Internal sibilant-sandhi after the i-vowel

[Madhav Deshpande]

By Panini's rules, one cannot have viSabhAga.  After upasargas like vi, s can change to S only if it is the initial of certain verb roots, for exampe vi+sIdati>viSIdati.  The element 'sa' in sabhAga does not occur in the same category.  
                                                                                   Madhav Deshpande

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: Matthew Kapstein [mailto:mkapstei at MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU] 
	Sent: Thu 1/30/2003 4:34 AM 
	To: INDOLOGY at liverpool.ac.uk 
	Cc: 
	Subject: Re: Internal sibilant-sandhi after the i-vowel
	
	

	So far as I can make out, the operative rules, PA.nini VIII.3.55, 57, 59,
	specify that the change takes place when the s occurs in an Ades'a or
	pratyaya, which is not the case with respect to the initial s of
	sabhAga. Hence, the dental should remain. But this with the
	caveat that a second opinion from one more specialized in
	vyAkara.na would be useful.
	Matthew Kapstein
	
	On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Ulrich T. Kragh wrote:
	
	> Query regarding internal sibilant-sandhi after the i-vowel:
	> In my text-critical work on chapter 17 of CandrakIrti's PrasannapadA, I need
	> to make a decision on whether to adopt the spelling visabhAgAnAM or
	> viSabhAgAnAM in the phrase "visabhAgAnAM sabhAgAnAM ca karmaNAM" ("...of
	> dissimilar and similar actions").
	>
	> My five manuscripts (which all are from Nepal) consistently use the form
	> visabhAgAnAM (here and in the following passage of the text), that is
	> without the retroflex sibilant after the i-vowel. In the edition of the text
	> published by La Vallée Poussin, the form viSabhAgAnAm has been
	> adopted/emended, which also seems to be in accordance with the internal
	> sandhi-rules for the dental sibilant after the i-vowel (cf. e.g. Whitney's
	> grammar §180 and §185a). Nevertheless, in his text-critical notes to the
	> text, de Jong adopts the spelling visabhAgAnAm, i.e. retains the dental
	> sibilant after the i-vowel, with a reference to the Japanese translation of
	> the text by Wogihara, which is a source I unfortunately do not have access
	> to at the present.
	>
	> Would someone please care to clarify which sibilant ought to be used in this
	> case according to the rules?
	>
	> Sincerely,
	> Ulrich T. Kragh
	> University of Copenhagen
	>