Sorry, on pages 154 and 155, the name is rendered as Anantaśiva-āchārya in the Sanskrit and Tamil sections and not as Ānantaśiva-āchārya. I regret the error.
Regards,
Palaniappan
From: "palaniappa@aol.com" <palaniappa@aol.com>
Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2026 at 11:48 AM
To: "Jan E.M. Houben" <jemhouben@gmail.com>, Indology List <indology@list.indology.info>
Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] unsandhied juncture
I can think of one instance I worked on recently.
In the Kūram plates published in the South Indian Inscriptions, volume 1, the name Anantaśiva ācārya occurs. Please see the Sanskrit version lines 56-57 on attached p. 150 and the Tamil version on line 84 on p. 151. On pages 154 and 155, the name is rendered as Ānantaśiva-āchārya in the Sanskrit and Tamil sections. But on p. 147, the name is interpreted as Anantaśivāchārya. As I argue in my monograph (https://tinyurl.com/33a9tt4s) pp. 13-17, the lack of sandhi is due to deliberate action by the inscriber who wanted to distinguish between a brahman Śivācārya and a non-brahman architect (ācārya).
Hope this helps.
Regards,
Palaniappan
From: INDOLOGY <indology-bounces@list.indology.info> on behalf of Indology List <indology@list.indology.info>
Reply-To: "Jan E.M. Houben" <jemhouben@gmail.com>
Date: Sunday, July 12, 2026 at 8:59 AM
To: Indology List <indology@list.indology.info>
Subject: [INDOLOGY] unsandhied juncture
Dear List members,
As sandhi at the juncture of two words is expected in correct sanskrit, its absence could point to carelessness of the author or scribe, but also (rather) to the intention to make a quoted form stand out more clearly, as in pacyase iti, or to indicate a "weak" clause boundary, for which a da.n.da was felt to be too "strong". I'm sure this problem has been dealt with in various transcriptions and editions of inscriptions and manuscripts. Is there any best practice regarding such places where sandhi is not observed, intentionally or erroneously? Especially in the former case the editor has to avoid "hypercorrection". Any widely accepted symbol (which could by itself lead to confusion by suggesting that the symbol represents something in the source)? Or adding a (clumsy) remark in the text, "sandhi not applied", or in the apparatus each time? (In Epigraphia indica volumes it appears commonly in notes "sandhi is not observed here", e.g. EI 37 p. 83, 84, 304.) A plus-sign, pacyase+iti, would probably at first sight suggest that an existing sandhi in the witness (manuscript / inscription) is undone by the editor.
Best regards,
Jan Houben
--
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, Paris Sciences et Lettres)
Sciences historiques et philologiques
Groupe de recherches en études indiennes (EA 2120)
johannes.houben [at] ephe.psl.eu
https://ephe-sorbonne.academia.edu/JanEMHouben
https://www.classicalindia.info
_______________________________________________ INDOLOGY mailing list INDOLOGY@list.indology.info https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology