An essential component of the domain of nominal or verbal derivation is the understanding of the development of an , a fluid, morphophonemic (Rood- bergen: 2008: 6) element that characterizes the body of a word. At any given time, an is framed by an affix which influences the structural development of a word form to result in a variation of , , suP, or taddhita forms reflect- ed by Pāṇini’s convenient placement of the rule A 1.4.13 at the begin- ning of the in a section related to general application across the text (Misra 1966: 22). Contrarily, the of Bhaṭṭoji Dīkṣita presents a structural derivational anomaly by highlighting the use of the in the nominal (Bali 1976: 62-64) with the of A 6.4.1 , but neglecting its prominence in the verbal. The of A 1.4.13 provides examples from both nominal and verbal sections where the may be inferred in practice but are rarely stated explicitly, hinting at structural and/or conceptual inadequacy in the grammar of Bhaṭṭoji Dīkṣita. Furthermore, when compared to the definition provided by Rāmacandraśeṣa in the , Dīkṣita’s language is more complicated despite its repu- tation towards the simplification of Pāṇinian grammar. The ’s commentary also presents a more direct, derivation-oriented reason- ing of the compared to the , which is more philosophical in its arguments. The vague approach of Navya Vyākaraṇa regarding the has also necessitated the use of , a with historical significance (Wujastyk 1993: 144) which has obtained minimal mention by Dīkṣita. I propose to expand on these observations by exploring the expression of by Rāmacandraśeṣa and Dīkṣita and the corresponding distortion of the Pāṇinian system through its apparent disregard for the central- ity of this device in the process of derivation.
Creating the body of the word: understanding the aṅga in the prakriyā of the Siddhāntakaumudī and the Prakriyākaumudī
Mittal Trivedi
2023-01-01
Abstract
An essential component of the domain of nominal or verbal derivation is the understanding of the development of an , a fluid, morphophonemic (Rood- bergen: 2008: 6) element that characterizes the body of a word. At any given time, an is framed by an affix which influences the structural development of a word form to result in a variation of , , suP, or taddhita forms reflect- ed by Pāṇini’s convenient placement of the rule A 1.4.13 at the begin- ning of the in a section related to general application across the text (Misra 1966: 22). Contrarily, the of Bhaṭṭoji Dīkṣita presents a structural derivational anomaly by highlighting the use of the in the nominal (Bali 1976: 62-64) with the of A 6.4.1 , but neglecting its prominence in the verbal. The of A 1.4.13 provides examples from both nominal and verbal sections where the may be inferred in practice but are rarely stated explicitly, hinting at structural and/or conceptual inadequacy in the grammar of Bhaṭṭoji Dīkṣita. Furthermore, when compared to the definition provided by Rāmacandraśeṣa in the , Dīkṣita’s language is more complicated despite its repu- tation towards the simplification of Pāṇinian grammar. The ’s commentary also presents a more direct, derivation-oriented reason- ing of the compared to the , which is more philosophical in its arguments. The vague approach of Navya Vyākaraṇa regarding the has also necessitated the use of , a with historical significance (Wujastyk 1993: 144) which has obtained minimal mention by Dīkṣita. I propose to expand on these observations by exploring the expression of by Rāmacandraśeṣa and Dīkṣita and the corresponding distortion of the Pāṇinian system through its apparent disregard for the central- ity of this device in the process of derivation.
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
