སྟ་གྲི། སྟ་རི། སྟ་རེ།

The Tibetan word for “axe” or “hatchet” is sta ri (or also sta re). But what about its possible etymology? Jäschke notes that originally it used to be sta gri, which is very indeed very plausible. Jäschke renders dgra sta as “battle-axe,” and etymologically it may mean “axe [used for fighting] enemies.” But what about sta? There do not seem to many words containing sta except perhaps sta zur meaning “hip” or “hip-bone” and sta gon, a kind pre-initiatory ritual or preparatory activity. Are sta in sta gri and sta in sta zur etymologically related? What about the relative chronology of sta gri and sta zur? In other words, has axe been named sta gri because it looks like a hip-bone, or hip-bone was named sta zur because it looks like an axe?

འབྲལ། དབྲལ། ཧྲལ། རལ། ཧྲུལ། རུལ།

Just a quick note before I forget it. Surely ’bral ba (“to be torn asunder,” “to fall apart,” “to become separate”) is a intransitive-cum-heteronomous verb, which is to be compared with the transitive-cum-autonomous dbral ba (“to pull [something] apart,” or, “to tear [e.g. two persons or things] apart.” The meaning of dbral ba (i.e. dbrol ba’i ’das pa dang ma mongs pa) is not quite satisfactory. Perhaps hral ba (perhaps as a verb “to be in bits and pieces,” o, “to be torn”) and ral ba (“to be torn,” and hrul po (“to be tattered” or “to be in tatters”), and rul ba (“to rot,” “to be rotten,” or, “to decay”) may all be somehow connected: “to tear” or “to be torn and worn out.” But of course, I don’t commit myself to any of these yet.

རྐྱ།

The phrase bden pa gnyis kyi rkya bar du blo bcug nas shes bya la ’jal bar byed pa ’di (RZ2: 69), that is, Mutatis mutandis, seems interesting for two reasons. First, what may be the meaning of rkya? Second, although ’jal bar byed requires an accusative object, I would think the accusative object need not be marked by a la don particle. One does, however, find cases similar to the second point. With regard to the first, rkya does have the meaning of zam pa (“bridge”) and this seems to contextually fit the best, although one may render it freely here as “gap between.” “This assessment of phenomena by putting the cognitive subject/agent in the gap between (lit. “bridge between”) the two modes of reality is ….”

ཞིག།

That zhig, a “heteronomous particle” (phrad gzhan dbang can), can be used in the sense of (a) an indefinite article  “a, an” or “one” (cf. gang zhig “a certain”) and (b) an imperative particle (skul tshig ston byed kyi tshig) is perhaps clear to us. But what is perhaps less clear is its (c) “nominalizing function,” which may be rendered as “one that is,” “those that are,” “that which is,” “that which are,” and so on.  

1. ngo bo nyid grub pa gang yang ma yin pa zhig (RZ 2: 120)

2. shes rig gi mtshan nyid dang bral ba zhig (RZ 2: 120)

མཐང་། ཐང་།

Just the other day, I came to think about the term mthang gos (more popularly known as sham thabs), one of the three robes (chos gos rnam gsum) of a person ordained in the Vinayic order. I, personally, did not know before the word mthang except in this context, and started wondering about the meaning of mthang. Now I learn that mthang means “lower part of the body” and hence mthang gos literally would mean “robe for the lower part of the body” and is opposed to bla gos which would mean “robe for the upper part of the body.” The Tshig mdzod chen mo has some more words such as mthang sprad pa “to copulate.” Otherwise, it seems the word mthang rarely occurs. But could it be that words mthang and thang (in the sense of “plain” or “low-lying flat area”) are somehow related?

མ་ཧེ།

Note that ma he “buffalo” is derived from Sanskrit mahiṣa (already mentioned by Jäschke)and it would be futile find some indigenous Tibetan etymology.

བྱེ་བྲག།

In the Tibetan word bye brag “difference, distinction,” bye seems to be derived from ’byed pa (“to split,” cf. dbye ba), but what about brag? May be be “cliff”? If so, what sense would it make? If not, what could be the meaning of brag? 

ཡང་དག་པ།

Can it be that yang dag pa (“correct/right”) etymologically means “light” (yang ba) and “pure” (dag pa)? Or, could it mean “even purer” or “particularly pure”? Cf. yang gsang (lit. “even more secret”). I like the latter.

ཀྱེ་མ།

In the word kye ma (“oh! alas!”), ma is “mother,” and kye is something like “oh.” In modern Tibetan and also in Tshangs-lha, one would say instead “a ma!” (as an exclamation).  

ལི་ཁྲི།

The Tibetan word for “vermillion” is li khri and this, according to Beyer 1991: 142, n. 33, suggests that vermillion was first known in “Khotan” (i.e. Li-yul).

གུ་གེ།

According to Chos-’phel, Gangs can bod kyi gnas bshad lam yig gsar ma: mNga’ ris khul gyi gnas yig. Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2008, p. 55, gu ge is in Zhang-zhung language and means yi ge. Zhang-zhung experts should confirm!

ངའོ། །

The other day I was reading a difficult text with some bright Chinese students, and we discussed about the possible role of final particle (rdzogs tshig) as an inherent verb “to be.” I think Dan and I already discussed this in our talk-backs to one of our entries. To recall is also the point that I already made regarding traditional Tibetan scholars’ unwillingness to regard verbs “to be” (yin pa)and “to be there” (yod pa) and auxiliary verbs as verbs at all, which is, in my view, a serious conceptual error. At any rate, back to the point that I actually wanted to make. In my view, the difference between nga and nga’o is that the former is just a word (“I”) whereas the latter a sentence (i.e. “It is me or I am.”). And what makes it a sentence? It is the rdzogs tshig! Such sentences, in my view, show that rdzogs tshig sometimes functions like a verb “to be.” There are many such examples but I consider nga’o because it seems to be shortest possible sentence. We do have, however, one-word sentence particularly in the imperative: song! (“Go!”)

       

སྐད་ཆ་རིང་ན་འཆལ་འགྲོ། །སྐུད་པ་རིང་ན་ཆད་འགྲོ། །

skad cha ring na ’chal ’gro ||
skud pa ring na chad ’gro || 

bsTan-go, Ming brda rig pa (p. 199)

If the talk is long, it would trail off.
If the thread is long, it would snap off.

རྒྱུ་ཡོད་རྒྱུ་ཡིས་སྨྱོ། རྒྱུ་མེད་སྡུག་གིས་སྨྱོ།

bsTan-go, Ming brda rig pa (p. 208):

rgyu yod rgyu yis smyo ||
rgyu med sdug gis smyo ||

The rich are sick of prosperity!
The poor are sick of penury!

དཔུང་གཉེན། གཉེན་པོ། གཉེན། ཉེན། ཉེ།

Sanskrit words such as parāyaṇa (“last resort or refuge”) and paritrāṇa (“means of protection, refuge”) have been rendered into Tibetan as dpung gnyen. But note that my interest is not the etymologies of these Sanskrit words but rather Tibetan dpung gnyen. The first component seems to be the same dpung meaning “force” (as in military force) and the second component gnyen meaning “friend,” and so could dpung gnyen be etymologised as “ally in force” or “ally [that provides support of] strength”? Obviously gnyen po (“antidote”) is related with gnyen/nyen “kinsman, relative,” which, in turn, seems to be related with nye ba “to be close.” Note also the use of nye ba as substantive as in gnyen dang nye ba.

What about in nyen in nyen kha “risk, danger/peril/disadvantage/loss”? Even this is perhaps related to nye ba “to be close”? That is, “risk or danger” is a “situation close to or that is at the brink/mouth of [some possible disaster]”?    

ངུ། རྔུ།

I wonder if ngu in ngu ba “to weep/howl” and rngu “pain” as in zug rngu are cognates. Obviously “pain” and “weeping” have a causal relationship.

པད་ཚལ།

The Tibetan word pad tshal for “Chinese cabbage” although sounds like a Tibetan word meaning “Lotus Garden/Vegetable?” (i.e. padma’i tshal) is actually a loan word from the Chinese 白菜 (lit. “white vegetable”). Cf. bsTan-gos’s Bod skad ming brda rig pa (p. 63).

ཡ་མ་བརླ།

The word ya ma brla (“essence-less, non-essential, hollow” or “fickle,” “unreliable”) seems to have an etymology especially because of its similarity with ya ma zung. The word is recorded in the Bod rgya (ss.v. ya ma brla & stong pa) and in Jäschke 1881: s.v. Is Jäschke suggesting ya ma la and if so what does it mean? The meaning (albeit not the etymology) of the word seems to be clear also in the following statement by Rong-zom-pa: ’o na sku dang ye shes kyi dkyil ’khor de dag kyang gsob ya ma brla sgyu ma lta bu yin pas | don gyis (sic) dgos pa ci yang med zhig yin nam zhe na | (RZ 1: 171). But what could be its etymology? Could it be something like “neither upper [part of the body] nor thigh (i.e. lower part of the body) hence in reality “nothing,” “non-substantial,” or, “non-essential”?

བྱེད།

The Tibetan verb byed pa (present) “to do” is quite productive (not only as a verbalizer in Modern Tibetan) but also in Classical Tibetan. But I realize that students often have difficulties in getting the right meaning in the right context. Here is an attempt to systematize its usages. §1. The easiest and commonest usage is perhaps in structures such as: “X (substantive) + byed” (which can simply be rendered as “to do X”). For example: dper na glang po che ma thul ba myos pa rnams ni  | … sems can gsod pa la sogs pa’i las byed de | (RZ 1: 147).  §2. A bit trickier is the usage of byed when construed with verbs. Here perhaps we can simply watch out whether the verb with which byed is construed is “autonomous” or “heteronomous.” (a) If construed with an autonomous verb, it does not seem to add much to the meaning of the verb except that it disambiguates the tense. It thus seems that bza’ = bza’ bar byed; ’gro = ’gro bar byed. Obviously bza’ bar byed simply means “eat” and not “cause someone to eat” and similarly ’gro bar byed simply means “go” and not “cause someone to go.” This is perhaps also true in cases such as (RZ 1: 168): … rtogs pa bskyed par byed pas de skad ces bya||). Causative sense, if required, would be expressed by words (I call them modal verbs) such as bcug, and hence, bzar bcug, ’gror bcug, and bskyed du bcug. (b) If, however, byed is construed with a heteronomous verb, then it certainly changes to the meaning of the verb. Thus, for example, ’grub par byed (as in sdug bsngal gyi las mngon par ’grub par byed do ||) is not semantically identical with ’grub. Here, byed indeed makes the verb causative. Similarly shes “to know” is not semantically identical with shes par byed, which means “to cause someone to know” or “to ensure that one/someone knows.”

ཕྱིར།

This is perhaps a trivial entry on the use of phyir but nonetheless it may be useful for some students.

§1. First of all, it should be pointed out that phyir comprises of phyi (“outside/outward”) and r (la don). Normally we would not think of separating these two components because they have, so to speak, coagulated and frozen in time.

§2. Syntactically, two uses of phyir seem particularly interesting. (a) The word phyir can be construed with verbs (mostly in a subordinate clause containing adverbial phrase of purpose and also preceding the principle clause) so to as have the meaning of “for the sake/purpose of,” “in order to/that,” “so as to.” For examples: (i) da ni ston pa phun sum tshogs pa bstan pa’i phyir | de bzhin gshegs pa yang dag par rdzogs pa’i sangs rgyas bcom ldan ’das longs spyod chen po zhes bya ba la sogs pa smos te | (RZ 1); (ii) gnas phun sum tshogs pa bstan pa’i phyir ’og min gyi gnas mtha’ dang dbus med pa na zhes smos te | (RZ 1). The syntactical structure here is: “For the sake/purpose of showing X, Y has been stated.” 

§3. (b) The second and most common usage of phyir construed with a verb is in a subordinate clause containing adverbial phrase of reason, which can precede or follow a principle clause and thus having the meaning of “because.” For examples: (i) ’gro ba rnams kyi sems kyi rnang bzhin ni dbyer mi phyed pa’i phyir rdo rje’o ||; (ii) byang chub yang yin la chen po yang yin pa’i phyir byang chub chen po zhes bya’o ||; (ii) grub pa’i mtha’ thams cad kyang phyin ci ma log par mthar thug pa ni rdzogs pa chen po yin zhing de las bogs dbyung du med pa’i phyir ro ||. The syntactical structure here is something like: “Because of Z, X is Y,” or, “X is Y because of Z.”

§4. Of course, a phrase having the structure of “substantive + kyi/gyi/gi/yi/’i + phyir (with or without du)” is quite easy because it would simply mean “for the sake/benefit of X (substantive).” In this case, phyir du can be replaced by don du (with no change in meaning). Example: byang chub kyi phyir; rtsed mo’i phyir yang sems can la gnod pa byed de | (RZ 2: 386) “[People] harm sentient beings even for fun.”

§5. Also remember that we have some fixed words such as ci’i phyir (“for what sake” = “why”), gang gi phyir (“for which/whose sake,” de’i phyir (“for that sake/reason” = “thus/therefore”). 

§6. It seems that phyir is also used as a kind of verbal-prefix often having the meaning of “away,” “out,” or “again.” Consider the following:

1. phyir gso ba “to revive”

2. phyir ’don pa “to ooze”

3. phyir bcos pa “to remedy”

4. phyir slog pa “to return (something to someone)”

5. phyir rgol ba “to oppose,” etc.

6. phyir bshol ba “to postpone”

7. phyir zlog pa “to repel”

8. phyir log pa “to retract”

9. phyir bkram pa “to spread out”

10. phyir dbyung ba “to expel”

11. phyir ’phul ba “to expel”

12. phyir ’bud pa “to expel”

So much for now.