Correction re: Cerebral L in Rg Veda

[Madhav Deshpande]

Keep in mind that the rule that changes .d to .l in the RV samhita
requires that this .d occur in between two vowels, cf. the RV
Praatizaakhya rule:  dvayoz caasya svarayor madhyam etya sampadyate sa
.dakaaro .lakaara.h (don't have the book with me at the moment for
reference).  Thus the form "ii.dya" does not qualify for this treatment,
while the form "ii.de" does qualify for change to "ii.le".  Now the change
of "ii.dya" to "ii.dia" is not a traditional change, but a suggestion of
modern scholars.  This is why there is no traditional treatment of
"ii.dia" or its change to "ii.lia".  Whether one should make this change
in a "reconstructed" text, is purely a decision of the reconstructor and
not of the tradition.  Compare the fact that when Yaaska paraphrases
"ii.dya" with "ii.litavya", the phonetic environment changes to
intervocalic.  Professor M.A. Mehendale has dealt with this example in his
work "Notes on the Nirukta".  Best,
                                        Madhav Deshpande

On Fri, 1 Dec 2000, Harry Spier wrote:

> Dear list members,
>
> I made a small error in my post using "palatal" where I should have said
> "cerebral" in one line.  The correct post is as follows.  Apologies.
>
>
> Maurice Bloomfield in his concordance (both the on-line version and the
> printed edition) does not change intervocalic cerebral D for cerebral L for
> RV.1.1.1a (or for any other RV occurances of "agnim IDe..." ).  He has
> "agnim IDe purohitam" for RV.1.1.1a . He does have the variation "agnim Ile
> purohitam" for zAGkhAyana zrauta sUtra and for zAGkhAyana gRhya sUtra .  But
> for this variation he uses "Ile" and not "ILe". MacDonell in his Vedic
> Grammar section 52 d.(and at the end of section 11 in chapter one of his
> Vedic Grammar for Students.) notes the variation "ile" (semivowel l) for
> "iDe" (cerebral d) but gives it for the Kanva rescension of the VS .
>
> The exact entry in Bloomfield is: (I'm using "Sh" for the palatal sibilant)
>
> agnim IDe (ShSh.ShG. Ile) purohitam # RV.1.1.1a; ArS.3.4a;
> TS.4.3.13.3a; MS.4.10.5a: 155.1; KS.2.14a; GB.1.1.29a;
> ASh.2.1.26; ShSh.6.4.1; 14.52.1; AG.3.5.6; ShG.4.5.7; N.7.15a.
>
> Why would Bloomfield not give the reading "agnim iLe purohitam" for
> RV.1.1.1a.  Would this have anything to do with the issues Madhav Deshpande
> mentions in his "Rg Vedic Retroflexion" section 3.1 about the RV change of
> intervocalic D to L ?
>
> Also A.A. MacDonell in his Vedic Reader for Students for the next verse
> RV.1.1.2 gives the following readings (both for the samhita text).
>
> In devanagari:      agniH pUrvebhirRSibhir IDyo nUtanairuta
> In transliteration: agniH pUrvebhir RSibhir ILio nUtanairuta
>
> I.e. in the devanagari text he has "Idyo" but in the transliterated text he
> changes vowel-D-semivowel for vowel-L-vowel.  In his notes for the verse he
> says "IDyas: to be read as ILias".  Does he mean that the verse is chanted
> with "ILio" and not "IDyo"?  This is confusing because in his "Vedic Grammar
> I.3 footnote 5 he says "... ILe (but IDya)" . Nor does this agree with the
> HOS metrically restored RV which has "IDio nUtanair uta" not "ILio nUtanair
> uta".
>
> Many thanks,
>
>
> Harry Spier
> 371 Brickman Rd.
> Hurleyville, New York
> USA 12747
>
> _____________________________________________________________________________________
> Get more from the Web.  FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
>