Return list of all LinguisticNotion

GET /data/api/linguisticnotions/
HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

[
    {
        "id": 1,
        "name": "Relative clauses",
        "description": "<h3>1. Introduction</h3>\r\n<p>Research on relative clauses in modern Western linguistics includes both more descriptive/typological angles such as distinguishing the different semantic and syntactic types of relative clause attested cross-linguistically, and more theoretical angles dealing with the formal syntactic and semantic analysis of relative clauses and their relation to the elements they modify and the matrix clauses they appear within. For a summary, see Nikolaeva (2006); for more detailed discussions see Alexiadou et al. (2000), de Vries (2002).</p>\r\n<p>Work on relative clauses in modern Western linguistics has been considerably influenced by the predominance of a particular relativization strategy in languages of the European linguistic area, in particular English. This strategy involves an embedded clause, which is syntactically subordinated to the head it modifies, and which contains, usually in first position, a relative pronoun coindexed with a gapped argument position in the embedded clause:</p>\r\n<p>\r\n<span class=\"example\">(1) The man who you thought I knew</span>\r\n</p>\r\n<p>In (1), the relative clause &lsquo;who you thought I knew&rsquo; is embedded within the noun phrase and subordinated to the head of the noun phrase, &lsquo;man&rsquo;. The relative pronoun &lsquo;who&rsquo; begins the relative clause, and is coindexed with the gapped object position of &lsquo;knew&rsquo;.</p>\r\n<p>As discussed by Comrie (1998), this relativization strategy is quite rare outside the European linguistic area, yet it has had a considerable influence on the development of analyses of relativization in modern Western linguistics, and on the analysis of other, typologically more common, relativization strategies.</p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n<h3>2. Relativization in Sanskrit</h3>\r\n<p>In Sanskrit and other Indo-Aryan languages, the major relativization strategy is the relative-correlative construction. Correlatives are typologically rare, often limited to head-final languages (Downing 1973, Keenan 1985, de Vries 2002, Belyaev &amp; Haug 2020). In a relative-correlative construction, the relative clause contains a relative pronoun, and is adjoined at the left or right edge (in Sanskrit standardly the left) of the main clause, which usually contains a correlative pronoun; see (2).</p>\r\n\r\n<img src=\"/static/images/researchdata/linguistic_notions/relative_clauses_1.png\" alt=\"Relative clauses diagram\"  class=\"example\" style=\"width: 70%\">\r\n\r\n<p>Sanskrit relative clauses are not embedded, but <em>conjoined</em> or <em>symmetrically adjoined</em> (Hock 1989, Davison 2009). Extensive work on the properties of correlative constructions has been undertaken on Hindi (e.g. Srivastav 1991, Bhatt 2003, among others).</p>\r\n<p>The differences in relativization patterns between Sanskrit and the European languages central to the development of modern linguistics are reflected in the rather different approach to analysing relative constructions found in the Indian tradition.</p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n<h3>3. The <em>Aṣṭādhyāyī</em> and the mainstream tradition</h3>\r\n<p>The analysis of relative clauses is not a central issue within the mainstream Indian linguistic tradition. Pāṇini&rsquo;s <em>Aṣṭādhyāyī</em> does not explicitly treat any syntactic rules specific to the formation and use of relative clauses. In Sanskrit, finite verbs in relative clauses and certain other subordinate contexts are necessarily accented, in contrast to main clause verbs which are deaccented when non-initial. Yet even this morphophonological aspect is specified entirely formally, with reference to cooccurrence of forms of the relative pronoun (<em>yadvṛtta</em>, Aṣṭ. 8.1.66), rather than with reference to any functional properties of the clause. Similar is the specification of the optative mood for the verb in a specific semantic subset of subordinate clauses (Aṣṭ. 3.3.148-151).</p>\r\n<p>In defining the scope of the absolutives, Pāṇini does refer to some range of the function of relative clauses. The absolutives are specified for use in referring to an action which precedes the action of a following verb, and which has the same agent (<em>kartṛ</em>) (Aṣṭ. 3.4.21). But by Aṣṭ. 3.4.23 this is not the case when the prior action occurs in a clause with a form of the relative <em>yad</em>, unless there is another verb which effectively serves as the main predicate of the <em>yad</em> clause. In the absence of the absolutive suffixes, the verb form in the <em>yad</em> clause will be finite, and we will therefore have a relative clause. In other words, Pāṇini&rsquo;s specification for the absolutives shows that the scope of absolutives and relative clauses overlap in the case of reference to a prior event, e.g. &lsquo;having done this, he returned&rsquo; &asymp; &lsquo;when he had done this, he returned&rsquo;.</p>\r\n<p>While nothing more specific is said on finite relative clauses, Pāṇini does specify syntactic/semantic restrictions on the formation of present participial clauses (illustrated in 3), which can be thought of as a type of reduced relative clause.</p>\r\n\r\n<img src=\"/static/images/researchdata/linguistic_notions/relative_clauses_2.png\" alt=\"Relative clauses diagram\"  class=\"example\" style=\"width: 53%\">\r\n\r\n<p>Aṣṭ 3.2.124-126 specify the restrictions holding between the head of the relative clause and the participle, namely that the referent (&asymp;subject) of the participle is necessarily coreferent (<em>samānādhikaraṇa</em>) with an element in the sentence which is either non-nominative, in which case the participle may denote an event cotemporaneous with that of the main clause (as in 3), or, if the coreferent element is nominative, then there must be an additional semantic implication (such as cause) in the relation between the event denoted by the participle and that denoted by the main verb. For further details, see Lowe (2015: 329-335).</p>\r\n<p>More broadly, the Indian tradition did not draw the same distinction between main and subordinate clause as found in the Western tradition. Perhaps the most closely related notion is the contrast between <em>pradhāna-kriyā</em> &lsquo;predominant/primary verb/action&rsquo; and <em>guṇa-kriyā</em> &lsquo;qualifying verb/action&rsquo;, which might appear to represent a step towards distinguishing main from subordinate clauses, but in fact serves only to distinguish finite from non-finite clauses. Finite verbs are always <em>pradhāna-kriyā</em>; <em>guṇa-kriyā </em>is used only in relation to non-finite verb forms like absolutives and participles, whose subject positions are dependent on an argument from their matrix clause. The concept of <em>guṇa-kriyā</em> is therefore closer to modern notions of <em>control</em> in the broadest sense.</p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n<h3>4. The Samanvaya tradition</h3>\r\n\r\n<p>In the <em>Samanvayadiś</em> and <em>Samanvayapradīpa</em> we find a more syntactically oriented discussion of relativization. Section 5 of the <em>Samanvayadiś</em> treats relations between clauses, and the treatment of relative clauses within this appears to be based on the assumption that there is no necessary hierarchical relationship between what in Western thought would be considered the main clause and the subordinate clause. This reflects the adjoined nature of relative clauses in Sanskrit. Rather, both clauses are self-contained, and in that sense independent, but they are connected due to a particular semantic relation existing between an element in each clause.</p>\r\n<p>Building on this assumption, the most basic or most complete means of expressing such a relation between clauses is when both clauses contain an explicit marker specifying the relation. The marker in one clause is the relative pronoun; the marker in the other is a corresponding demonstrative (correlative) pronoun. Thus, the relative-correlative structure (as in ex. 2) is taken to be the paradigm type of interclausal relations.</p>\r\n<p>In the relative-correlative case, the relation between the clauses is described as <em>śābda</em>, &lsquo;determined by the words&rsquo;, that is it is explicitly marked (<em>Samanvayadiś </em>5.1.1.1 [Slaje&rsquo;s numbering]). When at most one of the words expressing the connection between the clauses is present, we are dealing with relations which are <em>ārtha</em> &lsquo;determined by the meaning&rsquo;, that is contextually inferable but not explicit (SD 5.1.1.2).</p>\r\n<p>Logically, there are two possibilities: either the demonstrative pronoun or the relative pronoun is missing. In the former case, that is when a relative pronoun occurs in one clause, but there is no explicit demonstrative/correlative in the other, we are dealing with something more akin to the standard English-type relative clause. The <em>Samanvayadiś</em> distinguishes two subtypes of relative-only clausal connections. One is labelled <em>kalpita-karmādi-viṣaya</em> &lsquo;having as its range an inferred (demonstrative functioning as) patient or other grammatical role&rsquo; (SD 5.1.1.2.2), i.e. the relative is interpreted as being connected with a demonstrative pronoun which is inferred in a particular grammatical function. That is, in principle relative pronouns are understood as indicating a connection with another clause, a connection which can standardly only be picked up by a demonstrative pronoun in the other clause; in the absence of such a demonstrative, we infer an unexpressed demonstrative to pick up the connection with the relative. This first subtype refers to a relative-correlative structure in which the correlative is ellipsed or implied. For the following example, the <em>Samanvayapradīpasaṃketa</em> infers a correlative <em>sa</em> preceding <em>rākṣasendraḥ</em> in the main clause:</p>\r\n\r\n<img src=\"/static/images/researchdata/linguistic_notions/relative_clauses_3.png\" alt=\"Relative clauses diagram\"  class=\"example\" style=\"width: 69%\">\r\n\r\n<p>In the second subtype of clausal connection which involves only a relative pronoun, the relative is called <em>prakrānta-vastu-viṣaya</em> &lsquo;having as its range an object previously mentioned&rsquo; (SD 5.1.1.2.2). This is the familiar type of non-restrictive relative clause, where a relative clause functions as modifier to a noun whose reference is already fully specified in the context.<a href=\"#_ftn1\" name=\"_ftnref1\">[1]</a></p>\r\n<p>Alongside clausal connections which involve only the presence of a relative pronoun, the Samanvaya treatises set as parallel those clausal connections which involve only the presence of a demonstrative pronoun (SD 5.1.1.2.1). All uses of the demonstrative/anaphoric pronoun <em>tad</em> are categorized under this heading, including its use to refer to something outside the immediate linguistic context but in the shared world knowledge of the interlocutors. This takes us beyond the scope of relative clauses from the Western perspective into the scope of anaphora and pronominal reference, but from the perspective of the Samanvaya tradition, there is no fundamental difference between the two: both are means of indicating a semantic relation between two otherwise independent clauses, and both relate in parallel ways to the fully explicit means of indicating relations between two independent clauses, i.e. the relative-correlative construction.</p>\r\n<p>The typology of interclausal relations as understood in the Samanvaya tradition can be schematized in the following way:<a href=\"#_ftn2\" name=\"_ftnref2\">[2]</a></p>\r\n\r\n<img src=\"/static/images/researchdata/linguistic_notions/relative_clauses_4.png\" alt=\"Relative clauses diagram\">\r\n\r\n<p>The <em>Samanvaya</em> tradition also specifies a number of pragmatic constraints on acceptable usage of relative clauses, which go beyond the present scope. Similar and related observations on the use of relative clauses are found in <em>Alaṃkāraśāstra</em>, including in Mammaṭa&rsquo;s <em>Kāvyaprakāśa </em>and the <em>Vyaktiviveka</em>.</p>\r\n\r\n<br><hr><br>\r\n\r\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref1\" name=\"_ftn1\">[1]</a> See Hahn (2008: 215-216). In Mammaṭa&rsquo;s <em>Kāvyaprakāśa</em>, (VII, fllg. v. 187) it is claimed that the relative pronoun <em>yad</em> can be used without the demonstrative only when it occurs in the later of two connected clauses (i.e. from our perspective when following the main clause), not in the earlier.</p>\r\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref2\" name=\"_ftn2\">[2]</a> This schematization is slightly simplified; a more complex categorization is put forward by Ruyyaka, commentator on Mahimabhaṭṭa&rsquo;s <em>Vyaktiviveka</em>, with additional mixed categories, as well as a category where neither relative nor demonstrative is explicit. See Hahn (2008: 58&mdash;71, esp. 68&mdash;69) for details.</p>",
        "admin_notes": "",
        "admin_published": true,
        "meta_created_datetime": "2021-06-23T10:02:15.687582+01:00",
        "meta_lastupdated_datetime": "2021-09-18T10:10:26.029057+01:00",
        "meta_firstpublished_datetime": "2021-06-23T10:02:15.687243+01:00",
        "meta_citation_author": 2,
        "meta_created_by": 3,
        "meta_lastupdated_by": 3,
        "linguistic_notion": [],
        "author": [
            4,
            5,
            9,
            25,
            15,
            10
        ],
        "linguistic_field": [
            2,
            1
        ]
    },
    {
        "id": 2,
        "name": "Suppletion",
        "description": "<h3>1. Introduction</h3>\r\n<p>Although its original reference is to the diachronic process by which two previously unrelated words or word stems come to be associated, resulting in a new, mixed paradigm (Boyé 2006), the term <em>suppletion</em> now more generally refers, in modern Western linguistics, to a synchronic alternation, a type of allomorphy in which the relation between allomorphs is not synchronically derivable. The English alternation between <em>go</em> and <em>went</em> is a well-known example.</p>\r\n<p>In talking about suppletion, the focus is generally on stem suppletion: two or more synchronically unrelated stems form the basis of different parts of an inflectional paradigm, while suffixation is (usually) not directly affected. In principle, it would be possible to consider affix allomorphy (whether inflectional or derivational) in terms of suppletion. But since affix allomorphy rarely involves synchronically relatable affixes, this would almost completely subsume the notion of affix allomorphy under suppletion. In some cases, it may be necessary to treat full words as suppletive, where it is not possible, or would be unduly complicated, to decompose a form into suppletive stem and regular affix; Boyé (2006) calls this &ldquo;inflectional form suppletion&rdquo;. Suppletion is usually an inflectional phenomenon, but can feed into derivational formations, as in Latin <em>lator</em> based on the suppletive stem <em>lat-</em> of the verb <em>ferre</em> &lsquo;bear&rsquo;.</p>\r\n<p>There is of course a gradient between &lsquo;regular&rsquo; morphological relations and unambiguously suppletive relations. At the one end we have allomorphs which are synchronically relatable by means of productive phonological rules (such as noun stems ending in voiced vs. unvoiced stop in German: <em>Tag</em> [tak] vs. <em>Tage</em> [tag-]), at the other end allomorphs which share no relatable phonological content (like English <em>go</em> vs.<em> went</em>). There are a variety of different approaches for where to draw the line in terms of which alternations should be derived by phonological rules, and which treated as suppletion.</p>\r\n<p>For a summary of issues in suppletion see Boyé (2006). For more detailed treatments see e.g. Dressler (1985), Mel&rsquo;čuk (1994), Veselinova (2006), Corbett (2007).</p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n<h3>2. The Indian tradition</h3>\r\n<p>The ancient Indian tradition does not have a term or concept precisely equivalent to <em>suppletion</em>, but its approach to suppletive and suppletive-like phenomena reveals a number of interesting comparisons with Western thought. First and foremost, all phenomena which would be considered instances of suppletion are treated, in the Indian tradition, in terms of substitution (<em>ādeśa</em>).<a href=\"#_ftn1\" name=\"_ftnref1\">[1]</a> Substitution is one of the most important processes in Indian generative analysis, the means by which all allomorphy, and much allophony, is accounted for (including alternations of the German <em>Tag&ndash;Tage</em> type: Pāṇini would simply substitute [k] for [g] in the relevant forms).</p>\r\n<p>Pāṇini&rsquo;s <em>Aṣṭādhyāyī </em>provides no discussion of any conceptual difference between suppletion and other types of stem modification. There is, though, a practical distinction between stem modification (usually involving some kind of phonological substitution) which preserves some part of an original root, and stem modification in which an entire stem is replaced. For example, in the derivation of the present stems of the root <em>kṛ</em> &lsquo;do, make&rsquo;, namely <em>karo-</em> and <em>kuru-/kurv-</em>, the largely predictable morphophonological alternations are dealt with by means of substitution rules which have general application beyond merely this verb and these stems. For example, the vowel gradation which produces the root form <em>kar</em> (&lsquo;guṇa grade&rsquo;) from <em>kṛ</em> is a general process found across the language, constrained by morphological criteria and obeying regular phonological principles. It is specified by means of a substitution rule targeting the vowel of roots in the affected contexts (Aṣṭ. 7.3.84).<a href=\"#_ftn2\" name=\"_ftnref2\">[2]</a> Ultimately, these stem forms can be derived by means of generalizable rules involving common processes of stem modification such as suffixation and vowel gradation, formalized in terms of substitution. But crucially, at no point is the root as a whole (in whatever form) subject to substitution: the <em>k</em> of <em>kṛ</em> is never replaced, and thus in some real sense the stems <em>karo-</em> and <em>kuru-/kurv-</em> are modified forms of <em>kṛ</em>.</p>\r\n<p>In contrast, the suppletive stem <em>vadha-</em> to the root (and stem) <em>han</em> &lsquo;strike, slay&rsquo; is specified as a substitute for the root in its entirety in the relevant context (A. 2.4.42&ndash;44). As there is no generalization possible regarding the form alternation between <em>han</em> and <em>vadha</em>-, full substitution is the only option.</p>\r\n<p>However, full substitution of a root/stem is also employed in cases where there are obvious phonological similarities between stems. For example, Aṣṭ. 7.3.78&ndash;9 specifies a series of stem substitutions:</p>\r\n<ul>\r\n<li><em>pā</em> &gt; <em>piba-</em></li>\r\n<li><em>ghrā</em> &gt; <em>jighra-</em></li>\r\n<li><em>dhmā</em> &gt; <em>dhama-</em></li>\r\n<li><em>sthā</em> &gt; <em>tiṣṭha-</em></li>\r\n<li><em>mnā</em> &gt; <em>mana-</em></li>\r\n<li><em>dā</em> &gt; <em>yaccha-</em></li>\r\n<li><em>dṛś</em> &gt; <em>paśya-</em></li>\r\n<li><em>ṛ</em> &gt; <em>ṛccha</em>-</li>\r\n<li><em>sṛ</em> &gt; <em>dhāv</em>-</li>\r\n<li><em>śad</em> &gt; <em>śīya</em>-</li>\r\n<li><em>sad</em> &gt; <em>sīda</em>-</li>\r\n<li><em>j&ntilde;ā</em> &gt; <em>jā</em>-</li>\r\n<li><em>jan</em> &gt; <em>jā</em>-</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p>In some of these cases, we are dealing with fully suppletive stem alternants, i.e. stem alternants with no phonological similarity or relationship, as in <em>dṛś&ndash;paśya</em>. &nbsp;In other cases, a morphophonological relation between the root and the substitute is evident; for example, <em>ghrā&ndash;jighra</em> and <em>sthā&ndash;tiṣṭha</em> involve reduplication (as do <em>pā&ndash;piba </em>and <em>sad&ndash;sīda</em>, though more opaquely). Yet no distinction is made between these and cases like <em>dṛś&ndash;paśya</em>. It would certainly have been possible to frame a rule which derived, for example, <em>tiṣṭha-</em> from <em>sthā</em> and <em>jighra-</em> from <em>ghrā</em> (and perhaps most easily, <em>ṛccha-</em> from <em>ṛ</em>, simply by suffixation). Pāṇini&rsquo;s method here appears to be based on the principle of concision, rather than any conceptual notion of the degree of relation one stem bears to another. This is illustrated by the preceding rule, Aṣṭ. 7.3.77, which provides a contrast to 78-9: this rule takes the roots <em>iṣ</em>, <em>gam</em> and <em>yam</em>, and produces the stems <em>iccha-</em>, <em>gaccha-</em>, and <em>yaccha-</em> (instances of partial suppletion); it does this by substituting the final segments of these roots with <em>ccha</em>, rather than by substituting the roots in full. In this case the morphophonological relation is recognized, because it enables the same alternation to be specified for three roots in one concise statement, more concisely than if the three substitute stems were to be given in full in the grammar.<a href=\"#_ftn3\" name=\"_ftnref3\">[3]</a></p>\r\n<p>A particularly striking case is found in Aṣṭ. 2.4.41: the root <em>ve&Ntilde;</em> [ve-] &lsquo;weave&rsquo; is optionally substituted in full by what is superficially its sandhi variant <em>vay</em> [vay-], that is by a form which ought to be derivable from the base form of the root by fully productive and predictable phonological rules. The reason for this substitution is to prevent in the relevant contexts a further more general substitution which would apply to the unsubstituted vowel of <em>ve&Ntilde;</em> to produce a stem <em>vā</em>-. The somewhat unintuitive outcome is that resulting words which contain forms of the root most phonologically close to the original root form (e.g. the perfect tense <em>uvāya</em>) derive from the substituted root, while those which contain root forms phonologically more distant from the original (e.g. the alternative perfect tense, <em>vavau</em>) do not involve full root substitution and thus preserve unsubstituted the first segment of the root.</p>\r\n<p>One important point of dichotomy in the full root substitutions in the <em>Aṣṭādhyāyī</em> is their location in the grammar. Certain substitutions, including <em>han&ndash;vadha</em> and <em>ve&Ntilde;&ndash;vay</em>, occur early in the grammar (in book 2 of 8), and these substitutions can feed later suffixation processes. Other substitutions are specified later, such as those in 7.3.78&ndash;79 discussed above; these substitutions do not feed other morphological processes, but are purely formal stem variants. For example, substitutions specified in book 2 may feed derivational morphology, such as the substitution of the copula <em>as</em> &lsquo;be&rsquo; with <em>bhū</em>, which licenses derivational forms to this suppletive stem such as <em>bhavitavyam</em>, <em>bhavitṛ</em>. In contrast, no derivation is possible from stems like <em>tiṣṭha-</em>.</p>\r\n<p>As discussed, suffix alternations are also treated in terms of full or partial substitution. In some cases fully suppletive words or even paradigms are produced by concomitant root and suffix substitution. Aṣṭ. 3.4.84 specifies the optional replacement of the root <em>brū</em> &lsquo;speak, say&rsquo; with the stem <em>āh-</em>, together with concomitant replacement of present tense verbal affixes with (formally) perfect tense affixes, to produce forms such as 3sg. <em>āh-a</em>, 3pl. <em>āh-uḥ</em> &lsquo;says&rsquo; as alternatives for <em>brav-īti</em>, <em>bruv-anti</em> &lsquo;says&rsquo;. In rare cases, whole words are substituted in their entirety, where no morphological segmentation of the resulting form is either possible or profitable. This is the case with the enclitic forms of the personal pronouns (Aṣṭ. 8.1.20-23), e.g. 2du. acc./dat./gen. <em>vām</em> replaces the whole of the basic forms <em>yuvām</em>/<em>yuvā-bhyām</em>/<em>yuva-yoḥ</em>.</p>\r\n<p>A further important point is the centrality of meaning to Pāṇini&rsquo;s procedure, which stands alongside concision as one of the core driving features of his analysis. Returning to <em>āha</em>: is this really an instance of suppletion, given that it is optional? Or is optional suppletion merely synonymy? In terms of a paradigmatic morphology, there is no slot in the paradigm of <em>brū</em> which <em>āha</em> fills, or at least, its slot is already filled by <em>bravīti</em>. For Pāṇini the rationale is driven by meaning: <em>āha</em> is synonymous with <em>bravīti</em>, and it is only on this basis that one can be treated as a substitute for the other.&nbsp; Similarly, the comparative <em>śreyas</em> &lsquo;better&rsquo; and superlative <em>śreṣṭha</em> &lsquo;best&rsquo; are not derived, as historically appropriate and phonologically possible, from the word <em>śrī </em>&lsquo;radiant, holy&rsquo;, but from the historically unrelated, and phonologically more distant, adjective <em>praśasya</em> &lsquo;good, praiseworthy&rsquo; (Aṣṭ 5.3.60). The rationale is entirely semantic: Pāṇini cannot treat <em>śreyas</em> and <em>śreṣṭha</em> as comparative and superlative of <em>śrī</em>, despite their evident connection, because they no longer function semantically as regular comparative and superlative of this word. Rather, their meanings are effectively comparative and superlative of the meaning of <em>praśasya</em>, so Pāṇini treats them as derived from this adjective.</p>\r\n<p>Further on the linguistic reality of verbal suppletion in Sanskrit, and its relation to the full verb stem substitutions specified by Pāṇini, see Deshpande (1992).</p>\r\n\r\n<br><hr><br>\r\n\r\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref1\" name=\"_ftn1\">[1]</a> The use of the term <em>ādeśa</em> to mean &lsquo;substitute, substitution&rsquo; is a feature of the Pāṇinian grammatical tradition, but this was not, as argued by Acharya (2017), Pāṇini&rsquo;s own use of the term.</p>\r\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref2\" name=\"_ftn2\">[2]</a> By Aṣṭ. 7.3.84 (together with 1.1.3), the vowel <em>a</em> replaces the <em>ṛ</em> of <em>kṛ</em>, giving an intermediate form <em>ka</em>, to which is necessarily appended an <em>r</em>, by Aṣṭ. 1.1.51.</p>\r\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref3\" name=\"_ftn3\">[3]</a> Aṣṭ. 7.3.77 is seven syllables long; if this rule were eliminated and the three substitutions were incorporated into the following rule, it would require 7.3.78 to be at least eleven syllables longer.</p>",
        "admin_notes": "",
        "admin_published": true,
        "meta_created_datetime": "2021-09-12T09:18:34.615675+01:00",
        "meta_lastupdated_datetime": "2021-09-14T12:08:52.037598+01:00",
        "meta_firstpublished_datetime": "2021-09-12T09:18:34.615378+01:00",
        "meta_citation_author": 2,
        "meta_created_by": 1,
        "meta_lastupdated_by": 1,
        "linguistic_notion": [],
        "author": [
            15
        ],
        "linguistic_field": [
            3
        ]
    }
]