Guest guest Posted August 21, 2004 Report Share Posted August 21, 2004 Quoting deshpandem <mmdesh: > Hello Phillip > > Your emendation of the line to aapakvazaaliruciratanugaatrayaSTiH > certainly will not work since it violates the meter. The reading > aapakvazaaliruciraatanugaatrayaSTiH is metrically OK. You seem to be > breaking the compound as tanugaatrayaSTiH, but it seems likely that it > should be read as atanugaatrayaSTiH. The general notion is that one > gains weight in the colder season. The body looks like the fully > filled ear of rice, it is atanu rather than tanu. The two other > readings that I have seen are: > > aapakvazaaliruciraanatagaatrayaSTiH and > aapakvazaalilalitaanatagaatrayaSTiH Hi Professor. I recall that I did think of this metrical problem, when I read the poem for the first time within the last month, and tried out this solution. Since then, I have just kind of skimmed over this half of the half verse. But neither Manirama nor Amarakirtisura gives atanu as a possibility; the latter gives three possible interpretations, all with tanvi, like Manirama’s two. It seems strange that the commentators should have turned a blind eye to the metrical impossibility? And Sehgal presented the metrically correct text along with these two commentaries that seem to assume another text, a metrically impossible one. Is there another commentary in which you saw atanu, which does really seem to be the only way that both metre and sense can work? Phillip Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.