Sanskrit syntax problem: Double bind constructions

[Hartmut Buescher]

With many thanks to both Ashok Aklujkar and Harunaga Isaacson, 
I am forwarding the following exchange to the list. HB



Dear Mr. Buescher, 

At Prof. Aklujkar's suggestion, I forward you the following e-mail he wrote,

which may if it seems fitting to you be posted/forwarded further to
INDOLOGY. 

With best wishes, 

Harunaga Isaacson 


[clip]

Dear Haru, 

I think the following will serve to clarify the issues further. If you 
agree, pl forward the following text to <buescher at HUM.KU.DK>. 

Thanks and best wishes. 

ashok 


Dear Mr. Buescher, 

The following additional observations were made in two off-line exchanges 
between Prof. Harunaga Isaacson and myself. With HI's agreement, I suggest 
that you should post them on the  Indology list in the interest of 
clarifying the issues further. 

AA: Could you cite some passages where si.mhaavalokita-nyaaya or 
simhaavalokana-nyaaya is actually used for a simultaneous two-way (backward 
and forward) connection rather than for a connection only with what 
precedes? Also, does such a backward connection always deal with syntax 
(especially with an immediately preceding word), not content? The reason 
[behind my asking these questions] is that if the si.mhaavalokita-nyaaya 
matches the double bind (syntactic) construction phenomenon exactly, I need 
not use the Skt name I suggested in 1991. 

AA: Incidentally, according to Miimaa.msaa-ko;sa vol 7, p. 4324. lokana is 
the form in Bhuvane;sa-nyaaya-saahasrii and lokita in 
Bhaa.¯.¯a-cintaa-ma.ni. 

HI: No doubt the si.mhaavalokita-/simhaavalokana-nyaaya should be studied 
more carefully. We can distinguish between different usages of it, I think. 
Here is however an instance where it appears to be explicitly used in a case

of syntactic connection with both what precedes and what follows: in an 
attempt to avoid the first of 3 do.sas which some have found in 
Kiraataarjuniiya 1.1 (the three are that there is no nominative referring to

the agent of ayu"nkta in b, that vidita in c is apparently active (kartari) 
not passive (karma.ni), and that there is punarukti in the expression 
dvaitavane vane in d), the learned and ingenious commentator Vidyaamaadhava 
[around 1200 AD according to PK Gode] writes i.a.: uttaraardhaadau sthita.m 
sa iti pada.m si.mhaavalokitanyaayenordhvam adha"s ca sambadhyate. 

HI: By the way, the expression dehaliidiipanyaaya is used by 
Hariva.m"sa"sarma (a commentator on the Suurya"sataka) to describe the 
connection of vaasarasya with both the preceding praarambhe and the 
following vyuparatisamaye in Suurya"sataka 3. 

HI: kaakaak.sinyaaya or kaakaak.sivat (or, though I believe less commonly 
attested, kaakaak.sigolakanyaaya) are also expressions that should be taken 
into consideration, certainly. 

AA: The Kiraataarjuniiya 1.1 instance is indeed syntactic. The only 
difference from the situation I addressed is that veditum intervenes in the 
puurvaardha connection of sa.h with ayu:nkta and var.ni-li:ngii vidita.h 
intervene in the uttaraardha connection of samaayayau. 

AA: Glad to find that someone (long ago?) thought along the same lines as I 
did. The greater appropriateness in using the dehaliidiipanyaaya is that it 
captures the feature of there being only one divider (dehalii) or only one 
item at the juncture of two words and the feature that this intruder relates

to or illumines (diipa) both the words simultaneously. 

HI: I agree with you that dehaliidiipa is in some respects a more 
appropriate expression. 

a.a