Saddaniti aadesa

Dear Jim,

Thanks for the interesting information.

>you may be interested to know that the Saddaniiiti gives the following
>two rules involving substitution (aadesa) of .n for ~n:
>
>89. pa~n~nattti-pa~n~naasaana.m ~n~nassa .n.no.
>90. pa~ncaviisatiyaa pa~ncassa pa.n.no.
>
>However, I don't see these rules in Kaccaayana which would suggest
>that forms like 'pa.n.natti' were unknown to Kaccaayana. The fact that
>Aggava.msa gives these rules for substitution shows that the words
>with ~n belong to an older period than the ones with .n.
>
> 
>
I have a few questions regarding this.

1. Are there any substitution ''rules'' in the Kaccaayana?

2. Are Aggava.msa's aadesas obligatory rules? Or are they just
possibilities, i.e., variant forms, which he mentions?

PED: AAdesa [fr. aadisati, cp. Sk. aadeśa] information, pointing out; as
tt. g. characteristic, determination, substitute, e. g. kutonidaanaa is
at SnA 303 said to equal ki.m--nidaanaa, the to of kuto (abl.) equalling
or being substituted for the acc. case: paccatta--vacanassa to--aadeso
veditabbo.

3. Why would Aggava.msa suggest this substitution? As far as I know
Aggava.msa was influenced by Sanskrit grammarians and it would seem
strange that he would suggest to substitute with a Prakrit or Magadhi form.

4. Are words with .n.n or ~n~n and .nh or ~nh used in the Asoka edicts?
Maybe the edicts can offer clarification.

Best wishes,
Bh. Nyanatusita