Guest guest Posted December 29, 2005 Report Share Posted December 29, 2005 INDOLOGY, "Harry Spier" <harryspier@H...> wrote: > This of course brings up the question why didn't Panini just > eliminate sandhi from his metalanguage to avoid these > problematic interpretations since he was comfortable making > other changes to sanskrit such as use of "iti", use of case > endings etc? Given that Ashtadhyayi was transmitted orally (at least in the beginning), we need to figure out what was considered pronounceable. That probably played the most important part in these kinds of things. [Note that the change of final c/j/z is due to (regularization of) historical reasons. But voicing and assimilation spread even more in Prakrits that expecting people to avoid them may have been impossible.] > Another ambiguity I've always wondered about is in the > zivasUtras where you have "aN" and also "yaN". Does this > double use of the marker "N" have some "subtle" use? I am not sure. But I have a different question: What other letter could be used here and what problems, if any, would each of those pose? Nath Rao 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.