[INDOLOGY] Whitney and doubling of "ch"

[Herman Tull]

Whitney's "Roots, Verb-forms..." was a "supplement" to the *first edition*
of the Grammar (also published in 1879). Whitney's Grammar was also
published in a second edition in 1896. As those of us know from using
Lanman's Reader (which cites the original edition), the two are not the
same.

In the grammar's first edition, Whitney uses the "ch" spelling (i.e., not
doubled):

608. A small number of roots add in the present-system a ch, or substitute
a ch for their final consonant, and form a stem ending in cha or chá, which
is then inflected like any a-stem. This is historically, doubtless, a true
class-sign, analogous with the rest; but the verbs showing it are so few,
and in formation so irregular, that they are not well to be put together
into a class, but may best be treated as special cases falling under the
other classes.

a. Roots adding ch are ṛ and yu, which make the stems ṛchá and yúcha.

b. Roots substituting ch for their final are iṣ, uṣ (or vas *shine*), gam,
yam, which make the stems ichá, uchá, gácha, yácha.

This seems to be coordinate with his Atharva-Veda Pratishakya (*JAOS* VII
[1862]: 410), where Whitney writes: "we have followed in the printed text
the authority of the manuscripts, with hardly an exception, write simply
*ch*, instead of *cch."*

In the second edition of the Grammar, however, Whitney changes section 608,
from the single "cha" to the doubled "ccha" (as Harry points out):

608. A small number of roots add in the present-system a ch, or substitute
a ch for their final consonant, and form a stem ending in cha or chá, which
is then inflected like any a-stem. This is historically, doubtless, a true
class-sign, analogous with the rest; but the verbs showing it are so few,
and in formation so irregular, that they are not well to be put together
into a class, but may best be treated as special cases falling under the
other classes.

a. Roots adding ch are ṛ and yu, which make the stems ṛcchá and yúccha.

b. Roots substituting ch for their final are iṣ, uṣ (or vas *shine*), gam,
yam, which make the stems icchá, ucchá, gáccha, yáccha.


Why he made this change is anyone's guess. But, the other grammars of the
time (Müller; Monier Williams) did use "ccha," so it may simply have been a
nod to the commonly accepted practice of the time (Whitney did tend to be
contrarian!).


*Herman Tull, PhD*
*Princeton, NJ*


On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 9:27 PM Harry Spier via INDOLOGY <
indology at list.indology.info> wrote:

> Dear list members,
> Whitney  in his grammar section 227 says about the doubling of "*ch*".
> "As a general rule *ch* is not to be allowed by the grammarians to stand
> in that form after vowels but is to be doubled becoming *cch* (which in
> the manuscripts is sometimes written *chch*). . .According to Panini *ch*
> is to be doubled within a word after a long or a short vowel."
>
> But if you look in his "Roots, Verb-forms and Derivatives" at the entry
> for *iṣ, ich * nowhere does he double "*ch*" not even after a short vowel
> rather he has* i**chati, ichaka,* * ichā* and* ichu * . Does anyone know
> why for this root in all his examples he didn't double *ch* after vowels?
> Thanks,
> Harry Spier
>
> _______________________________________________
> INDOLOGY mailing list
> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
> https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/20231019/0fd6e2d3/attachment.htm>