________________
Idiom-formation and Pāṇini
Idioms are always a problem for linguistic analysis, both on account of grammatical irregularities and semantic changes of an unpredictable nature being involved. This has led to the traditional mode of treating them as stereotyped and in no need of any kind of explanation. But both the facts of formal irregularity and meaning development are of constant occurrence in a language and need some kind of historical explanation based upon usually accepted changes.
In the grammar of Pāṇini, many, if not all, formal irregularities are treated as individual facts and all such formations are given without analysis, and are traditionally called nipatita. Even then from the days of Patañjali, the question is raised 'for what purpose a particular form is so treated and what irregularities are involved in it. In some cases, alternative suggestions are made when more than one irregularity is involved, and sometimes alternative analysis of the given word or form are suggested. But usually no ,attempt is made to explain the unusual sense of the idiom by referring to semantic changes involved in their formation, because, semantic changes are not taken note of in Pāṇinian grammar except in a very general way of making precise the meaning of each basic unit postulated for the analysis. Thus the roots and suffixes with substitutes are given meanings and the elements called agamas are treated as having no meanings of their own. In this situation, an attempt has to be made to trace the origin and development of meanings of idiomatic formations with whatever evidence is available for this purpose. This involves some amount of speculation and this must be combined with evidence coming from different directions, particularly the precise and original meaning of the basic elements of the idiomatic expression.
Pāṇini gives in his grammar meanings of the completed formations only when it has some bearing on the expression itself. Otherwise he assumes