Explanation for 'SaDja'

[Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan]

In a message dated 97-09-26 18:16:56 EDT, rsoneji at MB.SYMPATICO.CA writes:

<< The comments on sadja are as follows (translation from Sangitaratnakara
 of Sarngadeva, ed. and trans. R.K. Shringy and Prem Lata Sharma):

 a) it is the precursor (lit. the progenitor) of the six other notes

 b) it is brought into being by six other notes, for, as an integrated
 part of the heptad (saptaka) it is manifested by the rest of the parts
 together.

 c) alternatively, it is produced by six organs of the body, viz. the
 nostrils, the throat, the palate, the breast, the tongue and the teeth.

 (commentary on Sangitaratnakara, Svaragatadhyaya (1), Prakarana 3, sloka
 23) >>

Thanks for this important reference. But we are still left with the problem
we started with. To me it seems the commentators had no logical basis for
explaining the word. I simply do not trust the explanations from this type of
commentators. What we really need is a linguistic/grammatical explanation
from Sanskrit linguists/grammarians.

What are the rules that underlie the creation of words such as padmaja,
girija, dvija, etc.? If these rules are applied to SaDja, what will be the
logical meaning?

For instance, in the words, padmaja, dvija, etc. the result of birth is the
named subject. Explanation (a) seems to imply that the results of the birth
are some things other than the named subject. Does Sanskrit form words like
this? Or is this a case of folk etymology?

Explanation (b) is even more confusing. When is the earliest evidence for the
concept of 'saptaka' in Sanskrit? And what is the meaning of SaDja being
brought into existence by the other six notes?

Explanation (c) also does not make sense. For instance, if SaDja is produced
from the above-mentioned six places, in how many places are the other notes
produced (less or more than six places)?

Regards

S. Palaniappan