The paribhasas arthavadgrahane nanarthakasya, laksanapratipadoktayoh pratipadoktasyaiva grahanam and ekadesavikrtam ananyavat : Studies on some Metarules in Paninian system

In his grammatical treatise, the Astadhyayi, Panini includes sutras that state guiding rules for the right interpretation and application of his other directly grammatical sutras. These sutras are called paribhasas. In addition to these paribhasas, the various commentaries on Panini frequently invoke supplementary paribhasas which are not stated explicitly in his Astadhyayi. These paribhasas have been a subject of study since early times after Panini and have also occupied modern scholars on Panini s grammar. In regard to most of them, it remains unsettled even today whether they are used in the Astadhyayi, where they apply, what is their role, and whether they are necessary in arriving at the desired grammatical form. Some scholars go even further and argue that none of such paribhasas were intended by Panini. This study aims to settle this question by dealing with three such of these paribhasas individually considering all the information available in the commentaries in their regard and examining the cases in which, according to commentaries, the paribhasas apply. I select the paribhasas arthavadgrahane nanarthakasya, laksanapratipadoktayoh pratipadoktasyaiva grahanam and ekadesavikrtam ananyavat, which are all considered nyayasiddha or lokanyayasiddha; they express logical and obvious principles which are found in daily life. On this basis, Paniniyas explain why Panini did not mention them in the Astadhyayi. I discuss each paribhasa separately and all the issues it involves. I present and explain the cases where the specified paribhasas are invoked in the major commentaries, the Mahabhasya, the Kasika and the Siddhantakaumudi and the arguments found in the commentaries concerning these cases. If available, I supply other solutions to the difficulties for which these paribhasas are invoked. The study aims to make the issue of these paribhasas clearer, which will help us to reach a solution to the key question, that is, whether Panini has presupposed them in his Astadhyayi. My study shows that Panini has presupposed the paribhasa ekadesavikrtam ananyavat (or a similar principle). He also may have used the paribhasa arthavadgrahane nanarthakasya (or a similar principle) as this paribhasa does not lead to undesired results. As for the paribhasa laksanapratipadoktayoh pratipadoktasyaiva grahanam (or a similar principle), the original scope of this paribhasa was clearly extended by later Paniniyas. Moreover, their interpretation of this paribhasa conflicts with Panini s procedure. If Panini has used this paribhasa, he has used it in a very limited way.

En förutbestämd sanning : Barnamord och delaktighet i 1700-talets Finland belysta genom kön, kropp och social kontroll

The study analyses the prevention or endorsing of the crime of infanticide in Finland 1702 1807, rather than the result. Also the impacts of the female body, biology of childbirth and experiences of pregnancy are examined, together with insights from modern medical research. Circumstances are reconstructed by a critical reading of judicial records on all levels of the judicial system. In all 269 cases of infanticide and 142 accessory crimes within the jurisdiction of the Turku court of appeal are studied, with particular focus on exceptionally well recorded cases of 83 accused women and 41 women and men accused of being party to the crime. Secondary sources are medical and jurisprudential writings, the public debate on infanticide, broadsheets and letters asking the King for pardon. Infanticide was considered murder by law. Unmarried women were predetermined as the main culprits. Nevertheless, deliberate infanticides were rare and committed mostly in accomplice. The majority of the infanticides studied were cases where inexperienced and unmarried women accidentally had given birth alone and usually to a dead child. Unaware that the pain they were experiencing was in fact a labour, the accused women instinctively sought solitude to push out the child. Some misunderstood the birth as an urgent need to defecate. The unexpected delivery ended in hiding the baby without remorse. This crime was promoted by several factors in Finnish rural culture, amongst others that also married women hid their pregnancy. The immediate household members did not necessarily know about the childbirth and failed to help the woman. This typical pattern in most cases of infanticide in 18th century Finland is also recorded in modern cases of unknown pregnancies. Fear of accountability prevented witnesses testifying to the actual course of events. The truth remained elusive. With only a few exceptions, the women were sentenced to death or imprisonment. The majority of those accused of accomplice were acquitted. However, too harsh sentences for accidents affected the reporting of the crime. Criminal politics failed to curtail infanticide as the crime was unsatisfactorily addressed by law, society and the judicial system.