SV: okaasa (...further)

The use of okaasa to denote the locative is indeed odd, and it is difficult
to explain what motivated its introduction, unless we assume that it is a
backformation from Sanskrit avakaa.sa, which is used in grammatical lit. to
denote a domain of application of a rule. But as I mentioned, the semantics
are canonical. The commentarial tradition made use of a peculiar case
terminology, e.g. bhumma to denote the locative, which is not reflected in
Kacc. This might indicate that the author(s) did not know the commentaries
or just decided to follow the Kaatantra, but not in this particular case,
which is odd. On the other hand, the description of sandhi in Kacc and
Kacc-v appears to reflect what is found in the ct.s. However, Kacc takes the
commentarial padasandhikaaras to be aagamas (sic!).

OP

-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: palistudy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:palistudy@yahoogroups.com] På vegne
af Eisel Mazard
Sendt: 13. juni 2006 09:15
Til: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
Emne: Re: [palistudy] okaasa (...further)

What seems to me strage about the issue, on reflection, is Kacc.
1-1-9, viz. that the author's dispositions is apparently to accept others'
grammatical terms (a verse widely interpreted to mean current Sk.
terminology of his day) --not to adhere to a canonical standard.

> Do you feel that the author of Kacc-s read and knew the Commentaries,
> and intentionally chose to use "more canonical" language (in this
> instance, or in general)?

E.M.


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> You
can search right from your browser? It's easy and it's free.  See how.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/_7bhrC/NGxNAA/yQLSAA/GP4qlB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->


Yahoo! Groups Links