Dear Gérard,

Congratulations on updating your non-paninian generative device!

Something is indeed still going wrong with

"anaḍuh"

However, in the case of "ubhaya", the lexical information that "ubhaya" in dual is very rare (though acc. to MW not entirely unattested) is a lexicographic annotation which does not affect the grammatical generation of its forms.

And, logically, "two" is the lower limit of the number of separate things that can be "of two kinds"... which ubhau would express as being simply two in number, not also as "of two kinds"...

Best, Jan

On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 at 19:17, Walter Slaje via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info> wrote:

Certainly a welcome development, but

> this wonderful grammatical analysis

really calls for a thorough revision before activating it. The very few searches I could make yielded inexplicable, in parts unbelievably wrong results. Anyone may see for themselves if they just test the declension of "adas", "idam", "ubhaya" (displaying dual forms, but no fem.), "sarvā" (fem.), "dos / doṣan", "anaḍuh", "asthi", and many more. In the hands of Sanskrit beginners who lack grammatical training this database will do more harm than good. I can only warn against its use until it has seen a very careful revision by experts.

Kind regards,
WS
_______________________________________________
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)

Jan E.M. Houben

Directeur d'Études, Professor of South Asian History and Philology

Sources et histoire de la tradition sanskrite

École Pratique des Hautes Études (EPHE, PSL - Université Paris)

Sciences historiques et philologiques

54, rue Saint-Jacques, CS 20525 – 75005 Paris

johannes.houben@ephe.sorbonne.fr

johannes.houben@ephe.psl.eu

https://ephe-sorbonne.academia.edu/JanEMHouben