Johannes Bronkhorst Felicitation Volume
Edited By François Voegeli, Vincent Eltschinger, Danielle Feller, Maria Piera Candotti, Bogdan Diaconescu and Malhar Kulkarni
The present felicitation volume includes thirty-two essays by some of the finest scholars in the field of indology, which reflect Johannes Bronkhorst’s main scholarly contributions: Grammar, Philosophy, Vedic Studies, Buddhism and Jainism, Dharmaśāstra and Arthaśāstra, Epics and Purāṇas. It presents an almost complete spectrum of the intellectual and spiritual pursuits and speculations in Ancient India, and will be of inestimable value to the specialists of all fields of Indology. The volume also includes a presentation of Johannes Bronkhorst’s academic career and contribution to Indian Studies by Jan E.M. Houben, and an ongoing bibliography of his work.
MARIA PIERA CANDOTTI Naming-Procedure and Substitution in Early Sanskrit Grammarians* Background Substitution is a fascinating yet distracting topic for scholars interested in Indian grammar. In fact, what’s most disconcerting is the fact that the epistemological import of this all-pervasive device is far from easy to grasp and rare have been, to this date, the attempts at unravelling the idea of language and of the role of grammar founding this procedure. Or shall we be content in considering that this broadly used device is just a well- refined yet philosophically poorly significant jugglery? In recent years, KAHRS (1998) has attempted to sort out the episte- mological framework that the substitution procedure both presupposes and contributes in creating. The major tenets of his work are quite well known, it will therefore be sufficient to sum them up briefly, focusing on the points directly related with our topic. In Kahrs’ opinion substitution is a metalinguistic device that spread largely outside the domain of grammar. The explanatory pattern ‘the word X appears in the place of Y’ (where Y may be another word, but also an analytical formulation, a vākya) is not peculiar to grammar only – even though it finds its most formalised expression in what we may call a ‘genitive of substitution’ specifically taught in grammar by Pāṇini. This usage is regulated in the Aṣṭhādhyāyī by the rule A 1.1.49 telling that, in rules where their usage may give rise to ambiguities, genitive endings shall be interpreted as...
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.
Do you have any questions? Contact us.Or login to access all content.