________________
G. Cardona : Paninian studies
Although some of the work is repetitive and at times simply confusing due to authors insistence on reading into texts what is not there, 101 some very interesting and perceptive research has been done.
67
6.1. A series of studies by Deshpande merits special mention both because they show a solid command of and respect for the texts and because they present some very challenging ideas, linking formal grammatical factors with sociolinguistic and historical developments.102 example will suffice to illustrate.
Pāņini's grammar has rules that serve to derive and relate utterances like (a) gf and (b), both meaning.. 'wants to go'. Aṣṭadhyay 3.3.157-158: early fargeci i antraging
I provide the following: A verb is followed by either of the L-affixes lin, lof if it is used in construction with verbs meaning wish; a verb is followed by the affix tumun if, in addition, the acts signified by the cooccurring verbs have the same agent. 3.3.158 accounts for derivates such as gantum (-gam-tum-s) of (a). In addition, according to Astädhyayт 3.1.7: : for:
mandantecai at, the suffix san optionally follows a verb if this denotes an act which is the object of wishing and has the same agent as wishing. This accounts for derived verbs such as jigamisa (gam-sa) 'wish to go' in jigamișati. Since 3.1.7. introduces the desiderative suffix san only optionally (va), utterances of types (a) and (b) are accounted for as alternants.
103
6.2 Katyayana's first nine värttikas on Astädhyay 3.1.7 center, as his värttikas do on other occasions also, around the reasons that require each of the terms in the sutra to be included therein. That is, in accordance with what värttikas are said traditionally to do, Katyayana questions the need for things said in a sutra and thereby considers possibly more concise formulations. In his tenth värttika, Katyayana then suggests an altenaive way of deriving verbs like cikīrsa 'wish to do make': Let san be introduced after a term ending with tumun and let this suffix be deleted." Concerning this and another derivation, which need not be considered here ---- Deshpande (1985:81-82) says: Katyayana's derivations of the karma-karty construction and the desiderative may now be termed PARAPHRASE DERIVATIONS, i.e. that instead of deriving a sentence or a form directly from the semantic and the syntactic structures, Katyāyana creates an underlying structure, which is a more explicit and a more contemporary PARAPHRASE. Deshpande also suggests that one possible motivation for Katyayana's suggesting his alternative derivations is that, *.. these paraphrases have direct parallels in Middle Indo-Aryan languages; and hence are more explanatory and transparent that the inherited synthetic form jigamișati. "He concludes (Deshpande 1985:82) on a cautious note: 'Of course, the most difficult part of such an investigation is that any traditional grammarian such as Katyayana stands at the intersection of the meticulously preserved academic traditions on the one hand and the inevitable impact of the contemporary linguistic situation on the other. Hence, it is not always possible to find a uniform influence of just one of these factors. Therefore, in Katyayana's work we do not get a complete Midddle Indic grammar of Sanskrit. But we can indeed trace Middle Indic impulses.'
There can indeed be little doubt that both Katyāyana and Patanjali used Middle Indic dialects as means of communication for everyday purpose, so that it is also possible for some of Katyayana's suggestions to be based on 'Middle Indic impulses. By the very nature of the material, nevertheless and as Deshpande admits explicitly -- it is quite difficult to demonstrate this with