Re: Kacc 1-4-12 (que ry, "agyāgāraŋ")

Dear Eisel,

> Under the sub-rule to 1-4-12 (discussed by Dr. Pind in his article)
>
> I wonder at the example agyāgāraŋ.  Is the point here that agga + ya +
> agāraŋ = agyāgāraŋ (viz., agga + ya becomes agya rather than aggya)?
> Vidyabhusana's "scan" of this example doesn't make much sense to me.

There is no "agga" in "agyaagaara.m". The division (cheda) is: aggi +
aagaara.m according to Mmd. The /i/ of "aggi" was changed to a /y/ before a
vowel (Kc 21 iva.n.no ya.m navaa) and the first /g/ of /gg/ was dropped
according to the last part of Kc 41and Mmd (see also Sd 120 which quotes the
same example).

> I'm currently translating the sub-rule as follows (subject to change):
>
> We are to infer from [the verse's use of] "and" that [wherever] three
> [consonants are adjoined] in the middle [of a word or compound,] one
> of the identical pair [may be] elided, such as with: [forming a
> compound word from agga + ya + agāraŋ =] agyāgāraŋ [viz., eliding one
> g to avoid the triple compound ggy. Similarly, the sequence tty is
> avoided by dropping one t where vutti + assa = vutyassa, as in the
> phrase:] paṭisantāravutyassa.

"in the middle [of a word or compound,]" as a translation of "antare" misses
the point. It should be: [whichever are the identical forms] "within" [the
three consonants]. Other commentaries like Mmd state that there is elision
of the first of the identical forms or consonants.

> I would also note that the main rule is not (explicitly) restricted to
> identical pairs, but to any "adjoined consonants", which would seem to
> me to include, e.g., "ddh" and "kkh" (viz., not exclusively "dd",
> "kk", etc.) --although the later layers of the text do not flesh out
> this possibility left open by the rule.

The use of the term "saruupaa" (the identical forms) in the (sub-)rule
excludes pairs like "ddh" and "kkh". Sd 120 gives the example "titthyaa".

In this and some other messages you've been using a unicode encoding and the
special Pali letters do display correctly on my computer. However, this may
not necessarily be the case for everyone who reads these messages. There are
also serious problems when it comes to archiving the messages. I also notice
that the letters do not display correctly on the Yahoogroups website. I
think it would be best to avoid using unicode or other encodings in the
group messages and stick with the Velthuis scheme.

Best wishes,
Jim


---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]