On the technical term "pra t īka"

[Stefan Baums]

Dear Birgit,

> the indigenous use of "pratīka" is limited only to the words of
> the root-text taken up at the very beginning of the commentary
> section that is concerned with it

that was my impression too, but I can’t back it up with more than
MW s.v.: “the first part (of a verse), first word Br. &c. &c.”
right now. (The first pāda of a verse being what traditionally
served to identify it, hence its lemma.)

> are people comfortable with then using an indigenous term with
> extended semantics

I would rather not. What I currently do is use “lemma quotation”
for pratīka proper and “quotation” for other quotations. Not
elegant, but I guess it could be whittled down to just “lemma”
(pratīka) and “quotation” (not pratīka). What we really need,
however, is a three-way distinction between (1) root-text lemma,
(2) other quotation of root text material, and (3) external
quotation from somewhere else than the root text. The extended use
of ‘pratīka’ in Western scholarship is probably partly due to the
fact that it handily distinguishes (1) and (2) from (3).

Cheers,
Stefan

-- 
Stefan Baums
Asian Languages and Literature
University of Washington