The present joint contribution offers a tentative comprehensive re-interpretation of Pāṇini’s rule A 2.3.46, and shows how that rule teaches the application of the nominative ending without making use of the notion of “subject,” a notion that belongs to other grammatical systems, but not to Pāṇini’s. We discuss the controversial domain of some segments of its wording by attempting to adhere to Pāṇini’s framework and his usus scribendi. In particular, we read the first constituent of the compound prātipadikārthaliṅgaparimāṇavacana-as a genitive (prātipadikasya) depending on a dvandva made up of three constituents, i.e., artha-, liṅga-, and parimāṇavacana-, and we take parimāṇa- as denoting a quantity (‘one’, ‘two’, or ‘many’) that, combining with vacana- (‘signifying’), is substantially equivalent to the concept of grammatical number in modern linguistics. We finally show that our reading of A 2.3.46 is able to generate the nominative endings affixed to the subject and (nominal) predicate of a nominal sentence: as a consequence, nominal sentences might actually not have been neglected by Pāṇini.
Il presente contributo a quattro mani offre una rilettura complessiva della regola A 2.3.46 di Pāṇini e mostra come questa regola insegni l'applicazione della desinenza di nominativo senza fare uso della nozione di “soggetto”, una nozione che appartiene ad altri sistemi grammaticali, ma non a quello di Pāṇini. Discutiamo il controverso dominio di alcuni segmenti della sua formulazione cercando di aderire al quadro di Pāṇini e al suo usus scribendi. In particolare, leggiamo il primo costituente del composto prātipadikārthaliṅgaparimāṇavacana- come genitivo (prātipadikasya) dipendente da uno dvandva formato da tre costituenti, ossia, artha-, liṅga- e parimāṇavacana-, e consideriamo parimāṇa- come indicante una quantità (“uno”, “due” o “molti”) che, combinandosi con vacana- (“significante”), è sostanzialmente equivalente al concetto di numero grammaticale nella linguistica moderna. Mostriamo infine che la nostra lettura di A 2.3.46 è in grado di generare le desinenze di nominativo applicate al soggetto e al predicato (nominale) di una frase nominale: di conseguenza, le frasi nominali potrebbero effettivamente non essere state trascurate da Pāṇini.
A Controversial Provision for the Nominative Ending: Nominal Sentences and Aṣṭādhyāyī 2.3.46
Mocci, Davide
;Pontillo, Tiziana
2020-01-01
Abstract
The present joint contribution offers a tentative comprehensive re-interpretation of Pāṇini’s rule A 2.3.46, and shows how that rule teaches the application of the nominative ending without making use of the notion of “subject,” a notion that belongs to other grammatical systems, but not to Pāṇini’s. We discuss the controversial domain of some segments of its wording by attempting to adhere to Pāṇini’s framework and his usus scribendi. In particular, we read the first constituent of the compound prātipadikārthaliṅgaparimāṇavacana-as a genitive (prātipadikasya) depending on a dvandva made up of three constituents, i.e., artha-, liṅga-, and parimāṇavacana-, and we take parimāṇa- as denoting a quantity (‘one’, ‘two’, or ‘many’) that, combining with vacana- (‘signifying’), is substantially equivalent to the concept of grammatical number in modern linguistics. We finally show that our reading of A 2.3.46 is able to generate the nominative endings affixed to the subject and (nominal) predicate of a nominal sentence: as a consequence, nominal sentences might actually not have been neglected by Pāṇini.File | Dimensione | Formato | |
---|---|---|---|
JAOS 140.1 Mocci-Pontillo.pdf
accesso aperto
Tipologia:
versione editoriale (VoR)
Dimensione
303.52 kB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
303.52 kB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri |
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.