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

[Madhav Deshpande]

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

On Sun, 28 Feb 1999, DEVARAKONDA VENKATA NARAYANA SARMA wrote:

> 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.
>