Madhav Deshpande mmdesh at UMICH.EDU
Sat Nov 15 00:19:27 UTC 1997

The argument goes as follows.  The sounds i and z (palatal s) would become
mutually homogeneous (savarNa) because they are both palatal and share the
same internal effort (vivRta).  This would of course cause problems, and
Panini formulates his rule 1.1.10 to prevent this problem.  Other such
pairs would be aa (long a) and h.  For a detailed discussion of this and
other related issues, see my old book: Critical Studies in Indian
Grammarians I: The Theory of Homogeneity (saavarNya), 1975, published by
the Center for South and Southeast Asian Studies, The University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
        All the best,
                                Madhav Deshpande

On Fri, 14 Nov 1997, Ralph Bunker wrote:

> Consider the following 2 sutras from the aSTAdhyAyi (Katre's translation)
> 1.1.9
> The (t.t.) savarNa 'homogeneous' designates phonemes which are produced by
> the same articulatory effort (tulya prayatna) at the same point of
> articulation in the oral cavity (Asya)
> 1.1.10
> A vowel (aC) and a consonent (haL) [which satisfy the above condition 9] are
> (nevertheless) not (na) (homogeneous 9).
> In his example Katre claims that i and z (palatal s) are homogeneous. I
> understand that they are both palatal, but i is a vowel (no stop) and z is a
> sibilant(half contact) so it would seem that they do not have the same
> articulatory effort. Without the same articulatory effort they can't be
> homogeneous by 1.1.9.
> Why are i and z are homogeneous? What other consonents are homogeneous with
> vowels?
> TIA,
> --ralph

More information about the INDOLOGY mailing list