Sandhi conventions

[Vidhyanath K. Rao]

When standardzing sandhi conventions, it may be worthwhile to record,
perhaps even follow the main manuscripts, when one of the several
options allowed by Panini/vartikakara are generally preferred.
It seems that "deferring to common practice", with the attendant
elimination of indications about dialectical variations would lead
to wrong impression by those who consider the printed editions to
be the only "scientific" evidence for historical purposes.

For example, Keith records that many manuscripts of Aitreya Aranyaka
do not convert h to a stop after a stop in external sandhi: ie.,
tat+hi becomes tad{}hi, not taddhi. Now, Panini calls the
change optional (anyatarasyaam?). I am not sure that taddhi must
be made compulsory (I am not sure what Pratishakhyas say. For Vedic
works, that should take precedence). Of course, the standard transliteration
scheme is incapable of handling this: But that is the fault of the
transliteration scheme.

I have to confess that I have an axe to grind. I grew up saying
brahma.rSi (with vocalic r). I still find brahmarSi grating.
Of course, both are accetable in Indian tradition. However, I would
be upset if some "scientific" grammarian were to argue that
brahma.rSi is >always< wrong, and set about correcting such
"spelling errors".
Nath Rao (nathrao+ at osu.edu)		614-366-9341