Passive Voice form of bhunkte?

[smaranam]

Dear SaMskRt scholars,

praNAm

What would be the passive voice of 'bhunkte'?
Generally, this is taken as active voice, i.e.,
bhunkte: eats, enjoys, etc.

I found several primers suggesting that sometimes the same word can imply passive voice.
e.g. can bhunkte also mean "cause to eat" or make someone eat?

Thanks for your help.

_/\_

om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya

[philosoraptor]

I thought bhunkte was the passive voice. I'll have to check my Sanskrit textbooks when I get home. For what it's worth, I've been taught that many verbs in passive voice are often translated as active, though whether this is a preference of English translators or a loss of distinction in the Sanskrit language, I am not clear.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namast�

First, I am no expert/paṇḍita, just one more śiṣya (student) eager to learn...
I thought to just frame the question with an example for those that are reading the post(s).
The mouse ate the cheeze - active voice
The cheese was eaten by the mouse - passive voice

How I 'see' bhunkte' from post 1 above:

• bhakṣaṇa - is one who eats ( and is male female or neuter by word gender)
• bhakṣa then is eating (and is masculine by word gender)
• bhakṣya - to be eaten , eatable , fit for food

iti śivaṁ

[smaranam]

praNAm

Thank You Philosoraptor and Yajvanji.

Actually i am not so concerned with "eats/experiences" (active) versus "is eaten by" (passive) as long as subject and object are clear.

Now that i think, i am more concerned about bhunkte being translated as "<subject> causes [] to experience" or "<subject> makes [] experience" rather than
"<subject> experiences"

Is the former a valid translation?

Thanks

_/\_

[Ra K Sankar]

Namaste

Bhuktah is "eaten/consumed by"

Ra K Sankar

[smaranam]

Namaste

Bhuktah is "eaten/consumed by"

Ra K Sankar

Thank You SankarJi.

Sorry about not responding, i had been away.

praNAm