Dear Prof. Paturi, 

thank you very much for sharing your thoughts on the subject, These were, in fact, more or less exactly the same concerns that I had when thinking over the above statement. I have now also started wondering, if the subtle difference in the approaches to ākāṅkṣā (a more question-oriented *anvayapratiyogiviṣayakajijñāsā of the ṃīmāṃsaka-s and more “grammatical" *abhidhānāparyavasānam of naiyāyika-s, both general definitions taken from the Śābdabodhamīmāṃsā) may be of some relevance here.
In any case, I still consider it likely that the article authors (S. Pollock and NVP Unithiri, as I mentioned in my first mail) were referring to the textual history rather than the conceptual framework of the śāstra-s. 

best regards, 
Andrey
(I am quite far from being a professor, but thank you very much for your respectful address)

On 06/28/2016, at 10:52, Nagaraj Paturi <nagarajpaturi@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Prof. Klebanov,

> I read that the commentarial styles of daṇḍa- and khaṇḍānvaya- stem from (the linguistic theories? textual history? of) nyāya- and mīmāṃsā respectively

If you remember the exact place where you read this, you might want to consult with the original authors about this.

The naiyaayika view of sentence as yogyataakaankshaasattisahitapadasamudaaya includes the idea of aakaankshaa and the method of aakaankshaa that is followed in traditional Sanskrit learning need not necessarily be connected to this.

The two meemaamsaka schools of abhihitaanvayavaada and anvitaabhidhaanavaada too need not necessarily be connected to daNDa or khaNDa anvaya.

But the authors who mentioned the point might have some basis for their observations.

They are the best ones to consult in this regard.

Regards,

-N

On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 2:24 AM, Christophe Vielle <christophe.vielle@uclouvain.be> wrote:
Dear Andrey,

when I came across such a statement in secondary literature I wondered also what could be the precise Sanskrit source attributing to Mīmāṃsā or Nyāya, respectively, these two types/methods of (kāvya) commenting (more precisely, of re-establishing the natural/prose syntactical order of the words in the sentence, either "by sections"/syntagmatically?, or ?"by line"?). 
In the khaṇḍānvaya method, the verb is taken first, ad then, in respect of cases, questions are asked ; so, through the successive questions, the prose order of the verse is drawn. In the daṇḍānvaya method (followed e.g. by Mallinātha), the subject is taken first and the prose order of the verse is logically drawn without including questions.
Maybe this attribution is based on the fact that in the first case there is a prevalence of "questioning" which looks a bit like the (Pūrva and Uttara-)Mīmāṃsā traditional dialectic method of adhikaraṇa (used for commenting the sūtra's),  whereas in the second case it would be considered like a purely logical (naiyāyika) way of operating. 
It is a mere supposition because only the saṃśaya expression is marked by questions in the adhikaraṇa, the definition of which is found in the following stray verse (found with variants) something attributed to Kumārila :

viṣayo saṃśayaś caiva  pūrvapakṣas tathottaram |

nirṇayaś ceti pañcāṅgaṃ  śāstre ’dhikaraṇaṃ smṛtam ||

Best wishes,
Christophe Vielle

Le 27 juin 2016 à 16:33, Andrey Klebanov <andra.kleb@gmail.com> a écrit :

Dear members of the list,

in some articles (S. Pollock’s 2015’ contribution to the “World Philology” volume, or N.V.P. Unithiri's 2002’ article “The Commentarial Literature in Sanskrit”) I read that the commentarial styles of daṇḍa- and khaṇḍānvaya- stem from (the linguistic theories? textual history? of) nyāya- and mīmāṃsā respectively. As far as at least the the linguistic theories go (I talk of their śābdabodha-aspect now), I don’t see any compulsive reason for this strict differentiation.
I wonder if anyone could help me out with any further reference or, perhaps, a missing piece of common knowledge that would explain or corroborate the above statement.

Thank you very much in advance,

best,
Andrey
_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee)
http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)

–––––––––––––––––––
Louvain-la-Neuve


_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee)
http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)



--
Nagaraj Paturi
 
Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.
 
Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies
 
FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education,
 
(Pune, Maharashtra, INDIA )