The case of mixture variants like dadhi and dadhy is utilized by Nyāya authors as an proof of the truth that phrases are produced and modified. Mīmāṃsā authors, who suppose that language is with out starting, want to reply to that and clarify subsequently that dadhy will not be a modification of dadhi, however an alternate phrase, and each are utilized in particular phonetic contexts.
Veṅkaṭanātha in his commentary on PMS 1.1.16 elaborates thereon and explains that they’re described as archetype and ectype of one another for pedagogical causes solely (so as to not additional multiply the variety of phrases to be learnt). At this level, he faces two very completely different objections.
The primary opponent says that the archetype-ectype relation could possibly be reverted in response to a unique grammatical evaluation. This in all probability signifies that dadhy could possibly be thought-about because the archetype and dadhi because the ectype. Veṅkaṭanātha solutions that one ought to select the grammatical evaluation based mostly on its pedagogical deserves, and the one recommended by the opponent will not be pedagogically simpler.
The opposite opponent says that the ectype-archetype relation is actual and based mostly on the similarity between the 2. The “similarity” will not be additional elaborated upon, however we are able to guess one thing extra about it by Veṅkaṭanātha’s reply. Veṅkaṭanātha solutions that if similarity have been the bottom for actual archetype-ectype connections, then there can be no means to not keep away from over- and under-extensions. On the one hand, one may over-extend it to different circumstances of similarities, like yogurt (dadhi) and jasmine flowers, which can be related insofar as they’re each white, though they aren’t thought-about to be archetype and ectype of one another. However, cow-dung and beetles are dissimilar, however are thought-about one the ectype of the opposite (beetles are believed to be a change of cow-dung).
Now, my drawback regards a terminological selection. The primary opponent says: vyākaraṇāntareṇa prakṛtivikṛtivaiparītyam. In his reply to the second opponent, Veṅkaṭanātha says na ca sādṛśyāt prakṛtivikṛtibhāvaḥ śaṅkhyaḥ, vaiparītyasyāpi prasaṅgāt. Nevertheless, vaiparītya within the first case appears to be the alternative of what ought to be the case (the inversion of dadhi and dadhy as archetype and ectype). In contrast, within the second case vaiparītya appears to point only a completely different set of penalties. Feedback welcome!
(Cross-posted on my private weblog, elisafreschi.com)
