On 13 September 2016 at 02:12, Robert Goldman <rpg@berkeley.edu> wrote:

Dear Martin and David,

One reason this phenomenon is called Ärá¹£a is that it is quite common in the epic texts (the texts of the á¹›á¹£i-s) such as, e.g. your GÄ«tÄ passage.Â There are, for example some nine examples in the critical edition (and apparatus) of the UttarakÄá¹‡á¸a of the VÄlmÄ«kirÄmÄyaá¹‡a.Â

Best,

A famous example in the VÄlmÄ«ki RÄmÄyaá¹‡a is from the AyodhyÄkÄá¹‡á¸a (I have not checked if this is in the critical edition):

na cÄ«ramasyÄá¸¥ pravidhÄ«yateti (VR 2.37.34)

where we have

pravidhÄ«yate + iti -> pravidhÄ«yata iti -> pravidhÄ«yateti

The Tilaka commentary explains this by saying that the rule na mu ne (A 8.2.3) is to be split into two by yogavibhÄga:

pravidhÄ«yatetÄ«tyatra sandhistu â€˜na mu neâ€™ ityatra yogavibhÄgena kvacittripÄdyÄ asiddhatvÄbhÄvajÃ±ÄpanÄdÄrá¹£atvÄdvÄ (VR Tilaka 2.37.34)

This is explained in further detail in the attached pages ofÂ AdhyÄtmarÄmÄyaá¹‡eâ€™pÄá¹‡inÄ«yaprayogÄá¹‡Äá¹ƒ VimarÅ›aá¸¥.

Another example form the BhagavadgÄ«tÄ:

he ká¹›á¹£á¹‡a he yÄdava he sakheti (BG 11.41)

where we haveÂ

sakhe iti -> sakha iti -> sakheti

And this example from the AdhyÄtma RÄmÄyaá¹‡a

mama jÄyeti sÄ«teti (AR 3.8.20)

For which multiple explanations are offered in AdhyÄtmarÄmÄyaá¹‡eâ€™pÄá¹‡inÄ«yaprayogÄá¹‡Äá¹ƒ VimarÅ›aá¸¥ (see the attachment).