Guest guest Posted March 23, 2005 Report Share Posted March 23, 2005 Dear Sir, <<I see that he has an article on asiddha In Journal of Indian Philosophy, vol. 8, 1980 and also in the Annals of the BORI, vol. 70, 1989. Are these the sources you are referring to, or is there something I missed? >> Yes, I meant these sources only. Regards. Narayan Prasad deshpandem <mmdesh wrote: I am aware of the traditional view and S.D. Joshi's view. I need to refresh my memory of Bronkhorst's arguments before I can make a comment about them. I see that he has an article on asiddha In Journal of Indian Philosophy, vol. 8, 1980 and also in the Annals of the BORI, vol. 70, 1989. Are these the sources you are referring to, or is there something I missed. Madhav Deshpande INDOLOGY, narayan prasad <prasad_cwprs> wrote: > > Dear Sir, > > You have very nicely explained the queries of Mr Pandey. > > My query is: > > Is there any difference between asiddha and asiddhavat ? > > The traditional interpreters/commentators of Panini take both of them to mean the same thing. Dr S D Joshi is of similar view. But Prof J Bronkhorst considers them different. What is your view ? > > Regards. > Narayan Prasad Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2005 Report Share Posted March 27, 2005 Dear Shri Narayan Prasad, After re-reading Bronkhorst's article, especially the one in JIP (1980), I am sympethetic to Bronkhorst's efforts to distinguish between asiddha and asiddhavat, though I am not quite convinced that he has been conclusively able to demonstrate the distinction. I believe one practical distinction between the asiddhavat section and the pUrvatrAsiddham section is that in the first section, the order of application of the rules concerned becomes effectively neutralized as both the rules are (as if) asiddha with respect to each other, while in the pUrvatrAsiddham section the ordering of rules is absolutely critical. I do not agree with Bronkhorst's view that pUrvatrAsiddham simply results in a fixed order of application of rules, and nothing more. The example of kurvanti as discussed by BhaTToji dIkSita is illustrative of the complex functioning of pUrvatrAsiddham: kuru + anti > kuru + aMti > (n>M, by nazcApadAntasya jhali, P. 8.3.24 kuru + anti > (M>n, by anusvArasya yayi parasavarNaH, P. 8.4.58 can this 'n' now be changed to 'N' by raSAbhyAM no NaH samAnapade and aTkupvAGnumvyavAye 'pi, P. 8.4.1-2? bhaTToji says that the retroflextion rule does not recognize the change of M>n by P. 8.4.58, but recognizes the change of n>M by P. 8.3.24. Therefore, it does not see 'n', and hence cannot apply in this example. What if we had applied P. 8.4.1-2 before applying P. 8.3.24. We could apply 8.4.1-2 first and change n>N, but this change will not be recognized by the previous rule P. 8.3.24. It sees only 'n' and hence will change 'n' to 'M'. Thus, if we do apply a later rule first, its result can be wiped out by the previous rule in some cases, but in other cases, by not recognizing the environment changed by a later rule, a previous rule finds that its condition for application are not fulfilled and it will not apply, and in effect the results of the later rule are allowed to stand in practice. The main difference with the asiddhavat section is that the actual results of both the rules are allowed to stand, without being recognized by the other rules. Consider the example of zAdhi. In zAs+hi, the rule huljalbhyo her dhiH (6.4.101) changes hi > dhi after 's' of zAs. But the rule zA hau (6.4.35), says that before 'hi', zAs is changed to zA. This can be applied, even after changing hi>dhi, since this rule does not recognize this change. Now if we were to apply 6.4.35 first and get zA+hi, could we now change 'hi' to 'dhi' by P.6.4.35. Yes we can, because P. 6.4.101 does not recognize the change of zAs to zA, and hence still sees zAs+hi, though in reality we have changed zAs to zA. Perhaps it is the mutuality of asiddhatva, as different from the linear asiddhatva of pUrvatrAsiddham, that is indicated by Panini by adding the affix -vat in asiddhavat in P.6.4.22. This is the best I can say. I hope the list members will excuse the rather abstruse Paninian discussion. Best, Madhav Deshpande INDOLOGY, narayan prasad <prasad_cwprs> wrote: > > Dear Sir, > > <<I see that he has an article on asiddha In Journal of Indian Philosophy, vol. 8, 1980 and also in the Annals of the BORI, vol. 70, 1989. Are these the sources you are referring to, or is there something I missed? >> > > Yes, I meant these sources only. > > Regards. > Narayan Prasad > > deshpandem <mmdesh@U...> wrote: > I am aware of the traditional view and S.D. Joshi's view. I need to > refresh my memory of Bronkhorst's arguments before I can make a > comment about them. I see that he has an article on asiddha In > Journal of Indian Philosophy, vol. 8, 1980 and also in the Annals of > the BORI, vol. 70, 1989. Are these the sources you are referring > to, or is there something I missed. > > Madhav Deshpande > > INDOLOGY, narayan prasad <prasad_cwprs> > wrote: > > > > Dear Sir, > > > > You have very nicely explained the queries of Mr Pandey. > > > > My query is: > > > > Is there any difference between asiddha and asiddhavat ? > > > > The traditional interpreters/commentators of Panini take > both of them to mean the same thing. Dr S D Joshi is of similar view. > But Prof J Bronkhorst considers them different. What is your view ? > > > > Regards. > > Narayan Prasad > Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.. com > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2005 Report Share Posted March 28, 2005 Dear Sir, Thanks a lot for reply to my query. <<Perhaps it is the mutuality of asiddhatva, as different from the linear asiddhatva of pUrvatrAsiddham, that is indicated by Panini by adding the affix -vat in asiddhavat in P.6.4.22.>> So, unlike the traditional view, there does appear to be a difference, in your view, between asiddha and asiddhavat. << <kuru + anti > kuru + aMti > (n>M, by nazcApadAntasya jhali, P. 8.3.24 >> This example used by BhaTToji does not appear to be a proper one for applying P.8.3.24, because as per the sUtra "jho'ntaH", the "n" in the middle of "ant" is directly read in the sUtra and is not as a result of some other aadeza like inserting "num" to "at". Regards. Narayan Prasad deshpandem <mmdesh wrote: Dear Shri Narayan Prasad, After re-reading Bronkhorst's article, especially the one in JIP (1980), I am sympethetic to Bronkhorst's efforts to distinguish between asiddha and asiddhavat, though I am not quite convinced that he has been conclusively able to demonstrate the distinction. I believe one practical distinction between the asiddhavat section and the pUrvatrAsiddham section is that in the first section, the order of application of the rules concerned becomes effectively neutralized as both the rules are (as if) asiddha with respect to each other, while in the pUrvatrAsiddham section the ordering of rules is absolutely critical. I do not agree with Bronkhorst's view that pUrvatrAsiddham simply results in a fixed order of application of rules, and nothing more. The example of kurvanti as discussed by BhaTToji dIkSita is illustrative of the complex functioning of pUrvatrAsiddham: kuru + anti > kuru + aMti > (n>M, by nazcApadAntasya jhali, P. 8.3.24 kuru + anti > (M>n, by anusvArasya yayi parasavarNaH, P. 8.4.58 can this 'n' now be changed to 'N' by raSAbhyAM no NaH samAnapade and aTkupvAGnumvyavAye 'pi, P. 8.4.1-2? bhaTToji says that the retroflextion rule does not recognize the change of M>n by P. 8.4.58, but recognizes the change of n>M by P. 8.3.24. Therefore, it does not see 'n', and hence cannot apply in this example. What if we had applied P. 8.4.1-2 before applying P. 8.3.24. We could apply 8.4.1-2 first and change n>N, but this change will not be recognized by the previous rule P. 8.3.24. It sees only 'n' and hence will change 'n' to 'M'. Thus, if we do apply a later rule first, its result can be wiped out by the previous rule in some cases, but in other cases, by not recognizing the environment changed by a later rule, a previous rule finds that its condition for application are not fulfilled and it will not apply, and in effect the results of the later rule are allowed to stand in practice. The main difference with the asiddhavat section is that the actual results of both the rules are allowed to stand, without being recognized by the other rules. Consider the example of zAdhi. In zAs+hi, the rule huljalbhyo her dhiH (6.4.101) changes hi > dhi after 's' of zAs. But the rule zA hau (6.4.35), says that before 'hi', zAs is changed to zA. This can be applied, even after changing hi>dhi, since this rule does not recognize this change. Now if we were to apply 6.4.35 first and get zA+hi, could we now change 'hi' to 'dhi' by P.6.4.35. Yes we can, because P. 6.4.101 does not recognize the change of zAs to zA, and hence still sees zAs+hi, though in reality we have changed zAs to zA. Perhaps it is the mutuality of asiddhatva, as different from the linear asiddhatva of pUrvatrAsiddham, that is indicated by Panini by adding the affix -vat in asiddhavat in P.6.4.22. This is the best I can say. I hope the list members will excuse the rather abstruse Paninian discussion. Best, Madhav Deshpande Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 29, 2005 Report Share Posted March 29, 2005 Dear Shri Narayan Prasad, Bhattoji's explanation of kurvanti is the best I know to avoid retroflexion of n in this form. There is no reason why anti derived from zi in kuru+zi > kuru+anti by zo 'ntaH (7.1.3) would not be subject to the retroflexion rule. This substitution is not asiddha for the retroflexion rule. The sound 'n' belonging to affixes introduced by Panini is indeed subject to the retroflexion rules as one can see in forms like kRNoti, zRNoti, karavANi etc. In all these cases, the element with 'n' is derived through substitution in Panini and is uniformly subject to retroflexion rules. As for the general sense of a likely difference between asiddha and asiddhavat, I have given my view with the provision of "probably." The asiddhavat and asiddha need to be examined in the context of an internal study of the aSTAdhyAyI's use of -vat in other rules. For example, one can check expressions like karmavat in karmavat karmaNA tulyakriyaH (3.1. 87). Here, a kartR under certain circumstances is given treatment identical with a karman, without explicitly being called a karman. It is possible, and we can only speculate about it, that Panini first composed the large section of pUrvatrAsiddham, which makes a huge chunk of grammar invisible for the rest of the grammar, and this holds up in the linear ordering of the whole tripAdI section as well. Now the section that comes under rule asiddhavat atrAbhAt (6.4.22) is such that rules in this section are treated as if they are asiddha with respect of each other. But apart from this mutual asiddhatva of rules within this section, these rules are not asiddha for the rest of the aSTAdhyAyI. This is very important. If the replacement of zAs with zA in zAs+hi by zA hau (6.4.35) were asiddha for the rest of the aSTAdhyAyI, imagine what sort of unwanted sandhi consequences one would face. Thus, there are other differences between the asiddhavat section and the asiddha section. Best wishes, Madhav Deshpande INDOLOGY, narayan prasad <prasad_cwprs> wrote: > > Dear Sir, > > Thanks a lot for reply to my query. > > <<Perhaps it is the mutuality of asiddhatva, as different from the linear asiddhatva of pUrvatrAsiddham, that is indicated by Panini by adding the affix -vat in > asiddhavat in P.6.4.22.>> > > So, unlike the traditional view, there does appear to be a difference, in your view, between asiddha and asiddhavat. > > > << <kuru + anti > > kuru + aMti > (n>M, by nazcApadAntasya jhali, P. 8.3.24 >> > > This example used by BhaTToji does not appear to be a proper one for applying P.8.3.24, because as per the sUtra "jho'ntaH", the "n" in the middle of "ant" is directly read in the sUtra and is not as a result of some other aadeza like inserting "num" to "at". > > Regards. > Narayan Prasad > > > deshpandem <mmdesh@U...> wrote: > > Dear Shri Narayan Prasad, > > After re-reading Bronkhorst's article, especially the one in JIP (1980), I > am sympethetic to Bronkhorst's efforts to distinguish between asiddha and > asiddhavat, though I am not quite convinced that he has been conclusively > able to demonstrate the distinction. I believe one practical distinction > between the asiddhavat section and the pUrvatrAsiddham section is that in > the first section, the order of application of the rules concerned becomes > effectively neutralized as both the rules are (as if) asiddha with respect > to each other, while in the pUrvatrAsiddham section the ordering of rules > is absolutely critical. I do not agree with Bronkhorst's view that > pUrvatrAsiddham simply results in a fixed order of application of rules, > and nothing more. The example of kurvanti as discussed by BhaTToji > dIkSita is illustrative of the complex functioning of pUrvatrAsiddham: > > kuru + anti > > kuru + aMti > (n>M, by nazcApadAntasya jhali, P. 8.3.24 > kuru + anti > (M>n, by anusvArasya yayi parasavarNaH, P. 8.4.58 > > can this 'n' now be changed to 'N' by raSAbhyAM no NaH samAnapade and > aTkupvAGnumvyavAye 'pi, P. 8.4.1-2? bhaTToji says that the retroflextion > rule does not recognize the change of M>n by P. 8.4.58, but recognizes the > change of n>M by P. 8.3.24. Therefore, it does not see 'n', and hence > cannot apply in this example. > > What if we had applied P. 8.4.1-2 before applying P. 8.3.24. We could > apply 8.4.1-2 first and change n>N, but this change will not be recognized > by the previous rule P. 8.3.24. It sees only 'n' and hence will change > 'n' to 'M'. Thus, if we do apply a later rule first, its result can be > wiped out by the previous rule in some cases, but in other cases, by not > recognizing the environment changed by a later rule, a previous rule finds > that its condition for application are not fulfilled and it will not > apply, and in effect the results of the later rule are allowed to stand in > practice. The main difference with the asiddhavat section is that the > actual results of both the rules are allowed to stand, without being > recognized by the other rules. Consider the example of zAdhi. In zAs+hi, > the rule huljalbhyo her dhiH (6.4.101) changes hi > dhi after 's' of zAs. > But the rule zA hau (6.4.35), says that before 'hi', zAs is changed to zA. > This can be applied, even after changing hi>dhi, since this rule does not > recognize this change. Now if we were to apply 6.4.35 first and get > zA+hi, could we now change 'hi' to 'dhi' by P.6.4.35. Yes we can, because > P. 6.4.101 does not recognize the change of zAs to zA, and hence still > sees zAs+hi, though in reality we have changed zAs to zA. Perhaps it is > the mutuality of asiddhatva, as different from the linear asiddhatva of > pUrvatrAsiddham, that is indicated by Panini by adding the affix -vat in > asiddhavat in P.6.4.22. This is the best I can say. I hope the list > members will excuse the rather abstruse Paninian discussion. Best, > > Madhav Deshpande > Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.. com > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 30, 2005 Report Share Posted March 30, 2005 Dear Sir, Thanks a lot for your further explanation. <<Bhattoji's explanation of kurvanti is the best I know to avoid retroflexion of n in this form.>> Prior to BhaTToji (17th c. AD), we find in kAzikA (7th c. AD) under P.8.4.58: "iha kurvanti, kRSanti ityatra NatvasyAsiddhatvAt pUrvaM nakArasyAnusvAraH kriyate | tasyApi parasavarNena punarnakAra eva bhavati | tasyApyasiddhatvAt punarNatvaM na bhavati | evamanusvAriibhUto NatvamatikrAmatiiti |" The sUtra parallel to P.8.4.58 in the sarasvatiikaNThAbharaNa of Bhojadeva (11th c. AD) is sUtra no. 7.4.168. The daNDanAtha-vRtti (circa 12th c. AD) on this sUtra follows kAzikA. Best regards. Narayan Prasad - deshpandem INDOLOGY Wednesday, March 30, 2005 5:21 AM Re: [Y-Indology] asiddha vs asiddhavat Dear Shri Narayan Prasad, Bhattoji's explanation of kurvanti is the best I know to avoid retroflexion of n in this form. There is no reason why anti derived from zi in kuru+zi > kuru+anti by zo 'ntaH (7.1.3) would not be subject to the retroflexion rule. This substitution is not asiddha for the retroflexion rule. The sound 'n' belonging to affixes introduced by Panini is indeed subject to the retroflexion rules as one can see in forms like kRNoti, zRNoti, karavANi etc. In all these cases, the element with 'n' is derived through substitution in Panini and is uniformly subject to retroflexion rules. As for the general sense of a likely difference between asiddha and asiddhavat, I have given my view with the provision of "probably." The asiddhavat and asiddha need to be examined in the context of an internal study of the aSTAdhyAyI's use of -vat in other rules. For example, one can check expressions like karmavat in karmavat karmaNA tulyakriyaH (3.1. 87). Here, a kartR under certain circumstances is given treatment identical with a karman, without explicitly being called a karman. It is possible, and we can only speculate about it, that Panini first composed the large section of pUrvatrAsiddham, which makes a huge chunk of grammar invisible for the rest of the grammar, and this holds up in the linear ordering of the whole tripAdI section as well. Now the section that comes under rule asiddhavat atrAbhAt (6.4.22) is such that rules in this section are treated as if they are asiddha with respect of each other. But apart from this mutual asiddhatva of rules within this section, these rules are not asiddha for the rest of the aSTAdhyAyI. This is very important. If the replacement of zAs with zA in zAs+hi by zA hau (6.4.35) were asiddha for the rest of the aSTAdhyAyI, imagine what sort of unwanted sandhi consequences one would face. Thus, there are other differences between the asiddhavat section and the asiddha section. Best wishes, Madhav Deshpande INDOLOGY, narayan prasad <prasad_cwprs> wrote: > > Dear Sir, > > Thanks a lot for reply to my query. > > <<Perhaps it is the mutuality of asiddhatva, as different from the linear asiddhatva of pUrvatrAsiddham, that is indicated by Panini by adding the affix -vat in > asiddhavat in P.6.4.22.>> > > So, unlike the traditional view, there does appear to be a difference, in your view, between asiddha and asiddhavat. > > > << <kuru + anti > > kuru + aMti > (n>M, by nazcApadAntasya jhali, P. 8.3.24 >> > > This example used by BhaTToji does not appear to be a proper one for applying P.8.3.24, because as per the sUtra "jho'ntaH", the "n" in the middle of "ant" is directly read in the sUtra and is not as a result of some other aadeza like inserting "num" to "at". > > Regards. > Narayan Prasad > > > deshpandem <mmdesh@U...> wrote: > > Dear Shri Narayan Prasad, > > After re-reading Bronkhorst's article, especially the one in JIP (1980), I > am sympethetic to Bronkhorst's efforts to distinguish between asiddha and > asiddhavat, though I am not quite convinced that he has been conclusively > able to demonstrate the distinction. I believe one practical distinction > between the asiddhavat section and the pUrvatrAsiddham section is that in > the first section, the order of application of the rules concerned becomes > effectively neutralized as both the rules are (as if) asiddha with respect > to each other, while in the pUrvatrAsiddham section the ordering of rules > is absolutely critical. I do not agree with Bronkhorst's view that > pUrvatrAsiddham simply results in a fixed order of application of rules, > and nothing more. The example of kurvanti as discussed by BhaTToji > dIkSita is illustrative of the complex functioning of pUrvatrAsiddham: > > kuru + anti > > kuru + aMti > (n>M, by nazcApadAntasya jhali, P. 8.3.24 > kuru + anti > (M>n, by anusvArasya yayi parasavarNaH, P. 8.4.58 > > can this 'n' now be changed to 'N' by raSAbhyAM no NaH samAnapade and > aTkupvAGnumvyavAye 'pi, P. 8.4.1-2? bhaTToji says that the retroflextion > rule does not recognize the change of M>n by P. 8.4.58, but recognizes the > change of n>M by P. 8.3.24. Therefore, it does not see 'n', and hence > cannot apply in this example. > > What if we had applied P. 8.4.1-2 before applying P. 8.3.24. We could > apply 8.4.1-2 first and change n>N, but this change will not be recognized > by the previous rule P. 8.3.24. It sees only 'n' and hence will change > 'n' to 'M'. Thus, if we do apply a later rule first, its result can be > wiped out by the previous rule in some cases, but in other cases, by not > recognizing the environment changed by a later rule, a previous rule finds > that its condition for application are not fulfilled and it will not > apply, and in effect the results of the later rule are allowed to stand in > practice. The main difference with the asiddhavat section is that the > actual results of both the rules are allowed to stand, without being > recognized by the other rules. Consider the example of zAdhi. In zAs+hi, > the rule huljalbhyo her dhiH (6.4.101) changes hi > dhi after 's' of zAs. > But the rule zA hau (6.4.35), says that before 'hi', zAs is changed to zA. > This can be applied, even after changing hi>dhi, since this rule does not > recognize this change. Now if we were to apply 6.4.35 first and get > zA+hi, could we now change 'hi' to 'dhi' by P.6.4.35. Yes we can, because > P. 6.4.101 does not recognize the change of zAs to zA, and hence still > sees zAs+hi, though in reality we have changed zAs to zA. Perhaps it is > the mutuality of asiddhatva, as different from the linear asiddhatva of > pUrvatrAsiddham, that is indicated by Panini by adding the affix -vat in > asiddhavat in P.6.4.22. This is the best I can say. I hope the list > members will excuse the rather abstruse Paninian discussion. Best, > > Madhav Deshpande ---------- Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.3 - Release 3/25/2005 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2005 Report Share Posted March 31, 2005 Thanks for referring to the explanation in the kAzikA. It is in essence identical with bhaTToji's explanation and is probably the source of his explanation. That gives us some sense of history of this explanation. Best wishes, Madhav Deshpande INDOLOGY, "Narayan Prasad" <prasad_cwprs> wrote: > > Dear Sir, > > Thanks a lot for your further explanation. > > <<Bhattoji's explanation of kurvanti is the best I know to avoid retroflexion of n in this form.>> > > Prior to BhaTToji (17th c. AD), we find in kAzikA (7th c. AD) under P.8.4.58: > > "iha kurvanti, kRSanti ityatra NatvasyAsiddhatvAt pUrvaM nakArasyAnusvAraH kriyate | tasyApi parasavarNena punarnakAra eva bhavati | tasyApyasiddhatvAt punarNatvaM na bhavati | evamanusvAriibhUto NatvamatikrAmatiiti |" > > The sUtra parallel to P.8.4.58 in the sarasvatiikaNThAbharaNa of Bhojadeva (11th c. AD) is sUtra no. 7.4.168. The daNDanAtha-vRtti (circa 12th c. AD) on this sUtra follows kAzikA. > > Best regards. > > Narayan Prasad > - > deshpandem > INDOLOGY > Wednesday, March 30, 2005 5:21 AM > Re: [Y-Indology] asiddha vs asiddhavat > > > > Dear Shri Narayan Prasad, > > Bhattoji's explanation of kurvanti is the best I know to avoid > retroflexion of n in this form. There is no reason why anti derived from > zi in kuru+zi > kuru+anti by zo 'ntaH (7.1.3) would not be subject to the > retroflexion rule. This substitution is not asiddha for the retroflexion > rule. The sound 'n' belonging to affixes introduced by Panini is indeed > subject to the retroflexion rules as one can see in forms like kRNoti, > zRNoti, karavANi etc. In all these cases, the element with 'n' is derived > through substitution in Panini and is uniformly subject to retroflexion > rules. > As for the general sense of a likely difference between asiddha and > asiddhavat, I have given my view with the provision of "probably." The > asiddhavat and asiddha need to be examined in the context of an internal > study of the aSTAdhyAyI's use of -vat in other rules. For example, one > can check expressions like karmavat in karmavat karmaNA tulyakriyaH (3.1. > 87). Here, a kartR under certain circumstances is given treatment > identical with a karman, without explicitly being called a karman. It is > possible, and we can only speculate about it, that Panini first composed > the large section of pUrvatrAsiddham, which makes a huge chunk of grammar > invisible for the rest of the grammar, and this holds up in the linear > ordering of the whole tripAdI section as well. Now the section that comes > under rule asiddhavat atrAbhAt (6.4.22) is such that rules in this section > are treated as if they are asiddha with respect of each other. But apart > from this mutual asiddhatva of rules within this section, these rules are > not asiddha for the rest of the aSTAdhyAyI. This is very important. If > the replacement of zAs with zA in zAs+hi by zA hau (6.4.35) were asiddha > for the rest of the aSTAdhyAyI, imagine what sort of unwanted sandhi > consequences one would face. Thus, there are other differences between > the asiddhavat section and the asiddha section. Best wishes, > > Madhav Deshpande > > INDOLOGY, narayan prasad <prasad_cwprs> wrote: > > > > Dear Sir, > > > > Thanks a lot for reply to my query. > > > > <<Perhaps it is the mutuality of asiddhatva, as different from the > linear asiddhatva of pUrvatrAsiddham, that is indicated by Panini by > adding the affix -vat in > > asiddhavat in P.6.4.22.>> > > > > So, unlike the traditional view, there does appear to be a > difference, in your view, between asiddha and asiddhavat. > > > > > > << <kuru + anti > > > kuru + aMti > (n>M, by nazcApadAntasya jhali, P. 8.3.24 >> > > > > This example used by BhaTToji does not appear to be a proper one for > applying P.8.3.24, because as per the sUtra "jho'ntaH", the "n" in the > middle of "ant" is directly read in the sUtra and is not as a result of > some other aadeza like inserting "num" to "at". > > > > Regards. > > Narayan Prasad > > > > > > deshpandem <mmdesh@U...> wrote: > > > > Dear Shri Narayan Prasad, > > > > After re-reading Bronkhorst's article, especially the one in JIP (1980), > I > > am sympethetic to Bronkhorst's efforts to distinguish between asiddha > and > > asiddhavat, though I am not quite convinced that he has been > conclusively > > able to demonstrate the distinction. I believe one practical > distinction > > between the asiddhavat section and the pUrvatrAsiddham section is that > in > > the first section, the order of application of the rules concerned > becomes > > effectively neutralized as both the rules are (as if) asiddha with > respect > > to each other, while in the pUrvatrAsiddham section the ordering of > rules > > is absolutely critical. I do not agree with Bronkhorst's view that > > pUrvatrAsiddham simply results in a fixed order of application of rules, > > and nothing more. The example of kurvanti as discussed by BhaTToji > > dIkSita is illustrative of the complex functioning of pUrvatrAsiddham: > > > > kuru + anti > > > kuru + aMti > (n>M, by nazcApadAntasya jhali, P. 8.3.24 > > kuru + anti > (M>n, by anusvArasya yayi parasavarNaH, P. 8.4.58 > > > > can this 'n' now be changed to 'N' by raSAbhyAM no NaH samAnapade and > > aTkupvAGnumvyavAye 'pi, P. 8.4.1-2? bhaTToji says that the > retroflextion > > rule does not recognize the change of M>n by P. 8.4.58, but recognizes > the > > change of n>M by P. 8.3.24. Therefore, it does not see 'n', and hence > > cannot apply in this example. > > > > What if we had applied P. 8.4.1-2 before applying P. 8.3.24. We could > > apply 8.4.1-2 first and change n>N, but this change will not be > recognized > > by the previous rule P. 8.3.24. It sees only 'n' and hence will change > > 'n' to 'M'. Thus, if we do apply a later rule first, its result can be > > wiped out by the previous rule in some cases, but in other cases, by not > > recognizing the environment changed by a later rule, a previous rule > finds > > that its condition for application are not fulfilled and it will not > > apply, and in effect the results of the later rule are allowed to stand > in > > practice. The main difference with the asiddhavat section is that the > > actual results of both the rules are allowed to stand, without being > > recognized by the other rules. Consider the example of zAdhi. In > zAs+hi, > > the rule huljalbhyo her dhiH (6.4.101) changes hi > dhi after 's' of > zAs. > > But the rule zA hau (6.4.35), says that before 'hi', zAs is changed to > zA. > > This can be applied, even after changing hi>dhi, since this rule does > not > > recognize this change. Now if we were to apply 6.4.35 first and get > > zA+hi, could we now change 'hi' to 'dhi' by P.6.4.35. Yes we can, > because > > P. 6.4.101 does not recognize the change of zAs to zA, and hence still > > sees zAs+hi, though in reality we have changed zAs to zA. Perhaps it is > > the mutuality of asiddhatva, as different from the linear asiddhatva of > > pUrvatrAsiddham, that is indicated by Panini by adding the affix - vat in > > asiddhavat in P.6.4.22. This is the best I can say. I hope the list > > members will excuse the rather abstruse Paninian discussion. Best, > > > > Madhav Deshpande > ---------- > > > > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.3 - Release 3/25/2005 > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 1, 2005 Report Share Posted April 1, 2005 Dear Sir, I checked the commentaries in the other systems of Skt grammar. In cAndra-vRtti I could not trace such explanation under the sUtras parallel to P's "anusvArasya yayi parasvarNaH", "jho'ntaH" & "raSAbhyAM no NaH samAnapade/aT-kupvAG-num-vyavAye'pi". The jainendra-mahAvRtti does give the explanation which is similar to kAzikA. zAkaTAyana does talk of Natva-niSedha but treats it differently. hemacandra follows zAkaTAyana. I have already talked about daNDanAtha-vRtti. Best regards. Narayan Prasad deshpandem <mmdesh wrote: Thanks for referring to the explanation in the kAzikA. It is in essence identical with bhaTToji's explanation and is probably the source of his explanation. That gives us some sense of history of this explanation. Best wishes, Madhav Deshpande INDOLOGY, "Narayan Prasad" <prasad_cwprs> wrote: > > Dear Sir, > > Thanks a lot for your further explanation. > > <<Bhattoji's explanation of kurvanti is the best I know to avoid retroflexion of n in this form.>> > > Prior to BhaTToji (17th c. AD), we find in kAzikA (7th c. AD) under P.8.4.58: > > "iha kurvanti, kRSanti ityatra NatvasyAsiddhatvAt pUrvaM nakArasyAnusvAraH kriyate | tasyApi parasavarNena punarnakAra eva bhavati | tasyApyasiddhatvAt punarNatvaM na bhavati | evamanusvAriibhUto NatvamatikrAmatiiti |" > > The sUtra parallel to P.8.4.58 in the sarasvatiikaNThAbharaNa of Bhojadeva (11th c. AD) is sUtra no. 7.4.168. The daNDanAtha-vRtti (circa 12th c. AD) on this sUtra follows kAzikA. > > Best regards. > > Narayan Prasad Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.