Sanskrit syntax problem: Double bind constructions
buescher at HUM.KU.DK
Wed Mar 17 16:40:29 UTC 2004
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
With best wishes,
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.
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
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
More information about the INDOLOGY