Candragomins Syntactic Rules Some Misconceptions

Author(s): Mahadev Deshpande
Publisher: Mahadev Deshpande

Page 13

142 MADHAV DESHPANDE dvyahid there was no semantic or syntactic difference according to Panini. This reflects Panini's interpretation of such usages. According to Candragomin's own perception and interpretation, these usages meant different things. The use of the form dvyahe meant that the particular time was the location (adhara), while dvyahad meant something like " since two days ".13 Panini and Caudragomin differ on the meaning of various infinitive constructions. For instance, a construction such as ramah bhoktum odanam pacati " Rama cooks rice to eat ( it)" is derived by P. 3. 3. 10 ( tumun-nvulau kriyayam krijartha yam) which says that the affixes tumUN and Nvul may be used after a verb root, if the action denoted by that verb root is the future purpose of another action denoted by a verb used in the same construction. However, Panini feels that constructions like ramah gantum saknoti " Rama is able to go" do not express the same kind of semantic relationship between two actions, and hence he makes a separate rule to derive these kinds of constructions, i. e. P. 3. 4. 65 ( saka-dhrsa .... tumun). However, Candragomin's semantic perception is different from that of Panini and he explicitly says that both the above types of usages have one action for the sake of another action. Thus the notion of vivaksa "speaker's desire" 25 used by Candragomin has indeed a more substantive significance, than what is recognized by Joshi and Roodbergen. 16. Explaining their conception of vivaksa "speaker's desire", Joshi and Roodbergen say: "We could say that by making vivaksa responsible for che variety of syntactic construction Candragomin has introduced the bol CONSULT THE SPEAKER in the program of his machine. That is to say, the mechanical progress of the machine is interfered with every now 23d then. Panini, on the other hand, by means of his definitions has specified wonditions under which an item is supposed to be vyapya, or adhara, or sambandha in Candragomin's terminology. Therefore his machine, being rovided with a more explicit program, works better. Or, to put it differently, rocksa is not a grammatical concept, but a stylistic one. It merely says that ju of a number of modes of expression the speaker may select any particular 72" (Karakahnika, Intro., p. xviii). I find it difficult to agree with this formu tion. The analogy of Panini's grammar to a machine, derived from early wrceptions of Noam Chomsky, has been carried too far by Joshi and Randbergen. In my review of Roodbergen's Bahuvrihi-Dvandvaehnika (borearing in Orientalistische Literaturzeitung), I have pointed out to what at this analogy is misleading. Here I shall only deal with the concept avvaks&. In the first place, as I have shown, vivakso "speaker's desire" is not a selance principle in Candragomid's system. Secondly, even Panini's grammar issupposes a certain concept of vivaks& "speaker's desire", and it is not an tematon which can produce a text on its own. Who should decide whether je grammar should produce gantum icchati or jigamisati? Given the rule