On prana.s.ta versus pra.na.s.ta

[Madhav Deshpande]

Hello,

        Belvalkar himself seems to have changed his mind between the
critical edition and the Banaras edition.  In BG verse 18.72, the critical
edition gives the reading -prana.s.ta-, while noting the reading
-pra.na.s.ta- as coming from some unspecified mss.  The Banaras edition
onthe other hand gives the reading -pra.na.s.ta-, without noting the other
reading.
        A question was raised as to what would be sanctioned by the
grammarians.  Panini lists this root as -.naza- in his Dhaatupaa.tha.
Then rule P.8.4.14 (upasargaad asamaase 'pi .nopadezasya) says that the
-n- of a root, which is listed with -.n- in the Dhatupaa.tha, changes to
-.n- after the r/.r/.s in the Upasarga, even when there is no compounding
(asamaase 'pi).  The last condition would then allow forms such as
-pra.na.s.ta- (where there is traditionally said to be compounding between
pra and na.s.ta) and pra.nazyati (where there is traditionally not
supposed to be any compounding).  The form -pra.nazyati- occurs in BG
2.63, and neither the critical edition, nor Belvalkar's Banaras edition
cite the variant -pranazyati-.  Thus, from a purely theoretical point of
view of Paninian grammar, the form would be -pra.na.s.ta-.  This is,
however, not to say anything about the forms of the Ur-Mbh.
        Best,
                                        Madhav Deshpande