Word-formation of pakziikRta

[Guest guest]

Dear Members

 

I am wondering if the word form "pakzakRta" is possible. Or "pakza"

always become "pakzii" before the word derived from root "kR." If

"pakza" must be replaced by pakzii in the case of succeeding of the root

"kR," what is the native grammarian's ground for such a substitution? Is

it a substitution of iNI for aC? or any sandhi rule? If anyone know its

grammatical ground, please let me know.

 

Yours Cordially

 

Yasuhiro Okazaki

 

>

>

[Guest guest]

I suppose you mean retroflex "S", rather than palatal "z". As far as the

Paninian rules

are concerned, if the compound expression of pakSa+kRta is expected to mean

"something that is not pakSa becomes pakSa" (abhUtatadbhAva, Panini 5.4.50),

then

we get the affix "cvi" after pakSa. The affix "cvi" is entirely made of

components that

ultimately get deleted, but P. 7.4.32 (asya cvau) prescribes the replacement of

long "I"

for the final "a" before "cvi". This "I" is specified simply as "I" (the

previous rule P. 7.

4.31: I ghrAdmoH). I hope this clarifies the traditional procedure. If

pakSa+kRta is

to mean something else like "made by pakSa", then of course we would end up with

only pakSakRta. Best,

 

Madhav Deshpande

 

 

INDOLOGY, Yasuhiro Okazaki <kappa-y@N...> wrote:

>

> Dear Members

>

> I am wondering if the word form "pakzakRta" is possible. Or "pakza"

> always become "pakzii" before the word derived from root "kR." If

> "pakza" must be replaced by pakzii in the case of succeeding of the root

> "kR," what is the native grammarian's ground for such a substitution? Is

> it a substitution of iNI for aC? or any sandhi rule? If anyone know its

> grammatical ground, please let me know.

>

> Yours Cordially

>

> Yasuhiro Okazaki

>

> >

> >

>