Indian Antiquary Vol 21

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 61

FEBRUARY, 1892.]
a
At page 6 and also page 7 Mr. Dhruva has उक्ति and कर्मि उक्ति for what is rightly given in the original instance as कर्ता उक्ति and कर्मि उक्ति. The anuseara is not trifling or superfluous. It represents the locative case, a being the forms for कर्तरि, कर्मणि. These may be mere misprints, but as such they are none the less the results of great carelessness.
BOOK-NOTICE.
But a still more serious blunder appears at page 7, col. 1, when Mr. Dhruva puts:अनइ जिहां कर्ता कर्मपणई बोलाइ ते कम्मैकतां उक्ति कहियइ । [ Mr. Dhruva's edition has कर्ता कर्मपणहूं separated wrongly into कर्ता कर्म पण इं which makes no sense. This by the way.] Here the blunder consists in inverting the order of the words and कर्ता in the expression कर्ता कर्मपण. The original has कर्म कर्तापणई. The sense is अन्यत् यत्र कर्म कर्तृत्वेन उच्यते सा कर्मकर्तरि उक्तिः कथ्यते; "this division of af (voice) represents cases in which the is used as the ar." Mr. Dhruva's reading would make it " is used as which is not intended. See the instance given ए ग्रंथ सुखिई पढायइ । भयं ग्रंथः सुखेन पञ्चते. Here ग्रंथ, which is the कर्म, is used as the कर्ता. The object in sense is used as the subject in form. The name given to this उक्ति is कर्मकता and not कर्ताकॉम. This also indicates the sense above described.
In the opening portion of his edition Mr. Dhruva gives what he calls an analysis of the work. Here he has
-
"(5) Cases -seven," and then adds the remark "vocative not given." Here Mr. Dhruva forgets that the vocative is not known to Sanskrit grammar as a separate case by itself. It is only the nominative case used when addressing another person. This very work, at page 14, col. 1, under the chapter of the Cases, says आमंत्रणे *
"the nominative is used in addressing another." Mr. Dhruva seems to have been misled by the facts that in English grammars, as also in Gujarati grammars, the vocative is regarded as a separate case, and that the Sanskrit Rúpávali gives vocative forms after the locative. But the
The Analysis is then concluded with "(21) Prepositions" [more correctly, he should have said Prefixes']"twenty." But Mr. Dhruva strangely omits to notice the concluding chapter of the book which gives a few rules of Prosody. His Analysis should have concluded: — "(22) "Rudiments of Prosody."
53
as in "care " and "awe;" and narrow or long as in "ache" and "buat." When a Gujarati word having
or s has in its antecedent Prakrit or Dééya form or intermediate stage अड् or भय, or अउ or अब the pronunciation of the or in the Gujarat! word is broad. When the antecedent Prakrit (or Dêéya) form or intermediate stage has q and a, the pronunciation (in the Gujarl word for a is narrow; e. g. Déáya
main cause of this error of his is his theory that this work is a grammar of the vernacular of the period, -a theory which I shall explode below. Then the Analysis gives" (19) Rules of Syntax." This appears to refer to the Kárikás, beginning from the end of page 17 to very nearly the end of page 20 in the body of the work. A glance at these will shew that they give no rules of "Syntax." The only rules in these Kárikás which may present an appearance of rules of Syntax, are those which deal with several Kárakas, viz., कर्ता, कर्म, करण, संप्रदान, अपादान, अधिकरण, and the संबन्ध sense of the Genitive. But these meanings or significations of the Vibhaktis (Cases) cannot, in strict propriety, be regarded as falling within the scope of "Syntax."
I hope I have cited a sufficient number of instances to shew how superficially the work has been studied, and how carelessly it has been edited by Mr. Dhruva. But the superficiality of this study (if it can be called by the name of study) comes out boldly and strongly in his fundamentally erroneous theory about the nature of the work, which he has sadly failed to appprehend. He seems to regard this work as a Grammar of the Gujarati language of the period (A. D. 1394). It is nothing of the kind at all, as will appear from a little careful examination of the text, which clearly shews that it is merely a मार्गोपदेशिका, a hand-book for the help of the beginner (gr), to teach Sanskrit Grammar through the medium of the vernacular of the period. Along with hurry and superficial observation, this error may be attributed to the feeling of over
flowing patriotism which seems to have taken possession of Mr. Dhruva's mind, and has led him to imagine that so far back as 500 years ago his mother-tongue had a grammar of its own.
In examining Mr. Dhruva's theory I shall first point out the errors and wrong conclusions
बदली = बेलै Guj.; Sanskrit मलिनं = मद्दलं Prlk, मॅलं Guj: Sans., Prák. Toft, Guj. T. Sans,, Prak. चटक्कै, Guj. वॉक. PrAk. कवण (for Sans. क); Guj. कॉन; while Sans. कदली, Prak. केली, Guj· केळ; Sans. बदरं, Prak. बोरं, Guj. बोर. Instances might be multiplied. and are used to show the broad and T.