Dear Yuto

It's so good to hear from you!

And thanks for your interest.

Firstly, contrary to your statement, I do actually discuss the issue you have raised about the karakas. Please see footnote 75 on pg 31 of my thesis. Contrary to what the tradition says (see joshis essay mentioned below for details) there is no conflict at all between the rules you mention. The two labels are never simultaneously applicable and the choice between the two karakas in question lies entirely with the speaker, as I say in my thesis too in the aforementioned footnote. (SD Joshi has written a beautiful piece on this: see pages x and xi of the introduction to his translation of the karakahnika of the MBH)

And no, it has to be param because it has to agree with karyam ("rhs operation"). So nominative.

Enjoy your holidays! 😀

Best
Rishi




On Sun, 18 Dec, 2022, 7:01 PM 川村悠人, <ykawamura0619@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Rishi and colleagues, 

Like Sharon, I'm also curious about how your interpretation of paratva could solve the problem of the co-application of kāraka names that does not involve the concept of the left-right sides/parts: apādāna (1.4.24) vs. karaṇa (1.4.42), or karaṇa (1.4.42) vs. kartṛ (1.4.54), for example.  The utsarga-apavāda relation does not hold in these rules, unlike 1.4.45 and 1.4.46 you cited on p. 31 of your thesis, and hence ‘the apavāda tool’ cannot be used here to ‘identify the winning rule’.  At a cursory glance, you do not seem to have discussed these issues in your thesis, the issues which I think are crucial to your new interpretation of paratva.

Another simple impression is: if Pāṇini had intended what you said, would the rule have been formulated as . . . pare/parasmin kāryam ‘operation applicable to the right side/part’ instead of paraṃ kāryam?

With best wishes,
Yūto