________________
51
G. Cardona : Pāṇinian studies
assigned the class name apădāna, which also applies to a käraka that functions as source of fear with respect to acts denoted by verbs with the meanings of bhi 'fear', tra 'protect;1.4.49-50: कर्तुरीप्सिततमं कर्म। तथायुक्तं चानीप्सितम् assign to the karman category a karaka which functions as the primary goal of one classed as agent as well as a karaka that is related similarly to an action but which an agent either actively seeks not to reach or towards which he is neutral. For example, gråmat ( - grāma - as) 'village' in AMIGMora ... 'is coming from the village' and caurebhyas (caura-bhyas) in a fa ... 'is afraid of thieves refer to a village and thieves' assigned to the apădâna category; kasta-am refers to difficulty, hardhship assigned to the karman category. Now, a compounding rule such as Aşțădhyāyī 2.1.24 or 2.1.37 refers to padas that terminate in paricular triplets of nominal endings, not to kärakas: The rules are formulated as shown, not as *Pata * 37416F . On the other hand, sūtras which have to do with introducing kệt affixes do use käraka category labels. For example, Aşțădhyâyf 3.4.67: R H concerns kļt affixes in general: These are introduced to singify an agent, as in karty-, Käraka - doer, maker, with the kịt suffixes tộc pvul. On the basis of such difference in terminology, the claim has been made that rules in the section of the Aştādhyāyī dealing with compound formation and those dealing with krt affixes need not stem from the same author.
Another sort of inconsistency is perceived in the organization of groups of sūtras in the Aşgadhyāyī. Thus, rules such as 1.4.24-25, 49-50 ... part of the block of sūtras 1.4.23-55--- serve to assign kärakas to particular classes, and these classifications serve to condition the introduction of nominal endings, by rules such as Aşțădhyāyt 2.3.2, 18. But the two blocks of rules are not contiguous. And this is considered to be an inconsistency.
2.2. The need to see inconsistency in rules such as those considered in section 2.1 reflects, I think, an exaggerated eagerness to find difficulties where there are none, on the part of scholars who do not come to grips with principles of organization that are not all that difficult to perceive.
Pāņini's entire derivation's system reflects well founded principles that are fairly patent. He operates with two kinds of bases: verbs (dhatu) and nominal bases (prātipadika). Each of these is either primitive or derived. For example, krdo, make and go‘cow, bull', are primitive bases, but the desideratives cikīrṣa 'wish to do, make' and the causative kāri'have ... do, have .... make' are derived verbs, and kartı-, kaşta-śrita-are derived nominal bases. Moreover, Påņini perceptively derives such bases from other elements throug! a formal machinery. Thus, he introduces postnominal endings after nominal bases to arrive at padas such as kașța-am and śrita-s. From these, through applying phonological rules, one can arrive at strings such as kastam śritaḥ Alternatively, the related padas can be bracketed together in a compound, the endings in which are then deleted: Kasta-am-śrita-s - kaşta-śrita. To form a pada such as kasta-am in the first instance, Pāņini introduces an ending (Astādhyāyi 2.3.2 (see 2.1)) after a nominal base; and a derived base such as kastaśrita can then enter into the same derivational process whereby an ending is also introduced after it under specified conditions. Now, endings such as am in kasta-am of kasta-am śrita-s are introduced on condition that particular kärakas assigned to given categories are to be signified. Once a pada like kaşta-am has been formed, it is of course quite proper to refer to it as an element that terminates in a second-triplet ending (dvitīyā). It is understandable that a rule such as Aștadhyāyt 2.1.24 (see 2.1) has dvitiya instead of karma Indeed, since Pāṇini's