Re: viyoga (Kc 10) --comment

Dear Ole,

In a response to Eisel dated July 5, you wrote:

<< The author of the Nyaasa explains that adho.thitam denotes a consonant
devoid of its vowel (assara.m katvaa), not exactly illuminating. The
commentators were clearly unaware of the fact that the rule addresses a
particular way of writing, different from the one en vogue in SE Asia at the
time when they composed their commentaries. >>

The Nyaasa (ad Kacc 10) glosses 'adho.thita.m' with 'pubbe.thita.m'
(standing before) and the Kaccaayanatthadiipanii gives "adhoti
het.t.thaabhaagatthe nipaato. ti.t.thatiiti .thita.m. .thaa
gatinivattimhiiti dhaatu. kattari tapaccayo. adho he.t.thaabhaage .thita.m
adho.thita.m. tappurisasamaaso." (p. 57) According to PED, the indeclinable
'he.t.thaa' can mean "lower in the manuscript, i.e. before, above".

I've been going over all the commentaries I have on Kacc 10 & 11. Plenty of
interesting explanations but some basic questions still go unanswered such
as "what is the purpose of separating the voweless consonant from the
following vowel?". I think I need to first sort out what the various
commentators are actually saying and to find out to what extent they agree
with each other or differ before I can deal with whether or not the rule
addresses a particular way of writing.

Best wishes,
Jim

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