[INDOLOGY] unsandhied juncture

[Madhav Deshpande]

Several cases of at least incomplete sandhi occur in Pāṇini. In the rule
"vr̥ddhirādaīc", the final c does not turn into k, as it does in vāc > vāk.
But in the rule "updeśe 'j anunāsika it", the c of ac at least turns into j
due to sandhi, but not the changes of  c > k, and k > g. Pāṇini does not
follow his rule of the final c > k in such places, because he has aK and aC
as two separate Pratyāhāras and he needs to keep them separate. In one of
my old articles, I had pointed to some inscriptional usages of śrī like
śrī + ananta not undergoing sandhi, because changing śrī to śry would harm
its honorific function. Similar exceptional sandhis are noted by Pāṇini
[omāṅoś ca], where the sandhi of śivāya + om results into śivāyom and not
śivāyaum. Similar exceptional sandhis occur for pādapūraṇa [so 'ci lope cet
pādapūraṇam]. Several phenomena coming under the condition "apādādau" may
be seen as metrical exceptions to normal phenomena.


Madhav M. Deshpande
Professor Emeritus, Sanskrit and Linguistics
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
Senior Fellow, Oxford Center for Hindu Studies
Adjunct Professor, National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bangalore, India

[Residence: Campbell, California, USA]


On Sun, Jul 12, 2026 at 6:59 AM Jan E.M. Houben via INDOLOGY <
indology at list.indology.info> wrote:

> Dear List members,
>
> As sandhi at the juncture of two words is expected in correct sanskrit,
> its absence could point to carelessness of the author or scribe, but also
> (rather) to the intention to make a quoted form stand out more clearly,
> as in pacyase iti, or to indicate a "weak" clause boundary, for which a
> da.n.da was felt to be too "strong".  I'm sure this problem has been
> dealt with in various transcriptions and editions of inscriptions and
> manuscripts. Is there any best practice regarding such places where
> sandhi is not observed, intentionally or erroneously? Especially in the
> former case the editor has to avoid "hypercorrection". Any widely accepted
> symbol (which could by itself lead to confusion by suggesting that the
> symbol represents something in the source)? Or adding a (clumsy) remark in
> the text, "sandhi not applied", or in the apparatus each time? (In
> Epigraphia indica volumes it appears commonly in notes "sandhi is not
> observed here", e.g. EI 37 p. 83, 84, 304.) A plus-sign, pacyase+iti,
> would probably at first sight suggest that an existing sandhi in the
> witness (manuscript / inscription) is undone by the editor.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jan Houben
>
> --
>
> *Jan E.M. Houben*
>
> Directeur d'Études, Professor of South Asian History and Philology
>
> *Sources et histoire de la tradition sanskrite*
>
> École Pratique des Hautes Études (EPHE, Paris Sciences et Lettres)
>
> *Sciences historiques et philologiques *
>
> Groupe de recherches en études indiennes (EA 2120)
>
> *johannes.houben [at] ephe.psl.eu <johannes.houben at ephe.psl.eu>*
>
> *https://ephe-sorbonne.academia.edu/JanEMHouben
> <https://ephe-sorbonne.academia.edu/JanEMHouben>*
>
> *https://www.classicalindia.info* <https://www.classicalindia.info>
>
> _______________________________________________
> INDOLOGY mailing list
> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
> https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/20260712/67a0d5da/attachment.htm>