Re: viyoga (Kc 10) --comment

Eisel,

> Contra:

Thanks for your arguments against the points I made and the helpful
explanations about scripts. I'm not familiar with the writing systems of
South India and don't really have much of an idea of the one Ole has in mind
to support his thesis of the two rules applying to a particular way of
writing. Even though I don't agree with it, it is not easy to make arguments
against it. I think it would be better to put my time and effort into
furthering my understanding of the two rules through a close study of the
various commentaries on them.

I will respond to the following:

> As noted, "sosiilavaa" may be a poor example.

I could have looked for a better example but this one was the first I'd come
across after going through the first 10 of 40 lines of the Nyaasa commentary
on Kc 10. It comes from the following passage consisting of a question and
an answer relating to "pubba.m":

sarato bya~njana.m viyojayeti avatvaa kasmaa eva.m vuttanti. yadi paneva.m
vutta.m bhaveyya || sa siilavaati adiisu so siilavaati padacchede kate
katara.m bya~njana.m sarato viyojayeti sandeho jaayeyya pubbaaparanti
niyamaabhaavaa ||

Translation:
Why is it stated in this way and not "the consonant is separated from the
vowel" ? If the latter were thus stated, confusion might arise as to which
consonant should be separated from the vowel when the separation of words is
made in "so siilavaa" among "sa siilavaa" and so on because of a lack of
certainty regarding the antecedent or the subsequent.

The change of "so" to "sa" is explained at Kacc-v 27 which includes "sa
siilavaa" as an example. It seems to me that the /s/ of /so/ can't be
written under a preceding consonant--there isn't any. You're only showing
how it can be written above the "s" in "siilavaa".

Best wishes,
Jim

> > The Nyaasa cites "so siilavaa" which has no
> > conjunct as you can see. Here the antecedent consonant /s/ is, according
to
> > Kc 10, separated from the vowel /o/. In this case, under what could you
> > write the adho.thita consonant /s/ ?
>
> Although this may be a bad example (for the reason Pind has given,
> viz., that the Nyaasa doesn't understand the verse in question) I will
> use it to draw attention to precisely the point that you're missing,
> Jim: in the writing systems in question you would write "so" with the
> "sii" underneath it --both retain their vowels (i.e., it does not
> become "ssii"!), and the vowel markers would (I believe) both be
> written on the main script level.  The "ii" would not be horizontally
> interposed between the top "so" and the subscripted "s" --not that I'm
> aware of (but perhaps this is attested in some inscriptions??).
>
> As noted, "sosiilavaa" may be a poor example.


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