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 Sabdabodha? JOHANNES BRONKHORST The very first section of the Nirukta (1.1) contains, in Sarup's edition, the following passage: bhavapradhanam akhyatam/ sattvapradhanani namani/ tad yatrobhe bhavapradhane bhavatah purvaparibhutam bhavam akhyatenacaste/ vrajati pacatitil upakramaprabhrtyapavargaparyantam murtam sattvabhutam sattvanamabhih/ vrajya paktir itil ada iti sattvanam upadesah/ gaur afvah puruso hastitil bhavatiti bhavasyal aste sete vrajati tisthatitil Roth's edition has the same text, but without the punctuation. The same is true for Rajavade'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 bhava "being, becoming" as the main thing, the bhava which has a sequence is denoted by a verb, e.g. "he goes", "he cooks". (But the bhava] 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 bhava "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 Skandasvamin/Mahesvara and of Durga understand the part tad yatrobhe bhavapradhane bhavatah as a complete sentence. This is clear from their remarks. The commentary of Skandasvamin/Mahesvara explains (Sarup, 1982: I p. 9 1.14-16): tad yatrobhe ityadi/... yatrobhe namakhyate devadattah pacatiti vakyavasthayam, yatreti frutes tatrety adhyaharyam, tatra bhavapradhane bhavarah, bhavasya sadhyatvat, sattvasya ca sadhanatvat, sadhyasadhanayos ca sadhyasya pradhanyat.

Page #2
46 Subhasini Johannes Bronkhorst [Concering) yatrobhe etc.: .... 'Where both - i.e. a noun (naman) and a verb (akhyata) - (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 bhava is that which is to be accomplished (sadhya), and sattva is that which accomplishes (sadhaka), 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/Mahesvara clearly understood tad yatrobhe bhavapradhane 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 bhava as principal meaning. This bhava is expressed by the verb, which is qualified by the noun. Durga expresses his views in the following passage (Rajavade, 1921 : 1 p.16 1. 17-24; Bhadkamkar, 1918 : I p. 41 1.): tad yatrobhe bhavapradhane bhavatah/../ atha punar yatra te (variant: yatraite) ubhe bhavatah/ kva ca punar ubhe ete (variant: ete ubhe) bhavatah/ vakyel tatra kasya pradhanam arthah (variant: pradhanorthah) kasya gunabhita iti srnul bhavapradhane bhavatas tasya cikirsitatvat/ vakye hy akhyatam pradhanam tadarthatvad gunabhutam nama tadarthasya bhavanispattav angabhutatvat/ evam tavad akhyatam vakye pradhanam/ (Concerning) yatrobhe bhavapradhane 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 bhava. 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: vyakhyakale... akhyatapadam pradhanam tad anu nama tad anupasargas tad anu nipata[h]). Nilakantha Gargya, the author of the Niruktaslokavarttika (a metrical commentary), is of the same opinion as his predecessors, as will be clear from the following lines (Vijayapala, 1982, p. 26 verses 1999ab & 201vd-202ab): tad yatretyadivakyena vakyartho 'py adhunocyate .... namakhyate prayujyete yada vakyarthasiddhaye il ubhe bhavapradhane tu tada syatam 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 bhava as principal (meaning); this is here proclaimed. Rudolph Roth, too, takes tad yatrobhe bhavapradhane bhavatah to be a separate sentence, to be understood in the

Page #3
Subhasini Johannes Bronkhorst way of Durga, Skandasvamin/ Mahesvara, and Nilakantha. This is clear from his Erlauterungen, 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/ Mahesvara 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 sabdabodha. 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 Mimamsakas and the Navya Naiyayikas - 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 Patanjali (2nd century B. C. E.), whose Mahabhasya contains the following statement: 5 apara ahal akhyatam savisesanam ity eval sarvani hy etani kriyavisesanani / 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 Patanjali proposes to analyse sentences in this hierachical manner. This changes with Bharthari (5th century C. E.), whose Vakyapadiya contains the following verses: 6 bahunam sambhave 'rthanam kecid evopakarinah samsarge kascid esam tu pradhanyena pratiyate / sadhyarvat tatra cakhyatair vyaparah siddhasadhanah pradhanyendbhidhiyante phalenapi 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 (sadhya), 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 pakah, 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, Skandasvamin/ Mahesvara, 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 purvaparibhutam 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 purvaparibhutam etc. and murtam etc., are simply further explanations of the akhyata and nama respectively. I would suggest that both have missed the point. I was led to the conclusion by the examples which are given for purvaparibhutam etc, and murtam etc. They are vrajati pacatiti and vrajya 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 akhyota 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 (vakya) was here foremost in Yaska's mind, in which he thought of determining the relative importance of the nama and akhyata, he would not have omitted such an important word as vakya 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 bhavapradhane bhavatah as tad yatrobhe (-) bhavapradhane bhavatah as proposed by Durga and accepted by Roth, is highly unnatural and quite out of keeping with the lucid style of Yaska. 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 Yaska 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 nama as sattvapradhana and an akhyata as bhavapradhana, both being padas... But there are some padas in the former category, where bhava 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 Yaska 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 bhava in a state of flux or change (purvdparibhutam or incomplete) is denoted by the akhyata e.g., vrajari, pacati; while on the other hand a complete bhava (i.e. a bhava 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 bhava (eg, bhavavacakam nama) that bhava is no longer in the process of becoming but is now complete; and therefore vrajya and paktih are to be classed under nouns or namani.

Page #5
Johannes Bronkhorst Subhasini 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 bhavapradhane 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 bhava 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 bhavapradhane 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 akhyata and the naman;" vrajya, for instance, is made of vraj and ya; 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 bhavapradhane bhavatah tatra purvaparibhutam bhavam etc. In abstract nouns, according to this construction, both naman and akhyata have bhava predominant in them... This rendering is not satisfactory; bhava means becoming; is vrajya a kind of becoming like vrajati? vrajya is an accomplished fact for which sattva is the name; vrajya is not bhavapradhana. Durga is absolutely right. Yaska might as well have omitted tad yatrobhe bhavapradhane bhavatah as it interrupts the illustrations of nouns and verbs. purvaparibhutam etc. illustrates akhyata and upakramaprabhrti etc. illustrates naman. 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 SkandaMahesvara 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-Mahesvara).... 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 (namakhyate) bhavapradhane bhavatah (tatra) purvaparibhutam (bhavam) akhyatenacaste-vrajati pacatiti-upakrama-prabhrtyapavargaparyantam (bhavam] murtam sattvabhutam sattvanamabhih (acaste)-- vrajya paktir iti--/ Where both (noun and verb) have bhava 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 bhava that extends) from the beginning to the end,

Page #6
Johannes Bronkhorst 55 Subhasini 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 Skandasvamin/Mahesvara, Durga, Nilakantha and Roth presupposes a different reading : tad yatrobhe (namakhyate tatra ete) bhavapradhane bhavatah/ parvaparibhutam bhavam akhyatenacaste vrajati pacatity upakramaprabhrtyapavargaparyantam/ murtam sativabhutam sattvanamabhih lacaste)--vrajya . pakrir iti Where both (noun and verb occur together, there they) have bhava as principal (meaning). [One) expresses with the help of a verb a bhava 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 samamnayam nighantava ity acaksate and tatraitan namakhyatayor laksanam pradisanti. Numerous others occur elsewhere in the Nirukta. Some examples from the first chapters are acaksiran (1.14); avagrhnanti (1.17): pradifanri, bhasante, abhibhasante (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 acaksate frequently has a non-specified subject "they/one". A short survey of the relevant passages confirms this. Nir 1.2: jayata iti purvabhavasyadim acaste na aparabhavam acaste na pratisedhat (i)....vinasyatity aparabhavasyadim acaste na purvabhavam acaste na pratisedhati "The word jayate ('is born') expresses the beginning of the earlier state, [but) it neither expresses nor prohibits the later state;... the word vinasyati (perishes') expresses the beginning of the late state, (but) it neither expresses nor prohibits the earlier state." Nir 1.8: scam tvah posam aste pupusvan gayatram ivo guyan sakvarisu/ brahma tvo vadati jatavidyam yajnasya matram vi mimita u tvah/ iti stvikkarmanam viniyogam acaste "The verse rcam.. tvah expresses the application of the ritual acts of the priests." Nir 3.12: vipakvaprajna atmagatim acaste "The soul is of mature wisdom' describes the characteristics of the soul" (tr. Sarup). Nir. 3.22: katara purva kataraparayoh katha jate kavayah ko vi veda/visvam tmana bibhrto yad dha nama vi vartete dhani cakriyeva ... iti dyavaprthivyoh mahimanam acaste "The verse katara.. cakriyeva expresses the greatness of heaven and earth." Nir. 4.23: aditir dydur aditir antariksam aditir mata sa pita sa putrah/ visve deva aditih panca juna aditir jatam aditir janitvam/ ity aditer vibhutim acast[e] "The verse aditir... janitvam 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" (atmagatim acaste; tr. Sarup)

Page #7
Subhasini Johannes Bronkhorst 57 1.3 In all these passages acaste has a well-defined subject. The plural acaksate, 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 samamnayam nighantava ity acaksate "[They) call this list (samamnaya) nighantu". Nir 1.20; 7.1: tad yani namani pradhanyastutinam devatanam 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: tatretihasam acaksate "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 (namakhyate) bhavapradhane bhavatah purvaparibhutam bhavam akhyatenacaste - vrajati pacatiti-upakrama-prabhrtyapavargaparyantam murtam sattvabhutam sattvanamabhih (acaste) - vrajya paktir iti-/ The [sentence] in which both (noun and verb] have bhava as principal (meaning) expresses with the help of the verb the bhava 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 sattvanamabhih, a verb and one or more nouns; that is to say: a sentence. It is in the sentence that both noun and verb have bhava 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 yani carvari padajatani namakhyate copasarganipatas ca tani imani bhavanti. tad ya esu padarthah prahur ime tam namakhyatayor arthavikaranam. 1.12; cp. 1.14 tad yatra svarasamskarau samarthau prade-sikena vikarenanvitau syatam samvi. jnatani tani yatha gaur asvah puruso hastiti. 1.20 tad yad anyadaivate mantre nipatati naigh antukam tat. 1.20; 7.1 tad yani namani pradhanyasturinam devatanan devatanan tad daivatam ity acaksate. tad yesu padesu svarasamskarau samarthau pradesikena vikarenanvitau syatam tatha tani nirbruyar. tad yatra svarad anantarantardhatur bhavati tad dviprakrtinam sthanam iti pradisanti. 2.23: 2.27 tad yad devatavad uparistat tad vyakhya syamah. 2.24 tad yad dvivad uparistat tad vyakhyasyamah. 5.11 tad ya etas candramasya agaminya apo bhavanti rasmayas ta aparapakse pibanti.

Page #8
Subhasini Johannes Bronkhorst beginning of the sixth century A. D., Mahesvara: twelfth century A. D. ... For the purpose of the present essay, I accept Sarup's 1931 dating of Durga and (Skanda-Mahesvara). 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 'nadistadevata mantras tesu deva topapariksa. 10.16 tad yat samayam rci samanabhivyaharam bhavati taj jami 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 > Mahesvara. Then (1931: Introduction pp. 54-97) he changed his view to: Durga > Skanda > Devaraja Yajvan > Mahesvara. ...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/ satrvapradhanani namanil tad yarrobhe bhavapradhiine bhavarah/purvaparibhutam bhavam akhyatenacaste vrajati pacatiti/ upakramaprabhrti apavargaparyantam/ murtam sativabhitam sattvandmabhih vrajya paktir itilada iti sattvandm wpadesah/ gaur afvah puruso hastiti bhavatiti bhavasyal 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'. Skandasvamin/Mahesvara 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 Vakyapadiya (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 pradesikena vikarena anvitau syatam tatha tani nirbruydt/ athananviterthe 'pradesike vikare 'rthanityah parikseta/ kenacid vrtfisamanyenal avidyamane sdmanye 'py aksaravarnasamanydn nirbruyatl na iv eva na nirbruydt/ 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): Vakyapadiya of Bharthari with the Prakirnakaprakasa of Helardja. Kanda III, Part ii. Poona : Deccan College. Kahrs, Eivind (1986): "Durga on bhava." Kalyanamitraraganam. 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. Rajavade. Vaijanatha Kasinatha (ed.) (1921): Durgacaryakr tavritisametam Niruktam. Parvasarkatmakah prathamo bhagah. Poona : Ananadasrama. (Anandasramasamskstagranthavali, 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 Vakyapadiya. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner. (Abhandlungen fur die Kunde des Morgenlandes, XLII, 4.) Roth, Rudolph (1852): Yaska, Nirukta. Mit der Nighantavas herausgegeben und erlautert. Texte und Erlauterungen 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 Tikakara 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 Nipatas (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