Etymology And Magic Yaskas Nirukta Flatos Cratylus And Riddle Of Semanticetymologies

Author(s): Johannes Bronkhorst
Publisher: Johannes Bronkhorst

Page 15

174
Johames Bronkhorst
Erymology and Magic
175
this meaning as well as all the other ones, but as a result of sūtra 1.1.49 only this meaning remains.
Since this part of Patanjali's comments - which follow a vårttika by Kätyāyana -- sets the tone for the then following discussion, it is important to understand it correctly. According to Kahrs these comments presuppose that the genitive covers, of its own, the substitutional meaning. From a purely logical point of view he is right. Logically speaking, the substitutional meaning must be one of the hundred meanings,"or as many as there are that Patanjali assigns to the genitive case ending. But this is not the same as concluding that the substitutional genitive is a well established feature of Sanskrit in general. The general mean ing of the genitive case ending is relation in general, more precisely everything that remains after specifying the meanings of the other case endings (P. 2.3.50; sasthi sese). Kahrs describes it as follows (p. 237): "A/städhyayi/ 2.3.50 sasthr sese teaches that a genitive case ending is introduced to denote the rest' (sea). According to the Kasikāvrtti this rest is any relation, sambandha, which is not a karaka-relation and different from the meaning of the nominal stem. In other words, a genitive case suffix is introduced to denote any relation sustained between entities, that is to say, any non-verbal relation in general, such as father-son, master-servant, part-whole, etc. The fact that two entities are mutually related by their appearance in a given context is expressed by the genitive case. But the particular type of relation is not specified." This, of course, includes an enormous lot. It includes, for example, the sense uncle of". and in certain exceptional circumstances the Sanskrit equivalent of "John is of Mary" or "John belongs to Mary" will have to be interpreted as meaning "John is Mary's uncle". This is not however the same as saying that the meaning "uncle of" for the genitive case ending is a well established feature of the Sanskrit language. The situation is not different, as far as I can see, for the substitutional meaning of the genitive case ending. There is just no evidence that this meaning is a regular feature of Sanskrit. This does not change the fact that this meaning, like the meaning "uncle of", is somehow included in the hundred or more cases covered by the genitive.
It is interesting, but also somewhat puzzling, that Kahrs seems to agree with this conclusion. He cites (p. 238 ff.) the example devadattasva vajñadattah "Devadatta's Yajñadatta", where the idea is that Yajñadatta is the son of Devadatta. He compares this with the grammatical rule (2.4.52) aster bhūh "ofas, bhu". Then he remarks (p. 238): "Just what the relation is ... can not be known from the statement aster bhah alone, anymore than one knows from the statement devadattasya yaradantah just what relation obtains between Devadatta and Yajñadatta. But if yaradattah is replaced by an obvious relational term such as putrah'son'. the relation in question is immediately understood: Devadatta's son. Now, in the case of aster bhūh, where bhu itself is no obvious relational term, the relation marked by the genitive is determined by the expression sthine which defines the genitive (in Pāņini's grammar). [The rule aster bhah.) then, teaches that bhū occurs in the sthana of as in certain contexts..." Kahrs even refers to Nägeśa's position, according to which sthana is not a meaning of the genitive case; it rather conditions the relation which is the meaning of the genitive case (pp. 241 f.). He concludes on p. 248: "I think it proper to accept what Kaiyata and Nageša say, which also Annambhata says: the sthāna is called a sambandha 'relation metaphorically, because it is a necessary condition for the relation in question. Note that I have accepted what most Pāņiniyas say, namely that the sthana is not itself a sambandha and thus not something directly conveyed by the genitive ending..." (my emphasis).
And yet, in the Epilogue (p. 268-269) the old position is back into place: "... there is nothing remarkable in interpreting a genitive as a substitutional genitive in the context of relations between linguistic elements. ... Nor is there anything in the discussions of Asstadhyayi) 1.1.49 sasthi sthāneyoga and the nirdiyamana-paribhasa which prohibits such an interpretation within or without the boundaries of vyakarana. ... the substitutional use of the genetive is part of the Sanskrit language so that any genitive in a suitable context could be interpreted in such a way" (my emphasis).
It should be clear that it is possible to have serious doubts with regard to the thesis that ultimately all Indian semantic etymologies are