AmericaNegations in Pāṇinian RulesAuthor(s) George Cardona

8/13/2019 AmericaNegations in Pinian RulesAuthor(s) George Cardona

1/24


2/24

NEGATIONS IN PANINIAN RULESGEORGECARDONA

University of PennsylvaniaSome of Panini's rules contain negative compounds. In such cases there isambiguity; the negative can be construed with the nominal following it in thecompound, or it can be construed with a verb. According to the Mahabhasya, thefirst interpretation yields a positive rule providing an operation in a domainspecified by the negative compound: non-x. The second interpretation yields anegative rule providing for the cancellation of an operation already providedfor. Again, the first interpretation yields a one-step operation, while the secondinterpretation requires that two sentences be understood, providing two steps:tentative application of an operation and its subsequent cancellation. Both in-

terpretations involve negation (pratisedha);the first type is called paryudasa(pra-tisedha) 'limitation(al negation)', the second type prasajyapratisedha 'negation(subsequent to tentatively) applying'. The conclusions derived from the Maha-bhasya are used to judge some formulations in the Kaiika. In addition, it isshown that, while Patafijali usually demonstrates that both interpretations of anambiguous negative compound will yield desired results, later commentatorsdecide in favor of one or the other interpretation on the basis of economy. Finally,it is shown that the rules usually consideredby Westernscholars do not lend them-selves to a clear understanding of the essential difference between paryuddsaandprasajyapratisedha.Paninian tradition, as we know it beginning with the varttikas cited and dis-cussed by Patafijali in the Mahabhasya, distinguishes between two types ofnegation called paryudasa and prasajyapratisedha.1This distinction has of courseengaged the attention of modern scholars. They have concentrated either onbriefly characterizing the two types of negation (Renou 1940:114, 1942:203-3,230-1; Abhyankar 1961:227, 253) or on their formal logical aspects (Scharfe1961:63-4, Staal 1962:58-61, 1963:255). What should be considered a very im-portant aspect of this question has been largely neglected, viz. how this distinc-tion correspondsto the major principles followed by Panini in framing his rules.Moreover, when reading discussions concerningparyuddsaand prasajyapratisedha

in modern writings, one gets the impression that in cases of ambiguity Patafijaliand other Paniniyas always chose an interpretation in terms of one or the othertype of negation exclusively, and that this choice was strictly determined by theII am deeply indebted to Pandit Ambika Prasad Upadhyay of Varanasi, with whom Iread the Mahabhasya and appertaining commentaries, and to K. S. Krishnamurti Sastriof Madras, with whom I read the Laghumafijua.. I worked with them during the academicyear 1965-6under the auspices of the American Institute of Indian Studies, to which I amalso indebted. May I be permitted also to express here my gratitude to Louis Renou, whoserecent death will be deeply felt, for the encouragementhe lent me from the beginning of mycareer. In the following I use 'rule' to refer to any Paninian sutra. In this usage, I follow the

custom of Paniniyas. Cf. K&a.ad 1.1.1 (on which, see below, 1.2[a]): vrddhisabdah amjna-tvenavidhzyate'vrddhi s ruled in as a technical term.' For the Paniniya, then, a term de-fined is brought in by rule, though we may not consider a statement such as 1.1.1 a rule inthe strictest sense (cf. Fowler 1965:44,n. 4). On vidhi,vidhiyate,see note 17. Finally, notethat I have not used quotation marks with italicized Sanskrit words; the context makesclear whether the word is used or mentioned.34

This content downloaded on Thu, 7 Mar 2013 06:56:58 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/24


4/24

LANGUAGE, VOLUME 43, NUMBER 1 (1967)To rule out free variation in such cases, however, the operation of the utsargamust be restricted. The division of the domains of the two operations can beaccomplished in two ways. First, one may concentrate on the rules (lak$ana)applied to arrive at correctly formed words (lakcya): the general rule tentativelyapplies everywhere, but consideration of specific rules is necessary. One con-siders in what domain the operation of the utsargarule is to be final and where itis to be countered; then, only AFTER consideringthe apavadarules does one applythe utsarga rules. Alternatively, one may concentrate on the results of rules ap-plied. Then, the words which are the domain of specific rules are considered andset aside, and the utsarga rules, which now do not apply indiscriminately, areapplied without specifically considering the apavada rules.7Consider, for ex-ample, rule 4.1.89 (gotre'lugaci).This should serve to derive forms such as gargiydh

'students of the gargyas', in which the suffix yai occurs after gargaand the suffixcha occurs after both, i.e. after gdrgya-.8Now, for the plural of gargya'descendant(grandson, etc.) of garga', rule 2.4.64 (yainanosca)provides for the nonoccurrenceof yai in the masculine, so that we get gargdh.Such a form should not be followedby cha, since the latter is ruled in after a form termed vrddha(cf. note 8). Rule4.1.89 counters the deletion of yai when a vocalic suffix is to follow, so that if cha(-zya, note 8) occurred after garga-yan (gdrgya-) having plural meaning, yaiwould remain. It is argued, however, (4.1.89 vt. 1) that this is a case of unallow-able mutual dependence: for yan to occur before a vowel initial suffix and thusnot be deleted, we need -zya, and for cha (---iya) to occur, we need yan. Aslokavdrttikacited by Patafijali (III.557 [II.240.23, 241.1]) gives the followingsolution. First the apavada is considered, then the utsarga; since nondeletion(aluk) provided by 4.1.89 is the apavadacountering the utsargaof deletion (luk),therefore the conditioning factor of aluk acts as a counter. Alternatively, deletionis effected after considering the locus of occurrence of nondeletion and settingit aside.9Adhering to the procedureoutlined above, a general rule must always be con-sidered with corresponding specific rules and is not to be applied until the do-mains of application have been segregated. Hence, such related rules are con-sidered together to form a single context, even if they are widely separated in thesequential ordering of rules. This principle is illustrated by Patafijali in his dis-cussion of 3.4.67 (III.392 [II.178.23-5]). Rules 2.4.64 and 4.1.89 are general andspecific rules respectively, so that, though they are separate in sequential order-ing, they are considered together in a single context: navidedasthamitikrtvdto

7Thisis discussedndetailbyNage6a dpbh. 62-3;cf. alsoBh. ad2.3.46 II.817 I.463.1-31),6.1.5(IV.306 III.10.18-20])nd4.1.89,onwhichsee below.Considerations f this sortarepassedoverbyFowler 44-7) n hisdiscussion f Paninian rdering.8 Derivation: garga-ya-cha(4.2.114) -* gdrgya-4ya 7.1.2) -> gdrgy-4ya 6.4.148) -, gdrgzya(6.4.151).Cha s ruled n after a formtermedvrddha,hat is (1.1.73),onewhose irstvowelis a vrddhi owel.gLater(4.1.90 t. 2), theviewis giventhat the locativein 4.1.89 s a locative of domain(vi6ayasaptamT).The rule then provides or non-deletionwhenthe formwith yai IS TOOCCURwith a vocalic nitialsuffix,not when t actuallyoccursbeforeone. Forthe applica-tion of the principlesdiscussedhereto rules3.2.1,3 (above),see Nagega,UddyotaIV.306.

36



5/24

NEGATIONS IN PANINIAN RULESnana vdkyam bhavati Ividesasthamapi sadekavdkyambhavatiI tadyathd I dvitZye'dhydye ugucyatetasya caturtha~a.thayoralugucyate'pavddah'One does not reasonthat, since two rules occupy separate places in the grammar, they constituteseparate contexts. There is one context of related rules, though standing in dif-ferent places. For example, in the second adhydyadeletion is given; its apavdda,nondeletion, is given in the fourth and sixth adhydya.'?1.1. A negative rule must also be considered together with the rule whoseoperation it cancels, for a pratifedha'negation' requires a pratifedhya 'negandum'.This can be illustrated by the discussion in the Bhasya ad 1.1.44 (navetivibhdad).This rule definesvibhdag optional' as the meaning of nava 'or not'. It is argued(vt. 4) that we must exclude the possibility of the homophone navd 'new' (fem.)being included in the scope of the rule. This is countered (vt. 5) by stating thatnava when used presupposes a positive statement, as in normal usage, so that weunderstand it to mean 'not'. For example, if one says grdmobhavatdgantavyonavd'Are you going to the village or not?', one understands navd to mean 'not' (1.324[1.102.18]neti gamyate). Similarly, the definition of vibhada s to be considered interms of the operations prescribed in other rules where it occurs; in these, navd,its meaning, will then apply to what has been positively ruled in. To this is raisedthe objection (vt. 6) that if navd means 'not', one cannot obtain alternation; towhich it is countered (vt. 7) that negation is preceded by tentative occurrence(prasajyapratisedhah):one first allows something to occur tentatively and thenone cancels it, thus obtaining both its occurrenceand absence: Bh. 1.326 [1.103.8-9] prasajya kimcinna vetyucyateItenobhayambhavisyati Having allowed some-thing to obtain, one says navd; thereby there will be both (what was allowed toobtain and its absence)'; Pr. 1.326 pratisedhddvidhiranumasyateato vikalpahsetsyati 'from a negation will be inferred a positive operation, thence option willbe established.'12

Again, in the discussion on 1.1.5 (kniti ca), Patanjali states (1.174 [I.54.9-10])that a negation causes the annulment of a tentative, not a final, result: prasak-tasydnabhinirvrttasyapratisedhenanivrttih sakyd kartum. Thus the rule, thoughit is meant to provide that guna and vrddhiconditioned by suffixes marked withk or n (kiit) should not occur, need not be amended to include a statement10Theallusion o the sixthadhydyaefers o 6.3.1-2,whichareto beconsideredogetherwith2.4.71.1The meaning or not' is ultimatelyarrivedat (Bh. 1.327 1I.103.18-23])y interpret-ing navd according to the meaning of each member (anvarthasamjna),so that vibhdia isdefined as the meaning of navd, which is now both 'not' (na) and 'or' (vd). However, thearguments summarized below are based on the single meaning 'not'.12 I use this example only to illustrate that a pratifedha presupposes a prati$edhya; hepoint at which I have left the summary is not the end. It is then objected (vt. 10-12) thatthis formulation involves contradiction, since it is impossible that a single operationsimul-taneously occur (bhavati)and not occur (na bhavati).This is resolved by vt. 13: the prati-

?edhaprovided by nai is subsequently superseded by the option provided by vd. Kaiyata(1.327) ad vt. 10 comments: bhdvdbhdvauidhdtumna gakyete'Presence and absence cannotbe ruled in', on which Nage6a notes: bhdvdbhdvdvitimavevahdqye idhipratifedhagabdenok-tau 'These very things (presence and absence) are what the Bhasya expresses by the wordsvidhi and pratiqedha.'

37



6/24

LANGUAGE, VOLUME 43, NUMBER 1 (1967)'caused by them' (tannimittagrahana) n order to avoid the nonoccurrence of thefirst a in hatah 'they two slay' and hatha 'ye slay' from the root han, 3 ince this ais not a tentative result but a permanent part of the root as listed in the dhdtu-pdtha.Tentative results are obtained by applying rules which provide operationsto be cancelled in specific domains. Hence Patafijali invokes (1.175 [1.54.17]) theprinciples governing metarules (paribhdsd),and negative rules such as 1.1.5 aretreated as metarules, since it is the essence of these that they operate only joinedwith other rules.141.1.5 has to be considered in conjunction with rules such as7.3.86 (pugantalaghipadhasya ca).15In this way, given ci-(k)ta 'gathered', 7.3.86takes effect tentatively; this would result in the replacement of i by guna (spe-cifically, e), but 1.1.5 is brought in to cancel this operation.As in the case of utsargavdkyaand apavddavdkya,here vidhivdkyaand pratise-dhavdkyaare considered together as one context. The prati~edha operates in aspecific domain, the vidhi in a general domain: the former applies when suffixesmarked with k or n are involved, the latter when sarvadhatukaand drdhadhdtukasuffixes are involved (see notes 13 and 15). Indeed, Kaiyata (I.174), in his com-mentary on the Bhasya passage discussed immediately above, draws the paralleland refers to utsargdpavcdayoh, which Annambhatta (1.96) directly glossesvidhipratisedhayoh.The accepted view on bringing together in one context sequentially separatedrules which presuppose each other is summarized by the following verses of theVakyapadiya (2.353-4, cited by Kaiyata, III.392): anekdkhyatayoge'pivdkyamnydyydpavddayohIekamevesyatekaiscidbhinnarupamiva sthitam\1niyamah pra-tisedhasca vidhisesastathd sati Idvitiye yo lugakhydtastacchesamalukamviduhl'Even when there is junction with more than one verb, it is desired by some that anydyya (i.e. utsarga) and an apavada constitute one sentence which appears asthough split; this being so, a limitation and a negation are supplements of a

13The endings tas and tha are among those listed in 3.4.78. The whole group of endingsgiven there is abbreviated tii, and members of this group as well as suffixes marked with? are called sdrvadhdtuka by 3.4.113 (tiinitsdrvadhdtukam). Hence, tas and tha, not beingmarked with p (pit), are considered marked with n (nit) by 1.2.4, on which see 2.2.14 The two ways of connecting terms defined in the grammar (samjfid) and metarules(paribhdad) are summed up in pbh. 2 (yathoddesam samjndparibhdsam) and 3 (kdryakdilam

samjndparibhdsam). According to the first, a metarule is considered meaningful at thepoint that it is set up in the sequence of rules, when one keeps in mind that it will be used;by the second, the metarule takes effect specifically at the time of an operation. Again,according to the first procedure, at the time the metarule is stated, one brings to mindall operational sutras (vidhisatra) to which it is possible to apply the metarule, and thetwo are combined; in the latter procedure, when an operation is given, a pertinent metaruleis brought in and combined with it. The main difference between the two procedures is thatin the former, a rule given in the tripadi (8.2-4), since it is considered nonexistent withreference to what precedes (8.2.1 parvatrdsiddham), is not susceptible of combining witha metarule considered at the place it is stated. In the second procedure, even in the tripddi,a metarule is brought in to combine with an operational rule. Cf. PIS 2: kdryakdlapaksetu tripadydrmapyupasthitiriti visesah 'The distinction is that, in the kdryakala alternative,there is occurrence even in the tripcdi.'15This rule provides guna replacement (7.3.82) in a presuffixal stem (6.4.1, angasya)ending in puk (causative augment p) or having a short penult (laghupadha) when it occursbefore sdrvadhdtuka or Crdhadhdtuka suffixes (7.3.84 sdrvadhdtukdrdhadhdtukayoh). Thesubstitution is limited to i, u, r, I (ik) by 1.1.3, on which see note 16.

38



7/24

NEGATIONS IN PANINIAN RULESvidhi;16hey (the holders of this view) know aluk (cf. above on 4.1.89 and note 10)to be a supplement of luk which is expounded in the second (adhydya,i.e. 2.4.64,71).'

1.2. The above statement is also noteworthy in that it directly mentions thejunction with more than one verb. Paninian rules are regularly verbless state-ments. The following are typical:(a) vrddhirddaic 1.1.1)(b) iko gunavrddhz 1.1.3)(c) iko yan aci (6.1.77)(d) asterbhuh(2.4.52)(a) and (b) are, respectively, a definition and a limitation rule which are to beconsidered with other rules when they apply (cf. notes 14 and 16). The first de-fines the term vrddhias d and the sounds included in the abbreviation aic, en-abling one to substitute these for the former whenever it occurs. (b) limits theapplication of guna and vrddhiwhen no other specification is made uniquely tothe sounds in the group ik. (c) and (d) are substitution rules: the first providesfor the replacement of sounds in the group ik by sounds in the group yan beforesounds of the group ac; the second provides for replacement of the root as by theroot bhui n certain contexts. In all of them, the third person is used (prathama-purusa), and, accordingto the accepted view first stated in varttikas (2.3.1 vt. 11,2.3.46 vt. 4), one must in such cases understand the verb 'be' (as, bhu). Thus (c)is expanded to iko yan bhavatyaciparatah 'For ik there is yan when ac follows.'

This results in separate verbs being understood when two rules are combinedinto one context. For example: sdrvadhdtukdrdhadhdtukayohguno) (bhavati)'Be-fore sdrvadhdtukaand drdhadhdtuka here is guna replacement' (7.3.84) and itsnegation kniti ca (na) (bhavati) 'When a kit or nit suffix conditions it, there is noguna replacement' (cf. 1.1). As we have noted, the first statement allows a pro-visional operation which, in the specific domain given in the negative rule, iscancelled. The general rule prescribes provisional replacement by guna; in thecases provided for in the negative rule one obtains its absence. Thus the relationbetween prasaiga 'provisional occurrence' and pratisedha 'negation' correspondsto the statement kimcitprasajya pratisidhyate (1.1); the relation between vidhiand pratisedha is that between bhdva 'occurrence' and abhdva'absence'.1716An example of a limitation is 1.1.3 (iko gunavrddhz); ee 1.2(b).17What is allowed to occur provisionally is an operation. Thus prasaiga is equivalent tovidhi (cf. Nagesa 1.326: prasajyata iti prasango vidhih). vidhi is considered to have twomeanings: first, what is set up or ruled in (vidhiyataiti vidhih); second, the setting up orruling in of something (vidhdna).For example, pirvavidhau in 1.1.57 (acah parasminpurva-vidhau) can mean either 'with respect to the ruling of the preceding' or 'with respect towhat is ruled in for the preceding'. In a case such as ayan 'they went' < i-an, we want toconsider y, replacing i (6.1.87), to be like the latter, so that augment a (dt) may be broughtin; this is provided for vowel-initial roots (6.4.72). But there is no operation on what pre-

cedes y; the operation is the attaching of augment a to y itself. Therefore the second al-ternative does not work. The first alternative does work, since a preceding element is ruledin; cf. Bh. 1.430(I.144.15-7) purvasyavidhdnamprati purvasyabhdvamprati parvah sydditisthdnivadbhavatityevamad4havisyati '(One considers,) (A substituens) is like the sub-stituendum with reference to the ruling of the preceding, with reference to the occurrenceof the preceding-(what is meant is,) 'let there be a preceding element' -and thus will atoccur.' Elsewhere the second meaning of vidhi must be invoked. For example, 2.1.1 (sa-

39



8/24

LANGUAGE, VOLUME 43, NUMBER 1 (1967)The relation obtaining between vidhi and prati~edhais then parallel to therelation between utsargaand apavada.The essential difference between prati$edhaand apavada is that while the latter counters an utsarga by providing anotherpositive operation, e.g. suffixation of ka instead of an (1), a pratisedhacounters avidhi by providing its absence.1.3. A sequence such as na brahmandete can be considered complete as itstands, or as expandable to, e.g., na brahmanaete grhe. In the first case, one as-serts that these (ete) and brdhmandhare different: 'These are not Brahmans'. Inthe second case, one asserts the absence of these Brahmans in a house. In thefirst case, the sequence is replaceable by abrahmandete 'These are non-Brahmans'and brdhmabhinnd te 'These are different from Brahmans'. As noted (1.2), theverb 'be' is to be supplied in such sequences. This verb is then construed with

the compound, which designates the agent (kartr)of the activity. In the first case,the verb is construed with the NEGATIVE, designating the absence (abhava) ofBrahmans.Similarly, the sequence na kniti can be considered complete, or as expandableto, e.g., na kiiti piti. In the second case, one asserts difference between knit andpit; in the first, absence (cf. 1.2). If in na kniti one asserts difference,the sequenceis replaceable by akiiti 'non-knit' and knidbhinne'different from knit'. This canthen be combined with, e.g., 7.3.84 to yield a single one-verb sentence: (1)knidbhinnasdrvadhatukdrdhadhdtukayohguno) (bhavati) '(There is guna replace-ment) conditioned by following non-knit sarvadhStukaand drdhadhdtukasuf-

fixes.'8 If in na kfnitione asserts absence, however, it combines with 7.3.84 toform only a single context of separate sentences, each with its verb: (2)sdrvadhdtukardhadhdtukayohguno) (bhavati); kniti na (bhavati). The resultsdiffer as follows: in (1) there is no question of a tentative occurrence of gunareplacement conditioned by a kit or nit suffix, since 7.3.84 here operates only forsuffixes other than these, which remain out of the question; in (2) there is tenta-tive occurrence of guna replacement followed by its cancellation.To be sure, as Panini has formulated his rules, 1.1.5 is clearly to be understoodas combining with 7.3.84 according to (2). But the duality of interpretationillustrated in this case by Nagesa (note 18) arises in rules where negative com-pounds are used. A negative compound such as abrdhmanameans 'non-Brahman',that is, a member of another caste-ksatriya, vaisya, sudra. The meaning of thenegative is difference (bheda).1But this is not the case in a compound such asmarthahpadavidhih)provides that a padavidhitake effect between elements that are bound(cf. n. 21). What is required here is a limitation concerning compounds etc., so that padasmay be compounded only if they are bound with each other. If vidhi here meant vidhdna,the rule would refer only to the setting up of padas themselves; cf. PM, N ad 2.1.1. Strictlyspeaking, then, an actual statement which provides a vidhi should be referred to as vidhi-vakyaor vidhisutra (cf. 1 and n. 14). But the simple vidhi is also thus used; cf. Vatsyayanaad NS 2.1.64:yadvakyamvidhayakam odakamsa vidhih 'A statement which makes a ruling,which impels, is a vidhi' (see Jhalalikar 1928:755).18 Cf. Uddyota ad 1.1.5 (I.174).19Difference (bheda) s what is understood in such compounds (but see n. 2). It is also afeature of usage that compoundssuch as abrahmaniamean something similar to but differentfrom the meaning of what follows that negative. This is formalized as pbh. 74: naiiva-

40



9/24

NEGATIONS IN PANINIAN RULESasuryampasydni (mukhdni) 'sun-not-seeing (faces)'. Here the negative meansabsence, in this case absence of the activity of seeing (darsanakriydbhdva).20nabrdhmana the negative is concomitant or construed (anvayz) with brdhmana,while in asuryampasya it is concomitant with the verb drs (--pasya). Since bothnegative compound types exist,21 there is ambiguity in a rule such as sudana-pumnsakasya 1.1.43),22where anapumsakasya can be interpreted to mean: (3)'different from neuter' (Bh. 1.321 [I.101.8] yadanyannapumsakdt)or (4) 'not forneuter' (Bh. 1.321 [I.101.7] napu.msakasyana). In the case of (3), the rule is in-terpreted as derived from sutsarvandmasthdnasamjiobhavati;na napumsakasyabhavati 'sut bears the name sarvandmasthdna; it bears this name when) in con-nection with non-neuter'; these combine to form a single sentence sudanapum-sakasya sarvandmasthanasamjno havati sut connected with non-neuter bears thename sarvandmasthdna.' n the case of (4), the two sentences combine to form asingle context: 'sut bears the name sarvandmasthdna;f it is connected with neuterit does not.' If the negative is connected with the noun with which it appearscompounded (anapumsakasya < na napumsakasya), one need supply only oneverb for the sequence sudanapumsakasya; if the negative is connected with averb, however, this must be supplied in addition to the verb supplied for thepositive operation. The verb is 'be' (1.2), and its combination with nan desig-nates absence, i.e. the absence of the operation.Between (3) and (4) there is a difference parallel to that between (1) and (2).For (3), there is no question of tentative results in case of connection with neuter,while for (4) there is such a result and its consequent cancellation. Interpreting(4) yields, as noted, prasajyapratigedha: 3) yields paryuddsapratifedha.The dis-yuktamanyasadr9ddhikara.neatha hyarthagatih'What is joined with nai and iva operatesin a locus which is distinct frombut similar to it; for thus is the understandingof the mean-ing.'20That the 'absence' meaning of the negative is construed with activity, the meaning ofthe verb root, is a view peculiar to the grammarians;the ritualists (mimd.msaka) nd logi-cians (naiydyika) hold different views.21 It is noteworthy that the compound type asuryampaSya s not directly provided forby Paninian rules. Rule 2.2.6 (nan) states that the negative is compounded, but this issubject to the limitation of 2.1.1 (n. 17). In this type, nai is construed with the verb, notwith the nominal which appears following it; this is called an asamarthasamasacompoundof unbound elements'. To allow for this type in general (and not only asuryampaSya),cer-tain formulations are considered indicators (jidpaka) of Panini's authorization. KaE. ad3.3.19 (akartari ca karakesamjfnydm), followed by Pradipa ad 6.1.45 (IV.365), takes theuse of kdrake n this rule to be such an indicator. The rule provides for suffixation of ghai(a) to a root when a non-agent effectuator (kdraka) s expressed and the resultant form isthe name of something. Now the effectuators or instruments whereby an activity is carriedout are agent (kartr), object (karman), etc. Since the rule can be interpreted with eitherparyuddsaor prasajyapratisedha,kdrake s redundant.For, in paryuddsa,by pbh. 74 (n. 19),'non-agent' means what is distinct from agent but similar to it, that is, another kdraka.The use of kdrake s meaningful if it indicates that there are asamarthasamdsas.In rulessuch as 6.1.45 (2.1), then, prasajyapratisedha s to be interpreted. Nage6a, PLM 66, takes3.2.6 (asarya ... dr?i), by which is directly provided the compounding of asurya and drY,to be an indicator of the existence of asamarthasamdsas n general. For Patafijali on therelation of 2.1.1 to 1.1.42, see 2.a2For a discussion of this rule, see 2.

41



10/24

LANGUAGE, VOLUME 43, NUMBER 1 (1967)tinction is summarized in the following verses: aprddhdnyamvidheryatraprati?edhepradhdnatdIprasajyaprati~edho'yamkriyayd saha yatra nan \1prddhdnyam tuvidheryatrapratisedhe'pradhdnata paryuddsah sa vijieyo yatrottarapadenanan I|'Where the vidhi is subordinate and the pratisedhaprincipal, (that is,) where (themeaning of) the negative (is concomitant) with activity, there is prasajya-pratigedha;but where the vidhi is principal and the prati~edhasubordinate, (thatis,) where the negative (is concomitant) with the second member of a compound,there is paryudcsa.'22. Rules 1.1.42-3 are: si sarvandmasthdnam;sudanapumsakasya. The firstprovides that the suffix si bears the name sarvanamasthdna.This suffix is thereplacement i of jas and sas, nominative and accusative plural endings, whenthey occur after neuter predesinential stems (6.4.1, 7.1.20).24By labelling si thus,forms containing it are made eligible for the operation provided by 7.1.72(napumsakasya jhalacah [num, 7.1.58]), viz., addition of n (num) after the lastvowel of the stem.25 The resultant form is then eligible for the application of6.4.8 (sarvanamasthanecasambuddhau[nopadhayah,7; dirghah, 6.3.111]), whichprovides for the replacement by a long vowel of the penult of a stem ending in nfollowed by a sarvandmasthdnawhich is not vocative singular. Thus: vana-sas'forests' -+ vana-si (7.1.20) -> vanan-i (7.1.72) -+ vandni (6.4.8). In 1.1.43 sut isan abbreviation for the first five endings given in 4.1.2, that is, su, au, jas, am,aut, nominative singular, dual, and plural, and accusative singular and dual.Thus, rajan- 'king', followed by these, gives raja, rdjanau, rajanas, rajanam,rajanau (cf. Cardona 1965b:306-7). It is not desired, however, that 's, whichby 7.1.19 (napumsakdcca)replaces the nominative and accusative dual endingsafter neuter stems, be sarvandmasthdna.This would result in obtaining *sdaman( < sdman-st) instead of the desired sdman{'chants'. The negation in 1.1.43 shouldserve to avoid this.In the discussion of these sutras in the Bhasya (1.320-2 [I.101], cf. Ojiharaand Renou 1960:117-24), two objections are raised: (a) the negation applies to~i; (b) the compound is of the type called asamarthasamdsa(cf. note 21).26These

23The verse is cited by Vitthala ad PK 1.147 (see also Edgerton 1929:167,n. 219).24The replacement of the whole suffix (j)as, (s)as by gi is provided by applying 1.1.55(anekdlgitsarvasya).According to this, a multiphonic replacement or one marked with stakes the place of the entire substituendum instead of (by 1.1.52,alo'ntasya) the last soundthereof.25 n is placed after the last vowel of the stem by applying 1.1.47 (midaco'ntyatparah),according to which an item marked with m occurs after the last vowel of that for which itis ruled in.26Pradipa 1.320takes this objection to imply that the formulation of the rule should besutstripumsayoh'sut (is sarvandmasthana)when connected with masculine and feminine.'Later (I.321-2), Kaiyata, commenting on the way objection (b) is met, notes that if oneinterprets prasajyapratisedha,the use of anapumsakasyainstead of strzpumsayoh ndicatesthe existence of asamarthasamdsas cf. n. 21). Note that the compound anapumsakaitselfposes some problems. Napumsaka 'neuter' is the negative of puman 'male', hence the nega-tion of napumsakashould mean 'masculine'. The problem is resolved (cf. Kai. 6.3.75) bytaking napumsaka to mean na strz na puman 'neither female nor male', i.e., by takingpumsaka to mean both masculine and feminine. The compound napumsakaitself has beencalled 'eine ritselhafte Bildung' (Wackernagel 1905:77).

42



11/24

NEGATIONS N PANINIANRULESobjections are made after interpreting prasajyapratisedhaso that 1.1.42-3 mustbe understood as three statements: (1) si sarvanamasthdnam(bhavati); (2) sut(sarvanamasthcnambhavati); (3) na bhavatinapumsakasya (Bh. 1.321 [1.101.6]).But (3) is a pratisedhawhich applies to (1), so that it negates the now tentativelabelling of si replacingjas, leaving si replacing sas, which is not a member of sut,as the domain of (1); cf. N 1.86: tasydstu [sa.mjnayaih]asah sirddeso'vakasah Thescope of application of it (the name sarvanamasthdna) s (then) si substituted forsas'; and Uddyota 1.321: sasi sdvakdSatvdtsince (the name sarvanamasthdna)has a scope of application, sas'. Consequently, vana-jas will not result in the re-quired vandni.Objection (a) can be avoided by invoking pbh. 46 (anantarasyavidirvdbhavatipratisedho va), according to which an operation or cancellation applies to itsimmediate neighbor. Therefore (3) applies only to (2), leaving (1) with the do-main of si replacing both jas and sas. Objection (b) is countered by stating thatwe need to admit such compounds as asuryampasya;cf. 1.3. Alternatively, 1.1.43may be interpreted as containing a paryuddsa, thus obtaining what was de-scribed in 1.3(3): 1.1.43 does not apply in the case of neuter (Bh. 1.321 [I.101.9]napumsake'vyaparah),leaving this domain to 1.1.42. Since si replaces only jasand sas after neuters, and 1.1.43 excludes neuters from its domain of operation,one obtains the desired forms vandni (nom., acc.), samanT.For 1.1.43, then, both paryuddsaand prasajyapratisedhacan yield an applica-tion leading to the desired results. However, commentators agree in preferringthe former. The reason given is that this results in ldghava'brevity', while inter-preting prasajyapratisedharesults in gaurava 'prolixity'. This gaurava,however,cannot be of the type most commonly discussed, namely padagaurava 'wordprolixity', which consists in having more words in a rule than are necessary.27For, whatever interpretation of 1.1.43 is adopted, the number of words in therule remains the same. The prolixity involved is similar to that which resultsfrom splitting a rule (yogavibhdga).Given a single rule with several words, it iscommon in the Bhasya to avoid some difficulties by suggesting that a rule besplit. But once such a split is made, two separate sentences are obtained withseparate meanings for each, whereas the same number of words taken as onesentence has only one sentential meaning. Hence yogavibhdga nvolves prolixity.This is formalized in pbh. 121: padagauravddyogavibhdgoariydn 'Rule splittingis more prolix than word prolixity', on which Nagesa comments: prativdkyambhinnavdkydrthabodhakalpanenaauravam spastameva 'It is clear that there isprolixity by virtue of assuming separate sentential meanings for each sentence.'28

27 It is worth noting that the oft-quoted pbh. 122 ardhaznatrdlaghavenautrotsavammanyantevaiydkara.nahGrammariansequate the saving of half a mora with the birth of ason' is nothing more than hyperbole. The least one considersfor discussions of economy is aword (pada), as Nagesa (PIe 199) clearly states. Indian grammariansdid not split hairs tothe degree that one might think.28Sometimes what came down traditionally to Patafijali as one rule had to be split;e.g. 1.4.58-9 prddayaupasargdhkriydyoge pra etc. (are termed) upasarga in junction withan activity' could not be consideredone rule, since this would not allowpra etc. to be callednipdta by 1.4.56 (2.4). What is wanted is prddayah (nipatah, 56); upasargdhkirydyoge praetc. (are termed nipata); in junction with an activity (pra etc. are termed) upasarga.'

43



12/24

LANGUAGE, VOLUME 43, NUMBER 1 (1967)Similarly, in the present case of 1.1.43, though the number of words remains thesame, if one interprets prasajyapratisedha, one must UNDERSTAND separate sen-tences (2) and (3), each with its meaning and application; if one interpretsparyuddsa, there is a single statement giving a single operation for a delimiteddomain. Moreover, interpreting prasajyapratisedhaalso requires the interventionof pbh. 46, not needed in paryudasa.This is preferred, therefore, because prasajya-pratisedhainvolves prolixity in understanding the correct application of the rule(pratipattigaurava);cf. N I. 86 yadyapyanantarasya vidhirvdbhavati pratisedhovetyetatsamdsrayenaprasajyapratisedhe'pye$adosah sakyate parihartum tathdpipratipattigauravamsydt Itathd hi vidhipratisedhayorvirodhddekenadkyenatdvac-chakyona vidhdtumitivdkyabhedahkartavyahsut sarvandmasthdnasamjno havatinapumsakasya ca na bhavatiItatascdsambaddhamprati$edhavacanamitiparva-sydpi prapterayampratisedhahsambhdvyetaThough by resorting to pbh. 46 thisfault is avoidable also for prasajyapratisedha(cf. above), there would, neverthe-less, then be prolixity in understanding. For in that case, since a vidhi and apratisedhacontradict each other, the ruling cannot be made in a single sentenceand separate sentences must be used ... As a result, since the negative sentencewould then be independent, it would be possible for it to negate what was ob-tained by the previous' (rule, 1.1.42).29To be sure, there might still be a reason for preferringprasajyapratisedhain1.1.43. In his discussion of 2.1.1 (11.504 [I.361.19-21]), Patafijali again cites theexamples of asamarthasamdsaused in his discussion of 1.1.43 and, in addition,he cites this sutra itself. The rule, thus interpreted as containing an asamartha-samasa, then could serve as an indicator (jidpaka) that such compounds areadmissible (cf. notes 21 and 26) and as a limitation (niyama) showing that they arelimited to negative compounds. But the purpose of the discussion of 2.1.1, where1.1.43 is cited, is to show that the word samartha s not needed in the formulationof 2.1.1. Though a detailed discussion of the rich content of the Bhasya on 2.1.1is out of place here, it must be agreedthat it is not worthwhile to adopt the prolixinterpretation of 1.1.43 and to modify 2.1.1, since other rules are available (cf.note 26) to show that an asamarthasamdsa s formed. Rather, we must admit,with commentators, that the solution justifying prasajyapratisedha n 1.1.43 is,as commonly throughout the Bhasya, a tour de force following the finally ac-ceptable conclusion (siddhanta) to show that an alternative also yields correctresults.302.1. There are rules for which, in spite of the resultant prolixity, prasajya-pratisedha is the preferred interpretation. A good example is 6.1.45 (adecaupadese'siti). This provides for the replacement of root final sounds of the groupec (e, o, ai, au) by a. If asiti in the rule is understood as paryudasa, the rule hasthe meaning given by the following or equivalent expansion: (1) dhdtvantasyaicadkdrddeso bhavati sidbhinnapratyaye paratah 'Root-final ec is replaced by d if

29 Similarly, PM, PK 1.147, SK 1.1.43, Bg 443, S 86, Pradipa ad 6.1.45 (IV.365).30Cf. Pradipa 1.320: prasajyapratisedhadrayena parvapaksah paryuddsadrayeniasid-dhantah 'The preliminary view depends on prasajyapratisedha, the final and accepted viewon paryuddsa.'

44



13/24

NEGATIONS IN PANINIAN RULESfollowed by a non-sit suffix.'3 If prasajyapratifedha, the rule is interpreted as:(2) dhatvantasyaicadkdrdde6e havati;siti na bhavati'Root-final ec is replaced bya; before a sit suffix it is not.' (1) results in the following faults:(a) Derivation of gldyanti 'they get fatigued' < glai: glai-sap-anti (3.1.68) -*glai-anti (6.1.87). By 6.1.85 (antadivacca),-a- < -a-a-(nti) obtained by 6.1.87 isconsidered the initial of -anti and the final of -(s)a(p), so that it is both sit andnon-sit. The condition is thus met for -ai -- d by 6.1.45; this then results inglai-anti -g gla-anti -- gldnti (6.1.101) instead of the desired glai-anti -- gldy-anti(6.1.78). According to (2), since glai occurs before a sit suffix in glai-anti, theundesired replacement cannot take place.(b) Derivation of sugla- 'very weary' < glai-: 3.1.36 (atascopasarge)shouldbe applied to a root form -gla- to get a sequence -gla-(k)a, whence, by 6.4.64(note 6), -gla-. But the replacement of -ai by a is conditioned by a followingsuffix, so that -gla-, eligible for suffixation of ka, is not obtained in the first place.By (2), the replacement is unconditioned, thus allowing the suffixation.(c) Derivation of jagle 3sg. pf. < glai-es:32The desired derivation is gla-e ->gla-gla-e (6.1.8) -- ga-gla-e (7.4.60) + ga-gla-e (7.4.59) -->ja-gla-e (7.4.62) -ja-gl-e (6.4.64). However, 1.1.59 (dvirvacane'ci)provides that the replacement of avowel, when conditioned by a following vowel before which reduplication takesplace, should be considered the same in form as the original. -d obtained by 6.1.45is to be considered as having the form ai; instead of gld-gld, therefore, one getsglai-gla, whence ji-gl- (7.4.59). This is avoided in (2), since the replacement isunconditioned.(d) Derivation of gldanyam'to be wearied' < glai-anTyar 3.1.96): Here thereis conflict (vipratisedha)between 6.1.45 and 6.1.78; by the latter one gets glady-anlyam. Applying 1.4.2 (viprati?edheparam kdryam), according to which thatoperation which is provided for later in the grammar takes place in such cases,6.1.78 must be applied. Again, in (2) the fault is avoided since the replacement isunconditioned.(2) involves the following possible faults:(e) Derivation of Vedic raridhvam(RV 5.83.6) < rai: The assumed derivation

31 In order to concentrate on the interpretation of the negative, I leave out of con-sideration the word upadese, referring to the listing of roots in the dhdtupdtha.32 Note that even in prasajyapratifedha,glai-es causes difficulty if sit is interpreted as abahuvrihi, 'which has a marker S' (Bh. IV.355 [III.35.17]Sakdra dyasyasoyamgit). This isbecause es is marked with 4, so that it is in the domain of the cancellation. Vt. 1 ad 6.1.45(attvaesyupasa.mkhydnam)roposes an addition to the rule (upasamkhydna)to allow forthe replacement in this context. This alternative is avoided by interpreting Sit as a karma-dhdraya, 'gwhich is a marker' (Bh. IV.355 [III.35.18].akdra it git). Since the only ? markerwhich occurs after roots ending in ec must belong to suffixes (pratyaya), one can then use1.1.72vt. 29 (yasminvidhistaddddvalgraha'ne).ccording to this, when an operation is givenwhich affects that which precedes something, stated in the locative (yasmin), the mentionof a sound is to be taken to include what begins with that sound. As in the case of 1.1.72(3), the sound is the qualifier of that which begins with it. In the present case, absence ofthe change from ec to d applies only before suffixes BEGINNING with 9, so that the changefrom ec to d does apply before eS.

45



14/24

LANGUAGE, VOLUME 43, NUMBER 1 (1967)is rai-sap-dhvam -> ra-slu-dhvam (2.4.76)33 -. rd-rd-dhvam(6.1.10) -> ra-rd-dhvam (7.4.59) -> ra-rz-dhvam(6.4.113). But 1.1.62 (pratyayalope pratyayalak-panam)provides that, when a suffixis deleted, the operation conditioned by it stilltakes place. Therefore, rai -- rd is cancelled, since the root occurs before 0which is sit (slu < sap). This argument applies also to (f) and (g).(f) Derivation of trddhvam do you protect' (RV 2.29.6) < trai: The presumedderivation is trai-sap-dhvam - trai-0-dhvam(2.4.73).(g) Derivation of sisite 'sharpens' (RV 5.2.9) < so-slu-te.A solution common to (e), (f), and (g) is obtained by invoking 1.1.63 (nalumatdngasya), according to which a deletion effected by a marker containing ludoes not have the effect provided for by 1.1.62. More specifically, for (e) thesolution is that raridhvan is from the root rd 'grant' (thus also Sayana ad loc.and other commentators in general); (f) is countered by considering trhdhvaman aorist, so that the root does not occur followed by a sit suffix; for (g) anothersolution is the assumption that, though the meaning is 'sharpen', the root is s7,homophonous with s' 'lie'. For the last solution one resorts to the view that rootshave many meanings: Bh. IV.356-7 (III.36.16), bahvarthdapi dhdtavobhavanti'There are also polysemic roots.'Though (2) is thus found acceptable, Patafijali goes on to justify (1) as follows(cf. 2, end):(a') 1.1.57 (acah parasminpurvavidhau) provides that the substituens of avowel whose replacement is conditioned by a succeeding element should be con-sidered equivalent to the substituendum (sthdnivat,56) when an operation onthe preceding is to be effected. The single replacement (ekddesa)-a- < -a-a- istherefore considered to have the status of the original, so that the root is saidto be separated from the non-sit suffix.(b') Panini's procedureshows that the suffixations that apply to -d roots alsoapply to -ec roots, since he sets up a rule (3.2.2 hvdvdmasca)providing for thesuffix an after roots hve'call', ve 'weave', md 'measure' under the same conditionsas for 3.2.1 (1), e.g. tantuvdya- weaver'. The operation given therein is an apavddaof the suffixation of ka to -a roots (3.2.3, 1); if the latter did not apply to -ecroots, 3.2.2 would be useless.(c') 1.1.59, which causes the difficulties, is elsewhere eliminated by counter-interpretation (pratydkhydyate). Alternatively, if 1.1.59 is kept, 6.1.37 (nasamprasdrane samprasaranam) and 6.1.38 (liti vayo yah) are read together insamhita fashion (samprasaranamlliti,cf. Cardona 1965a:229-30). This allows oneto interpret liti in 6.1.38 as containing two l's. In this way, by anuvrttiof liti into6.1.45, this rule is interpreted as providing for -ai - dan the perfect, not afterthe general perfect marker (lit) has been replaced by specific markers such as es,but at the 1stage, i.e. when lit follows. Now, since in glai-lit -> gla-lit the replace-ment does not take place before a vowel (aci), 1.1.59 does not apply.34

33glu is a zero substitute for gap; according to the rule it occurs sporadically (bahulam).glu is zero by 1.1.60-1 (cf. Shefts 1961:12-3).34This then avoids the problem and solutions mentioned in note 32. Another possiblesolution is noted in Tattv. ad SK2370 and already appears in PK (n. 36). This consists intaking agiti as a locative of domain (visayasaptami, n. 9) and interpreting sit as a kar-madhdraya (n. 32). The rule then provides ec -- a when a root in final ec is to occur before

46



15/24

NEGATIONS IN PANINIAN RULES(d') If 6.1.78 were to cancel 6.1.45, it would do so in all contexts where thelatter applies, that is, also when a vowel of a sit suffix follows the root. In thiscase, there would be no need for Panini to state asiti. That he did so shows that

the replacements ay etc. do not take precedence over a obtained by 6.1.45.Let us now balance one interpretation against the other. Assuming (2) in 6.1.45has the disadvantage of involving prolixity in that the rule must be understoodand applied as a sequence of two operations: unconditioned replacement of -ecby a tentatively applies, but this is cancelled when a sit suffix follows. Thisprolixity is avoided in (1), but at a considerable cost. For (b) one must invoke3.2.2 (b') as an indicator that -ec roots are subject to -a root suffixations. How-ever, if ai -- a is unconditioned, 3.2.2 is not merely an indicator but a necessaryrule; hence if (2) is interpreted, 3.2.2 need not be considered when 6.1.45 isapplied.35For (c), if 1.1.59 is to be kept, one must (c') carry over lit into 6.1.45and take it to contain a double 1.This is balanced against the interpretation of sitin asiti as a karmadhdraya,with consequent limitation of the meaning to 'suffixbeginning with s' (cf. note 32). But whether asiti is interpreted as containing abahuvrihior a karmadhdraya, he compound must be interpreted, hence this in-volves no difficulty; and a metarule such as 1.1.72 vt. 9 (cf. note 32), if it is formu-lated, must regularly be considered along with other rules. For (d) one mustassume (d') that the use of asiti in 6.1.45 not only defines a domain of operationbut also serves to show that 6.1.78 does not take precedence. If (2) is interpreted,asiti does not have to serve as an indicator (jndpaka). It would seem, then, thatinterpreting 6.1.45 with paryuddsa would involve more adjustments to avoidfaults (pratividheya), hence a greater prolixity in understanding the properapplication of the rule (pratipattigaurava), han would compensate for the prolix-ity involved in prasajyapratisedha.Commentators generally agree in preferringto interpret the latter in 6.1.45, though they usually mention that paryuddsaalsogives correct results; cf. KaY. 6.1.45 with N, Vitthala ad PK II.105,36SK 2370with Bal., Tattv.; BS 1723-4. Indeed, 6.1.45 is elsewhere referred to in theBhasya itself, as containing prasajyapratisedha, n the discussion of 1.1.59 (I.466[I.156.27]): anaimittikamdtvam?iti tu pratisedhah 'a-ness is unconditioned, butbefore (a) sit (suffix) negation (of it is provided).'2.2. The fact that adopting prasajyapratisedha n a rule containing a negativecompound involves understanding a separate negation of a positive operationa non-Sit-initial suffix. However, Nage6a (Bg 1723)rejects this for the following reason. Sitis interpreted as a karmadhdrayao that ? can be taken as the qualifier of a suffix; this ispossible in prasajyapratisedhabecause here the negative is taken separately, to be con-strued with a verb. But in paryuddsa, the negative and what immediately follows it aretaken together as a compound; it is not licit that part of a compound (Sit in asit) shouldbe used to qualify a suffix.35Cf. BS 1724.Tattv. ad SK 2370 takes 3.2.2 as indicating that there is prasajyapratisedhain 6.1.45.36Vitthala's commentary is noteworthy in that he seems to force the interpretation. Hestates: asititi prasajyapratisedhoyam '(This statement) asiti is a prasajyapratisedha'.But Ramacandra'sown explanation appears to set forth paryuddsaand visayasaptamr (cf.n. 34): upadesa ejantasya dhdtoreca dt sydt ddisitonyasmin pratyaye vivaksite 'Let there bea replacement d in a root taught with final ec when a suffix other than one with initial smarker is intended.'

47



16/24

LANGUAGE,VOLUME 3, NUMBER1 (1967)leads to an interesting development. The basis for the discussion is rule 1.2.4(sdrvadhdtukamapit),stating when a sdrvadhdtukasuffix (cf. note 13) is to beconsidered marked with i (1.2.1 nit). The question is whether apit should beinterpreted as a paryudasa or a prasajyaprati$edha. f the first choice is adopted,the rule is interpreted as providing that: (1) a sdrvadhatukasuffix other thanone marked with p (pit) is considered marked with n (Bh. II.11 [I.193.23]yadanyatpitah). If the second interpretation is adopted, (2) a sdrvadhatuka uffixis considered to be marked with n; if it is marked with p it is not so considered.Under (1) a fault arises in the derivation of cyavante 'they stir about' < cyu,the desired derivation of which is cyu-sap-ante-- cyu-ante (6.1.87) -- cyo-ante--cyav-ante (6.1.78). -a- from -a-a-(nte) by 6.1.87 is to be considered both pit andnon-pit by 6.1.85 (cf. 2.1[a]), so that 1.1.5 (1.1) applies and gu.nareplacement(cyu -- cyo) cannot take place. Under (2) a fault arises in the derivation oftuddni lsg. subj. < tud 'shove', which should be derived as follows: tud-sa-ni37-tud-a-ani (3.4.92, 1.1.46) -- tudani (6.1.101). But by 3.4.92 (dduttamasyapicca),the -a- appended to -ni is pit, so that -a- < -a-a- is also pit and therefore not nit.Hence, 1.1.5 will not operate here, and guna replacement (--todani) should re-sult. Both faults are avoided by bringing in 1.1.57 (2.1[a']), so that in cyu-anteand tud-ani the root is considered separated from the non-pit and pit suffixes bysap and sa. Since both (1) and (2) are acceptable, the implication is clear that (1)is preferable (cf. 2). This is the interpretation given by the Kasika: sarvadhdtukamyadapittannidvadbhavatiA sdrvadhatuka hat is non-pit is nit-like'; cf. SK 2234,S 366. However, an interesting use of (2) is made in the Bhasya's discussion of3.1.83 (halah snah sanajjhau). This rule provides for the replacement of sna(ninth-class present marker) occurring after consonant by sanac before -hi;38 .g.mu?ana < mu~ 'steal' (muinati). It is asked (III.157 [II.62.24]) why sdnac isgiven with a marker s. The answer is: so that 1.2.4 might apply, thus bringingin 1.1.5; for by marking -ana- with s, we include it in the sdrvadhdtuka uffixes(note 13). This is rejected, since, by 1.1.56 (sthanivadadeso'nalvidhau),he sub-stituens -ana- is considered like the substituendum, hence is considered as markedwith s. An alternative reason for marking -ana- with ? is then (III.158 [II.63.4-5])that this serves as an indicator (jndpaka) that, in replacements of sdrvadhatukasuffixes, 1.1.56 does not apply with respect to markerssuch as s; otherwise, listingsanac with s would be useless. If this view is adopted, it is not necessary to mark-tatreplacing imperative suffixes-tu and -hi (7.1.35 tuhyostatandasisyanyatarasyam)with n (tdtan). Though the substituenda are pit (tu < tip, hi < sip), the sub-stituens is no longer so. Without having to mark -tat with n, we find that it isnot pit, and hence can bring in 1.2.4 and 1.1.5 to get, e.g., bhavanbratat'may yousay'. If one adopts this view, however, a fault results: the desired guna replace-ment in, e.g., asunavam 'I pressed' < asuno-am by 7.3.84 (1.2), does not occur.Here, -am is a replacement of mip (3.4.101) but is not pit, so that 1.2.4 and 1.1.5intervene to impede the application of 7.3.84. Therefore, the proceduresupposedto be indicated by the use of s in 3.4.83 is rejected, and the marking with n for-tat and other similar markings are retained. A problem still remains: though

37 Sa replaces gap by 3.1.77 (tudddibhyah ah); ni replaces mip by 3.4.89 (mernih).38hi, now occurringafter a stem in -a, is zeroedby 6.4.105 (atoheh).

48



17/24

NEGATIONS IN P.NINIAN RULEStdtata s nit by overt marking, it is also pit by virtue of 1.1.56 (cf. above). There-fore, given bri-tip -> bri-tu -. bri-tdt, it would be possible to have the nit-nessof the suffixdetermine the absence of guna replacement and its pit-ness determineits receiving a grave accent (3.1.4 anudattau suppitau). But pit-ness also deter-mines the addition of augment -z- (7.3.93 bruvaZt)as in the 3sg. pres. ind. bravZti.To exclude such a possibility, there should be a statement that a pit suffix is notiit and a iit suffix is not pit. This is obtained (Bh. III.160 [II.64.9-11]) by inter-preting prasajyapratisedha n 1.2.4. Since the negative is then construed with theverb bhavati to form a separate sentence na bhavati, this sentence can have asubject pit in 1.2.4 (pinninna bhavati) and then be carried into the next rule(1.2.5), but now with a subject nit (nicca pinna bhavati,Bh. III.160 [II.64.10]).This is succinctly put by Haradatta (PM 1.268): tatra [prasajyaprati?edhe]hiprthakkrtasyanano yathe.tamabhisambandho havatipinninna bhavati icca pinnabhavati'In that case [prasajyapratisedha],nai, which is taken separately, is con-strued ad libitum ...'2.3. In some ambiguous cases, the choice of negative interpretation is deter-mined not by the relative prolixity and complications which result from applyinga rule, but by the fact that only one interpretation can actually be applied toyield the results desired. For example, 6.1.132 (etattadohsulopo 'koranansamdsehali) provides for the deletion of su (nom. sg. suffix) occurringwith etat 'this' andtat 'that' when a consonant follows, thus esa daddti 'he gives'. One of the condi-tions limiting the application of this rule is anansamdse.If this is interpreted as aparyuddsa ('non-negative compound'), proper results are not obtained; for pbh.74 (note 19) intervenes and the deletion applies only in compounds. Hence, onlyprasajyapratiqedha 'not in a negative compound') gives the needed applicationto yield both aneso daddti and efa daddti.This rule is of special interest because of the interpretation found in the Kasika:etattadau ydvakakdraunansamdse na vartetetayor yah susabdah... tasya samhi-tdydm visaye hali parato lopo bhavati'su pertaining to etat and tat which do notcontaink, and WHICH DO NOT OCCUR IN A NEGATIVE COMPOUND, is deleted ...'The important words here are yau ... nafsamdse na vartete,the translation ofwhich is emphasized. For, though the Kasika interprets prasajyapratifedhabyconnecting the negative with a verb, it does so differently from the way describedin 1.1-1.2. The Kasika's statement is equivalent to (1) yadyetattadaunansamdsena vartete addsulopo bhavati If etatand tat do not occur in a negative compound,then there is deletion of su.' Prasajyaprati$edhaas described above would bestated as (2) etattadohsulopo bhavatiInansamdse tu na bhavati'There is deletionof su pertaining to etat and tat, but not in a negative compound.' The paryuddsainterpretation would be (3) yadyetattaddvanansamdseartete tadd sulopo bhavati'If etat and tat occur in non-negative compounds, then there is deletion of su.'For reasons given above, (3) is not acceptable, and both (1) and (2) give a correctapplication of the rule. But (1) and (3) are similar in that they both state a singleconditioned operation, while (2), which represents the formulation of prasajya-pratisedhadescribed in 1.1-1.2, sets up an unconditioned deletion and its can-cellation in a specific domain (negative compounds). The question is whether onemust accept formulations of type (1) also as representing prasajyapratisedha.

49



18/24

LANGUAGE, VOLUME 43, NUMBER 1 (1967)In considering this question, we must note that 6.1.132 stands free from theimmediately surrounding rules in the sense that, though the next rule (6.1.133syachandasi bahulam)also provides for the deletion of su, it does so for a differentitem (sya), and the question of whether 6.1.132 is interpreted with paryuddsaorprasjyapratisedhadoes not have any effect on the application of 6.1.133. Thesituation here is similar to that of 6.1.45 (cf. 2.1). The preceding rule (6.1.44vibhdsd pareh [vyasca, 43]) provides for the optional absence of samprasdranareplacement of the root vye 'cover' preceded by pari and followed by the absolu-tive suffixya (parivydya,parivTya).The following rule (6.1.46 na vyoliti) providesfor not replacing the -e of vye by d in the perfect (liti). This situation is quitedifferent from that of 1.1.42-3, discussed in 2. For ease of the present discussion,let us repeat that the paryudasa interpretation of 1.1.43 is (4) napumsakabhin-

nasya sut sarvanamasthdnasamjnobhavati sut connected with non-neuter istermed sarvanamasthdna';and that the prasajya pratisedhainterpretation is (5)sut sarvandmasthdnasamjiobhavatinapumsakasya tu na bhavati 'sut is termedsarvandmasthdna, nd if it is connected with neuter it is not so termed.' Now let usintroduce another prasajyapratisedha interpretation parallel to (1), namely (6)yadi sut napumsakasya na bhavatitadd sarvanamasthanasamjnobhavati 'If sut isnot connected with neuter it is termed sarvandmasthdna':his would be a generalrule introducing the technical term everywhere save after neuter stems. On thecontrary, 1.1.42 would be a specific rule introducing this term only for si, whichis limited to neuters. Therefore, as discussed above (1), 1.1.42 would enter intoconsideration first, operate within its domain, and leave the remaining domainsfor 1.1.43 as interpreted in (6). Patafnjali's argument given in 2, however, iscogent only if interpretation (5) is adopted. The same reasoning applies to hisargument for 1.4.14 (suptinantam padam) and 1.4.17 (svddipvasarvanamasthdne)and for 1.2.43-4; cf. Bh. II.363 (I.319.12-13) and II.67 (I.215.24-216.1). In thesecases, we are dealing with pairs of close-knit rules where the interpretation of thenegative compound in one rule affects the application of the other. In the case of6.1.132, the preceding rule is not specifically related to it with respect to theoperation provided; the following rule is so related, but, as noted above, theinterpretation of the negative compound does not affect 6.1.133. 6.1.46 is similarlyrelated to 6.1.45 in that ddecahis carried over from the former into the latter,while the interpretation of the negative compound in 6.1.45 has no effect on6.1.46; and the operation of 6.1.44 is unrelated to that of 6.1.45. In such cases,which we might term neutral with respect to the interpretation of the negativecompound, a formulation such as (1) is possible and yields the same results as (2).Thus for 6.1.45 we might consider both the prasajyapratisedhainterpretationalready noted, namely (7) dhdtvantasyaicadkdrddesobhavati siti tu na bhavati;and another one, (8) yadi siti na vartataejantasya dhdtorddddesohavati If it doesnot occur before sit an -ec root has a replacement.' But this is a conditioned rule,and hence it is clear that Patafijali did not operate with a formulation such as (8);he clearly notes that the replacement is unconditioned (2.1).It is understandable why Patafijali operated with type (7) instead of (8). The39E.g. vivydya 3sg.), with samprasara.nareplacementn the reduplication y 6.1.17,vrddhi eplacement f e by 7.2.115,anddy by 6.1.78.

50



19/24

NEGATIONS IN PANINIAN RULESformer type is necessary where there is closest interrelation of rules; not onlyare the rules related with respect to their content, but the way one is appliedaffects the way the other is applied. The procedure applicable in such cases isthen taken to apply elsewhere, including rules such as 6.1.45 and 6.1.132. Sincethese two rules are similar, the interpretation applied to the former should holdfor the latter. Since Patafijali applied (7) to 6.1.45, it is impossible to accept theKasika's formulation (1) as it stands. It must then be considered a loose formu-lation in a context where the difference between types (1), (8) and (2), (7) is notcrucial.2.4. The point made in the last paragraph of 2.3 is confirmed when we con-sider 1.4.57 (cddayo'sattve).This rule provides that ca etc. be termed particles(nipata, 1.4.56). The question is whether asattve s to be interpreted as paryuddsaor prasajyapratisedha.If the former is adopted the rule means (1) yadi sattva-bhinne vartantecddayonipdtasamjnii bhavanti 'If they mean a non-thing, ca etc.are called particles'; cf. Bh. II.443 (I.341.5). If the second alternative is adopted,one interprets (2) cddayo nipdtasamjni bhavantiIyadi tu sattve vartante taddnipatasamjid na bhavanti 'ca etc. are called particles, but if they mean a thingthey are not.' The most straightforward example showing that (1) cannot beadopted is pasu, which means both 'animal' and 'certainly, exactly' (samyak).Now, pasu 'animal', which should not be a particle, means 'thing qualified bygeneric quality' (jdtivisistadravya),hence also means non-thing; if (1) is adopted,it will then be a particle. By (2) the fault does not result.

The Kasika interprets 1.4.57 as (3) cddayonipdtasamjnidbhavantina cetsattvevartante'ca etc. are called particles if they do not mean a thing.' It also specifiesprasajyapratigedho'yamThis is a prasajyapratisedha.'But Haradatta (PM 1.589)modifies this formulation: sattve ced vartatetadd sa.mjnada bhavatTtyarthastaddhaprasajyapratisedho'yamiti'The meaning is If it [ca etc.] denotes a thing thenthere is not the term [nipdta applied to it] , thence the statement, this isprasajyapratigedha .' 1.4.57 interpreted as in the Kaiika-cf. (3)-would givethe same results as (2), but Haradatta has corrected the loose statement (3) tomake it conform to the general formulation of prasajyapratisedha;what is ne-gated is not the denotation of thing but the ruling in of the term nipata.3. It is unfortunate that 1.4.57 (2.4) is usually cited as the prime example toillustrate and discuss the contrast between paryudasa and prasajyapratisedha.4040 Renou (1942:202)cites this as his first example. Following him, Scharfe (63-4) usesthis example only. Renou adds two examples, neither of which is of the crucial typediscussed in 2. The first is vt. 4 ad 6.1.17 (cited in KaE.ad 1.2.1): vyacehkutdditvamanasyan-niti samprasdrandrtham.The varttika proposes that vyac 'deceive' be a member of thegroup kutadi. By 1.2.1, after members of this group, suffixes not marked with n or n areconsidered marked with n. By 6.1.16, vyac followed by kit or nit suffixes has samprasara.nareplacement. Thus vyac-kta - vic-ita;vyac-?a-tip, n which gais sdrvadhdtuka nd not marked

with p, hence considered as marked with n (cf. 2.2 and n. 13), yields vicati. The purposeof the varttika cited is to introduce superimposed n marking in cases such as vyac-trc,where the agent suffixtrc is not markedwith k or i. Since it is not markedwith n oroi either,by 1.2.1 it is consideredmarkedwith f, yielding a form vicita. The problem of whether anasiis to be interpreted with paryuddsa or prasajyapratisedhacomes up in the 2sg. perfect.Here, vyac-tha(< sip, 3.4.82) has an ending marked with p. It is therefore not subject to

51



20/24

LANGUAGE, VOLUME 43, NUMBER 1 (1967)There are several reasons for this. First, as we have noted, this rule is of the typefor which a formulation such as 2.4(3) is possible. Secondly, the discussion inthe Bh.sya is tortuous and recherch6.Thirdly, there is serious disagreement inone major later Paniniya.The discussion in the Bhasya (11.443-4 [1.341.5-9]) centers about the wordvipra. This is normally underived and means 'Brahman', but it can also be de-rived from viprdti 'fills up', with suffix ka by 3.1.136, and then means 'one whofills up'. Now, pra in vipra is derived from a verb with agential suffix (3.4.67kartarikrt) and means both activity ('filling') and thing ('he who fills'). If asattvein 1.4.57 is interpreted as paryudasa, since it carries over into 1.4.58 (prddayah),it applies there as paryudasa. pra given in 1.4.58 is then termed a particle when itmeans a non-thing. Therefore, the pra of vipra < viprdti, which means a non-thing (activity) in addition to a thing, and the pra of 1.4.58 are not only identicalin form but also share the feature of being called particles. The statement in theBhasya is asti ca prddibhih sdminyamiti krtvd . 'There is a common feature(between the pra of vipra and the pra listed among) pra etc. ...' From this isdrawn the conclusion: tadantavidhindnipdtasamjnd prdpnoti 'By 1.1.72 (yenavi-dhistadantasya)nipdtasamjna obtains.' But this reasoning is not at all straight-forward. Considerfirst 1.1.72: this is a metarule providing that when an operationis ruled in by using a qualifier (visesana), we are to apply the operation not onlyto the qualifier given but also to what ends in it (tadanta). For example, 3.3.56(erac) states that the suffix a(c) is to follow roots in -i when there is denoted,among others, the base meaning of the verb (bhdva); e.g. jaya- 'conquering,winning' < ji. Here i, cited in the ablative, is a qualifier whose qualificand issupplied by the governing rule (adhikdra)3.1.91 (dhatoh),so that the suffixationapplies to ROOTS ENDING IN i. The situation in 1.4.57-8 is quite different; thereis no qualificand immediately available, so that it seems impossible to use 1.1.72.This rule can be used, however, if in Patafijali's statement cited above, nipata-samjnii means not 'the term nipdta' but rather 'the term which applies to anipdta'-that is, by 1.1.37 (svarddinipatamavyayam), he term avyaya 'indeclin-able'. Since pra in vipra is then an avyaya by virtue of its being a nipata, 1.1.72can be used. For vt. 8 on 1.1.72 (prayojamsarvanJdmvyayasamjnaydm) ives asone of the factors necessitating the formulation of this rule (prayojana) the need1.2.5, whereby non-pit endings of the perfect occurring after roots which do not end in acluster are considered kit. Consequently, samprasdranasubstitution by 6.1.16 does notoccur if anasi is interpreted as paryuddsa.For, in this case, by pbh. 74 (n. 19) 'non-as' re-fers to what is similar to as, namely primaryderivative suffixes (krt). If anasi is interpretedwith prasajyaprati?edha, the varttika states that vyac is to be a member of kutddibut notwhen it occurs before as. In this case, tha qualifies for being considered nit by virtue ofbeing neither nit nor nit and by occurringafter a member of the kutddigroup; 6.1.16 there-fore takes effect, giving vivicitha. The discussion of whether one type of negation or theother is to be interpreted concerns a varttika and only one verb; it has no effect on closelyrelated rules, as in the cases given in 2. Here prasajyapratisedhacould be interpreted asyielding a statement, 'If vyacdoes not occur before as . . . ', that is of the type given in theKagikaad 6.1.132, 1.4.57,with no differencein the results. Renou's third example is akartariin 3.3.19 (see n. 21): here again the rule is of the type I have called neutral. The precedingrule (3.3.18 bhdve)gives a distinct domain for the use of ghan; interpreting prasajyapra-tisedhawould have no effect on 3.3.18.

52



21/24

NEGATIONS IN PANINIAN RULESfor its applying in the case of the term avyaya.4' Hence, when 1.1.37 brings inthe term avyaya, giving among the definienda nipata, we are to understand thatwhat ends in a nipdta is also called avyaya. On the strength of the varttika state-ment just quoted, we are then to understand that the qualificand of nipdta isthe word itself (Uddyota II.444: sabdarupam viesfyamdddya tadantavidhih).Therefore, vipra is subject to operations affecting indeclinables: by 2.4.82(avyaydddpsupah)nominal case suffixes (sup) are deleted after it, so that thedesired viprah, vipram, etc. are not obtained; application of 6.2.2 (tatpurue ...avyaya ... [prakrtydpirvapadam, 6.2.1]) gives an acute on the i of viprakambala'filler's blanket',42 nstead of the desired acute on the last vowel of the compound(by 6.1.223). These faults do not result from viprabeing a particle, let us reiterate,but from its being an indeclinable as a consequence of pra in it being a particle.This is lucidly summarizedby Haradatta (PM 1.590): atraprasabdahkriydvisistedravye vartateItatra kriyddravyasamuddyasyadravyddanyatvdnnipdtatve atya-vyayasamjnadydm tadantavidherabhyupagamddviprasabdasydvyayasarmjndydt'Here (in vipra) pra means a thing qualified by activity; since the combination ofactivity and thing is distinct from thing, it is a nipata; given this, since for theterm avyaya 1.1.72 is accepted to operate, vipra would then be an avyaya.'This argument is of course quite tortuous: the discussion on 1.4.57 does notreally concern the rule directly, nor does it directly concern the term nipataexcept as contributing to a form's being called avyaya. The discussion could moreeasily and fruitfully have centered about the word pasu, mentioned above, andin fact most commentators do use this as the prime example (e.g. KAY.,N., PM,SK 20). Indeed, Nagesa (II.444) informsus that the discussion summarizedaboveis said to be considered as taking place between two ekadesin, that is, two dis-cussants who do not know the whole truth about the question: ekadesinoruk-tiritydhuh.Moreover, one of the giants of later Paniniyas, Bhattoji, in one of his works,does interpret 1.4.57 as containing paryuddsa. In SK 20 he interprets the rule asadravydrthascddayo ipdtasamjnadhyuh 'Let ca etc. meaning non-thing be calledparticles'; and in his autocommentary (Praudh. 95) he says: adravydrthdh im Ipasuh 'Why meaning non-thing? (Because of the faults which would otherwiseresult in the word) pasuh.'4 In his commentary on SK 20, Nagega (? 20) givesthe expected reason for the choice of paryuddsa over prasajyapratigedha: t re-sults in brevity (ldghavdt).To avoid the possible faults which could arise fromthis interpretation, he takes asattve as indicating exclusion of those items whose

41 Pradipa II.443: ayamarthah nipdtasya sa.mjgdnipdtasa.mjndd cdvyayasanmjnd/tasydarcasti tadantavidhihprayojanarnsarvandmdvyayasa.mjndydmiti.charfe's translation (63-4)of Bh. asti ca prddibhih sdmdnyam .. as 'Und in der Uberlegung: es ist eine Gemein-samkeit mit pra usw. wirdnachPan. 1.1.72derTerminus Partikel ich fialschlichr-geben' is uninformative.His translation, Wennes ein paryuddsaware,wiirdesich [dieBezeichnung Partikel ] alschlichauchfiir das Nomenvipraergeben... ', is discon-sonant with the commentary havecited,which n this caseit seemsreasonableo follow.42This is an obvious mitation of brdhmanakambalasedby Patafijalias an example nhis discussionof 6.1.91(IV.429 III.72.16]), ndplayson the homophony f viprameaningbrdhma.nand vipra derived from viprdti.43 In SK 1.4.56,however,Bhattojifollowsthe generalopinionby interpreting rasajya-prati~edha.

53



22/24

LANGUAGE, VOLUME 43, NUMBER 1 (1967)PRINCIPAL MEANING is that which is distinct from thing: visesatayd dravyabhin-ndrthd iti. Therefore pasu 'animal' does not qualify for being a particle; it meansthing qualified by universal quality (jdtivisistadravya),so that its principalmean-ing is thing and its qualifying meaning (visehana) is universal quality (jati).Similarly vipra means a thing qualified by activity (kriydvisis.tadravya);ts prin-cipal meaning is thing, hence it is not a particle.As might be expected, any discussion of the difference between paryudasa andprasajyaprati~edhawhich concentrates exclusively on 1.4.57 is itself apt to beconfused and misleading. Thus Scharfe, although he defines the two negationsaptly enough (64), is quite unclear about the Bhasya's discussion of 1.4.57 (cf.note 41). He goes on to discuss logical aspects of the distinction, and here toohe is not very clear, as has been pointed out by Staal (1963:255). But Staal him-self is unclear about the basic distinction. He states, 'If the negation is prasajya-pratisedhait has to be combined with the verb and the sitra means: if ca, etc.,do not denote a thing, they are particles. ' This is, as we have noted (2.4), theinterpretation given in the Kasika44and does not reflect the essential aspect ofprasajyaprati~edha.45

4. SUMMARY.anini formulates general and specific rules. He also gives nega-tive rules. These are both rules operating on items (e.g. 6.1.46, 2.3) and metarules(e.g. 1.1.5, 1.1, 1.3). A specific rule counters a general rule by providing a positiveoperation in a specific domain, thus limiting the domain of the general rule. Anegative rule counters a positive rule by cancelling its operation. In rules withambiguous negative compounds, the negative can be construed with the nominalwith which it appears compounded, or with a verb. In the former case, the resultis a positive rule operating in a domain specified by the negative compound. Inthe latter case, the result is a negative rule which cancels the operation suppliedby the rest of the statement in which the negative compound occurs. The formeris preferablewherever possible for reasons of brevity, but this brevity has nothingto do with the number of words in a rule. The essential point here is that thesame rule, under different interpretations, may be applied in one or two steps.Finally, it is of interest that PSnini found it necessary in the first place to givenegative rules in addition to general and specific rules.

REFERENCESABHYANKAR, KASHINATHV. 1961. A dictionary of Sanskrit grammar. (Gaekwad's Orien-tal series, 134.) Baroda,Oriental nstitute.CARDONA,GEORGE. 1965a. On Panini's morphophonemic principles. Lg. 41.225-38.. 1965b. On translatingand formalizingPanineanrules. Journal of the OrientalInstitute, Baroda, 14.306-14.

44Renou's rendition (1948:47), 'excepte pour designer une substance', is acceptable asone based on the Kaiika; elsewhere (1942:202)he renders 'la regle ne vaut pas quand il y aexpression d'une substance.'

46 By also formalizing 3.3.19 when interpreted with prasajyaprati$edhaas F (a,c) A-F (a,n), meaning '(The suffix ghan is) not (applied) to the nominative (but is applied)to case relationships' (in this case basing himself on Renou 1940:114), Staal (1962:59-60)accepts, perhaps inadvertently, two types of prasajyapratisedha interpretations.

54



23/24

NEGATIONS IN PANIINIAN RULESEDGERTON,FRANKLIN.1929. The Mimamsa Nyaya Prak&aa.New Haven, Yale UniversityPress.FOWLER,MURRAY. 965. How ordered are Panini's rules? JAOS 85.44-7.JHALAKIKAR, MM BHIMACARYA.1928. Nyayakosa or dictionary of technical terms ofIndian Philosophy. Revised and re-edited by MM V. S. Abhyankar. Poona, Bhan-darkar Institute.OJIHARA, YUTAKA, and Louis RENOU.1960. La Kasika-vrtti, lere partie (adhyaya I,pada 1). Paris, Rcole Franqaise d'Extreme Orient.RENOU,LOUis. 1940. La Durghatavrtti de Saranadeva, vol. I, fasc. 1: Introduction.Paris, Soci6t6 d'ldition 'Les Belles Lettres'.--. 1942. Terminologie grammaticale du Sanskrit. Paris, Librairie Ancienne Honor6Champion.. 1948. La grammaire de Panini, fasc. 1. Paris, Librairie C. Klincksieck.SCHARFE,HARTMUT. 1961. Die Logik im Mahabhasya. (Deutsche Akademie der Wissen-schaften zu Berlin, Institut fiir Orientforschung, Ver6ffentlichung Nr. 50.) Berlin,Akademie-Verlag.SHEFTS,BETTY. 1961. Grammatical method in Panini. (American Oriental series, essay 1.)New Haven, American Oriental Society.STAAL, JOHAN F. 1962. Negation and the law of contradiction in Indian thought: a com-parative study. BSOAS 25.52-71.- . 1963. Review of Die Logik im Mahabhasya, by H. Scharfe. JAOS 83.252-6.WACKERNAGEL,AKOB.1905. Altindische Grammatik. Band II,1. Gottingen, Vanden-hoeck und Ruprecht.

Sanskrit workscitedBhasya on the Rigveda of Sayana. In Rgvedasamhita. Poona, Vaidika SamshodhanaMandala, 1933-1951.Brhacchabdendusekhara of Nagesa. Ed. by Sitaramshastri. (Sarasvati Bhavana gran-thamala.) Varanasi, 1960. [abbr. BS]Kasikavrtti of Vamana and Jayaditya. (Kaii Samskrta granthamala.) Varanasi, 1952.[abbr. KaM.]Ka?ikavivaranapanjika (Nyasa) of Jinendrabuddhi. 3 vols. Ed. by S. C. Chakravarti.Dacca, 1925. [abbr. N]Laghugabdendugekharaof NageSa. KMi, 1887. [abbr. S]MahabhasyapradIpoddyotana of Annambhatta. 2 vols. Ed. by P. P. S. Shastri and T.Chandrasekharam. (Madras Government Oriental Mss. series 7, 13.) Madras, 1948,1952.NyayasQtras of Gotama with Bhasya of Vatsyayana. (Chowkhamba Sanskrit series.)Benares, 1925. [abbr. NS]Padamainjariof Haradatta. In Kasikavrtti, with Nyasa and Padamanjari, ed. by SwamiD. D. Shastri. 2 vols. (up to end of 3.2). Varanasi, 1965. [abbr. PM]Paribhasendusekhara of Nagesa. Ed. and tr. by F. Kielhorn.New ed. by K. V. Abhyan-kar, with the commentary Tattvadarsa of V. S. Shastri Abhyankar. 2 parts.Poona, 1960, 1962. [abbr. PIS (all references are to pt. 1)]Pradipa. See Vyakaranamahabhasya.Prakriyakaumudi of Ramacandra. With commentary Prasada of Vitthala. Ed. by R. B.Kamalashankar Pranashankar Trivedi. (Bombay Sanskrit and Prakrit series, 78, 82.)Bombay, 1925, 1931. [abbr. PK]Praudhamanorama of Bhattoji Diksita. (Kasi Samskrta granthamala.) Benares, 1939.Sabdakaustubha of Bhattoji. 2 vols. (Chowkhamba Sanskrit series.) Benares, 1917, 1933.[abbr. SK]Siddhantakamudi of Bhattoji. With Balamanorama. (Kai Samskrta granthamial.)Varanasi, 1958. [abbr.SK]--. With Tattvabodhini. Bombay, Srivefkategvar Steam Press, samvat 1982.Uddyota. See Vyakaranamahabhasya.

55



24/24

56 LANGUAGE, VOLUME 43, NUMBER 1 (1967)Vakyapadiya of Bhartrhari. (Benares Sanskrit series, 6.) Benares, 1884-1937.VaiyAkaranaparamalaghumafnjus of Nagesa. (Haridasa Samskrta granthamala.)Varanasi, 1946. [abbr. PLM]Vaiyakaranasiddhantalaghumanfijsaof Nagesa. (Chowkhamba Sanskrit series.) Benares,1913-26. [abbr. M]Vyakaranamahabhasya of Patanjali. Ed. by F. Kielhorn. 2nd ed., vol. 3, 1909. 3d ed.,revised by K. V. Abhyankar: vol. 1, 1962; vol. 2, 1965. Poona, Bhandarkar Institute.[abbr. Bh]- . With Pradipa of Kaiyata [abbr. Pr] and Uddyota of Nagesa. 5 vols. Gurukul Jhaj-jar (Rohatak), 1962-3.

Documents

AmericaNegations in Pāṇinian RulesAuthor(s) George Cardona