[INDOLOGY] Correct reading in Taittiriya Samhita edition?
David and Nancy Reigle
dnreigle at gmail.com
Thu Jan 12 21:31:20 UTC 2017
Since I have not yet seen a reply to this, and although I am not a Vedic
specialist, I will say that these are not misprints, but are in fact sandhi
as you suspected. The final dental "n" on sarvān would change to the
palatal "ñ" before the initial palatal "j" of jambhayan. This is a sandhi
rule and is the norm in Sanskrit manuscripts. However, an editor of printed
texts is free to override the sandhi rule and restore the dental "n" if he
so wishes. This is sometimes done for clarity, and is often done when the
words are separated by a space in printed texts, unlike in manuscripts. So
both are correct.
The added "t" after jambhayan before the initial "s" of sarvāś is due to an
optional sandhi rule in Vedic Sanskrit. On this you may consult Arthur
Macdonell's *A Vedic Grammar for Students*, p. 30, paragraph 36.a., or his
full *Vedic Grammar*, p. 69, paragraph 77.2.f.
The nearest thing to a definitive edition of the Taittirīya Saṃhitā is the
edition by N. S. Sontakke and (mostly) T. N. Dharmadhikari, 1970-2010, five
volumes in nine parts, mentioned by Peter Wyzlic. It supersedes the three
older editions you quoted from (of course, barring misprints). For this
phrase it has (vol. 3, part 1, 1990, p. 389): sarvān jambhayantsarvāśca.
Your surmise is correct that Mahadeva Sastri and Rangacharya in their
edition with Bhaṭṭa Bhāskara Miśra's commentary never edited book 4. This
is because no manuscript of book 4 with his commentary could then be found.
Even for this volume of Dharmadhikari's edition, published in 1990, no
manuscript of his commentary on book 4 could yet be found. However, his
commentary on book 4, chapter 5, the Rudrādhyāya, was available separately,
so is included in this edition. It is much more extensive than Sāyaṇa's
commentary on this chapter.
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 3:46 PM, Harry Spier via INDOLOGY <
indology at list.indology.info> wrote:
> Dear list members,
> Three editions of the Taitttiriya Samhita, the edition of Weber, the
> edition of Satvalekar, and the edition of Kasinatha Agase differ in a
> In the Taittiriya Samhita 4.5.1 verse 2
> Satvalekar has sarvān jambhayantsarvāśca
> Agase has sarvānjambhayansarvāśca
> Weber has sarvāñjambhayantsarvāśca
> Satvalekar and Agase have sarvān where Weber has sarvāñ
> Weber and Satvalekar have jambhayant where Agase has jambhayan
> Is this a case of misprints in one or more editions or some kind of case
> of normalizing sandhi?
> Which is the correct reading?
> Harry Spier
> INDOLOGY mailing list
> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
> indology-owner at list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing
> http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the INDOLOGY