SV: ratyaa, ratya.m

Dear Jim,

.thaane has basically the same value as sthaane in Sanskrit grammar. The
rule states that before following /ya/ etc. the vowel is optionally elided
from phonemes that occur (.thitaana.m) immediately before /ya/ etc. when
otherwise the vowel would be expected to apply (.thaane).
One would e.g. expect /u/ to occur before /m/ of padmaani. However, /u/ is
elided from /d/ that occur immediately before /m/.

Ole Pind

-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: palistudy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:palistudy@yahoogroups.com] På vegne
af Jim Anderson
Sendt: 19. maj 2006 20:22
Til: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
Emne: Re: [palistudy] ratyaa, ratya.m

Dear Phra Yuttadhammo,

I found two sandhi rules in the Saddaniiti that can account for rattiyaa >
ratyaa, etc. but haven't yet found their counterparts in Kaccaayana or
Ruupasiddhi.

The furst rule explains the elision of the -i- :

Sd 69. saralopo ya-ma-na-raadisu vaa. Optionally, (there is) vowel elision
before y, m, n, r, etc.

The vutti explanation is: "yakaara-makaara-nakaara-rakaaraadisu paresu
anantare .thitaana.m va.n.naana.m saralopo hoti vaa .thaane." I don't
understand .thitaanaa.m and .thaane in this context but the examples given
for saralopo are: aaraamarukkhacetyaani, khatyaa, padmaani, nisneha.m,
naanaaratne, kriyaacittaani, klesavatthuvasaa. The word ".thaane" seems to
disallow vowel elision (saralopo) in the example: Suppiyo.

The next rule explains the elision of one of the two consonants in -tt- :

Sd 120. tiisu vya~njanesv eko saruupo lopa.m. Among three consonants, one
(of them) having the same form is elided.

This corresponds to your teacher's explanation below. The examples given
are: khatye, agyaagaara.m. It doesn't apply in such cases as: titthyaa.

I'm only bringing these rules to your attention without my having spent much
time with them. Thanks for your earlier message regarding Wat Mahathat. I
will reply as soon as I can get a chance. :)

Best wishes,
Jim

> Our teacher, Mahavituun explained it clearer, saying that in his
> understanding, the rule should be "where three consonants are grouped,
> *and two of them are the same*, remove one of the two that are the
> same." This makes it clear, but then how to conjugate "nandi"? Should
> it be "nandyaa" or should it be assumed that this form simply cannot
> exist (according to Maha Vituun)? I am wondering whether there is any
> clarification regarding this in the ancient grammars.



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com




Yahoo! Groups Links