________________
158
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[OCTOBER, 1916
saying, that Durga's Commentary must have done yeoman service to the editor, as most of the commentaries on Vedic works do to a modern Sanskrit scholar. But Roth differs from Durga more often than once, sometimes with good reason, but often without it. To my mind however, both Durga and Roth have misunderstood Yaska at some places ; at others Roth differs from the very reasonable explanation of Durga, apparently for no valid reason. In the following notes I have attempted to explain some of these passages. For brevity's sake I shall refer to Roth's edition with an R, page, line and Samasrami's with an S etc.
I. R. 31, 7, and S II 8, 1. Tout #ra 9 gatra parerearataeftET T
Parra, This follows the definitiong of ATA and sprozra, which are Nouns are where being predominates' and a Verb is where becoming predominates' respectively. Durga explains:' where (as in a sentence) both (occur), (there) becoming predominates ' etc. Roth appears to follow Durga, when he translates where both are joined (in a sentence), they conjointly express a becoming.'. Both Durga and Roth look upon the sentence beginning from Talucture as a fresh one, not at all connected with the previous one u etc. They appear to think that the sentences beginning with garattaat etc. and 4 etc., are simply further explanations of the areer and a respectively. I would suggest that both have missed the point. I was led to the conclusion by the examples which are given for gara etc. and etc. They are a fastarft and area respectively. If the sense was as Durga and Roth understood it, what was the propriety of giving are a as examples of a 4 and not simply : eto. as done later on?
Durga and Roth appear to believe that Yaska was thinking of the sentence, when he wrote agua etc. and that his view was that in a sentence, where both FT and stars occur, the predominated. To say the least, Yåska has never for once given any indication that he believed in the doctrine of Tr ; there is not the slightest hint, excepting this supposed one. I think Durga has here fathered his views on Yâska and Roth has copied him. Again if the sentence (74) was here foremost in Yaska's mind, in which he thought of determining the relative importance of the F and wear, he would not have omitted such an important word as TF and indicated it by the simple correlative conjunction 4. Moreover to the etymologist with a vengeance, as Yaska gurely is one, the word or Te is everything and the sentence or p is nothing. Lastly the very division of the sentence at TTV : 98 or TTY
as proposed by Durga and accepted by Roth, is highly unnatural and quite out of keeping with the lucid style of Yâska. His sentences are clear-cut sentences, each having its own verb or predicate. The first part of the division proposed by Durga wants a predicate. And never for once does Yâska omit the word that is most important; while the reading proposed by Durga is egregiously faulty from this point of view.
Another point that both the commentators appear to have missed, is that the two sentences intrat etc. and I eto. form the two sides of a period and suggest & contrast between the two things or in the nature of these, in answer to the point of similarity that is expressed in the previous sentence or etc. It is needless to say that the
word भाव, which occurs in पूर्वापरीभूतम् etc. must be understood after मूर्त सत्त्वभूत (भावं). - There would not be any propriety in saying मूर्ते सत्वभूतं (भाव) सत्स्वनामाभिः if only a noun were to be further defined by this sentence, simply for the fact that a Ty is not & the
I think the whole passage is to be explained in the following manner
