Second opinion please...

[Taff Rivers]

All,

The forum 'panin...@googlegroups.com' appears to have awoken from the dead after being dormant for an entire year.

The administrator, Dr Shivamurthy Swamiji, asks:

"What necessitated Panini to write an independent Sutra नामि 6.4.3 for lengthening अदन्ताङ्ग when it was possible to do the same by सुपि च 7.3.102 ?

If संनिपातपरिभाषा is the impediment, how do you then justify its (सुपि च ) application in the case of रामाय ?"

I am no expert, but I do not read 7.3.102 as conveying the same information. To me, the expanded explanation given there in French says as much?

  Regards,

Taff Rivers

[Neelesh Bodas]

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 5:00 AM, Taff Rivers <eddie...@gmail.com> wrote:

All,

The forum 'panin...@googlegroups.com' appears to have awoken from the dead after being dormant for an entire year.

The administrator, Dr Shivamurthy Swamiji, asks:

"What necessitated Panini to write an independent Sutra नामि 6.4.3 for lengthening अदन्ताङ्ग when it was possible to do the same by सुपि च 7.3.102 ?

Because नामि 6.4.3 is not for अदन्ताङ्ग alone. मुनि + नाम् → मुनीनाम् । साधु + नाम् → साधूनाम् । पितृ + नाम् → पितॄणाम् ।
These cases cannot be covered by सुपि च 7.3.102

And specifically for राम + नाम्, सुपि च 7.3.102 is not applicable due to संनिपातपरिभाषा (Which I think causes your next question). 

Kaumudi - सुपि चेति दीर्घो यद्यपि परस्तथापीह न प्रवर्तते । संनिपातपरिभाषाविरोधात् ।

If संनिपातपरिभाषा is the impediment, how do you then justify its (सुपि च ) application in the case of रामाय ?"

Because panini himself uses a form "कष्टाय" in कष्टाय क्रमणे 3|1|14, which indicates that संनिपातपरिभाषा is not to be used for सुपि च .

In 7.1.13 ङेर्यः -  

Kashika - सन्निपातलक्षणो विधिरनिमित्तं तद्विघातस्य इति परिभाषेयम् अनित्या, तेन दीर्घो भवति।
Kaumudi - संनिपातलक्षणो विधिरनिमित्तं तद्विघातस्य इति परिभाषा तु नेह प्रवर्तते । "कष्टाय क्रमणे" इत्यादिनिर्देशेन तस्या अनित्यत्वज्ञापनात्  ।

I am no expert, but I do not read 7.3.102 as conveying the same information. To me, the expanded explanation given there in French says as much?

  Regards,

Taff Rivers

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to samskrita+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/samskrita.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Sivakumari Katuri]

सुपि च इति सूत्रेण दीर्घः अजन्तस्य विधीयते। सुपि च इति तु अदन्ते एव प्रवर्तते।  सन्निपातपरिभाषायाः अनित्यत्वं तु न यथेष्टं वक्तुं शक्यम्, तत्रापि प्रमाणं किञ्चिदपेक्षितम्। चतुर्थीविभक्तौ तु अनित्यत्व ज्ञापकमुक्तमेव कष्टाय क्रमणे इति।

--

[Taff Rivers]

Neelesh,

   Thank you for confirming my suspicion that 6.4.3  is not redundant.
My understanding is that 6.4.3 applies to dative cases, while 7.3.102 applies to genitive plurals.

I am long awaiting a modern English rendition of that famous work with modern first-hand commentary, in 21st century style of language and terms of reference.

Regards,

Taff

On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 4:39:26 PM UTC+1, Neelesh Bodas wrote:

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 5:00 AM, Taff Rivers <eddie...@gmail.com> wrote:

All,

The forum 'panin...@googlegroups.com' appears to have awoken from the dead after being dormant for an entire year.

The administrator, Dr Shivamurthy Swamiji, asks:

"What necessitated Panini to write an independent Sutra नामि 6.4.3 for lengthening अदन्ताङ्ग when it was possible to do the same by सुपि च 7.3.102 ?

Because नामि 6.4.3 is not for अदन्ताङ्ग alone. मुनि + नाम् → मुनीनाम् । साधु + नाम् → साधूनाम् । पितृ + नाम् → पितॄणाम् ।
These cases cannot be covered by सुपि च 7.3.102

And specifically for राम + नाम्, सुपि च 7.3.102 is not applicable due to संनिपातपरिभाषा (Which I think causes your next question). 

Kaumudi - सुपि चेति दीर्घो यद्यपि परस्तथापीह न प्रवर्तते । संनिपातपरिभाषाविरोधात् ।

If संनिपातपरिभाषा is the impediment, how do you then justify its (सुपि च ) application in the case of रामाय ?"

Because panini himself uses a form "कष्टाय" in कष्टाय क्रमणे 3|1|14, which indicates that संनिपातपरिभाषा is not to be used for सुपि च .

In 7.1.13 ङेर्यः -  

Kashika - सन्निपातलक्षणो विधिरनिमित्तं तद्विघातस्य इति परिभाषेयम् अनित्या, तेन दीर्घो भवति।
Kaumudi - संनिपातलक्षणो विधिरनिमित्तं तद्विघातस्य इति परिभाषा तु नेह प्रवर्तते । "कष्टाय क्रमणे" इत्यादिनिर्देशेन तस्या अनित्यत्वज्ञापनात्  ।

I am no expert, but I do not read 7.3.102 as conveying the same information. To me, the expanded explanation given there in French says as much?

  Regards,

Taff Rivers

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.

[swa...@taralabalu.org]

Dear All,

There is an error.  अदन्ताङ्ग should be re-read as अजन्ताङ्ग.  But the question still remains to be answered how नामि overcomes संनिपातपरिभाषा in the case of रामाय.  The traditional answer given by Bhattoji Dixit and others may be reviewed by scholars.

<<The forum 'panin...@googlegroups.com' appears to have awoken from the dead after being dormant for an entire year.>>

Yes, being in public life, I had a long slumber for the last one year on academic matters trying to help the poor farmers of Karnataka heavily hit by drought.  I was deeply involved in developing the software called “Bhoomi Online Parihara” (You can see it online).  Nearly 30 young software engineers worked day and night on this project.  I was instrumental in getting this project and other related Lift Irrigation projects approved by the Government of Karnataka.  As a result, many village tanks are filled by Tungabhadra river water and the poor farmers of the entire State of Karnataka got the Draught Relief Fund of Rupees 1,687 Crores credited directly to their bank accounts!

Dr Shivamurthy Swamiji

www.taralabalu.org

[Neelesh Bodas]

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 9:44 AM, <swa...@taralabalu.org> wrote:

Dear All,

There is an error.  अदन्ताङ्ग should be re-read as अजन्ताङ्ग.  But the question still remains to be answered how नामि overcomes संनिपातपरिभाषा in the case of रामाय.  The traditional answer given by Bhattoji Dixit and others may be reviewed by scholars.

नामि has nothing to do with रामाय. It is सुपि च that overcomes सन्निपातपरिभाषा in रामाय, and the reason given is अनित्यत्व  of the सन्निपातपरिभाषा. 

Now assuming that your question is - “How come नामि overcomes सन्निपातपरिभाषा in the case of रामाणाम्”, the answer given by Bhattoji Dixit is "आरम्भसामर्थ्यात्". This has been discussed in depth in मनोरमा and लघुशब्देन्दुशेखर, but the gist is that except for a handful of cases , almost all "legitimate" [see footnote below] invocations of नामि require contradicting सन्निपातपरिभाषा. Thus, the very fact that  नामि exists is a sufficient reason for allowing it to overcome / contradict सन्निपातपरिभाषा. (Otherwise, there was no reason to create sutra नामि).  However, that’s not the case with सुपि च; because there are numerous instances in which सुपि च can be invoked without overcoming सन्निपातपरिभाषा (For instance, रामाभ्याम्). And hence, in the case like राम + नाम्,  even though "सुपि च" has a chance of “winning” due to परत्व, we do not apply सुपि च because doing so will contradict सन्निपातपरिभाषा, which is not allowed in general.

So in essence, in राम + नाम्  we are still overcoming संनिपातपरिभाषा, but that is because नामि is designed to do that, and not because सन्निपातपरिभाषा is अनित्य.

footnote - by the word "legitimate", I mean a situation where a deergha is actually required, and not a situation where नामि is invoked purely by "कृतकारि खल्वपि शास्त्रं पर्जन्यवत्".

Hope this helps!

Neelesh 

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to samskrita+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Hnbhat B.R.]

 दीर्घो यद्यपि परस्तथापीह न प्रवर्तते । संनिपातपरिभाषाविरोधात् । 

 नामि (कौमुदी-209)इत्यनेन त्वारम्भसामर्थ्यात्परिभाषा बाध्यते । 

इति सिद्धान्तकौमुदी!

नन्विह `नामी`ति दीर्घप्रवृत्तावपि सन्निपातपरिभाषाविरोधस्तुल्य इत्यत आह-नामीत्यनेनत्विति। यद्यत्र `नामी`ति दीर्घो न स्यात्तर्हि तदारम्भो व्यर्थः स्यात्। ततश्च निरवकाशत्वाद्रामाणामित्यादौ नामीति दीर्घः सन्निपातपरिभाषां बाधित्वा प्रवर्तते। `सुपि चे`ति दीर्घस्तु रामाभ्यामित्यादौ सावकाशत्वाद्रामाणामित्यादौ नामि परे सन्निपातपरिभाषां न बाधितुमर्हति। तस्माद्रामाणामित्यादौ नामि परे दीर्घप्रवृत्तौ सन्निपातपरिभाषां बाधितुं नामीति दीर्घारम्भः।

 इति बालमनोरमा!