Etymology And Magic Yaskas Nirukta Flatos Cratylus And Riddle Of Semanticetymologies

Author(s): Johannes Bronkhorst
Publisher: Johannes Bronkhorst

Page 14

172
Johannes Bronkhorst
Etymology and Magic
173
means: "megha ('cloud) is of something really existing such that one can say (of it): mehati 'it rains'." The genitive ending finds expression in the word 'of' of the translation.
The next question is what is the exact meaning of this use of the genitive? What does it mean to say that the word megha is of something of which one can say it rains' (mehari)? The most straightforward interpretation might seem to be that the word megha belongs to something, viz. a cloud, of which one can say that it rains. This would seem to make perfect sense. Yet Kahrs does not seriously consider this possibility. He rather translates phrases like this in the following manner: "megha is in the meaning of that which really exists so that one says (of it): 'it rains" (p. 162; my emphasis). Yaska, according to Kahrs, employs a genitive to indicate a substitution procedure as well as to indicate that which is signified by a word and thus ultimately its synonym. The substitutional model, mentioned earlier, is thus based on a particular interpretation of the genitive. Is this a regular interpretation of the genitive in Sanskrit?
Kahrs claims it is. This kind of use of the genitive ending is called sthānasasthi in Sanskrit grammatical literature. Kahrs believes that it is firmly rooted in ordinary Sanskrit (p. 234). He comes to the conclusion
that the usage of the sthānasasthi is a well established feature of ordinary language" (ibid.). "It is evident" -he states on the same page
- "that you could get the usage of the sthānasashr from the Sanskrit language itself". And again, one page earlier (p. 233): "Such a usage of the genitive is in accordance with established Sanskrit usage."
This all sounds rather favourable to Kahrs's main thesis. All that remains to be done, one would think, is cite some passages from classical or Vedic literature that show that such a usage of the genitive is indeed well established in Sanskrit. No attempt is however made to prove the point, so often repeated, that the substitutional use of the genitive is well established Sanskrit usage. The reason is easy to guess. The genitive of substitution may not be all that well established in Sanskrit
An exception has to be made for grammatical literature. Pāņini's grammar, in particular, uses the genitive in this way. Kahrs rightly
points out that "to interpret a genitive as a substitutional genitive is nothing remarkable in Sanskrit grammatical literature" (p. 236). Then. however, he continues: "Nor is there anything... which restricts such a usage of the genitive to grammatical texts." This is far from obvious. The substitutional genitive in grammar is a technical device which, like most other technical devices of grammar, is most unlikely to be valid anywhere else. Panini's grammar uses a number of technical terms and devices, which are properly introduced, and which claim no validity outside this grammar. The special use of the genitive is just one of such devices. It is introduced in sūtra 1.1.49 (sasthisthänevoga). which means in Böhtlingk's translation: "Der Genitiv in einem Sûtra bezeichnet dasjenige, an dessen Stelle Etwas treten soll." The use of the genitive in Panini's grammar is therefore special, and should not one would think, be used to elucidate the use of the genitive in other works.
Kahrs does not agree. He discusses in detail the portion of Patanjali's commentary (the Mahabhäsya) on this sūtra of Panini, as well as the subcommentaries thereon, and finds there an argument which, in his opinion, "would not work were not the use of the sthānasasthi firmly rooted in the usage of ordinary Sanskrit" (p. 234). This, and only this, makes him conclude that the usage of the sthānasasthi is an established feature of ordinary language". This conclusion, which is vital to Kahrs's thesis, depends therefore, not on an attestable feature of the Sanskrit language, but on the correct interpretation of a scholastic argument, and on nothing else.
Which is the argument which leads Kahrs to his conclusion? It is essentially this. Patañjali points out that the genitive case ending can have "one hundred meanings, or as many as there are," and that therefore sūtra 1.1.49 restricts, for Panini's grammar, the meaning of the genitive ending to the single meaning "that in the place of which something will be substituted" (p. 197). Kahrs is of the opinion that the sutra can only restrict the meaning in this manner, if the meaning
that in the place of which something will be substituted" does already belong to the genitive ending. Normally the genitive ending expresses