Internal sibilant-sandhi after the i-vowel
mmdesh at UMICH.EDU
Thu Jan 30 06:28:55 EST 2003
By Panini's rules, one cannot have viSabhAga. After upasargas like vi, s can change to S only if it is the initial of certain verb roots, for exampe vi+sIdati>viSIdati. The element 'sa' in sabhAga does not occur in the same category.
From: Matthew Kapstein [mailto:mkapstei at MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU]
Sent: Thu 1/30/2003 4:34 AM
To: INDOLOGY at liverpool.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Internal sibilant-sandhi after the i-vowel
So far as I can make out, the operative rules, PA.nini VIII.3.55, 57, 59,
specify that the change takes place when the s occurs in an Ades'a or
pratyaya, which is not the case with respect to the initial s of
sabhAga. Hence, the dental should remain. But this with the
caveat that a second opinion from one more specialized in
vyAkara.na would be useful.
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Ulrich T. Kragh wrote:
> Query regarding internal sibilant-sandhi after the i-vowel:
> In my text-critical work on chapter 17 of CandrakIrti's PrasannapadA, I need
> to make a decision on whether to adopt the spelling visabhAgAnAM or
> viSabhAgAnAM in the phrase "visabhAgAnAM sabhAgAnAM ca karmaNAM" ("...of
> dissimilar and similar actions").
> My five manuscripts (which all are from Nepal) consistently use the form
> visabhAgAnAM (here and in the following passage of the text), that is
> without the retroflex sibilant after the i-vowel. In the edition of the text
> published by La Vallée Poussin, the form viSabhAgAnAm has been
> adopted/emended, which also seems to be in accordance with the internal
> sandhi-rules for the dental sibilant after the i-vowel (cf. e.g. Whitney's
> grammar §180 and §185a). Nevertheless, in his text-critical notes to the
> text, de Jong adopts the spelling visabhAgAnAm, i.e. retains the dental
> sibilant after the i-vowel, with a reference to the Japanese translation of
> the text by Wogihara, which is a source I unfortunately do not have access
> to at the present.
> Would someone please care to clarify which sibilant ought to be used in this
> case according to the rules?
> Ulrich T. Kragh
> University of Copenhagen
More information about the INDOLOGY