This is interesting. Instead of prādhunika being a lipidoṣa as claimed here, it can also be a result of a re-Sanskritization to convert the Prakrit pāhuṇia/pāhuṇiya > prādhunika. From prādhunika > prādyuṇika it is one more step?

Madhav M. Deshpande
Professor Emeritus, Sanskrit and Linguistics
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
Senior Fellow, Oxford Center for Hindu Studies
Adjunct Professor, National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bangalore, India

[Residence: Campbell, California, USA]


On Fri, May 20, 2022 at 6:29 AM Rolf Heinrich Koch via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info> wrote:

please take a view at PrakritProperNames: "prādhunika is due to lipidoṣa"

Best

Heiner


Am 20.05.2022 um 13:20 schrieb Martin Gansten via INDOLOGY:
I'm sorry to harp on about this, but perhaps I was too hasty when I wrote:

It is, of course, entirely possible that someone at some point misread prāghuṇika as prādyuṇika (though it would have to have been someone ignorant of the former word, like myself) and that the mistake was then copied [...] it is possible that the mystery word should not mean 'frequent' after all, but rather the next thing discussed, which would be someone dear or connected to the querent. But I can't see prāghuṇika fitting that sense either, at least not from its etymology.

I see now that Turner actually suggests prāhuṇa to be the more correct/original form, related to the idea of hospitality, with the -gh- being a result of influence from a different root. That does seem to increase the probability of prāghuṇaka/-ika being the original word after all, used in the sense of 'someone welcome' rather than just 'wanderer' or (as MW suggests) 'one who goes forth deviously' (!). If so, the word must then have been misread as prādyuṇika and eventually deteriorated into prāyaṇika, etc.

This solution seems attractive, but it does presuppose that Turner is right about the word having connotations of welcome, hospitality and even kinship (vernacular meanings include 'bridegroom' and 'daughter's husband'). Romain Garnier, in a paper published in JAOS 133.1, seems to think so: '[...] prāhuṇa- et prāhuṇaka-. Ces deux dernières formes sont assurément les meilleures [...]'. The solution also seems to suggest that the word was unusual enough not to be understood by the copyists, at least in some regions.

Best wishes,
Martin


_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology

-- 
Dr. Rolf Heinrich Koch
www.rolfheinrichkoch.wordpress.com

_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology