Yaska And Sentence Beginning Ofsabdabodha

Author(s): Johannes Bronkhorst
Publisher: Johannes Bronkhorst
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/269587/1

Page #1

Johannes Bronkhorst
Yaska and the sentence : the beginning
of Sābdabodha?
JOHANNES BRONKHORST
The very first section of the Nirukta (1.1) contains, in Sarup's edition, the following passage:
bhāvapradhanam ākhyātam/ sattvapradhānāni nāmāni/ tad yatrobhe bhāvapradhane bhavatah pürväparibhūtam bhavam ākhyatenacaste/ vrajati pacatitil upakramaprabhrtyapavargaparyantam mūrtam sattvabhūtam sattvanamabhih/ vrajya paktir itil ada iti sattvānām upadeśah/ gaur afvah puruso hastitil bhavatiti bhāvasyal áste sete vrajati
tisthatitil Roth's edition has the same text, but without the punctuation. The same is true for Räjavāde's and Vidyasagara's editions (both with Durga's commentary). Bhadkamkar's edition (also with Durga's commentary) takes a middle position, adding some punctuation marks (dandas), but not quite as many as Sarup. Sarup translates :
[T]he verb has becoming as its fundamental notion, nouns have being as their fundamental notion. But where both are dominated by becoming, a becoming arising from a former to a later state is denoted by a verb, as 'he goes', 'he cooks', &c.
The embodiment of the whole process from the beginning to the end, which has assumed the character of being, is denoted by a noun, as 'going'. *cooking', & c. The demonstrative pronoun is a reference to beings, as 'cow', 'horse', 'man', -elephant', &c.; to be', to becoming, as the sits',
'he sleeps', 'he goes', 'he stands', &c. Houben (1997 : 72) translates, similarly :
...But where both have bhäva "being, becoming" as the main thing, the bhäva which has a sequence is denoted by a verb, e.g. "he goes", "he cooks". (But the bhäva] which is an existing thing embodying (a bhava) from the beginning to the end [is denoted] by nouns expressing an existing thing, e.g. "going", "cooking". [The pronoun) adas "that" is a reference to existing things. e.g. cow, horse, man, elephant. (The verb) bhavati "it is, becomes" [is a reference to a bhäva "being, becoming", e.g. he is laying (sic), he goes, he
stands. These translations depend in an essential respect on Sarup's punctuation, or more precisely : on its absence at a crucial junction. Both the commentaries of Skandasvåmin/Maheśvara and of Durga understand the part tad yatrobhe bhävapradhane bhavatah as a complete sentence. This is clear from their remarks. The commentary of Skandasvămin/Maheśvara explains (Sarup, 1982: I p. 9 1.14-16):
tad yatrobhe ityādi/... yatrobhe nämäkhyāte devadattah pacatiti väkyävasthāyām, yatreti frutes tatrety adhyāhāryam, tatra bhāvapradhane bhavarah, bhāvasya sādhyatvät, sattvasya ca sadhanatvät, sädhyasadhanayos ca sădhyasya prádhányāt.

Page #2

46
Subhaşini
Johannes Bronkhorst
[Concering) yatrobhe etc.: .... 'Where both - i.e. a noun (naman) and a verb (akhyāta) - (means:) in the case of a sentence (such as) 'Devadatta cooks'. Since yatra 'where is expressed, tatra there has to be supplied, so that one gets:) 'there both have activity (bhava) as principal (meaning!', because bhāva is that which is to be accomplished (sādhya), and sattva is that which accomplishes (sādhaka), and because, from among that which is to be accomplished and that which accomplishes, that which is to be
accomplished is the principal thing. Skandasvamin/Maheśvara clearly understood tad yatrobhe bhävapradhäne bhavatah to mean: 'Where both [a nominal word and a verb are present, there) both have activity (bhava) as principal (meaning]'. They both have bhava as principal meaning, because the sentence - e... 'Devadatta cooks' (devadattah pacati) - has bhāva as principal meaning. This bhava is expressed by the verb, which is qualified by the noun.
Durga expresses his views in the following passage (Rajavāde, 1921 : 1 p.16 1. 17-24; Bhadkamkar, 1918 : I p. 41 1.):
tad yatrobhe bhāvapradhane bhavatah/../ atha punar yatra te (variant: yatraite) ubhe bhavatah/ kva ca punar ubhe ete (variant: ete ubhe) bhavatah/ vakyel tatra kasya pradhanam arthah (variant: pradhānorthah) kasya gunabhita iti śrnul bhävapradhane bhavatas tasya cikirşitatvät/ vakye hy akhyātam pradhanam tadarthatvad gunabhūtam näma tadarthasya bhavanispattav angabhūtatvāt/ evam tāvad akhyātam vākye pradhanam/
(Concerning) yatrobhe bhāvapradhane bhavatah. ...But where both of them (ie. a noun and
a verb) occur. But where do both occur? In a sentence. In that (situation), whose meaning is the principal thing, (and) whose is secondary? Listen They have bhava as principal (meaning), because [bhava) is desired to be brought about. For in a sentence the verb is the principal thing, because it is for that, (and) the noun is secondary, because its meaning is subsidiary to the bringing about of bhāva. In this way, then, the verb is the principal
thing in the sentence. Elsewhere, on Nir 1. 9, Durga confirms and elaborates his position by stating that in explaining a sentence a different order of words prevails from that used in recitation. When explaining, the verb is most important, then the noun, then prepositions, and finally particles (Rajavade, 1921: I p. 62 I. 5-7; Bhadkamkar, 1918: I p. 911. 15-16: vyakhyakále... akhyātapadam pradhanam tad anu nama tad anūpasargas tad anu nipātā[h]).
Nilakantha Gårgya, the author of the Niruktaślokavårttika (a metrical commentary), is of the same opinion as his predecessors, as will be clear from the following lines (Vijayapāla, 1982, p. 26 verses 1999ab & 201vd-202ab):
tad yatretyadiväkyena vākyartho 'py adhunocyate .... nāmākhyāte prayujyete yadā vākyarthasiddhaye il ubhe bhāvapradhāne tu tadā syātām itiritam
The sentence fad yatra etc. introduces also the meaning of the sentence. ...
When [both) a noun and a verb are used in order to establish the meaning of a sentence, then both have bhäva as principal (meaning); this is here
proclaimed. Rudolph Roth, too, takes tad yatrobhe bhävapradhane bhavatah to be a separate sentence, to be understood in the

Page #3

Subhasini
Johannes Bronkhorst
way of Durga, Skandasvamin/ Maheśvara, and Nilakantha. This is clear from his Erläuterungen, where he offers the following translation/interpretation (p.4): "Wo beide verbunden stehen (im Satze) vereinigen sie sich zum Ausdruck eines Werdens."
It is tempting to understand Durga, Skandasvamin/ Maheśvara and Nilakantha, as well as Roth, in the light of later developments of the ideas about the expressiveness of sentences, developments long after Yaska that culminated in what came to be known as sābdabodha. It is not necessary here to describe these developments in detail, and it must suffice to recall that the grammarians - who in this respect had to defend their position against the Mimāmsakas and the Navya Naiyāyikas - came to maintain that the meaning of the verb (or more specifically that of the verbal root) is the main qualificand of the sentence, which is qualified, among other things, by the meaning of the noun that is expressive of the grammatical subject.
The earliest author whose surviving remarks are suggestive in this connection is Patañjali (2nd century B. C. E.), whose Mahābhāşya contains the following statement: 5
apara ahal akhyātam saviseșanam ity eval sarväni hy etāni kriyaviseșanāni /
Others say: "A (finite) verb with qualifications [makes a sentence]", simply. For all these
[qualifying words) are qualifications to the action. It is however far from clear that Patanjali himself accepted this position, nor is it clear that Patañjali proposes to analyse sentences in this hierachical manner.
This changes with Bharthari (5th century C. E.), whose Väkyapadiya contains the following verses: 6
bahūnām sambhave 'rthânām kecid evopakärinah samsarge kaścid eşām tu pradhânyena pratiyate /
sādhyarvät tatra cākhyātair vyāpārāh siddhasādhanah prädhänyendbhidhiyante phalenäpi pravartitah
Where there are many meanings, some are subsidiary: one however is understood to be the principal one when they are intimately related. (40)
In that (situation activities are expressed by the verbs, as principal, because they are what is to be accomplished (sādhya), even though (the activities themselves), whose means of accomplishment (sadhana) are already) accomplished (siddha).
are urged forward by the result. (41) Following verses discuss the difference in meaning between verbs like pacati and nouns like pākah, an issue that is also addressed, it seems, in the passage of the Nirukta under consideration. But Bharthari's discussion does not help us to determine the correct interpretation of that Nirukta passage.
And yet the importance of finding the correct interpretation of this passage cannot be denied. If Durga, Skandasvāmin/ Maheśvara, Nilakantha and Roth are right, this passage may contain the earliest seed of what was later to become an important philosophico-linguistic development, leading to sabdabodha in its various forms. This seed consists in the tendency to look upon the sentence as designating a principal meaning qualified by one or more other meanings. Alternatively, if Sarup's interpretation is correct, the Nirukta contains no such seed.
Sarup was not the first to propose his interpretation. P. D. Gune had done so in an article that came out in 1916. Gune makes a number of observations, among them the following (p. 158-159):
...Both Durga and Roth look upon the sentence beginning from pūrvāparibhūtam as a fresh one, not at all connected with the previous one tad yatrobhe

Page #4

Subhasini
Johannes Bronkhorst
etc. They appear to think that the sentences beginning with pūrvaparibhūtam etc. and murtam etc., are simply further explanations of the ākhyāta and nāma respectively. I would suggest that both have missed the point. I was led to the conclusion by the examples which are given for purvaparibhūtam etc, and murtam etc. They are vrajati pacatiti and vrajyā paktir iti respectively. If the sense was as Durga and Roth understood it, what was the propriety of giving vrajya paktir iti as examples of a sativa and not simply gaur asvah etc. as done later on?
Durga and Roth appear to believe that Yaska was thinking of the sentence, when he wrote tad yatrobhe etc. and that his view was that in a sentence, where both nama and akhyöta occur, the bhava predominated. To say the least, Yaska has never for once given any indication that he believed in the doctrine of kriyapradhanarva: there is not the slightest hint, excepting this supposed one. I think Durga has here fathered his views on Yaska and Roth has copied him. Again if the sentence (vākya) was here foremost in Yaska's mind, in which he thought of determining the relative importance of the nama and akhyāta, he would not have omitted such an important word as väkya and indicated it by the simple correlative conjunction yatra. Moreover to the etymologist with a vengeance, as Yaska surely is one, the word or pada is everything and the sentence or vakya is nothing. Lastly the very division of the sentence tad yatrobhe bhāvapradhane bhavatah as tad yatrobhe (-) bhāvapradhäne bhavatah as proposed by Durga and accepted by Roth, is highly unnatural and quite out of keeping with the lucid style of Yåska.
His sentences are clear-cut sentences, each having its own verb or predicate. The first part of the division proposed by Durga wants a predicate. And never for once does Yäska omit the word that is most important; while the reading proposed by Durga is egregiously faulty from this point of view....
I think the whole passage is to be explained in the following manner:
Yaska has first defined a nāma as sattvapradhana and an ākhyāta as bhavapradhana, both being padas... But there are some padas in the former category, where bhāva seems to be prominent. These are namely the abstract nouns, like vrajya paktih. Here is then clearly a case where the definition of the akhyata is applicable to certain kinds of nama. The question therefore is, "where both le., nama and akhyata, are characterized by the predominance of bhava or becoming, how are you going to decide"? To this Yåska has a carefully considered answer. Says he "where (however) bhava or becoming predominates in both, there (i.e. in such a case, the absence of the correlative tatra could be understood and is therefore immaterial) the bhāva in a state of flux or change (pūrvdparibhutam or incomplete) is denoted by the akhyata e.g., vrajari, pacati; while on the other hand a complete bhāva (i.e. a bhäva that is no longer in becoming or in change) which has materialized into a sattva, is expressed by the names of sata. e.g. vrajya, paktih going, cooking." In vrajya, paktih which express a bhāva (eg, bhāvavácakam nāma) that bhāva is no longer in the process of becoming but is now complete; and therefore vrajya and paktih are to be classed under nouns or nämāni.

Page #5

Johannes Bronkhorst
Subhaşini
The only scholar who, to my knowledge, has taken up the discussion where Gune left it, is V. K. Rajavade, who makes the following remarks (1940: 221):
tat yatra ubhe bhāvapradhane bhavatah; definitions of verbs and nouns hold so long as you treat them separately; but when you talk of them jointly, i.e., in a sentence (yatrobhe), which of these two is principal? In a sentence bhāva is principal; for it is a process of evolving something for which instruments or agents such as subject, object, etc. are necessary; these exist for the sake of evolving something; otherwise they have no reason to exist. Dr. Gune and Dr. Sarup construe tad yathobhe bhävapradhane bhavatah along with what follows. Dr. Gune thinks that the whole is an answer to the question "what about abstract nouns where you have both the ākhyāta and the naman;" vrajyā, for instance, is made of vraj and yā; so paktih of pac and tih; are these nouns or verbs? The answer is they are really verbs under the guise of nouns. Dr. Gune construes the whole thus: tad yatrobhe bhävapradhäne bhavatah tatra purväparibhutam bhavam etc. In abstract nouns, according to this construction, both naman and akhyata have bhava predominant in them... This rendering is not satisfactory; bhāva means becoming; is vrajya a kind of becoming like vrajati? vrajyā is an accomplished fact for which sattva is the name; vrajya is not bhāvapradhāna. Durga is absolutely right. Yaska might as well have omitted tad yatrobhe bhāvapradhane bhavataḥ as it interrupts the illustrations of nouns and verbs. pūrväparibhūtam etc. illustrates akhyata and upakramaprabhrti etc. illustrates näman.
Among more recent scholars, Eivind Kahrs (1986: 121) is of the opinion that we shall probably never be able to make out whether the interpretations offered by Durga and SkandaMaheśvara are in keeping with the intentions of Yaska or not. Ashok Aklujkar (1999: 99), on the other hand, endorses Gune's position:
Gune (1916 : 158-159) rightly argued that Durga's... explanation of the Yaska sentence tad yatrobhe... is arbitrary in that it presupposes a sentence context when Yaska gives no evidence of being specifically concerned with sentences. The same criticism would apply to the explanation found in the subsequently discovered commentary
of (Skanda-Maheśvara).... Gune's observations are no doubt important, and Rajavade's arguments may not be compelling, yet it must be stated that Gune did not deal with all the questions surrounding the issue. This should be clear from what follows below:
It has already been noted that the choice between the two interpretations presented above depends on the punctuation to be understood and the words to be supplied. Sarup's translation presupposes the following Sanskrit text (I take what seems to me the minimum possible):
tad yatrobhe (nāmākhyāte) bhävapradhäne bhavatah (tatra) purvāparibhūtam (bhāvam) akhyatenācaste-vrajati pacatiti-upakrama-prabhrtyapavargaparyantam (bhāvam] mūrtam sattvabhūtam sattvanāmabhih (ācaste)-- vrajyā paktir iti--/
Where both (noun and verb) have bhāva as principal (meaning), (there one) expresses a bhava that develops from earlier to later with the help of a verb --e.g. vrajati, pacati --, [but one expresses a bhāva that extends) from the beginning to the end,

Page #6

Johannes Bronkhorst
55
Subhaşini
Consider first acaste. This verb occurs in the following contexts, and as far as I know nowhere else in the Nirukta:
that is embodied and has become a sattva, with the
help of nouns (sattvanaman) --e.g. vrajya, paktih.. The interpretation of Skandasvåmin/Maheśvara, Durga, Nilakantha and Roth presupposes a different reading :
tad yatrobhe (nāmākhyāte tatra ete) bhävapradhane bhavatah/ pārvāparibhūtam bhāvam ākhyātenacaste vrajati pacatity upakramaprabhrtyapavargaparyantam/ murtam sativabhūtam sattvanāmabhih lacaste)--vrajya . pakrir iti
Where both (noun and verb occur together, there they) have bhāva as principal (meaning). [One) expresses with the help of a verb a bhāva that develops from earlier to later and extends) from the beginning to the end; e.g. vrajati, pacati. (One expresses) something embodied that has become a sattva, with the help of nouns (sattvanaman) --
e.g. vrajya, paktihBoth these interpretations share a difficulty: what is the subject of acaste? I have supplied 'one' in the translation, but this is not really convincing since Yaska normally uses a verbal form in the plural in connection with a non-specified subject. Two examples occur in the very same section (Nir 1.1): tam imam samāmnayam nighantava ity acaksate and tatraitan nämäkhyātayor laksanam pradiśanti. Numerous others occur elsewhere in the Nirukta. Some examples from the first chapters are acaksiran (1.14); avagrhnanti (1.17): pradifanri, bhasante, abhibhāşante (2.2); etc.
A closer study of all the occurrences of acaste and acaksate in the Nirukta reveals that acaste always has a definite subject, whereas ācaksate frequently has a non-specified subject "they/one". A short survey of the relevant passages confirms this.
Nir 1.2: jāyata iti pūrvabhāvasyādim acaste na aparabhāvam
acaste na pratiședhat (i)....vinaśyatity aparabhavasyādim acaste na pūrvabhāvam acaste na pratiședhati "The word jāyate ('is born') expresses the beginning of the earlier state, [but) it neither expresses nor prohibits the later state;... the word vinaśyati (perishes') expresses the beginning of the late state, (but) it neither expresses nor prohibits the
earlier state." Nir 1.8: scảm tvah pòsam āste pupuşván gayatram ivo guyan
śákvarisu/ brahmá tvo vádati jätavidyām yajñásya mátrām ví mimita u tvah/ iti stvikkarmanām viniyogam ăcaşte "The verse rcám.. tvah expresses
the application of the ritual acts of the priests." Nir 3.12: vipakvaprajna åtmagatim ācaste "The soul is of
mature wisdom' describes the characteristics of the
soul" (tr. Sarup). Nir. 3.22: katará pūrva katarăparāyóh kathá játé kavayah ko
ví veda/víśvam tmánā bibhrto yád dha nāma ví vartete dhani cakriyeva ... iti dyāvāprthivyoh mahimänam ācaste "The verse katara.. cakriyeva
expresses the greatness of heaven and earth." Nir. 4.23: aditir dydur áditir antárikşam áditir mātá sá pitá
sá putrah/ vísve devā aditih pánca júna áditir jätám aditir janitvam/ ity aditer vibhutim acast[e] "The verse aditir... jánitvam expresses the great power of
Aditi." Nir 10.26, 12.37 and 12.38 discuss three further Vedic verses,
each of which "expounds the course of the life of the soul" (ätmagatim acaste; tr. Sarup)

Page #7

Subhasini
Johannes Bronkhorst
57
1.3
In all these passages acaste has a well-defined subject.
The plural acakşate, on the other hand, often lacks a precise subject. Examples are numerous, so that the following few must here suffice:
Nir 1.1: tam imam samāmnāyam nighantava ity acakşate "[They) call this list (samāmnāya) nighantu".
Nir 1.20; 7.1: tad yani nāmäni prādhänyastutinām devatänām tad daivatam ity acaksate "[They call the names of the deities chiefly praised daivata".
Nir. 2.10:2.24; 9.23; 10.26; 12.10: tatretihāsam ācaksate "In this connection they tell [the following) story".
Is there an interpretation of the passage under consideration which provides acaste with a subject? Such an interpretation is possible, and might take the following shape:
tad yatrobhe (nāmākhyāte) bhāvapradhane bhavatah purvāparibhūtam bhāvam akhyātenacaste - vrajati pacatiti-upakrama-prabhrtyapavargaparyantam murtam sattvabhūtam sattvanamabhih (ācaste) - vrajyā paktir iti-/
The [sentence] in which both (noun and verb] have bhava as principal (meaning) expresses with the help of the verb the bhāva that developes from earlier to later- e.g. vrajati, pacati -, and with the help of nouns that which is embodied, [extends) from the beginning to the end, and has become a
sattva, -e.g. vrajya, paktih - Here no tatra corresponding to yatra is supplied, but tad, the very first word of the passage, is taken to correspond to yatra and to be the subject of acaste.
This interpretation would oblige us to look upon the subject of acaste as something that contains both a verb and a noun; or, in view of plural sattvanāmabhih, a verb and one or more nouns; that is to say: a sentence. It is in the sentence
that both noun and verb have bhāva as principal meaning.
This interpretation is not however free from difficulties. There is, to begin with, the "very decided preference for putting the relative clause before that to which it relates" (Whitney, 1888: 196 $ 512a). This would support the idea that tad in the above passage is used adverbially. And indeed, there are many passage in the Nirukta where adverbial tad precedes a form of yad, which is then referred back to by a subsequently occurring form of tad. E.g.
tad yāni carvári padajātāni nāmākhyāte copasarganipātāś ca tāni imani bhavanti. tad ya esu padārthah prähur ime tam
nămakhyatayor arthavikaranam. 1.12; cp. 1.14 tad yatra svarasamskärau samarthau
prāde-śikena vikāreņānvitau syātām samvi. jñātāni tani yatha gaur aśvah puruso
hastiti. 1.20 tad yad anyadaivate mantre nipatati naigh
antukam tat. 1.20; 7.1 tad yani nämäni prādhānyasturinam devatänän
devatänän tad daivatam ity acakşate. tad yesu padeșu svarasamskärau samarthau prādesikena vikārenanvitau syātām tathā tāni nirbruyar. tad yatra svarād anantaräntardhätur bhavati
tad dviprakrtinam sthanam iti pradišanti. 2.23: 2.27 tad yad devatavad uparistāt tad vyakhya
syāmah. 2.24 tad yad dvivad uparistāt tad vyakhyasyamah. 5.11 tad ya etās cândramasya ägäminya apo
bhavanti rasmayas tā aparapakşe pibanti.

Page #8

Subhăşini
Johannes Bronkhorst
beginning of the sixth century A. D., Maheśvara: twelfth century A. D. ... For the purpose of the present essay, I accept Sarup's 1931 dating of Durga and (Skanda-Maheśvara). However, I would not be surprised if future research were to push the
dates back Bharthari lived in the 5th century C. E. The reflections presented in this article suggest that Durga may not have lived before that century, and not therefore in the first century A. D. or even earlier, as proposed by Sarup and Aklujkar.
tad ye 'nadistadevatā mantras teșu deva
topapariksa. 10.16
tad yat samāyām rci samänābhivyähäram
bhavati taj jāmi bhavatity ekam. It will be clear from these examples that the third interpretation suggested above is confornted with major difficulties.
We are forced to conclude that, whatever way we look at it, the passage under consideration deviates from Yaska's usual style, so that certain arguments based on Yaska's style elsewhere in the Nirukta cannot be used, or only with the utmost caution. At the same time, Gune's points to the extent that Yaska was not interested in sentences, and if he had been, he would have said so, seem to me to clinch the issue.
To this can be added that it is not surprising that his commentators interpreted the passage in the light of later developments in linguistic philosophy, if indeeed we may assume that they worked at or after the time that those developments were introduced and that they were aware of them. It seems indeed likely that the sabdabodha-like interpretation of Yaska's passage must post-date Bhartrhari. This last observation is of some significance in view of the the date of Durga accepted by certain scholars. Consider the following remarks by Aklujkar (1994: 9-10 n. 4):
Sarup (1928: Introduction pp. 11-12) first determined the relative chronology of those (direct and indirect) Nirukta commentators whose works are available as:
Skanda > Devaraja Yajvan > Durga > Maheśvara. Then (1931: Introduction pp. 54-97) he changed his view to: Durga > Skanda > Devaraja Yajvan > Maheśvara. ...The dates assigned by Sarup... to [these] commentators are: Durga: first century A.D., Skanda: end of fifth century A. D. or
Notes ! Rajavade, 1940: 19 has the following punctuation : bhdvapradhanam
akhyatam/ satrvapradhānani námánil tad yarrobhe bhavapradhiine bhavarah/purvaparibhutam bhāvam ākhyatenacaste vrajati pacatiti/ upakramaprabhrti apavargaparyantam/ murtam sativabhitam sattvandmabhih vrajya paktir itilada iti sattvändm wpadesah/ gaur
afvah puruso hastiti bhavatiti bhāvasyal aste sete vrajati tishatiti 1 Strictly speaking one should translate naman 'nominal word',
because it also includes adjectives. For simplicity's sake I will here use 'noun'. Skandasvämin/Maheśvara paraphrases bhava as kriya (Sarup, 1982: 1
p. 91.2). + Co. Bronkhorst, 2000: $ 7.
Maha-bh I p. 367 1.15 (on P. 2.1.1 vt.9). Tr. Kahrs, 1986: 142 n. 2. 6 Väkyapadiya (ed. Rau) 3.8. 40-41 (39-40 in Iyer's edition). 1 Both Roth and Sarup translate in the passive ( wird ausgesagt', 'is
denoted'), which amounts to the same. • A possible exception is Nir 2.1: tad yesu padesu svarasamskarau
samarthau pradeśikena vikārena anvitau syatam tatha tani nirbrüydt/ athananviterthe 'prādešike vikare 'rthanityah parikseta/ kenacid vrtfisámányenal avidyamane sdmanye 'py akşaravarnasámánydn nirbrüyatl na iv eva na nirbrüydt/ na samskram adriyeta/ visayavatyo hi vrttayo bhavanti/ yathartham vibhaktih sannamayetl "With reference to etymology), the words, the accent and the grammatical form of which are

Page #9

Subhasini
Johannes Bronkhorst
regular and are accompanied by a derivational modification, should be derived in the ordinary manner. But the meaning being irrelevant, and the modification not being in accordance with the grammatical derivation, one should always examine them with regard to their meaning, by the analogy of some (common) course of action. If there be no (such) analogy, one should explain them even by the community of a (single) s yllable or sound; but one should never (give up the attempt at) derivation. One should not attach (too much) importance to the grammatical form, for these complex formations (vrttayah) are (often) subject of exceptions. One should interpret the divisions according to the meaning." (Tr. Sarup, modified, partly in the light of Mehendale, 1978: 11, 76, and Scharfe, 1977: 122 with note 26). However, the nonexpressed subject of this passage is qualified by the adjective arthaniyah, and may therefore be more definite (perhaps
nairuktah "an etymologist") than is clear at first sight. • Excluding chapters 13 and 14, which are later additions. 10 The identification of these passages has been much facilitated by
the electronic version of the Nirukta prepared by G. Cardona.
Niederehe, Kees Versteegh. Berlin - New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Pp. 166-173. Gune, P. D. (1916): "Some notes on Yaska's Nirukta." Indian
Antiquary 45, 157-160 & 173-177. Houben. Jan E.M. (1997): "The Sanskrit tradition. The Emergence of
Semantics in Four Linguistic Traditions : Hebrew, Sanskrit, Greek, Arabic. By Wout van Bekkum, Jan Houben, Ineke Sluiter and Kees Versteegh. Amsterdam/Philadelphia : John Benjamins. (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science,
82.) Pp. 51-145. Iyer, K. A. Subramania (ed.) (1973): Vākyapadiya of Bharthari with the
Prakirnakaprakasa of Helärdja. Kända III, Part ii. Poona : Deccan
College. Kahrs, Eivind (1986): "Durga on bhava." Kalyanamitráráganam.
Essays in Honour of Nils Simonsson. Ed. Eivind Kahrs. Oslo: Norwegian University Press/ The Institute for Comparative Research
in Human Culture Series B : Skrifter 70. Pp. 115-144. Mehendale, M. A. (1978): Nirukta Notes: Series II. Pune : Deccan
College Postgraduate and Research Institute. Rajavāde. Vaijanatha Kasinátha (ed.) (1921): Durgācāryakr
tavritisametam Niruktam. Pārvasarkatmakah prathamo bhagah. Poona : Ananadásrama. (Anandásramasamskstagranthavali,
no. 88). Rajavade, V[aijanatha) K[ashinath) (1940) : Yaska's Nirukta. Volume I.
Second edition : Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona, 1993.
(Government Oriental Series, Class A No.7.) Rau, Wilhelm (ed.) (1977) : Bhartrharis Vākyapadiya. Wiesbaden:
Franz Steiner. (Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes,
XLII, 4.) Roth, Rudolph (1852): Yaska, Nirukta. Mit der Nighantavas
herausgegeben und erläutert. Texte und Erläuterungen in einem Band, Reprint: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt,
1976. Sarup, Lakshman (1921): The Nighantu and the Nirukta. Introduction,
English translation and notes. Reprint: Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi 1966.
References Aklujkar, Ashok (1994): "The Țikakära mentioned by Skanda
Mahesvara." Vacaspatyam. Pl. Vamanshastri Bhagwar Felicitation Volume. Ed. Saroja Bhate and Madhav Deshpande. Pune : Vaidika
Samshodhana Mandala. Pp. 9-25. Aklujkar, Ashok (1999): The Theory of Nipätas (particles) in Yaska's
Nirukta. Pune : Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. (Post-graduate and Research Department Series No. 42; "Pandit Shripad Shastri
Deodhar Memorial Lectures" (Sixth Series).) Bhadkamkar, H. M., assisted by R. G. Bhadkamkar (ed.) (1918): The
Nirukta of Yaska (with Nighantu), edited with Durga's commentary, Vol. I. Reprint: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona, 1985.
(Bombay Sanskrit and Prakrit Series, no. LXXIII.) Bronkhorst, Johannes (2000): "The relationship between linguistics and
other sciences in India." History of the Language Sciences / Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaften/ Histoire des sciences du language, vol. 1. Ed. Sylvain Auroux, E. F. K. Koemer, Hans-Josef

Page #10
Subhasini Sarup, Lakshman (1928): The Fragments of the Commentaries of Skandasvamin and Mahesvara. Chapter I. Reprinted in Sarup, 1982. Sarup Lakshman (1931): Commentary of Skandasvamin & Mahesvara on the Nirukta. Chapters II-VI. Reprinted in Sarup, 1982. Sarup, Lakshman (1982): Commentary of Skandasvamin & Mahesvara on the Nirukta. With additions & corrections by Acharya V. P. Limaye. 2 vols. New Delhi: Panini. (Panini Vaidika Granthamala, 11). Scharfe, Hartmut (1977): Grammatical Literature. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. (A History of Indian Literature V.2). Vidyasagara, Jivananda (ed.) (Im 1891): Niruktam (Nighantuh). With the commentaries of Devaraja Yajvan and Durga. Calcutta: Sarasvatiyantra. Vijayapala (ed.) (1982): Nirukta-slokavarttikam. Bahalagadha (Sonipat, Haryana): Ramlal Kapur Trust. Whitney, William Dwight (1888): Sanskrit Grammar. Including both the classical language and the older dialects of Veda and Brahmana. Second edition. Reprint : Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 1962. Maha-bh Abbreviations Patanjali, (Vyakarana-) Mahabhasya, ed. F. Kielhorn, Bombay 1880-1885. Nirukta Paninian sutra varttika on Paninian sutra Nir. 000