[INDOLOGY] FW: Can this be true?

Sharon Ben-Dor sharonbendor at yahoo.com
Sat Dec 17 12:53:26 UTC 2022

Dear Rishi Rajpopat and the list members,
Thank you for choosing an interesting topic.
I still need to read your thesis, so far I just looked at it briefly. I want the share my doubts about your interpretation of paratva. Everyone agrees that Pāṇini's paratva, introduced in A.1.4.2, concerns the ekasaṃjñā section (A.1.4.1-2.2.38). Some think that it applies throughout the whole Aṣṭādhyāyī. Within the ekasaṃjñā section, there are examples where only the later rule is chosen over the earlier one by A 1.4.1 and A.1.4.2. In the Mahābhāṣya on A.1.4.1 (from vārttika 24), Kātyāyana and Patañjali list examples as purposes for the sūtra. Some examples do not involve left or right positions but refer to the question of which name should be given to the same grammatical segment. For example, (vārttika 32) whether ‘asi’ in “sādhv asiś chinatti” is karaṇa (A.1.4.42: sādhakataman karaṇam) or kārtṛ (A.1.4.54: svatantraḥ kartā). By A 1.4.1 and A.1.4.2, one knows that only A.1.4.54 applies. Do you discuss such examples in your thesis?
In addition, in your thesis, you discuss the antaraṅga principle. I think that in many instances where this principle is used, with your explanation of paratva, in contradiction to the antaraṅga principle, it is the bahiraṅga operation that applies first and remains effective.

More information about the INDOLOGY mailing list