In keeping with Aggava.msa's scheme, wouldn't "vana" or "saali" be
classified as "jaatyaapekkhekavacana.m" rather than
as "samudaayaapekkhekavacana.m" ? I take "jaati" in the sense of
class or genus but admittedly I'm unclear about this term which I
have seen grouped with gu.na, dabba, and kriyaa. I believe four of
the five kinds of singulars mentioned in the Saddaniiti refer to
collections of two or more things. Thanks for your Vaakyapadiya
reference which I did see but the Sanskrit text is much too difficult
for me to comprehend with what little I know. I'm certainy interested
in what the Sanskrit grammarians and philosophers have to say about
such things and I did have a look at Paa.n I 2.58 & 1.4.21-2 and the
comments of the Kaa"sikaav.rtti, Haridatta, and Jinendrabuddhi.
There's lots to study up on!
Best wishes,
Jim
<< Dear Jim,
This is an interesting passage. The idea that certain terms denote a
samudaaya of things, like vana 'forest' or saali denoting a
collection of trees or rice grains, can be traced to the Sanskrit
grammarians and philosophy of Sanskrit grammar. Aggavamsa mentions
the akkharacintaka in the passage to which you refer. This generally
means the Sanskrit grammarians. See, for instance, Bhartrhari's
Vaakyapadiiya II 155-56.