________________
ASHOK AKLUJKAR
SAMBANDHA AND ABHISAMBANDHA*
1.1. On the first page of his 1967 monograph Word Order in Sanskrit and Universal Grammar, J. F. Staal remarks: "The distinction which is relevant in the present context is that between sambandha 'the relation of one word to another within a sentence (as shown, e.g., by grammatical inflexion' and abhisambandha, anupūrvya or anupūrvi 'the order or arrangement of words (as occurring in actual utterances). This distinction could be specified within a general theory of language; in India it served to delimit the scope of the science of grammar or vyākarana itself. For, though it is sometimes said that the Sanskrit grammarians were interested in grammar but not in syntax, it would be misleading to interpret this as asserting that they were interested in words (pada) and not in sentences (vākya) (cf. Renou 1960, 66; 1961, 129). It would however be correct to say that the Sanskrit grammarians were interested in sambandha and not in abhisamband[ha, and accordingly in grammatical relations but not necessarily in word order."
1.2. It is evident from this citation as well as his remarks in the following pages that Staal attaches considerable importance to the distinction between sambandha and abhisambandha. In the present paper I wish to contend that no distinction of the kind Staal makes exists, that the distinction had no role in delimiting the scope of Grammar (vyākarana) and that it is wrong to set up abhisaṁbandha as a synonym of anupūrvi and anupūrvya.3
2.1. I do not know what the source of Staal’s distinction is. The commonly used dictionaries of Sanskrit in general and of Sanskrit śāstras (the Vācaspatya, Sabda-kalpa-druma, Nyāya-kośa, Mīmāṁsākośa, etc.), particularly of Sanskrit grammar (Abhyankar, Renou), do not contain any observations that will support the distinction. True, the ordinary Sanskrit term saṁbandha, basically meaning 'binding
Journal of Indian Philosophy 17: 299-307, 1989. © 1989 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.