Dear Harry,

Since I have not yet seen a reply to this, and although I am not a Vedic specialist, I will say that these are not misprints, but are in fact sandhi as you suspected. The final dental "n" on sarvān would change to the palatal "ñ" before the initial palatal "j" of jambhayan. This is a sandhi rule and is the norm in Sanskrit manuscripts. However, an editor of printed texts is free to override the sandhi rule and restore the dental "n" if he so wishes. This is sometimes done for clarity, and is often done when the words are separated by a space in printed texts, unlike in manuscripts. So both are correct.

The added "t" after jambhayan before the initial "s" of sarvāś is due to an optional sandhi rule in Vedic Sanskrit. On this you may consult Arthur Macdonell's A Vedic Grammar for Students, p. 30, paragraph 36.a., or his full Vedic Grammar, p. 69, paragraph 77.2.f.

The nearest thing to a definitive edition of the Taittirīya Sahitā is the edition by N. S. Sontakke and (mostly) T. N. Dharmadhikari, 1970-2010, five volumes in nine parts, mentioned by Peter Wyzlic. It supersedes the three older editions you quoted from (of course, barring misprints). For this phrase it has (vol. 3, part 1, 1990, p. 389): sarvān jambhayantsarvāśca.

Your surmise is correct that Mahadeva Sastri and Rangacharya in their edition with Bhaa Bhāskara Miśra's commentary never edited book 4. This is because no manuscript of book 4 with his commentary could then be found. Even for this volume of Dharmadhikari's edition, published in 1990, no manuscript of his commentary on book 4 could yet be found. However, his commentary on book 4, chapter 5, the Rudrādhyāya, was available separately, so is included in this edition. It is much more extensive than Sāyaa's commentary on this chapter.

Best regards,

David Reigle
Colorado, U.S.A.

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 3:46 PM, Harry Spier via INDOLOGY <> wrote:
Dear list members,
Three editions of the Taitttiriya Samhita, the edition of Weber, the edition of Satvalekar, and the edition of Kasinatha Agase differ in a reading.

In the Taittiriya Samhita 4.5.1 verse 2


Satvalekar has      sarvān jambhayantsarvāśca

Agase   has           sarvānjambhayansarvāśca

Weber   has          sarvāñjambhayantsarvāśca

Satvalekar and Agase have  sarvān where Weber has sarvāñ  
Weber and Satvalekar have jambhayant where Agase has  jambhayan

Is this a case of misprints in one or more editions or some kind of case of normalizing sandhi?
Which is the correct reading?

Harry Spier

INDOLOGY mailing list (messages to the list's managing committee) (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)