________________
112
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
here discussed by these several writers is this:The last but one sūtra of Panini is लुपि युक्तवद्वचकिवचने, which is thus explained in the Siddhanta Kaumudi :—–लुपि सति * प्रकृतिवचने स्तः । पञ्चालानां 'निवासो जनपदः पञ्चालाः । कुरवः । अङ्गा । &c., meaning that when an elision called takes place, the gender and number (of the noun) are like those of the base; q: &c. are instances. This requires some explanation. In virtue of the sútra Far: 4, 2, 69, the termination a should be added to the noun q: for instance, when we have to form a derivative signifying the place of residence or the country of the Panchâlâs,' a race of Kshatriyas (hence the above example from the Kaumudi is worded पञ्चालानां निवासो जनपद ). Now, this termination is elided in virtue of the sutra
4, 2, 81. If the termination were not dropped, the word expressing 'the country of the Panchâlâs' would be :. Then the question is, when it is dropped, what should be the gender and number of the noun signifying the country? Should it be masculine and singular, as the word country is? If so, the derived word would be q But "No," says Pânini (in the sutra ga &c.); "the gender and number should be like those of the original base," which is q, and, consequently, masculine and plural. Hence the noun signifying the residence or country of the Panchâlâs is "Now," says Panini (in the satra तदशिष्यं संज्ञाप्रमाणत्वात्), "what is the use of teaching by a rule the number and gender of these?" though he himself, in conformity with the practice of former writers, has done so. "They are to be learnt from usage, which has itself an anthority, just as the gender and number of : and RT: are, and the authority of a grammarian is not required. For q art, &c. in the plural are actually the names of certain countries, and, as such, ought to be used in the plural, in deference to the existing usage, and there is no necessity of a grammarian's teaching it." Upon this Patanjali raises the question, "Panini speaks of the authority (of usage in matters) of names. Are they such names as ți, ghu, bha, &c., which have an authority" (as used by Pâpini, not necessarily by any other writer) P "No," says he. Kaiyata explains why Patanjali put to himself such a question. "He was led," he says, "to it by the proximity of these artificial grammatical sanjnds, or that he wanted to determine which were the sanjnds meant by Pânini; because if he did not do so, a reader might, on
' युक्त is explained as प्रकृति, because in a word the sense of the base is intimately joined to that of the T44 or ter
[APRIL, 1877.
reading the sutra in question, be led to think first of them (the grammatical names) rather than of any other, on account of their proximity to or connection with the science he is studying. In order, therefore, to avoid all such confusion, he proposes the question, and answers it by saying No.'" Why not? "() Because," says Kaiyata, "(f) the authority of the grammatical sanjnds, ti, ghu, bha, &c. (¶¶¶à) is no reason (as the authority of sanjnds in common language such as Panchaldḥ, Angah, &c. is) why युक्तवद्भावशास्त्रम् [a sūtra or rule expounding that when a termination is elided by the use of the term, the gender and number are like those of the base] (a) should not be taught." And why is it no reason P " (संबधाभावात्) Because there is no connection" (i.e. no connection between such sanjnâs as ti, ghu, &c. and y). This is the whole sense of the three quotations. i.e. like the base, is the word used by Pânini in the last but one sútra (fay),&c.; and Kaiyata first adds the word a to it, when the whole means "the being like the base," and then the word शास्त्रम् a rule, and thus the expression युक्तवद्भावशास्त्रम् signifies literally "the rule about the being like the base," and not an etymological work, as Dr. Goldstücker understands.
It will thus be apparent that Dr. Goldstücker's theory is based upon a misapprehension of a passage in Kaiyata; and, now that we have explained its true sense, and have also shown that the theory is not supported by any external evidence, it must, we think, be given up. The first of the doctor's four propositions if separated from the second we agree with, as we have already intimated. Dr. Goldstücker's opinion, that the sanjnde ti, ghu, and bha were known before Panini's time, may be true, for aught we know, but it does not at all follow from anything in the passages commented on. He was, no doubt, led to it by the expression टियुभादिसंज्ञानां प्रमाणत्वम्, which he renders by "such terms as ti, ghu, bha, are settled terms." We would translate it as the authority of such sanjnás or terms as ti, ghu, bha, &c., and this authority they derive from their having been used and defined by Panini. The whole grammatical literature based on his work does not admit the authority of any other person except him, his continuator and critic Katyayana, and his bhdshyakdra. And even if we take Dr. Goldstücker's translation, the expression "are settled terms" does not necessarily mean " settled" before Pánini's time, or by any other person than Papini himself.
mination (see note 70, p. 549, Cowell's edition of the Kaumudi: प्रत्ययार्थेन नित्यसंबद्धार्थकतया युक्तमत्र प्रकृतिः )
