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

Madhav Deshpande mmdesh at UMICH.EDU
Sun Feb 28 04:07:19 UTC 1999

These rules of retroflexion are not only complex, they are often
unpredictable.  John Brough remarks: "In spite of the struggle to reduce
this complicated situation to a series of rules, the junction of upasargas
seems to have been particularly resistant to systematic formulation."
(Brough's edition of the Gandhari Dharmapada, 1962, p. 107).  Some of this
instability may be reflected in the variants of the Mahabharata.
                        Madhav Deshpande


> At 05:15 PM 2/27/99 -0500, you wrote:
> >Sorry, my statement about the Paninian rules needs a correction.  P.8.4.36
> >(naze.h .zaantasya) prohibits the change of -n- to -.na- when the root
> >ends in -.s-, as in the form -prana.s.ta-.  Thus, Panini allows
> >pra.nazyati, but not pra.na.s.ta.  I remembered this exception right after
> >hitting the 'send' command on my previous message.  Sorry for the
> >confusion.
> >                        Madhav Deshpande
> Dear Madhav Deshpande,
>                                 I am not a linguist but I am curious. In pranaSTa
> "n" is flanked by two mUrdhanyAs. If it is the ease of pronunciation it
> should become "N". Does this mean that ease is not always the criterion?
> Is it a desire to break the monotony of three mUrdhnyAs in a row or is
> there any meaning angle involved?
> regards,
> sarma.

More information about the INDOLOGY mailing list