Dear Ashok,

I can agree with (a), which is why I didn't make my suggestion immediately, but regarding (b) I'm afraid I see plenty of worse transcription/transmission errors (we have to make allowance for oral transmission as well) than रौ -> र: . As for (c), I see no difference between the implicit 'exists' in the third pāda and the implicit 'exist' in the second, should we accept my suggested alternative. Also, like Walter, I have seen several similar expressions in other places. But I certainly don't insist on it; it just strikes me as plausible.

Best wishes,
Martin


Ashok Aklujkar wrote: 
यावच्चन्द्रप्रभाकरौ should be avoided: (a) If an existing reading makes a contextually probable sense, it should not be changed. (b) A corruption of रौ to र: is not transcriptionally probable. (c) The other two syntactically similar clauses of the verse have an action or a state associated with a person or personified entity — Indra rules in svarga and Rāma’s story exists in the world. If an action (‘being a maker of prabhā, spreading light’) is not associated with Candra, which would be the case if prabhākara is taken in the sense of ’the Sun,’ the second quarter would be out of step with the other two. It is very unusual for a Skt composer not to have a sense of symmetry. 

a.a.





On May 16, 2015, at 11:16 PM, Martin Gansten <martin.gansten@pbhome.se> wrote:



Yes, I considered that too but didn't want to emend too much; I'm glad to have my suspicions confirmed by Ashok. For completeness, then, let me add that while यावच्चन्द्रः प्रभाकरः is certainly possible both metrically and with regard to meaning, यावच्चन्द्रप्रभाकरौ strikes me as a very plausible alternative.