AW: Internal sibilant-sandhi after the i-vowel

[Valerie J Roebuck]

But such prefixes are not subject to the normal rules of internal
sandhi: they have their own, slightly irregular version.  "Vi-" as a
prefix does not normally cause a following s to become retroflex.
However, I imagine that it is not exactly incorrect to use the
retroflex.  (The grammar books I have to hand are not helpful on this
point.)

Cp. compounds.  Strictly, external sandhi rules should apply, but in
fact we have YudhiSThira, not *Yudhisthira.  Presumably the former
sounded more natural to speakers of the language.

Valerie J Roebuck
Manchester, UK


At 8:18 pm +0100 29/1/03, srutavega wrote:
>  > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>  Von: Indology [mailto:INDOLOGY at liverpool.ac.uk]Im Auftrag von Ulrich T.
>>  Kragh
>>  Gesendet am: Mittwoch, 29. Januar 2003 19.24
>>  An: INDOLOGY at liverpool.ac.uk
>>  Betreff: Internal sibilant-sandhi after the i-vowel
>>
>>  Query regarding internal sibilant-sandhi after the i-vowel:
>>  In my text-critical work on chapter 17 of CandrakIrti's
>>  PrasannapadA, I need
>>  to make a decision on whether to adopt the spelling visabhAgAnAM or
>>  viSabhAgAnAM in the phrase "visabhAgAnAM sabhAgAnAM ca karmaNAM" ("...of
>>  dissimilar and similar actions").
>>
>>  My five manuscripts (which all are from Nepal) consistently use the form
>>  visabhAgAnAM (here and in the following passage of the text), that is
>>  without the retroflex sibilant after the i-vowel. In the edition
>>  of the text
>>  published by La Vallée Poussin, the form viSabhAgAnAm has been
>>  adopted/emended, which also seems to be in accordance with the internal
>>  sandhi-rules for the dental sibilant after the i-vowel (cf. e.g. Whitney's
>>  grammar §180 and §185a). Nevertheless, in his text-critical notes to the
>>  text, de Jong adopts the spelling visabhAgAnAm, i.e. retains the dental
>>  sibilant after the i-vowel, with a reference to the Japanese
>>  translation of
>>  the text by Wogihara, which is a source I unfortunately do not have access
>>  to at the present.
>>
>>  Would someone please care to clarify which sibilant ought to be
>>  used in this
>>  case according to the rules?
>>
>>  Sincerely,
>>  Ulrich T. Kragh
>>  University of Copenhagen
>
>
>Dear colleague,
>Your MSS are right, please, follow their reading!
>Wishing You all the best for Your work on PP XVII
>Yours sincerely
>Chlodwig H. Werba
>University of Vienna, ISTB
>
>
>>