ykawamura0619 at gmail.com
Sun Dec 18 13:31:40 UTC 2022
Dear Rishi and colleagues,
Like Sharon, I'm also curious about how your interpretation of paratva
could solve the problem of the co-application of kāraka names that does not
involve the concept of the left-right sides/parts: apādāna (1.4.24) vs.
karaṇa (1.4.42), or karaṇa (1.4.42) vs. kartṛ (1.4.54), for example. The
utsarga-apavāda relation does not hold in these rules, unlike 1.4.45 and
1.4.46 you cited on p. 31 of your thesis, and hence ‘the apavāda tool’
cannot be used here to ‘identify the winning rule’. At a cursory glance,
you do not seem to have discussed these issues in your thesis, the issues
which I think are crucial to your new interpretation of paratva.
Another simple impression is: if Pāṇini had intended what you said, would
the rule have been formulated as . . . pare/parasmin kāryam ‘operation
applicable to the right side/part’ instead of paraṃ kāryam?
With best wishes,
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the INDOLOGY