________________
Now the Padapathakara has noticed the form as ar without the final 'Visarga'. Can it not be possible that in the Samhita-Patha, there was elision of of original visarga of aqu:, the originally intended form and anyhow the author of Padapatha missed it?
There are many instances in which the older authors of Padapathas differed from one another in splitting Samhita text into its component padas. This has been adduced to by Yäska himself. Thus Yaska takes note of difference of opinion. of various authors of Padapatha with regard to the word afterशाकल्यात्रेयप्रभूतिवगृहीतम् पूर्वनिर्वचनाभिप्रायेण गार्ग्यप्रभृतिभिरवगृहीतमिति तदेव कारणम्, विचित्रा: पदकाराणामभिप्रायाः क्वचिदुपसर्गविषयेऽपि नावगृह, गन्ति यथा शाकल्येन "अधीवासम्" इति नावगृहीतम्, आत्रेयेण तु "अविश्वासम् इत्यवगृहीतम्। तस्मादवग्रहोऽनवग्रहः ।।'
Similarly with regard to the word way in R V I, 105, 18, Yaska takes it as an Upapada compound and hence as one word, thus: मासकृत् मासानां चार्धभासानां च कर्ता भवति चन्द्रमाः ।।
But Sakalya splits the word into two padas, as at FT 15
Thus this possibility of the presence of originally existent but morpho phonemically elided Visarga sets at rest all the unnecessary efforts of the traditional commentators and modern orientalists.
1. Nirukta, II, 13.
2. Nirukta, V, 21
3. cf. Padapatha of RV I, 105, 18 in RV. Sanhita (Poona), Vol I, p. 649.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
इतिहास और पुरातत्त्व ११७
www.jainelibrary.org
