Dear Rishi, Thank you for your reply to my previous query and to Peter’s review. I think it is good for the advancement of our knowledge that we keep the discussion going in an academic manner.
Let me take this opportunity to ask one more simple question. How do you explain the fact/significance of A 1.4.2 having being placed exactly after A 1.4.1, with which begins ‘the one name section’ (ekasaṃjñādhikāra). It seems to me that this very positioning of A 1.4.2 amply indicates its intended function and the domain in which the rule is to operate. If A 1.4.2 is a metarule that can work, if necessary, at any given stage of a derivation, we would naturally expect such a rule to have been placed, together with other such metarules, in the first quarter of the first chapter of the Aṣṭādhyāyī. I think this point has already been made by some other scholars on this list. I would like to know what you think. Or do you touch on this matter somewhere in your thesis? Yūto > 2023/04/11 1:28、Rishi Rajpopat via INDOLOGY <[email protected]>のメール: > > Dear all, > > Please find attached with this email my reply to Peter Scharf's critique of > my doctoral thesis. > > Best, > Rishi > > > > > <Reply to Peter Scharf.pdf> > _______________________________________________ > INDOLOGY mailing list > [email protected] > https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology
_______________________________________________ INDOLOGY mailing list [email protected] https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology
