347. Conditional.

The so called conditional (lṛṅ) is properly the past of the future in -syati. In classic Sanskrit its employment is limited to the expression of the so called modus irrealis, that is the mood significative of what would happen or have happened, if something else should have occurred, which really has not taken place. Then, mostly, both protasis and apodosis contain the conditional. (*1)

Ch. Up. 6, 1, 7 yaddhyetadavedipyan kathaṃ me nāvakṣyan (for if they had known it, why should they not have told me so?), Panc. 237 tad yadi tasya vacanam akariṣyann ete tato na svalpo ’py anartho ’bhaviṣyad eteṣām (for if they had done according to his words, then not the least misfortune would have befallen them), Daç. 111 tau ced rājaputrau nirupadravāvevāvardhiṣyetāmiyatā kālena tavemāṃ vayovasthāmasprakṣyetām (if those two princes should have grown up without accidents, they would have reached your age by this time), Kumâras. 6, 68 gāmadhāsyatkathaṃ nāgaḥ… ā rasātalamūlāt tvam avālambiṣyathā na cet (how would the serpent [Çesha] bear the earth, if you [Vishnu] had not lifted it up from the bottom of hell?), Ch. Up. 1, 101 4 na vā ajīviṣyamimānakhādan (forsooth, I should have died, if I had not eaten them). In the examples given, the conditional in the apodosis sometimes denotes a hypothetical past, sometimes a hypothetical present, but in the protasis it is always expressive of a past. I do not recollect having met with any instance of the conditional denoting the hypothetical present in both members; M. 7, 20 f. i. it is signified by the liṅ in the protasis and by the conditional in the apodosis yadi na praṇayed rājā daṇḍaṃ daṇḍyeṣvatandritaḥ / śūle matsyānivāpakṣyandurbalān balavattarāḥ (if the king were not prompt to inflict punishment on those, who deserve it, the stronger would roast the weaker like fish on the spit). For the rest, it is everywhere allowed to use the liṅ instead of the conditional, f. i. R. 2, 64, 22 yadyetadaśubhaṃ karma na sma me kathayeḥ svayam / phalenmūrdhā sma te rājansadyaḥ śatasahasradhā (if you had not told me yourself this evil deed, your head would have fallen off in a thousand pieces), kathayeḥ and phalet = akathayiṣyaḥ and aphaliṣyat.

Rem. In the archaic dialect the conditional had a larger sphere of employment. Though rarely used in its original meaning of a future’s past (f. i. Ṛgv. 2, 30, 2 yo vṛtrāya sinamatrābhariṣyat »who was about to take away the provision of Vrtra”), it occurs there occasionally as the past of the liṅ, even in not-hypothetical sentences. Maitr. S. 1, 8, 1 sa tad eva nāvindat prajāpatir yad ahoṣyat (Praj. did not get what he could sacrifice) (*2), Çat. Br. 14, 4, 2, 3 ktata evāsya bhayaṃ vīyāya kasmād dhyabheṣyat (from that moment his fear vanished, for of whom could he have been afraid?) (*3).

(*1)
P. 3, 3, 139 liṅnimitte lṛṅ kriyātipattau.
P. 3, 3, 140 bhūte ca. — Kâç. bhūte ca kāle liṅnimitte kriyātipattau satyāṃ lṛṅpratyayo bhavati.

(*2)
Even here and in similar instances the conditional shows its origin. The sentence quoted from the Maitr. S. treats of an action put into the past, if it were a present one, the sentence would assume this shape na vindati yaddhoṣyati or juhuyāt. In other terms, ahoṣyat may here be considered as the past of hoṣyat.

(*3)
In a well-known passage of the Chândogya-upanishad (6, 1, 3) the conditional is hidden under a false reading uta tam ādeśam aprākṣyo yenāśrutaṃ śrutaṃ bhavati etc. Çankara explains aprākṣyaḥ by pṛṣṭavān asi, the Petr. Dict. accepts it as an aorist, though it is then a barbarism, for if aor., it would have been aprākṣīḥ. Replace aprakṣyaḥ, and all is right »had you but asked the instruction, by which etc.” Cp. P. 3, 3, 141.

347. 条件法

いわゆる条件法（lṛṅ）は、正確には単純未来-syatiの過去時制である。古典サンスクリットにおいては、その用法はいわゆる不確定法（modus irrealis）、すなわち、未だ生起していない何事かが生じ来たであろう場合に、何が〈起こる/起こった〉のかを表す法である。したがって、ほとんどの場合、前提文（protasis）と帰結文（apodosis）の両方は条件法を内包する（*1）。

Ch. Up. 6, 1, 7 yaddhyetadavedipyan kathaṃ me nāvakṣyan (for if they had known it, why should they not have told me so?)
Panc. 237 tad yadi tasya vacanam akariṣyann ete tato na svalpo ’py anartho ’bhaviṣyad eteṣām (for if they had done according to his words, then not the least misfortune would have befallen them)
Daç. 111 tau ced rājaputrau nirupadravāvevāvardhiṣyetāmiyatā kālena tavemāṃ vayovasthāmasprakṣyetām (if those two princes should have grown up without accidents, they would have reached your age by this time)
Kumâras. 6, 68 gāmadhāsyatkathaṃ nāgaḥ… ā rasātalamūlāt tvam avālambiṣyathā na cet (how would the serpent [Çesha] bear the earth, if you [Vishnu] had not lifted it up from the bottom of hell?)
Ch. Up. 1, 101 4 na vā ajīviṣyamimānakhādan (forsooth, I should have died, if I had not eaten them)

提示された例の中、帰結文の条件法は時に仮定の過去（hypothetical past）を、時に仮定の現在を表すことがあるのだが、前提文の場合は常に過去時制を表している。その両者がともに仮定の現在を表す条件法であるような用例について、私は見た覚えがない；
M. 7, 20 f. i. it is signified by the liṅ in the protasis and by the conditional in the apodosis yadi na praṇayed rājā daṇḍaṃ daṇḍyeṣvatandritaḥ / śūle matsyānivāpakṣyandurbalān balavattarāḥ (if the king were not prompt to inflict punishment on those, who deserve it, the stronger would roast the weaker like fish on the spit)

その他、条件法の代わりにliṅを用いることはどこでも許される；
R. 2, 64, 22 yady etad aśubhaṃ karma na sma me kathayeḥ svayam / phalen mūrdhā sma te rājansadyaḥ śatasahasradhā (if you had not told me yourself this evil deed, your head would have fallen off in a thousand pieces)

kathayeḥとphaletはそれぞれakathayiṣyaḥ・aphaliṣyatに相当する。

【補足】
ヴェーダ語においては、条件法は広い使用領域を持っている。その本来の意味である未来の過去（future’s past）で用いられることは稀であるが（Ṛgv. 2, 30, 2 yo vṛtrāya sinamatrābhariṣyat »who was about to take away the provision of Vṛtra”）、仮定文でない文であっても、過去を表すliṅが用いられることがある。
Maitr. S. 1, 8, 1 sa tad eva nāvindat prajāpatir yad ahoṣyat (Praj. did not get what he could sacrifice) （*2）
Çat. Br. 14, 4, 2, 3 ktata evāsya bhayaṃ vīyāya kasmād dhyabheṣyat (from that moment his fear vanished, for of whom could he have been afraid?) （*3）

（*1）
P. 3, 3, 139 liṅnimitte lṛṅ kriyātipattau. P. 3, 3, 140 bhūte ca. — Kâç. bhūte ca kāle liṅnimitte kriyātipattau satyāṃ lṛṅpratyayo bhavati.

（*2）
これや同様の用例でも、条件法はその起源を見せている。Māitrāyaṇī Saṃhitāから引用された一節は過去に行われた行為を扱っており、もしそれが現在のものであったならば、文はna vindati yaddhoṣyati、あるいはjuhuyāt、という形をとったであろう。言い換えると、ahoṣyatはここではhoṣyatの過去形と見なされているのである。

（*3）
Chāndogya-upaniṣadの有名な一節（6, 1, 3）では、条件法は、間違った読みの下に隠れている：uta tam ādeśam aprākṣyo yenāśrutaṃ śrutaṃ bhavatiなど。Śaṅkaraはaprākṣyaḥを“pṛṣṭavān asi”によって説明し、Sanskrit Wörterbuchはこれをaor.とする。それならそれで文法を外れた語法となるけれども、もしaor.ならaprākṣīḥであっただろう。aprakṣyaḥを置き換えればすべて意味が通る：»had you but asked the instruction, by which etc.’’。P. 3, 3, 141をみよ。