Paninian Sutras of Type Anyebhyopi Drushyate

SR No.: 269039
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: George Cardona
Publisher: Z_Nirgranth_Aetihasik_Lekh_Samucchay_Part_1_002105.pdf and Nirgranth_Aetihasik_Lekh_Samucchay_Part_2
Publication Year: 2004
Total Pages: 17
Language: English
Classification: Article & Grammar
File Size: 387 KB

Page 17

Paninian Sutras of the Type अन्येभ्योऽपि दृश्यते 107 33. Kas 7.1.76 : A fafectionszufu Ered ! statym4 i 3115cafu Erud I T LIET Strefy: (RV 1.84.13a) 496 pierdutartiefstal: 11 (VS 25.21=Rv 1.89.85) i catanदिष्वित्युक्तम् / अतृतीयादिष्वपि दृश्यते / अस्थान्युत्कृत्य जुहोति / विभक्तावित्युक्तम् अविभक्तावपि दृश्यते / Baaa! Hinta 372-4 vidret fatta (RV 1. 164.40) || 34. I have considered only the Paninian evidence because of space limitations. Comparable statements are found elsewhere in early Paniniya works : 2.1.33 vt. 1 (Sintetice R$250f9 Trza I), 5.1.57-58 vt. 6(372927STER GRETA 10), 5.2.112 vt. 1 (area USR uzsfq apud II), 5.2.120 vt. 1 (42 ustafo exud 11), Bhasya on 3.2.48 (II. 103. 14:3797 37EUR 58 Russafer Erga ispirato at vanillo ano 1). 35. Of course, he also takes earlier archaic usage into account, as has been noted in sections above. 36. This is connected with the issue of how, in ancient India, one viewed the usage we refer to as Sanskrit, including both the spoken language of Panini's period, with its dialect variations, and earlier Vedic : as manifestations of a single eternal language or a product of human beings. Although the Astadhyayi does not say anything explicit concerning this, Katyayana and Patanjali do consider the issue whether speech is eternal or produced. I cannot enter into a discussion of these questions here. They have been dealt with recently by Deshpande; see his Sanskrit and Prakrit : Sociolinguistic Issues (Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi 1993), pp. 53-74. Let me say only that I see no contradiction between Panini's describing a state of language such that certain developments had begun but not yet been carried out and Paniniyas' maintaining theoretically that all manifestations of Sanskrit speech represent an eternal language. There can be, in the Paninian scheme of things, a perennity of a flow (giftrat) such that what appear to be newly created elements are merely manifestations of entities always there in the eternal flow. Obviously, I do not think that the conclusions I have reached on the basis of the evidence considered here require one to consider Panini a linguist who claims to be describing a language historically. 000