Yaskas Classification Of Nipatas

Author(s): Johannes Bronkhorst
Publisher: Johannes Bronkhorst
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/269730/1

Page #1

YĀSKA'S CLASSIFICATION OF NIPĀTAS*
By JOHANNES BRONKHORST
1. The sections 1.4-11 of the Nirukta deal with particles (nipāta ). It appears that this treatment of particles was never meant to be exhaustive. Very common particles, such as tu, are not included. What is more, the discussion on particles is opened with the word atha ( see section 3 below). Atha is obviously a particle. But it is not dealt with in this discussion.2 With respect to meanings Yaska ( the author of the Nirukta ) is hardly more complete. Of the three “ headings ” which will be discussed below, the second contains the particle aha, but clearly not in the sense ascribed to it in that very subsection. And Yāska mentions no other meaning. The same can be said of the particle ha, which is used repeatedly (two times in Nir. 1.9: iti ha vijñāyate) in a sense which it has not been given in the Nirukta. Further, new meanings are given to some particles elsewhere in the Nirukta : paribhaya to iva ( Nir. 9.30 : ivaḥ paribhayārthe ), samprati to na ( Nir. 7.31: asty upamānasya sampratyarthe prayogah).
• Particles - so Yāska tells us in the beginning of the discussion - occur in various meanings. And indeed, no fewer than thirteen (if we add the expletives, padapūraņa, fourteen ) meanings are mentioned in what follows this remark ( see Appendix ). Yāska's commentators are agreed that the Nirukta gives a threefold classification of particles. The present article will make an attempt to show that they are wrong and to arrive at the originally intended classification.
The Nirukta is supposed to contain three headings, which govern, and introduce, the three kinds of particles. They are the following:
1. teșām ete catvāra upamārthe bhavanti (Nir. 1. 4):“ of them, the following four are used in the sense of comparison ” ( Sarup ).
* This article owes its present shape in part to the pertinent criticism by Dr. Catharina Kiehnle of an earlier draft of the game. I like to acknowledge my indebtedness to Dr. Kiehnle in this regard. Yaska's list of all in all twenty-four particles (this includes combinations of particles : 800 Appendix ) cannot compare with the list of one hundred and ninety-five coming under Panini's rule 1.4, 58 ( Boehtlingk, 1887 : 113*). At Nir. 11. 44 the sense idānim "now" is given to atha, which itself seems to be a paraphrase of atho in the preceding mantra. For a qualification of this statement with reference to the Sanskrit commentatore and those who follow them see section 2. 1 below. 18 [ Annals, BORI |

Page #2

138
Annals BORI, LX ( 1979 )
2. atha yasyāgamād arthaprthaktvam aha vijñāyate na tv auddesikam iva vigrahena pļ thaktvāt sa karmopasangrahaḥ ( Nir. 1.4).
3. atha ye prav!tte'rthe'mitāk sareşu grantheşu vāk yapūraņā ägacchanti padapūraņās te mitākşareșy anarthakāh ( Nir. 1.9): “Now the words which are used - the sense being complete - to fill up a sentence in prose, and a verse in poetic compositions, are expletives” (Sarup ).
While translating the third heading Sarup overlooked the word anarthakāḥ. We note that for Yāska expletives carry no meaning. The second heading has been left untranslated here. The reason is that no agreement exists as to its meaning. Fortunately we are not called upon to explain all its terms, but we cannot forgo having a closer look at it.
Of the above three headings, the first and the last fulfil their task admirably. The first one announces four particles, and says what they mean. The particles then make their appearance one by one, accompanied by instances of their use. They are: iva, na, cit, nu. It is worth remarking that where one of these four particles has some other meaning or meanings besides "comparison”, that other meaning ( those other meanings ) are given along with instances, and when the meaning " comparison ” is illustrated, we are explicitly reminded of that. This occurs in the case of na (durmadāso na surāyām iti upamārthityah), cit ( dadhi cit ity upamārthe ), nu ( athāpy upamārthe bhavati / vrkşasya nu te puruhūta vayāḥ / vrkşasyeva te puruhūta sākhah), all in Nir. 1.4.
The third heading leaves as little doubt as the first one as to which particles it applies to. Immediately following the heading they are enumerated : kam, im, it, u ( Nir. 1.9). A fifth one is added after the illustrations of the above four: iva (Nir. 1.10 ). Further specifications regarding the meaning we do not find here, for these particles have no meaning.
It is the second heading that causes difficulties. To begin with, it is a strange kind of heading. In reality it is a specification of the meaning of the word karmopasangraha. We do not, at this moment, have to study exactly what meaning is assigned to karmopasamgraha. Let us, on the contrary, see what common meaning can be found in the particles that are placed under this heading.
** This, however, brings us to the second problem. The meanings that Yaska ascribes to the particles belonging to the second group are almost as varied as the particles themselves. No fewer than ten meanings are assigned
4 For opinions, see Bhat ( 1959 ), Sarmā ( 1966 ) and Mehondale ( 1978 ).

Page #3

BRONKHORST : Yāska's Classification of Nipatas
139
to fourteen particles. It is true that the four particles which fall under the first heading also represent a large number of meanings (six according to Yāska ), but then they all share the meaning “ comparison ", a fact to which, as we know, attention is drawn in the text of the Nirukta by repeating the word upamā “ comparison ” in connection with the particles concerned. On the other hand, no such thing is done in the second group of particles. The word karmopasangraha occurs in the heading, and nowhere else.
But if the particles of the second group have not one meaning in common, could it not be that the meaning of karmopasamgraha is so wide that it includes all the diverse meanings of the second group ? Everyone is free to try and find such a meaning, but more likely than not it will be so wide that it will be hard to explain why the sense “ comparison" is not encompassed by it. In other words, karmopasagraha would come to mean hardly less than “everything except comparison." It goes without saying that such a meaning does not fit the word karmopasa mgraha, nor its definition in the Nirukta.
2.1 The definition of karmopasaṁgraha consists of two parts, the first one positive, the second negative. The positive part describes in general terms the meaning of karmopasamgraha, the negative part narrows down this description. Since it is not our aim here to come to a complete understanding of the difficult second “ heading", we may leave the negative part untouched and concentrate on the positive characterisation. It reads: yasyāgamād arthaprthaktvam aha vijñāyate ... sa karmopasamgrahaḥ. Whatever be the exact significance of this passage clear is that where there is karmopasam
Bhat ( 1959 : 54 ) argues with respect to the particles of the second group: « Whether & particle joins two or more independent clauses or inter-dependent clauses, its function is the same, namely, to join two or more things together (karma. upasangraha)". But this wide sepse is also applicable to the particles of the first group, so Bhat continues: “and while it does so, it also indicates that the things thus joined together are really distinct, as contrasted for example, with the case of an Upamärthiya particle, which indicates only a mutual comparison." This, of course, does not help us much, [Sarma ( 1966 : 71 ) calls it vanmatram ]. Gune (1916 : 160 ) makes less fuss, saying simply : By [karmopasangraha ) is known a variety ... of senses, " Similarly Mehendale ( 1978 : 54 ) :“ karmo, nipata is that nipāta by the use of which separateness of meaning (i. e, a separate meaning for the different particles comprising this group and not the same for all of them ) is indeed understood." Mehendale's suggestion plunges him immediately into problems, which he tries to solve (without convincing result ) in a footnote (fn.
7 to p. 54 ). 6 See note 2 above.

Page #4

140
Annats BORI, LX (1979)
graha,' there the separateness of certain items is understood. This, of course, is only possible where several, i. e. at least two, items are at hand to be separated. After our encouraging experiences with the expletives and particles meaning “ comparison”, we hope to get some assistance from Yāska in identifying the items that are to be distinguished.
We are not disappointed. The first particle, viz, ca, is introduced with these words : ceti samuccayārtha ubhābhyām samprayujyate (Nir. 1.4) “ The word ca is used in the sense of aggregation', and is joined together with both” (Sarup ). An example further elucidates this remark : aham ca tvaṁ ca v!trahan iti (1. c. )“ 'I and you, O slayer of Vţtra !'" ( Sarup ).
Immediately follows the second particle : ā. It has exactly the same meaning as ca, and is used in a similar manner. The difference is that, whereas ca could be used twice, once with each of the items to be aggregated, ā can occupy but one of the two places; the other one it must yield to ca, This is clear from the example that follows : devebhyaś ca pitrbhya ā (1. c.)” for gods and for manes'" (Sarup).
The next particle is vā. It has two meanings, “ deliberation” (vicārana) and “ aggregation” (samuccaya). There can be no doubt that the stipulation that the particle must be joined with both is still valid. here. Two examples further confirm this : hantāham prthiyim imām ni dadhāniha veha vā iți (l..c.) “ Ah, shall I put this earth here or there?'” (Sarup); further : vāyur yā tvā mannr sā tvā iti (Nir. 1. 5)“Vāyu and thee, Manu and thee'” (Sarup).
This same stipulation, however, is not valid in the particles that are going to be mentioned next, and Yāska makes it abundantly clear. The particles aha and ha, he tells us, have the sense “ mutual opposition " and are joined with the preceding item (aha iti ca ha iti ca vinigrahārthiyau
Most authors seem to take karmopasangraha as an adjective qualifying nipāta, or even as the name of certain particles. The definition of this word ( yasya. gamad ... vijñāyate ... sa karmo pasaṁ grahah ) seems to justify this. In spite of that, I prefer to look upon it as a noun, which its form suggests it is. If we tsake it to refer to some kind of process or procedure (such as, perhaps, the bring. ing together of meanings "; see, however, note 8 below), it may fit into the
definition as well.. 8 The literal meaning of the word karmopasangraha is of no concern to us. The
fact that Yäska deemed it necessary to include a definition in his text indi. cates that this literal meaning is likely to misguide us. (For a different view,
see Sarmā, 1966 : 71 ). 9 So Roth's edition and Sarup's p. 31, fn, 16. Sarup's edition reads vinigraha.
rthiya.

Page #5

BRONKHORST : Yāska's Classification of Nipātas
141
yürveņa samprayujyete ; 1. c.). Examples again illustrate what is meant ayam ahedam karoty ayam idam (1. c.) “ let this man do this, the other that'” (Sarup ) idam ha karisyatidam na karisyati (1. c.) “this man will do this, not that'" (Sarup).
Afther aha and ha comes the particle u. It has the same meaning as its two predecessors, but is used differently. Instead of being joined with the first item, like them, it is joined with the second (athāpy ukāna etasminnevārlha uttareņa). As could be expected, the example following shows us two items, the particle u dutifully combining with the second : mrseme vadanti satyam u te vadantiti (1. c.) “ these people tell a lie, those the truth'" (Sarup.). We finally learn that u can also be an expletive, but this we knew already and will not detain us.
I have dealt with Yāska's treatment of the above particles in some detail, because it is done in a manner that so well accords with our expectations. It is true that the definiticn of karmoposamgraha is not completely clear, but this is as much our fault as Yāska's. And the part which we do. understand, viz. that karmopasamgraha involves separateness of items, made us look for, and indeed find, the items that were to be distinguished. Those items were referred to by means of nouns and pronouns in the case of ca, ā, iva; by means of sentences in the case of aha, ha, u. In short, we find here again the clarity which we appreciated so much in Yā ska's treatment of expletives and particles meaning “ comparison.”
Our appreciation has to suffer a set-back when we turn to the next particle on the assumption that that also is expressive of karmopasamgraha. This next particle is hi, which has, so we read, many meanings ( Nir. 1.5). In which of those many meanings is it concerned with several items that are separate ? Clearly in none of the ones given by Yāska. Not only does he keep complete silence as to which item the particle hi is to be joined to; the examples allow of no separating of items, be they referred to by nouns or by sentences.10 This applies not only to hi, but to the whole list of particles which ends with sim ( Nir. 1.7 ) We have to face the choice of assuming that Yāska was in a state of confusion11 while writing about the particles from hi to sim on the one hand, and accepting that the second “ heading” does not cover these particles on the other. As ever, we reject
10 The particle hi has the following examples : idan hi karisyati "therefore he
will do it", katham hi karisyali “how pray will he do it?" kathan hi vyā. karisyati " how can he analyse it?". In none of these are there items that could be separated. The same can be siad of all the examples accompanying the
particles that follow up to, and including, sim. 11 This is more or lase what Rajavade ( 1940 : 237 ) accuses Yaska of,

Page #6

142
Annals BORÍ, LX ( 1979)
the supposition that the author was confused. As a result we must abandon the idea that a threefold ciassification of particles is intended, and shall try our luck with a classifitation into four.
It is, at this point, worth noting that Durga and Skanda-Maheśvara, who wrote commentaries on the Nirukta, seem to have had difficulties similar to the ones which cause us to consider abandoning the threefold classification of particles. But they do not go to the same extent as we do. In their opinion the particles from hi to sim have incidentally (prasangena ) been treated after the particles expressive of karmopasamgraha.12 The remainder of our discussion will show that their scruplus were not justified. 2.2 I shall, to begin with, list the particles given in the Nirukta in accordance with the newly proposed fourfold scheme. It is to be noted that the newly formed third category contains a variety of meanings. No single general meaning seems to encompass them all. Yāska, at any rate, does not give such a covering meaning, and we shall follow him by baptizing the third category" various". The first and second catagories : will, of course, be named upamā and karmopasamgraha respectively.
The fourth class of particles, as we know, contains expletives, which, according to Yāska, have no meaning. This is noteworthy, for it brings to light a division into two of the four classes of particles. On the one hand, there are the particles with meaning, on the other, those without. This leads us to the following scheme :
With Meaning
Without meaning.
A,
A3
B
ирата
A, kormopasamgraha
various
kam
im id
vā sha
hi kila mā khalu Śaśvat nūnam sim
u . ένα
ha
(tva, net and na cet, which are mentioned in the Nirukta but have not been included in the above scheme, will be discussed in section 2.3 below).
12
The relevant quotations can be found in Mehendale, 1978 : 56.

Page #7

BRONKHORST : Yaska's Classification of Nipatas
148
The above 'diagram contains a feature which constitutes additional evidence to prove that A, must indeed be looked upon as a separate category. A, and B have one word in common : iva. The reason is obvious. This particle can be used both to convey the sense comparison” and as an expletive. Something similar can be said about u, which occurs both in A, and B. Remarkable is that no word occurs both in A, and B. Is this because none of the words listed in A, can be used as expletives ? Clearly not ! No fewer than three particles of A, can be used such. They are khalu, nūnam and sim ( see Nir. 1.5-7).
Reasons might be thought of to explain why the words of A3 were discriminated against by Yāska. Certain is that they were treated differently. This suffices to show that they formed indeed a separate class.
2.3 Something must be said regarding the words, tva, net and na cet, which are mentioned in the section dealing with particles, but do not seem to fit in our scheme. The first one, tva, shares the meaning “ mutual opposition" ( vinigraha) with aha, ha and u, and might therefore be expected in Ag. In spite of that it follows the particles of Ag, i. e. it comes after sim. The remaining two, net and na cet, have meanings which would qualify them for inclusion in A3. Indeed, na cet has the meaning “ question " ( anuprşța ), which it shares with nu, hi, kila ( with na or nanu ) and śaśvat. All these with the exception of nu, which also has the meaning "comparison ", and is therefore in A, - are found in Ag. net and na cet, however, come after the paticles contained in B.
Of these two irregularities the first one seems to conflict with the scheme here adopted. It tva, which has a meaning which belongs in Ag, nevertheless is placed at the end of Az, this seems to indicate that A, and A, are not two different classes, but only one.
The irregular position of tva is explained in the following manner. tva is no particle at all! It is a sarvanāman (pronoun ), or, according to some, an ardhanāman,13 ( Nir. 1.7). Why then is it mentioned among the particles ? Becausee some think it is a particle.14 Not so Yāska. He is in a hurry to show that tva takes case-endings.15 He mentions this non-particle at the end
18 That ardhanaman is a technical term used to designate a class of words (like
sarvanaman ), has been argued by Mehendale (1965). 14 Nir. 1.8 : nipata ily eke.
Nir. 1.8: drstavyan tu bharati / uta tvan sukhye sthirapitam ahuh / iti dviti. yayam/ uto trasmai tanvaṁ vi sasre / iti caturthyám / athäpi prathama. bahuvacane / etc,
15

Page #8

144
Annals BORI, LX (1979)
of his discussion of meaningful particles, to dispose of this undoubtedly meanngful word before proceeding to the particles without meaning.
And why are net and na cet given such a queer position, after B? Obviously because they are not single particles, but combinations of particles, which jointly express a certain meaning. Yāska takes pains to make this clear.16 He discusses them not until the single particles have all had their turn. 3. There is a possible objection that no doubt will be raised against the classification of particles proposed here. It is based on the sentence which introduces the discussion under study. It will be shown that this sentence allows of an interpretation which is in complete agreement with our classification.
In Nir. 1.4 we read : atha nipātā uccāvaceșy artheșu nipatanti / apy upamārhte / api karmopasamgrahārthe / api pādapūraņāḥ / Sarup translates : “ Now the particles occur in various senses, both in a comparative sense, in a conjunctive sense, and as expletives.” Here then, so it might be argued, does Yāska tell us how he classifies the particles, and that is clearly into three classes : 1. those having a comparative sense, 2. those having the sense karmopasamgraha, 3. the expletives.
Let us, for the sake of argument, assume that Sarup (and everybody else who has written on the passage ) interpreted the sentence correctly, and that indeed the first half gives a general statement, which is subsequently specified in the second half. That is to say, the various meaings announced in the first half are made explicit in the second half.
The shortcomings of this interpretation strike the eye. First of all; expletives have no meaing for Yāska. As a result, the announced " various', meanings turn out to be no more than two in number, “ comparison (upamā ) and karmopassumgraha ( whatever that may mean ). If Yāska had wanted to show the multifariousness of the meanings of particles, other ways would have been open to him. Fourteen meanings are mentioned later in the discussion. They could have been enumerated here. Or better still, Yāska could have kept silence, and proceed to the next point to be dealt with, classification of the particles. .
It cannot be maintained that this is what Yāska actually does. The sentence quoted above contains one, and only one, finite verb (viz. nipatanti)
16 Nir. 1.10 : athāpi nety esa id ity etena sa n prayujyate paribhaye; Nir. 1.11 :
athapi na cety esa id ity etena samprayujyate'nuprste /

Page #9

BRONKHORST : Yaska's Classification of Nipātas
145
and can as a result not be split into two. That is to say, either the latter half specifies the meanings announced in the former, or the whole sentence gives a classification of particles.
This last alternative is, of course, the one I propose for acceptance. The sentence then comes to mean : “ Particles occur 1. in various senses; 2. also in the sense camparison ', 3. also in the sense karmopasamgraha, 4. also as expletives.”
It is clear that this interpretation fits beautifully the classification of particles arrived at earlier by other means. Two small difficulties remain.
First there is the for classical Sanskrit rather peculiar use of api, which precedes the sentence-fragments with which it is connected, rather than coming after the first words of those. Moreover, three occurrences of this word api are used, (if the present interpretation is correct ) to connect four (incomplete ) sentences.
However, even though api does not normally precede what it is connected with in classical Sanskrit, in the Vedic language this is the rule (Delbrueck, 1888: 525–26). And the Brāhmaṇas provide evidence that the number of occurrences of api does not have to be equal to the number of sentence-parts that are to be joined. An example is Satapatha-Brāhmaṇa 10, 2, 6, 5, which has the same structure as our sentence : prajābhyo vi bhajaty apy oşadhibhyo'pi vanaspatibhyaḥ “er theilt es den Geschoepfen aus, auch den Pflanzen, auch den Baeumen ” (Delbrueck, 1888 : 526 ).
This is not all that can be said in support of the new interpretation of our sentence. In the Brhad-Devatā (attributed to Saunaka ) are a couple of verses which do no more than restating Yāska's main points about particles. The first verse reads ( ii. 89)
uccāvaceșu cārtheșu nipātāḥ samudāhrtāḥ /
kārmopasamgrahārthe ca kvacic caupamyakāraņāt // "Particles are enumerated in various senses, and in the sense karmopasamgraha and occasionally for the sake of comparison. "17
Instead of the nasty word api we find here ca with each of the three items mentioned. The fourth item, the expletives, is introduced in verse
27
Maodonell, no doubt misled by the incorrect interpretation of the correspond. ing Nirukta passage, translates : “ Particles are enumerated in various senses both for the puropose of connecting actions, and occasionally for the sake of compari. son". It is not clear how he would account for the first occurrence of ca in this verse. 19 [ Annals, BORI]

Page #10

Annals BORI, LX (1979)
ii. 90-91 a, after which the text continues (ii. 91b) ye tv anekārthakaś ca te "But (there are) also such (particles) as have various senses." (Macdonel).
146
What more could we dream of? The author of the Bṛhad-Devata, who was infinitely much closer to Yaska in time than even the Sanskrit commentators on the Nirukta (that is, the ones whose works have survived until today), understood the sentence which introduces the section on particles in the Nirukta in the way that is being advocated here.
Remains the second difficulty. Why does Yaska in the introductory sentence mention the class "various meanings" first, but when actually classifying denote it to the third place ?
The answer is easy. The most important thing to be said about the meanings of particles is that they are various. Indeed, even many of the particles included in A, and A, have meanings different from the ones that caused their acceptance there (see Appendix). This circumstance also explains why the "various meanings" were not kept in front during the process of actually classifying. If they would have been, virtually no particles would have been left for the remaining classes, 18 As it is, the particles of A, may, and really do, have "various meanings" besides "comparison."
That A, precedes B is because the particles of A, have meanings, and therefore belong to A, whereas the particles of B do not. Interesting is that what has once been mentioned in A, is not repeated in B, even if it can be used as expletive. This applies to khalu, nunam and sim (see above, section 2.2). This fact confirms our belief that the positioning of A, before A, and A, would have had disastrous consequences, especially for A,.
It may finally be remarked that Durga and Skanda-Maheśvara, in spite of their misgivings regarding the classification of particles (see above, section 2.1), failed to interpret Yaska's introductory sentence correctly,19
We conclude that the Nirukta, when correctly interpreted, announces, and then brings about, a fourfold classification of particles. The first three of these four classes contain meaningful particles, the fourth meaningless
18 To be precise, only iva would remain for A, (or not even that, on account of the meaning paribhaya; see section 1 above). Ag, on the other hand, would go unscathed, or so it seems.
12
Mahesvara on Nir. 1.4 ( p. 46): ta uccavace sv anekaprakäresu pratipadyesv artheşu pratipadakatvena nipatanti vartanta ity arthaḥ tesam arthapradarsanartham ucyate-apy upamartha ityadi Durga on the same (pp. 36-37): uccavaceṣu anekaprakāresu arthesu nipatanti iti nipataḥ äha katame punas te ya eteṣām iti ucyate | apy upamarthe'pi karmopasam graharthe 'pi padapuraṇaḥ |

Page #11

BRONKHORST : Yāska's Classification of Nipātas
147
ones. The meanings on the basis of which the meaningful particles have been classifled are 1. “ comparison ", 2. karmopasa mgraha (not fully clear, but concerns at least two items ), 3. various meanings 20
APPENDIX
:
iva na cit
ca
vā aha
ha
The particles and their meanings
i upamā, ( padapūrana ) : upamā (V),21 pratişedha : upamā, pājā, avakutsita
upamā, hetvapadeśa, anupışta • samuccaya 1 samuccaya 1 samuccaya, vicaraña : vinigraha I vinigraha i vinigraha, ( padapūraņa ) i hetvapadeśa, anuprsta, asāyā i anuprsta (when with na or nanu), vidyāprakarşa i pratiședha. 10
i pratişedha, ( padapūraņa ) i a nup!şğa, vicikitsa (Bh )
I vicikitsā, (padapūrara (V))
parigraha, (padapūrana ) i (padapūraņa ). E i (padapūrana).
- (padapūraņa) i paribhaya. i anuprsta
kila mā khalu sasvat nunam sim
kam,
na ca it
ab Rajavade ( 1940 : 237 ) wrote:." Really speaking Yāska should have added another
class of particles which having a variety of senses have nothing in common; he should have placed api anyarthesu after api karmopasangrahārthe and before, api pada purapah.” Little did he suspect that this is, apart from the order
exactly what Yaska did. 91V » indicates that according to Yāska, the particle is in this genge only used
in the Vedic language; " Bh” indicates that this sense is only found in the classical language.

Page #12

148
Annals BORÍ, LX (1979)
na kila
anuprsta ( see above kila ) na nu kila
: anuprsta (see above kila )
The meanings and their particles upamā (“ comparison") : iva, na (V), cit, nu
(samuccaya (“ aggregation ”) :ca, vā, ā karmopasamgraha : 3 vicārana (“deliberation”).
: vā (vinigraha (“mutual opposition"): aha, ha, u pratiședha (" negation”): na, mā, khalu pūjā (“respect”) : cit avakutsita (" contempt"): cit hetvapadeśa ("reason”) : nu, hi anup?sta (“ question”) : nu, hi, na kila, na nu kila, sasvat, na ca it ! asāyā (“ displeasure”) : hi vidyāprakarşa (“superiority of knowledge”)
: kila vicikitsa (“uncertainty "): Śaśvat ( Bh ), nūnam parigraha (“ sotality”) : sim [ padapūraņa ( expletive ) : khalu, nūnam (V), sim, kam, im, id, u, iva ]
REFERENCES :
Bhat, G. K.: 1959.“ Karmopasamgraha.”*Journal of the University of Poona :
Humanities Section, 11, 51-57. Reprinted in : Vedic Themes [ Articles
on Vedic Topics ), pp. 111-19. Delhi; Ajanta Publications. 1978. Boehtlingk, Otto ; Editor and translator. 1887. Paņini's Grammatik. Hilde
sheim ; Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung. 1964. Delbrueck, B. : 1888. Altindische Syntax. Halle a. S.; Verlag der Buch
handlung des Waisenhauses. Durga , Niruktav!tti. In Durgācāryakstavrttisametam Niruktam. Part I.
Edited by Vaijanātha Kāśinātha Rājavāde, Poona; Ānandāśrama. 1921. Gune, P. D.: 1916. “Some notes on Yaska's Nirukta.” Indian Antiquary
45, 157-50 and 173-77. Maheśvara: Niruktați kā in Fragments of the commentaries of Skandasvamin
and Maheśvara on the Nirukta. Edited by Lakshman Sarup, Lahore : University of Panjab. 1928.

Page #13
BRONKHORST : Yaska's Classification of Nipatas 149 Mehendale, Madhukar Anant : 1965. " Ardhanaman," Indian Linguistics 26, 203-06. Reprinted in : Nirukta Notes. Series II, pp. 5-8. Pune i Deccan Callege, 1978. -------. 1978. " Yaska's definition of the karmopasamgraha nipata". Nirukta Notes, Series II, pp. 50-56. Pune, Deccan College. Rajavade, V. K. : Editor. 1940. Yaska's Nirukta. Volume I. Poona : Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. Sarma, Virendra 1966. . " Karmopasamgraha-laksana-vicarah", Visva Samskrtam 3, 383-392; 4, 71-74. Sarup, Lakshman : 1921. The Nighantu and the Nirukta : Introduction, English translation and notes : Delhi : Motilal Banarsidass. 1966. Saunaka : Bihad Devata, Edited and translated by Arthur Anthony . Macdonell. Part I: Introduction and text and appendices. Part II : Translation and notes. Second issue. Delhi : Motilal Banarsidass.. 1965. Yaska : Nirukta. 1. Edited by Lakshman Sarup. Second Reprint. Delhi : Motilal Banarsidass. 1967. 2. Herasgegeben und erlaeutert von Rudolph Roth. Goettingen : Verlag der Dieterichschen Buchhandlung. * 1852.