s)-. poor. deficient. and *du̯oH(u).and to unify this root with the concept of twoness and duality expressed by the PIE numeral *du̯oH(u)-? An examination into the specific lexico-semantic reflexes of *deuHs. If one consolidates Mallory and Adams’ meaning of *deuH(s). Watkins.’ They state. dūrá.‘distant.‘lack. Grk dēn ‘long.’ Furthermore.

is likely from dūrá23.‘far. distance. away’ might reveal the hidden semantic connection between PIE *deuHs. Distant.‘press out. or *deu̯(ā)-. bad. along with the comparative dávīyas.‘very far away. the Vedic Sanskrit word dūrá. distant.‘far off.’ and the notion of twoness by PIE *du̯oH(u)-. etc. Remote.’ and Hittite duianalli‘second in rank’ and tūṷa. Pokorny and Mayhrhoffer continue to state that morphological derivatives of dūrá. remote. Both of these scholars believe that Ṛgvedic dūrá.’ I conjecture that the Vedic Sanskrit root dū-. separated. likely derives from the reconstructed PIE roots *deu-.’ and dūtá‘messenger. remote.   166   . separated’ occurs in the Ṛgveda.‘more far away’ and the superlative adjective daviṣṭhá.‘Far off.with the suffix -ra. distant.and dav-.might also be reflected in the Ṛgvedic words duvás. here reconstructed in this study by the consolidated PIE morpheme *deuHs-. with the loss of the PIE laryngeal (-H-) in Sanskrit regularly producing compensatory lengthening of –uHr.> -ūr-.Reflexes of *deuHs.in Vedic Sanskrit and other IE Languages Among the various reflexes of PIE *deuHs-. Ṛgvedic dūrá. possibly holds an underlying meaning that semantically unites all of these words in the Ṛgveda by connoting physical or temporal separation as a                                                                                                                           23 Vedic Sanskrit dū-rá derives from the PIE form *du(H)-rós.’ duvanya-sád ‘pressing out. separation.’ The etymology of this word.’ Homeric Greek deúteros ‘second.‘far off. according to both Pokorny (219) and Mayhrhoffer (56–57).‘separate. envoy. Separated’ as an Expression of Otherness and Separation The Vedic Sanskrit word dūrá. the morpheme dū. remote. *deuH-. along with its allomorphs du.

wide. as the antonym of āsā́t.’ As I demonstrated in the chapter “Wholeness as Metaphor for Inclusiveness and Being.it is cognate with Homeric Greek dērós ‘long duration.in other Indo-European languages might support this hypothesis. expressed a cognitive metaphor of separation and exclusiveness evident in the Vedic Sanskrit word dūrá-. Old Persian duvaištam ‘for a long time’.’ I conjectured that the connotation of āsā́t ‘from nearby. Specifically. miss’. long time’. Similarly I posit that Ṛgvedic dūrā́t. The specific Ṛgvedic word dūrā́t ‘from far away. Additionally. deúō ‘to lack. remote’.metaphor of something or someone no longer being in the oneness and wholeness of the ‘here and now. and of inclusiveness.‘to sit.’ Cognates of Vedic Sanskrit dūrá.might suggest a   167   . the last’. dūráādiś-. and dūráüpabda. the words dūráādhī-.’ as a derivative from PIE *Hēs.” the Ṛgvedic word dūrā́t is semantically contrasted to āsā́t ‘from nearby. The Ṛgvedic word dūrā́t is identical in morphology and meaning to Avestan dūrāt ‘from far away’. the PIE root *deuHs.’ revealed a deeper semantic structure and cognitive relationship among the PIE notions of being. While certain Ṛgvedic stanzas containing the specific word dūrā́t were cited in a previous chapter. deútatos ‘the most distant. and as the form dūrá. from the distance’ was discussed in the previous chapter as the ablative singular of the word dūrá-. deúteros ‘the one more distant.’ both of which occur as members of the stylistic couplet dūrā́t āsā́t ‘from afar and from near. and Latin dūdum ‘long while ago.are now provided. which is cognate with Hittite tuṷa. Homeric Greek déō. wholeness.‘to be.‘far. dwell’ and from *Hes. the second one’.yields the Vedic root dū-. further examples of words in the Ṛgveda derived from dūrá.

whose first member dūrá.139.10) ‘Let the bestowing Hotṛ priest consecrate. They strew the sacred grass.21. rich in gifts with bulls. these Somaintoxicated ones speaking boisterously in the throng.‘proclaiming in the far off distance’ hótā yakṣad vaníno vanta vā́riyam bŕ̥haspátir yajati vená ukṣábhiḥ puruvā́rebhir ukṣábhiḥ jagr̥bhmā́ dūráādiśaṃ ślókam ádrer ádha tmánā ádhārayad araríndāni sukrátuḥ purū́ sádmāni sukrátuḥ (1.‘distant-minded’ ví me kárṇā patayato ví cákṣur vī́dáṃ jyótir hŕ̥daya ā́hitaṃ yát ví me mánaś carati dūráādhīḥ kíṃ svid vakṣyā́mi kím u nū́ maniṣye (6. The skillful one has maintained the water-vessel.in each of these instances connotes a sense of distance. Here from the dwelling place are brought (the pressing stones). invigorating.6) ‘My ears and eyes fly off away (to hear and behold Agni). and separation from the   168   . dūráādhī.‘sounding from afar’ prá yanti yajñáṃ vipáyanti barhíḥ somamā́do vidáthe dudhrávācaḥ ní u bhriyante yaśáso gr̥bhā́d ā́ dūráüpabdo vŕ̥ṣaṇo nr̥ṣā́caḥ (7. this light which constitutes the heart (seeks Agni). Bṛhaspati consecrates in desire with bulls. let the bestowers acquire the best treasure. How shall I speak.connotation of dūrá.’ The three examples cited here are compound words. remoteness. perceived to be separate and other.9.2) ‘They go toward the sacrifice. My mind goes in far off distant-thought. that is to say. We now grasp the sound proclaiming in the far off distance of the pressing stone by our own self.’ dūráüpabda. companions of men. The skillful one (has maintained) many seats for the sacrifice. how shall I now think? dūráādiś. splendorous. sounding from afar.as something or someone not existing in state of oneness and wholeness.

al-ius ‘second. a point that Macdonell claims (211). reflected in Latin al-terus.as an indeclinable word.‘distant-minded. the word dūrá. and otherness from the perspective of the speakers(s). from distance.   169   . As an indeclinable adverb with a possible deictic connotation. Furthermore. separation.‘other. the other one’ and Vedic Sanskrit anyá-.25                                                                                                                           24 The same phenomenon occurs with Ṛgvedic dūréanta.reveals its archaic feature as an extremely old word in Vedic Sanskrit.implying a sense of distance and otherness in the Ṛgvedic word dūrā́t ‘from afar.as a cognitive metaphor of remoteness.’ dūráādiś.‘proclaiming in the far off distance.’ its cognitive expression of remoteness and spatiotemporal separation from the perspective of the speaker(s) may also be inferred in the words dūráādhī.referential perspective of the speaker(s).‘whose purpose is far off.24 This rare instance of word boundaries within a Ṛgvedic compound not being subject to the rules of sandhi may possibly be attested to the adverbial deictic sense of Ṛgvedic dūrá. In addition to dūrá.’ Collectively.‘ending in the far off distance’ and dūréartha. án-tara. perhaps further establishing its status to the level of its PIE form *du(H)-r-ó-.’ and dūráüpabda.appears in its original form and does not undergo phonological transformation according to the proper rules of sandhi.in the Ṛgveda possibly continue the original semantic connotation of PIE *deuHs. second’ with PIE *Hel-y.‘sounding from afar. these instances of dūrá. in each of these instances the word dūrá.’ 25 Another very likely PIE root that expressed a covalent meaning of otherness and secondness was *Hel-yos-.> Vedic Sanskrit an-y.

etc.   170   . however.’ but rather he states that deúteros “traces to deúomai ‘am wanting.’ which became the ordinal adjective of the word ‘two. and Anatolian branches of PIE that semantically convey the meaning of twoness and otherness as the ordinal adjective ‘second.’ Homeric Greek deúteros Homeric Greek has the word deúteros ‘second. the root is also reflected in a select number of words in the Indo-Iranian. we first suppose that for a time the inherited G form for ‘second’. In his opinion. cite the Homeric Greek form deúteros deriving not directly from the PIE numeral *du̯oH(u). taking a second place. Greek.‘lack. far off.as a Metaphor of ‘Secondness’ The examples of Vedic Sanskrit dūrá. be remote.‘two’ but rather from PIE *deuHs. Sihler further elaborates this point. the word deúteros can mean the following : 1. Coming second in gaining estimation.’ Sihler provides a plausible explanation on the etymology and semantic development of Homeric Greek deúteros. Coming second in a contest. That is. was partly synonymous with deúteros in that they shared the meaning ‘inferior’. whatever it was. 2. (429) According to the Lexicon of the Homeric Dialect. Homeric Greek deúteros is not directly derived from the Greek numeral dúo ‘two. The supposed semantic development rests on the marked tendency for words originally ‘second [in rank]’ to acquire connotations of outright inferiority (as in NE second-rate). In addition to PIE *deuHsimplying physical and cognitive remoteness.PIE *deuHs. am inferior’” (429).in the Ṛgveda suggest that PIE *deuHspossibly expressed a connotation of otherness and separation.’ Pokorny (219) and the LIV (107).

23. In the first example. (b) A second time. otherness. the covalent meaning of deúteros as ‘second’ and ‘more distant’ can be evidenced.   171   . I provide the following lines excerpted from Homer’s Illiad here to support Sihler’s assertion. let’s give him a prize. as seems fitting—the award for second place. In this manner it expresses that which is more remote and farther away from the relative perspective of the speaker(s).’ Both of these excerpts from the Illiad provide the possible semantic explanation between the notions of distance. coming in with one’s throw or stroke after an opponent. for the future (88). lack. Let the son of Tudeos take the first-place prize. following another in doing it. etc. and a cognitive perception of something that is lacking or deficient in strength. 498-499) ‘Then you can both see the Argive horses. deúteros connotes spatial distance. again. (b) In fighting. (a) Second in doing something.’ In both of these examples from the Illiad. 5. (c) Another time. who’s in the lead and who’s farther behind. (a) In the second place. To be left behind or surviving someone. In the other example. deúteros expresses the quality of that which comes after the one that is first and best. speed. hoi deuteroi hoi te paroithen (Illiad. 4. In this meaning of deúteros it implies inferiority in action of someone who is ‘second best. and separation with the pejorative connotation of inferiority and deficiency as a cognitive metaphor of secondness. tote de gnōsesthe hekastos hippous Argeiōn. 537-538) ‘Come. and twoness.3. separation.’ all' age dē hoi dōmen aethlion hōs epieikes deuter' atar ta prōta pheresthō Tudeos huios (Illiad 23.

perhaps also connotes a similar sense of inferiority in rank and status.and tūṷaA similar situation to Homeric Greek deúteros is perhaps found in Hittite duianalli-.’ dūrā́t ‘from far away.’ In addition to Hittite duianalli. The study goes on further to say that Hittite duianalli.’ Greek dēn ‘for a long time.‘lack. and secondness. The Hittite Inherited Lexicon also states that PIE *dui-io-no.there exists the Hittite word tūṷa. away’ is cognate with Sanskrit dūrám ‘far away.‘twofold.Hittite duianalli. subordinately.’ and tūṷala.’ the Hiitite word duianalli.’ Greek doioí ‘both.’ Latin dūdum ‘for a long time already.is connected to the adverb tān ‘for the second time. otherness. Just as the Homeric word deúteros implied a metaphoric meaning in the Illiad of ‘the one who is second best. from afar. I posit that this morpheme was PIE *deuHs. Hittite duianalli.reconstructs back to a PIE form *duiio-no-. which all reconstruct to the PIE root *dueh2.(1044). inferiority. distance. one of the conjectured allomorphs of PIE *du̯oH(u).and *duoióm are cognate to Sanskrit dvayá. and tūṷaz are old root-nouns that respectively reconstruct back to archaic   172   . be remote. I conjecture that both Homeric Greek deúteros and Hittite duianalli.’ along with the derivational morphemes tuṷān.’ which derives from PIE *duoióm (954).’ tūṷaz ‘from afar.‘far. tuṷān-.‘two’ (954). According to this work.’ and Lithuanian dvejì ‘two. far off.‘far.’ dērós ‘lasting long.‘to this side. The work further concludes that the forms tūṷa-. away. far. which the Hittite Inherited Lexicon defines as ‘functionary of the second rank’ (1034).reflect an earlier stage in PIE language of a morpheme that expressed cognitive and conceptual separation. etc.‘far. two.’ all of which originate from the root *du̯iH-.’ The Hittite Inherited Lexicon suggests that Hittite tūṷa.

How then is it possible to integrate the PIE form *dueHs-. which produce both Greek dērós and Sanskrit dūrá-. evidenced in PIE *duHros and *dueHros. The linguistic feature of schwebe ablaut in PIE phonology and morphology appears to pervade all branches of the IE languages.’ reflected respectively as Latin ter-reō ‘to terrify. be afraid’ and Greek é-tres-san ‘they trembled’ (133). collectively reconstruct PIE *deuHs. be deficient. The PIE root *dueH. etc.’ Furthermore. separate.‘far. The process of schwebe ablaut seems   173   . away’ is a morphological derivative from the PIE root *dueh2-s.and *deuHs.are variant allomorphs of one another that are the result of the IE linguistic feature known as schwebe ablaut.and *dueH-. the LIV. shake. and *duh2-os > tūṷaz (1045). The Connection between PIE *dueHs.reconstructed by Mallory and Adams matches the same form posited by the Hittite Inherited Lexicon. Mallory and Adams in the PIE World (298) reconstruct the forms *duH.as Schwebe Ablaut Recalling from a previous section. *dueHs. I posit that the two seemingly variant PIE forms.and *tres. into the larger PIE morphological and semantic unit of PIE *deuHs? I conjecture that both *dueHs.to mean ‘lack. remote. go far away. along with Pokorny.and *deuHs. this form *dueHsis slightly different in its morphological structure to the reconstructed root *deuHs-. *dueh2-m > tuṷān-. proposed by the LIV and by Mallory and Adams. are actual allomorphs that can be explained by the linguistic feature of schwebe ablaut. Szemerényi offers an example of PIE schwebe ablaut reflected in the alternation of the vowel in the root structure of PIE *ters. which can alternatively be represented as *dueHs-. While the LIV establishes that Hittite tūṷa.and *deuHs-.PIE root nouns *dueh2-s > tūṷa-. Mallory and Adams.‘to tremble.

> ‘lack.‘two’ and PIE *du(H)-s. V = vowels -e. the root from the sstem *deuHs-. schwebe ablaut allows the root structure CVRC also to exist as CRVC and CRC. -l-.as Schwebe Ablaut Proto-Indo-European (PIE) Reflexes in Vedic Sanskrit Vedic Vedic Sanskrit Sanskrit Morpheme Meaning dū-rá‘far.> *dueH-i*douH*duoH. be *deuH-sdeficient’ *dueH.> *duH-s‘second’ NA ‘two’ ‘bad.and *deuH-.> *duoH-u*duH. Table 8 Allomorphs of PIE *deuH.to occur in PIE roots that are of the form CVRC. foul’ PIE Root Structure CeRC CReC CorC Croc CRC PIE PIE Morpheme Meaning *deuH. foul. fits the morpheme structure of CVRC. the base root. etc.‘bad. where C = consonant. Furthermore. remote’ dvitáNA dvā́-/dvaúduḥ‘second’ NA ‘two’ ‘bad. and furthermore connects them in morphological structure with PIE *du̯oH(u). -r-. *deuH-. and R = resonants -u-. foul’ The linguistic feature of schwebe ablaut now offers a more plausible connection between the apparently distinct forms *dueH. -i-.or -o-. Thus. The following table exhibits the allotted permutations of the schwebe ablaut allomorphs of PIE *deuH-.’   174   .

Agni.’ Their meaning is evidenced in the following two stanzas. make (for us) a good passage.and English farther versus further Having now established the morphological connection between the various allomorphs of PIE *deuH-.’ I now offer a cogent explanation that dávīyas.‘doubly. the sole instance of the word dávīyas.and dvitá. úpa śvāsaya pr̥thivī́m utá dyā́m purutrā́ te manutāṃ víṣṭhitaṃ jágat sá dundubhe sajū́r índreṇa devaír dūrā́d dávīyo ápa sedha śátrūn (6.’ It was previously believed that these two words lacked any apparent semantic affinity. let the world spread out in all its breadth perceive you. you are the companion with Indra and the gods.51. away’ and the prefix dvi‘two.and its allomorph daviṣṭhá. having derived respectively from the different roots dū.versus dvitā́ . with their respective translations as ‘more far away’ and ‘very far away. drive away the deceitful thief contemplating evil to the very farthest distance.‘far. in a second way. it is now possible to apply this finding on to a specific case within the Ṛgveda—the apparent semantic incongruence between the seemingly divergent Ṛgvedic words dávīyas.’   175   .47. In Maṇḍala Six of the Ṛgveda.occur as the comparative and superlative adjectival forms of the word dūrá-.’ ápa tyáṃ vr̥jináṃ ripúṃ stenám agne durādhíyam daviṣṭhám asya satpate kr̥dhī́ sugám (6.actually share a common morphological and semantic origin going back to *deuHs-.29) ‘Fill with noise on both Earth and in Heaven. considered to be one of the older books. Protector of the Good. drive off our enemies from afar to even farther off.‘more far away’ and dvitā́. O War Drum.13) ‘You.Vedic Sanskrit dávīyas.

of the hero victorious in battle. in a second manner.are the respective comparative and superlative forms of the Ṛgvedic adjective dūrá. However. verily’ (651).’   176   .and daviṣṭhá-. in a dual manner.4) ‘O Bharata.and daviṣṭhá. in truth.’ yásya víśvāni hástayor ūcúr vásūni ní dvitā́ vīrásya pr̥tanāṣáhaḥ (6. in Wahrheit. In juxtaposition to the words dávīyas. is questionable (85).16. distant. in zweifacher Weise. dávīyas. The connotation of dávīyas. whose general meaning of ‘doubly.is that of cognitive separation and psychic distancing of something or someone from the referential perspective of the speaker(s). fürwahr. illustrate this point.expressing spatial distance between oneself and the other. that is.In both of these stanzas dávīyas. indeed.8) ‘(Him) in whose hands. remote. tuvā́m īḷe ádha dvitā́ bharató vājíbhiḥ śunám ījé yajñéṣu yajñíyam (6.there exists the Ṛgvedic word dvitā́-. they declare furthermore all treasures exist.and daviṣṭhá. in besonderen Grade. also attested from Maṇḍala Six.with the general meaning of ‘zweifach.and daviṣṭhá.45.’ according to Mayrhoffer. Examples of this word. as the comparative and superlative of the root dav-/dū. In this manner.I conjecture can be taken as metaphors that express otherness and separation from one’s perceived whole.’ all of which derive from the Vedic Sanskrit root dav-/dū.can have various shades of meaning. I revere you now and furthermore happily along with the valiant ones. I honor you revered one with sacrifices. Grassmann also defines dvitā́. in actual context the word dvitā́.‘far. doubly.

is actually an allomorph of PIE *du̯oH(u).‘two. etc. According to these scholars.’ Regarding the ordinal adjective dvitá-.’ Based on Mallory and Adams’ assertion.appears to be used in the Ṛgveda as an emphatic declaration rather than as its numerical sense derived from the adjective dvitá. the root of the PIE ordinal adjectives *du̯i-tos and *du̯i-ios. remote.‘two. Both English farther and further are.and dvi. one could posit a covalent meaning of PIE *du̯iH-. which is connected to the other PIE adjective *du̯i-ios meaning ‘that one farther away’ (399).‘lack.‘second. According to Mallory and Adams in the PIE World.is evident in Ṛgvedic dvi-pád.can be traced back to the PIE form *du̯i-tos. as an indeclinable instrumental noun deriving from the ordinal adjective dvitá.’ does not exactly carry the connotation of twoness in either of these stanzas.‘second. as the comparative form of dav-/dū. which would mean ‘that one far away. the semantic quality of dvitā́.’ As stated earlier PIE *du̯iH. as ‘that one far away.‘two-footed. be distant. distant.’ The Vedic Sanskrit roots dav-/dū. other’ was established earlier.’ can now be compared to dvitā́-.’ Ṛgvedic dávīyas-.‘far.’ which in turn is conjectured to derive from the PIE deictic root *du-. whose meaning of ‘there.can perhaps best be understood as the ananalogous semantic and morphological connection between English farther and further.The meaning of the Ṛgvedic word dvitā́-.. both *du̯i-tos and *du̯i-ios would have to be comparative adjectives based on a PIE root *du̯iH-26. the comparative adjectival forms of English far and fore. 177     . inferior. both English far and fore are reflexes of an archaic PIE deictic                                                                                                                           26 PIE *du̯iH. deficient. as the comparative form of dvi. The possible semantic connection between Vedic Sanskrit dávīyas. respectively. two. Instead.can both possibly be traced back to PIE *deuHs. Mallory and Adams state in the Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture that dvitá.and dvitā́.

In fact.’ However. other. ahead’ (289). farther “refers to distance or remoteness in space. two.appears to have held a parallel function expressing that which was not part of the cognitive and spatiotemporal here and now of the speaker(s). both dávīyas.‘second.and dvitā́.in a similar semantic distinction to that of the English comparative adjectives farther and further. I believe it is now possible to account for the apparent semantic discrepancy between dávīyas. forward. In English there exists a subtle.” while English further “refers to remoteness in time.is likely the comparative form of the PIE root *dṷiH. in a double manner.and dvitá. Similar to the cognitive expression of PIE *du.in the Ṛgveda. semantic meaning between farther and further. etc.’ which in turn derives from the PIE deictic marker *du.’ Based on the semantic and cognitive distinction between English farther and further as one of physical versus perceived remoteness.connoting a meaning of ‘other.‘there.’ based on its derivation from the Vedic Sanskrit ordinal adjective dvitá. It is also used to express the idea of something more or additional” (119). The indeclinable instrumental noun dvitā́. I conjecture that it is now possible to contextualize Vedic Sanskrit dávīyas.respectively mean ‘farther’ and ‘further(more)’ as physical distance and cognitive remoteness from the relative position of the speaker(s) in space-time of here and now. extent. but yet grammatically distinct.’ PIE *perH-/*pṛH.root *perH-/*pṛH. or quantity. the origin of both dvitā́.‘that one far away. to degree. there. English further is an exact cognate in both form and meaning with the indeclinable Ṛgvedic adverb pratarám and the Homeric Greek adjective próteros ‘further.and dvitā́.‘in front of. In my opinion.and dvitā́. in future.has been traditionally translated as ‘twice more.’   178   . According to the Instant English Handbook.

For this reason.’ and Hittite duianalli‘second in rank’ all connote meanings that express the ordinal adjective ‘second.as it expressed only physical remoteness and otherness. Ṛgvedic dvitā́.’ while dávīyas. In this sense. lack. deficiency.   179   . their collective semantic meaning appears to underscore the PIE notion of remoteness.’ In contrast to dvitā́-. and otherness. with the abstract cardinality of ‘twoness’ developing later” (399).was the comparative adjective used for spatial and physical distance to express the same meaning as English farther. which only later became a metaphor to express twoness and for something that was second.to contain all of these ideas can be rationalized by conjecturing it as a morphological derivative from the PIE deictic root *du. other.was in semantic contrast to dvitā́. The extremely wide semantic field expressed by PIE *deuHs.’ However. and otherness as relics of the PIE root *deuHs-. inferiority.’ Recalling Mallory and Adams’ position. which I believe encompassed a larger semantic continuum spanning the concepts of remoteness. I suggest that a more nuanced translation of Ṛgvedic dvitā́. In support of my claim. “Forms relating to ‘two’ and ‘twoness’ are of old IE origin. I posit that the lexemes connoting the concept of two and twoness were likely products of an earlier cognitive expression in PIE language to signify that one farther away.shared a similar semantic quality with the indeclinable Ṛgvedic adverb pratarám to express cognitive remoteness and otherness translated as ‘further(more). Mallory and Adams add in their PIE World.‘there. distance.‘second. possibly from an older demonstrative meaning ‘that one farther away’. separation.’ Homeric Greek deúteros ‘second. secondness. Ṛgvedic dávīyas. Ṛgvedic dvitá.is ‘further(more). twoness.

in the Ṛgveda. deficient. separate. Foul’ and *du̯oH(u)‘Two’ It has already been discussed that the Vedic Sanskrit prefix duḥ. be deficient.‘two.’   180   . etc.Morphosemantic Connection between PIE *du(H)s.in the same manner by which Vedic Sanskrit √as. and Gothic tuz-.‘to lack. foul.‘one’s own’ was metaphorically related to su.’ (227) I conjecture that PIE *du(H)s-‘bad. be distant. there exists a cognitive expression of duḥ.’ *du̯eH(s). Again.(683–88). all of which Pokorny states likely derive from the PIE reconstructed form *deuHs.‘bad. duž-.’ derived from PIE *du(H)s-. The Vedic form duḥ. dur-. evil. inferior. foul’ is a morpheme contained within the larger semantic field expressed by PIE *deuHs-. which is itself an extensive semantic continuum that accounts for the PIE roots *du(H)s. dear. Costa’s comprehensive survey of the PIE morpheme *du(H)s.’ *du̯oH(u). Latin di(s)-.‘beloved. which along with its allomorphs dur-. dus-.‘Bad.‘to be’ and svá. along with Lubotsky’s lexical frequency of duḥ-. etc.‘far. and dū-. foul.‘two’ and dav-/dū. and dū.is cognate to Avestan duš-.and deuH(s).cites the various reflexes of this root in the Ṛgveda .‘lack. ill.’ It is now possible to discuss in more detail the Vedic Sanskrit prefix duḥ-. Greek dus-. In all instances of the prefix duḥ. away. duṣ-.as something that is perceived as being bad.‘bad. evil and difficult. The question now posed is if an established semantic connection exists that metaphorically unites Vedic dvi. dū. etc. constitutes a large set of lexemes within the Ṛgveda. separate’ with the Vedic prefixes duḥ-. good. dur-. duṣ-.

‘to fear. Latin. and Germanic provide further philological evidence to support the assertion that the concepts of enmity. Homeric Greek. be hostile’ and as the substantives dvíṣ/dvéṣas ‘hatred. To advance the case for Ṛgvedic dvíṣ/dvéṣas being etymologically and semantically connected to PIE *du̯oH(u). hostility. Hostility. hostility’ in the Ṛgvedic corpus. Specifically.‘two’ (68). foul’ and *du̯ei(H).‘to fear.   181   . with the word for ‘fear’ in the Ṛgveda represented by the word bhayá-.                                                                                                                           27 These words no longer expressed the original semantic meaning of PIE ‘fear’. Pokorny posits the etymology of Ṛgvedic dvíṣ/dvéṣas as s-extensions from an already existing *du̯iH-. be agitated’ is a highly productive root in many of the ancient Indo-European languages. be agitated.‘to hate. The following list is adapted from examples cited by Halsey (97) and by Pokorny (592). it is easy to understand the prolific usage of the verb √dviṣ. and Enmity This section focuses on the morphological and metaphoric connection between PIE *du̯oH(u). While it is quite possible to prove by lexical data within the Ṛgveda itself how Vedic Sanskrit dvíṣ/dvéṣas became likely metaphors formed on the PIE concept of duality and division. fear and rivalry became metaphors for duality and twoness.‘two’ with the PIE root *du(H)s. an allomorph of PIE *du̯oH(u).’27 Given the Ṛgveda’s penchant on rivalry and combats between the Vedic people and their respective deities against their perceived enemies.‘bad.’ The PIE root *du̯ei(H).Twoness and Duality as Metaphors for Badness. there exists additional linguistic evidence from the other branches of Indo-European.and its substantives dvíṣ/dvéṣas ‘hatred. with reflexes of this root having developed into the Vedic Sanskrit verb √dviṣ.‘two’ and metaphorically linked to the concept of duality and twoness.

’ 2.‘to stand.‘two’ with Ṛgvedic √dvíṣ. Homeric Greek deíd(u̯)ō ‘to fear. be hostile’ and its corollary metaphoric shift from twoness to hatred and hostility can also be found in other Sanskrit texts than the Ṛgveda. Latin dubius ‘doubt. In these texts one finds words that pertain to aspects of combat. and dvé‘two.1. battles and feuds that have specifically derived from Sanskri dvā́-. suspicion’ goes back to the earlier Latin form duhibius from duo ‘two’ + habeō ‘to have. split.’ Further lexical evidence to explain the conjectured semantic connection between Vedic Sanskrit dvā́-/dví-/dvé.‘chariot duel’ found in the Mahābhārata and the Rāmāyaṇa.’ It has derivatives in Old Norse tvistra.’ To this notion would also belong Homeric d(u̯)íe‘dreaded. dvirājá.’ which literally means ‘held as two.’ and in Middle High German zwist ‘discord. having two (thoughts). dread’ results from an original reduplicated stative verbal form *dé-du̯oi-ka and would mean ‘being in a state of two.’ 3.   182   . uncertainty.’ If Gothic twisstandan derives from PIE *dui̯(s).‘two’ + *steH.’ it would be morphologically and semantically parallel to Sanskrit dviṣṭha‘ambiguous’ and to Greek d(ṷ)istázdō ‘doubt.‘(battle) of two kings’ found in the Atharvaveda 2.‘to hate.‘to separate. dví-. hold.’ 1.’ This idea is also found in German Zweifel ‘doubt’ deriving from the numeral zwei ‘two. dvairatha. Gothic twisstandan ‘to divide’ derives from twis ‘two’ + standan ‘to stand. feared’ and d(u̯)éos ‘fear.

English duel derives from the Middle Latin form duellum ‘combat between two persons. fight. hostility. be hostile’ behaves as a morphological and semantic extension of Vedic Sanskrit dvi. combat.‘two. be agitated’ can. This concept of duality and twoness as a metaphor for warfare and hostility can also be found in the meaning and etymology of the English word duel.3. and rivalry.’ which Sihler indicates in the archaic Latin inscriptions was originally DVELLOM (185). contest’ found in Mahābhārata and the Rāmāyaṇa. be seen to be a possible metaphorical development from the PIE concept of twoness derived from the PIE numeral *duoH(u).‘to fear. to produce Latin bellum from an original *duellom.‘two.’ eventually becoming a metaphor for duality. In this sense Ṛgvedic √dvíṣ. a likely parallel development appears to have occurred with the Old Latin form duellum ‘war. both within Sanskrit and other IE branches.’ I posit that all of these words. Perhaps this notion can be understood by the notion that whatever or whomever is far off and unknown is evil and dangerous.‘to hate.‘two’ and *du(H)s                                                                                                                           28 Latin exhibits regular phonological shift of Proto-Italic *due.’ Related to this word is Latin bellum28 ‘war.‘duel. therefore. imply the notion of two opposing forces locked together in a common enmity and hatred perceiving the opposing side as the cognitive other and not conceptually part of one’s own whole. Similar to the Sanskrit connotation of twoness and duality as the basis for words pertaining to strife and battle. enmity.’ This lexico-semantic connection between these two roots is a prerequisite that now sets the foundation for examining the deeper semantic connection between the PIE numeral *duoH(u).> Latin be-.   183   . dvaṃdvá. The lexical and semantic investigation of the PIE root *du̯eiH.

dvé-. Foul’ I conjecture that the PIE word for ‘two’ in the forms *dṷoH-. inferior’ is the starting point for all of the PIE morphemes discussed so far that express the notion of otherness and twoness.‘to be’ with the prefix *(H)su.‘lack. inferior’  ‘bad.‘bad. foul. evil’  ‘hatred.‘lack. dvi. Be Separate’ to PIE *du(H)s‘Bad. deficient. *dṷeH-.‘good’ within the greater semantic continuum of wholeness and oneness. fear. separated. distant. number two’  ‘lack. distant’  ‘twoness. I now present the case suggesting a converse situation whereby PIE *dṷeHs. be distant. deficient. inferior.‘distant. *dṷiHwere metaphors to express the semantic meaning of that which is ‘far off.’ All of these PIE forms have continued into Vedic Sanskrit. foul’ as part of a greater semantic concatenation that begins with PIE *deuHs‘lack. enmity.’ that is to say all that which was not cognitively part of one’s own whole of the here and now. The semantic concatenation is as follows—‘be separate’  ‘other’  ‘remote. this conjectured semantic continuum now unites the respective PIE morphemes within the semantic field   184   . be distant. far. deficient. be agitated. foul.‘bad.’ and duḥ.‘Lack. inferior’. be distant.‘bad. ill.’ Semantic Concatenation from PIE *deuHs.’ dvā́-. and with *du̯ei(H). second. morphologically and semantically connected with the PIE roots *deuHs.‘to fear.’ but additionally became a cognitive metaphor of otherness. In this sense the PIE root *dṷoH(u).’ Just as a semantic concatenation was established in the previous chapter linking the PIE morpheme *Hes. some of which are reflected in the Ṛgveda as the words dūrá. foul’.expressed not only the numerical concept of ‘two.’ Furthermore.‘two. deficient. *du(H)s.

‘two. I establish a working hypothesis that all of these morphemes are members contained within one single semantic field originally expressed by the PIE deictic root *du. strife. in semantic contrast to the idea of wholeness. falsehood.was. be agitated.‘to fear. exteriocity.of otherness and twoness in the following manner—*deuHs. in my opinion.’ and *du(H)s.’ The PIE deicitc root *du. In the Ṛgveda. and badness.’ Reconstructing the Semantic Field of PIE *duThe underlying principle that semantically unites all of the morphemes presented in this chapter in Vedic Sanskrit and in other IE languages is the metaphorical expression of otherness. remoteness. division.‘lack. which conveyed a primal cognitive expression of otherness. in semantic contrast to wholeness.‘two. foul’  *dṷiH-s. The numerous lexemes and derivational morphemes within this semantic continuum all possibly originated from the seminal PIE morpheme *du-. Based on the lexical evidence presented the PIE roots *deuHs. be distant. hatred. foul’ can be cast in new light. the morpheme in PIE language that expressed through cognitive metaphor the various interconnected concepts of otherness. other.‘bad. deficient. etc. twoness. exclusiveness. be separate. and fear.and their metaphorical expressions are evident in the following table. the lexemes that evolved from PIE *du.‘bad.’ *du̯oH(u).’  *dṷoH(u).‘there.’ *du̯ei(H).‘lack.   185   . These concepts existed as a sensuous continuum that appear to have continued in Ṛgvedic language and thought as – 1) physical and temporal separation 2) cognitive remoteness 3) the other as inferior and bad and 4) duality as enmity. hate. inferior. other’  *du(H)s. duality.‘to fear. be hostile.

in contrast to that of wholeness. semantic. be Exteriocity separate’ Aversion Duality *du(H)s‘Bad. appear to be expressed in the Ṛgveda as various morphological derivatives from the archaic PIE morpheme *du. dvaú-. dvi- ‘two.in PIE and Vedic Sanskrit Proto-Indo-European (PIE) Expression Grammatical. not one’s own’ dvā́-. cognitive PIE PIE expression Morpheme Meaning Otherness *deuHs‘Lack. be hostile’   Chapter Summary The cognitive metaphors for otherness. fear’ √dviṣ- ‘to hate.Table 9 Lexico-Semantics of *du. other. foul’ Reflexes in Vedic Sanskrit Vedic Sanskrit Morpheme dū-/davdūráduḥVedic Sanskrit Meaning ‘distant. foul. and evil. dvé-.’ I conjecture that the PIE idea of otherness is grounded in a deeply embedded cognitive framework that perceives all that is not part of one’s own or collective whole as dangerous. enmity.‘there. far’ ‘bad. other’ Enmity Rage Hostility *dṷei(H)- ‘Hatred. bad. In cognitive contrast to this idea of   186   . ill’ Division Twoness *duoH- ‘Other.

‘lack. foul. other. other. etc.that produced the derivational morpheme *dṷeiH.’ which had an allomorph *dṷiH. PIE *du.was the probable origin of the PIE numeral *dṷoH(u).‘there. duḥ-.‘bad. some of which are dūrá-. dvé-. inferior.are semantically contained within a sensuous continuum that continued in the Ṛgveda as cognitive. etc.   187   .otherness is the notion that everything that speaker(s) perceive as being part of one’s own whole is beloved.‘two.’ Together the PIE morphemes *deuHs-.produced the derivational morphemes *deuHs. and cultural metaphors for otherness. conceptual.’ and *du(H)s. be distant. and *dṷeiH. deficient. fear.’ Additionally. and good. conceptually. I conjecture that all of these Ṛgvedic lexemes are metaphors that have derived from the PIE morpheme *du.‘hate. *duoH(u)-.’ an archaic deictic marker that expressed the covalent notion of otherness and twoness. and √dviṣ-. *du(H)s-. etc. dear. the seminal morpheme *du. In Vedic Sanskrit this notion of otherness appears to be reflected in a series of interrelated words that are expressed cognitively. and culturally in lexico-semantic relics in the Ṛgveda.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful