Re: Exception to gaNa vibhajana
Mahesh Panchagnula (mahesh@expert.cc.purdue.edu)
Tue, 25 Feb 1997 10:08:53 -0500 (EST)
NamasAram
This discussion has been very enlightening. IMHO, there cannot be any rule
that is more explicit than a phonetic rule. I can completley accept what
Sri Mohana Rao garu and Ramakrishna garu say, but after all isn't all of
grammar, just a formal statement of phoentic pronounciation?
The example that my sanskrit teacher used to give comes to my mind.
A grammarian is not like a potter. A potter makes a pot when society
needs a pot, but a grammarian doesn't make a rule when needed. He can
only formally state the usage of language at that time. Society doesn't
go to a grammarian when it needs a word or usage. They just "use" it if
it sounds phonetically right and then a grammarian comes along and
formalises it.
I may be mistaken here but isn't visarga sandhi and all the complex rules
given by Panini just a statement of what was already in use?
Regards,
mahesh
> I said there is a "rule" that explains the gaNa vibhajana.
> (a rule more explicit than a phonetic rule) I didn't say
> poets can take total liberty in such cases. So what I have to look for
> is whether such a rule exists or not. I need not bother about converts.
>