________________
APRIL, 1877.]
prove his points, and the success with which he has combated the opinions of several scholars, command our admiration, though we are rather inclined to think he has handled some of his German friends somewhat roughly. His book is, however, not without its weak points, and there are three or four places where it appears to us to be particularly so. It is not our intention at present to write an elaborate review of it, but we will notice one point which bears materially on his " theory about Pânini, the Indian grammatical legislator.
MISCELLANEA.
At page 166, Dr. Goldstücker lays down the four following propositions :
1. That his (Panini's) Grammar does not treat of those sanjnds or conventional names which are known and settled otherwise.
2. That this term sanjná must be understood in our rule to concern only such conventional names as have an etymology.
3. That it applies also to grammatical terms which admit of an etymology, but not to those which are merely grammatical symbols.
4. That such terms as ti, ghu, and bha were known and settled before Panini's Grammar, but that nevertheless they are defined by Pânini, because they are not etymological terms.
These four statements contain, according to Dr. Goldstücker, the principles which guided Pânini in the composition of his work, and are deduced as conclusions from one of his sûtras, Patanjali's Bhashya on it, and Kaiyaṭa's gloss on the latter. Leaving these points for fuller examination at the end, let us in the first place consider if these principles are worthy of being made the basis of a stupendous grammatical superstructure, and bear an air of truthfulness about them, or if there is any external evidence to support them.
According to the first two statements, Pânini does not propose to teach sanjnds, and such sanjnás only as have an etymology. Does he, then, propose to teach sanjnds which are without etymology? The "only" would show that he does propose this. What, then, is meant by sanjnás without etymology? Are such sanjnds as Panchdldḥ, Varanah, Angah, which are given by the commentators as instances of this sútra and the previous one to which it refers, and which, therefore, are the sanjnds Pânini, according to them, does not propose to teach,-are these sanjnds, we ask, without etymology? If they are, according to Dr. Goldstücker, Pânini should teach them. If they are not, no instance can be given of a word existing in the language which is a sanjnd without etymology. If we bear in mind that two schools of etymology existed in India, viz. vyutpatti paksha, according to which all words have an
109
etymology, and avyutpatti paksha, according to which some have, and some have not, and that Pânini belonged to the latter, as, is asserted and believed by all såstris, such words as pancháláḥ and angdḥ are sanjnds without etymology. And if this be joined with Dr. Goldstücker's statement it will follow that Pânini should teach them. But as a fact he does not, if we believe the commentators. Now with regard to the vyutpatti paksha, we see that the rule in question contradicts its doctrine, for according to that paksha all words, sanjnds included, have etymology, while the rule makes a distinction between words with and words without etymology. If we suppose, then, that Panini belonged to this paksha, and at the same time that he observed the rule given by Dr. Goldstücker, we must either suppose him to have possessed an extremely illogical mind, or not to have proposed such a rule for his guidance. Upon either view of etymology, therefore, we maintain that the rule laid down in statements Nos. 1 and 2 could not have been followed by Panini. We perfectly agree with statement No. 1 if it be separated from No. 2, and not interpreted according to the sense of the word sanjnd given in the latter.
In the next two statements, this rule is applied to grammatical sanjnds. Such as are settled are not to be defined, but an exception is to be made in favour of such as have no etymology, e.g. ti, ghu, bha, &c. We see no reason why Panini should select for definition, out of settled sanjnds, such as have no etymology. For, both those with and those without etymology are settled, i.e. have a fixed meaning. The mere circumstance of some sanjnds having etymology, which may be considered as the reason why they are not to be defined, is immaterial, as the presence of etymology in the one case is nearly the same thing as its absence in the other. The etymology of a technical term is not sufficient to explain its sense, and in some cases it affords no clue to it whatever. How can the etymology of the terms bahuvṛthi, pratyaya, &c. enable one to understand their grammatical signification ? In so far, then, as words with etymology are used in philosophical treatises in a sense different from the etymological, or from that they have in common language, they are in the same predicament as unmeaning words, such as ti, ghu, &c. We see, therefore, no reason why Panini should have selected the latter for definition, and not the former.
Having laid down this theory about Panini's technical terms, Dr. Goldstücker proceeds to test its accuracy with reference to several sanjnás which he knows were settled before Pânini's time, such as pratyaya, prathamá, dvitiya, tatpurusha,
