Yajñopavīta: A
Test Case for Text-book Etymologists
Shrikant G Talageri
This is not a long article: it is only about a question on which I have ruminated for long, and which has continuously haunted me. I now realized that it is also a question which should be answered by etymologists and linguists (and their countless sepoys on the internet) who wax eloquent on exact phonetic rules of derivation when discussing the origins of words, and argue against certain words being Indo-European or Indo-Aryan simply because, as per their textbook dogmas, these words do not follow the rules of phonetic derivation which they believe to be immutable laws of nature.
Of course, they always completely forget these immutable laws when convenient to them! I have pointed this out countless times in my articles. Most especially in the following one:
https://talageri.blogspot.com/2022/08/indian-fauna-elephants-foxes-and-ait.html
The above is not a single instance. All opponents of the OIT follow this kind of selective faith in immutable phonetic laws when they do not want to accept clear connections between PIE roots and certain Indo-Aryan words which they want to brand as “non-Aryan” (non-Indo-European) – and ignore these laws when inconvenient to their anti-OIT arguments. And I have had occasion to refer to these fraudulent arguments countless times in my articles.
No, I am not going to go into old cases repeatedly discussed. I only wish to place this one single test before whoever chooses to think about it, and not merely in continuation of arguing it out but because I am genuinely interested in knowing the answer:
The word for the “sacred thread” in Sanskrit is “yajñopavīta”. The words in some other prominent modern Indo-Aryan languages are:
Hindi: janeū.
Marathi: zānve.
Gujarati: janoī.
Sindhi: jānyā.
Even the Dravidian languages have some related words:
Kannada: janivāra.
Telugu: jandhyam(u).
What exactly are the exact immutable rules (different for each language) of phonetic change which transform the Sanskrit yajñopavīta to janeū in Hindi, zānve in Marathi, janoī in Gujarati, and jānyā in Sindhi? I will not ask the same question for the Kannada and Telugu words since of course they cannot be claimed to be genetically derived from the Sanskrit word and can only be adopted from Sanskrit.
That the four words are derived from the Sanskrit word is undeniable and is not being denied. The question is: are there really immutable phonetic laws of sound change which govern these derivations. What are those laws in each case? And are they regular laws: i.e. do they apply in every case where the Sanskrit sound becomes a Hindi, Marathi, Gujarati or Sindhi word? Are the Hindi, Marathi, Gujarati and Sindhi words for yajña then jan, zān, jan and jān respectively?. And how (i.e. on the basis of which exact and immutable phonetic rules) does upavīta get converted every time to eū, ve, oī, and yā respectively?
If even words, about whose derivation there can be no doubt, fail to follow immutable rules, how can allegedly immutable rules of phonetic derivation be used as clinching arguments, as people always do when discussing IE issues?
I do not want to indulge in arguments and discussions on this. I am merely musing about it. Idly.
APPENDIX dated 19 September 2025:
I received a reply to my above query:
“Sanskrit yajñopavīta became
Prakrit jaṇṇovavīya or jaṇṇovavīa (attested in Maharashtri Prakrit). The
sound change /jñ/ > /ṇṇ/ and p > v are pretty well established Sanskrit
> Prakrit sound changes, so I will not dwell into them.
Regarding Konkani zānvễ and Marathi j̈ānve both of them descending from the Maharashtri Prakrit jaṇṇovavī(y)a, the sound combination jaṇṇ undergoes compensatory lengthening, thereby j̈aṇṇ > j̈āṇ > j̈ān. The de-retroflexion is an internal phenomenon in Marathi, as Old Marathi had jāṇīveṃ, with the retroflex /ṇ/. This is a case of metathesis, where jaṇṇovavīa becomes j̈āṇovavī(y)a > j̈āṇīvavoya/j̈āṇīvovaya (metathesis of vowels in alternate forms is expected, for example see Kannada janavira/janivara) > j̈āṇīve (dropping /o/). zānve seems to have had a similar derivation (with regards to the compensatory lengthening & metathesis), but I am not able to find the Old Konkani form (please pardon me, I'm not a Konkanist).
As for Gujarati janoī it is most likely derived from the Prakrit form jaṇṇovīa, an alternate form of jaṇṇovavīya, which is attested in Brahmi. jaṇṇovīa > jano-īa (leading to a temporary glottal stop or hiatus in between) > janoi is an obvious derivation.
Sindhi janya is pretty easy, it's a shortening and de-retroflexion of the Sauraseni Prakrit word jaṇṇovavīya. It is a northwestern Indo-Aryan language.
Hindi janeu is interesting which involves a metathesis across syllables, basically jaṇṇovavīya > jaṇṇavavīyo. Due to the stress on the long vowel + semi-vowel, change from īyo > eu is an expected sound change, and is not very surprising. So jaṇṇavavīyo > janeu (the intermediate syllables dropped as shortening) is not a surprising sound change.
As for Kannada janivāra, it is from Old Kannada ಜನ್ನವಿರ (jannavira). It likely underwent compensatory lengthening jānavira & later metathesis to janivāra as secondary developments in Kannada itself. This is an irregular development from jaṇṇovavīya, I admit, but is considered due to the influence of the term janna-dāra (ಜನ್ನದಾರ).
We must also note that jaṇṇa was the Prakrit term for yajña. However, since it went out of use during the Middle Indo-Aryan period, it was not inherited in new Indo-Aryan languages & the Sanskrit word yajña became more popular in colloquial use. However, since jaṇṇovavīya and other Prakrit terms were still in use, it was inherited in new Indo-Aryan languages undergoing their respective strange sound changes from that particular part of the compound word. It must also be noted that the New Indo-Aryan descendant words of jaṇṇovavīya when broken into compounds, do not actually make sense as they're all inherited from a Prakrit word.
It is also interesting that Sanskrit upavīta > Maharashtri Prakrit uvavīa > Marathi ovī cannot be obtained from j̈ānve suggesting a very old derivation from Prakrit itself.”
My
reply to this:
“Thank
you for this reply. It brought many interesting intermediate forms to my
notice. but providing different combinations of different phonetic laws to
explain every different derivation (while attributing unexplainable changes to
unrecorded medial forms) is not the answer to my "challenge". You
will note that I asked the following question in sum: "That the four
words are derived from the Sanskrit word is undeniable and is
not being denied. The question is: are there really immutable phonetic laws of
sound change which govern these derivations. What are those laws in each case?
And are they regular laws: i.e. do they apply in every case
where the Sanskrit sound becomes a Hindi, Marathi, Gujarati or Sindhi word?
Are the Hindi, Marathi, Gujarati and Sindhi words for yajña then jan, zān, jan and jān respectively?.
And how (i.e. on the basis of which exact and immutable phonetic rules)
does pavīta get converted every time to eū, ve, oī,
and yā respectively?".
The whole explanation is in the same way that the derivations of the words for fox are explained and accepted while derivations of the words for elephant from "rbha" are rejected as not phonetically or phonologically valid as per immutable laws. To take just one question, has every single Sanskrit "y" without exception become "j/z" in every single Indo-aryan language by an immutable law? Then how would you explain all those words where "y" remains "y" or "j" becomes "y"? The point is not how, with different twisted and multiple explanations (and assumed missing intermediate forms) you can show derivations. The point is: how can you categorically reject obvious derivations by claiming they do not fit in with immutable phonetic laws.”
And
this is the basic inconsistency inherent in anti-OIT arguments: their rejections
of particular IE or IA derivations is not based on logic or facts but on
dogmas. Dogmas which can be completely relaxed or ignored/bypassed when
you want to accept some unexplainable derivation, but which can
be raised as immutable laws when you want to reject some even very
obvious derivation by saying it does not exactly fit in with the immutable
law.
This is how a textbook etymologist par excellence rejected the derivation of four IE words for “elephant” even when the derivation is undeniable (Vedic ibha, Latin ebur, Greek erepa/elepha, Hittite laḫpa) from *ṛbha/*ḷbha like the related word ṛbhu- which, as per Macdonell, comes "from the root rabh, to grasp, thus means 'handy', 'dexterous'" (MACDONELL 1897:133), while giving convoluted, hypothetical and faith-appealing explanations (or rather pleas) to show how the different words for “fox” in different IE languages can still be claimed, on faith, or on the speculations of IE scholars, to be ultimately (even if unexplainably) derived from PIE:
https://talageri.blogspot.com/2022/08/indian-fauna-elephants-foxes-and-ait.html
No comments:
Post a Comment