asiddha vs asiddhavat [ was: Consonant Sandhi and Asiddhatva]

[Guest guest]

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

>

> "deshpandem" <mmdesh@U...> wrote:

> Dear Chetan,

>

> Within the tripAdI of the aSTAdhyAyI, a previous rule does not

recognize the operation/product of a subsequent rule (pUrvam prati

param kAryam asiddham). If 's' in rAmas before zete were to undergo

P.8.4.54 (khari ca), it would be replaced by nothing other than 's',

since this 's' is part of the group designated by 'car' (khari pare

jhalAm caraH syuH). But this operation is not recognized by the

earlier rule P.8.4.39, and it goes ahead and changes 's' to 'z'.

This 'z' is recognized by the subsequent rule P.8.4.54. Here, even

if it were to apply, 'z' would be replaced by nothing other than

'z', since 's' is included in both 'jhal' and 'car'.

>

> The rule vipratiSedhe param kAryam does not extend to the tripAdI

section of the aSTAdhyAyI, and historically has a limited scope

within the ekasamjJAdhikAra (AkaDArAd ekA saMjJA). It is Patanjali

who extends its scope to the rest of the aSTAdhyAyI, creating more

problems in the process. Solving those problems leads him into

proposing a strange interpretation of 'para' in 'param kAryam' as

being equivalent of 'iSTa' (parazabdaH iSTavAcI), thus the rule

coming to mean: when two rules conflict, apply the desirable rule.

This of course is not what Panini had in his mind.

>

> Best, Madhav Deshpande

>

> INDOLOGY, Chetan Pandey <chetanpandey>

wrote:

>

> Dear List:

>

> I am studying Consonant Sandhis these days. And I realized that

most of them are in the Tripadi Section (8.2-8.4). I am facing this

difficulty in understanding some rules.

>

> For example, 'stoH scunA scuH' is 8.4.39 and 'khari ca' is 8.4.54.

Now in rAmas + shete, 's' of rAma is a jhal and 'sh' of shete is a

khar.

>

> Then why is the rAmas + shete not getting 'charatva' by khari ca

but getting sh-chutva by stoH scunA scuH.

>

> Question. is Vipratishedhe param karyam asiddha in Tripadi ?

>

> Another Question. Then what happens when their is a vipratishedh ?

>

> Final Question. What makes stoH scunA scuH baliiya(balavaan) than

'khari ca' ?

>

> Thanks.

>

>

> Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.

 

>

> Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.

 

>

>