rishiatulrajpopat at gmail.com
Mon Dec 19 00:13:44 UTC 2022
It's so good to hear from you!
And thanks for your interest.
Firstly, contrary to your statement, I do actually discuss the issue you
have raised about the karakas. Please see footnote 75 on pg 31 of my
thesis. Contrary to what the tradition says (see joshis essay mentioned
below for details) there is no conflict at all between the rules you
mention. The two labels are never simultaneously applicable and the choice
between the two karakas in question lies entirely with the speaker, as I
say in my thesis too in the aforementioned footnote. (SD Joshi has written
a beautiful piece on this: see pages x and xi of the introduction to his
translation of the karakahnika of the MBH)
And no, it has to be param because it has to agree with karyam ("rhs
operation"). So nominative.
Enjoy your holidays! 😀
On Sun, 18 Dec, 2022, 7:01 PM 川村悠人, <ykawamura0619 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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