Dear Raffaele, I do not know where the rule comes from, but Abhinavagupta makes the same argument while explaining ĪPK 2.3.8 in ĪPVV, vol. III, p. 121 (ardhayukpādavṛttānte viśrāntir iti tu kāvye 'yam samayo na śāstre) and ĪPV, vol. II, p. 102 (ardhe ccheda iti kāvye 'yaṃ samayo na grantha iti dvitīyatṛtīyapādayoḥ sāmastye 'py adoṣaḥ). Amitiés, Isabelle --- Isabelle Ratié Professeur, Département des Études Orientales, Sorbonne Nouvelle Membre Senior de l'Institut Universitaire de France http://www.univ-paris3.fr/ratie-isabelle--302292.kjsp
Le lun. 4 nov. 2024 à 15:04, Raffaele Torella via INDOLOGY < [email protected]> a écrit : > Dear Colleagues, > > while commenting on IPK I.5.12 Abhinava’s Vimarśinī says: > > > ātmāta eva caitanyaṃ citkriyācitikartṛtā / > > tātparyeṇoditas tena jaḍāt sa hi vilakṣaṇaḥ // Ipk_1,5.12 // > > […] citkriyācitikartṛtātātparyeṇa iti samāsaḥ / ardhayuk pādaviśrāntiḥ iti > hi kāvye samayaḥ, na śāstre. > > > So the first word in the third pāda is to be considered in compound with > the last word of the second. According to the rule *ardhayuk > pādaviśrāntiḥ* (by the way, coming from where?) this should be > inadmissible, but – Abhinava says – this holds only for kāvya, not for > śāstra. My question is: are you aware of a set of exceptional rules only > valid for the śāstric metrical texts? > > > Many thanks! > > Raffaele > > > > Prof. Raffaele Torella > Emeritus Professor of Sanskrit > Sapienza University of Rome > www.academia.edu/raffaeletorella > > > _______________________________________________ > INDOLOGY mailing list > [email protected] > https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology >
_______________________________________________ INDOLOGY mailing list [email protected] https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology
