[Advaita-l] Question on internal Sandhi rule

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste Shashi ji,


On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 12:53 AM, Shashi via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

>
> Under what circumstances should a dantavya 'na' (dental) change into a
> murdhanya 'na' (retroflexal) in a word? For example, why is tRtiya vibhakti
> of 'Rama' RameNa and not Ramena?
> <listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org>
>
The sutra ८.४.२ अट्कुप्वाङ्नुम्व्यवायेऽपि [with अनुवृत्ति of रषाभ्यां नो णः
समानपदे from 8.4.1] applies. There is a वार्तिका under the previous sutra
which says ऋवर्णाच् च इति वक्तव्यम्। That is, the नकार following a रेफ, ऋ
or ॠ in the same पद is replaced by a णकार, even when intervened by any
letter of the प्रत्याहार अट् (अ इ उ ऋ लृ ए ओ ऐ औ ह् य् व् र्), कवर्ग,
पवर्ग, आङ् (a prefix) and नुम् (a grammatical आगम/ augment).

There are other rules that either extend across पदs or restrict these rules
further. In the case of derivation of रामेण, at some point the derivation
reaches रामेन where र् is followed by न् but intervened by आ, म् and ए। The
1st and last are part of प्रत्याहार अट् while the 2nd is a पवर्ग letter. So
8.4.2 applies making it रामेण। Same with रामाणाम्।

Now, you may ask, why रामान् and not रामाण्? That is because another rule
८.४.३७ पदान्तस्य [रषाभ्यां नो णः समानपदे अट्कुप्वाङ्नुम्व्यवायेऽपि न]
restricts the णत्वम् when the नकार is at the end of the पद।

Kind rgds,
--Praveen R. Bhat
/* Through what should one know That owing to which all this is known!
[Br.Up. 4.5.15] */