Dear Madhav,

It does not seem to be a question of syntax to me. Accepting that m has been interposed in svarga aacaaraat** would in my view be the most straightforward solution. Instances of such interposing are not common, but they do exist. For want of time and because I did not record them when I came across them, I cannot give a list, but I do recall coming across them. The one which I am cite at present is svaadum udumbaram (Aitareya-braahma.na 7.15?), appearing where one expects svaadu udumbaram.

**svarga aacaaraat would result from  svarga.h aacaaraat with the loss of the visarga in sandhi.

While preferring lectio difficiliors is justified in many cases, that principle of textual criticism cannot be applied with the same conviction when its application leads to an ungrammatical construction in an otherwise grammatical work.

While I have enjoyed reading the subtle grammatical discussions, they all result in making one verse quarter unlike the other three quarters of the verse. It is not probable that the author who writes simple, flowing verses elsewhere would suddenly and in one instance only introduce a rare construction.

It is possible that interposing of m occurred only in those situations in which two vowels stood immediately next to each other (as in svaadu udumbaram or svarga aacaaraat) and thus ran counter to the very dominant 'vowel consonant vowel' or 'consonant vowel consonant' feature of Sanskrit sentence constituents.

It is also possible that sukham at the end of the fourth quarter exerted influence on the last word of the third quarter and changed it from svarga to svargam, but we do not need to make the problematic svargam reading rest primarily or solety on that possibility.

a.a.
_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
http://listinfo.indology.info