________________
OCTOBER, 1916]
SOME NOTES ON YASKA'S NIRUKTA
159
Yaska has first defined a नाम as सस्वप्रधान and an भाण्यात as भावप्रधान, both being padas (99.). But there are some padas in the former category, where are seems to be prominent. These are namely the abstract nouns, like fur, f . Here is then clearly & case where the definition of the Teuta is applicable to certain kinds of arh. The question therefore is, 'where both i. e., ata and ea, are characterized by the predominence of r or becoming, how are you going to decide'? To this Yâska has a carefully considered answer. Says he where (however) or becoming predominates in both, there (i. e. in such a case, the absence of the correlative Fy could be understood and is therefore immaterial) the 7 in a state of flux or change ( CE or incomplete) is denoted by the आख्यात ९.g., ब्रजति, पचति; while on the other hand a complete TT ( i. e. a T that is no longer in becoming or in change ) which has materialized into a सत्व, is expressed by the names of सत्व, e.g. व्रज्या , पक्ति: going, cook ing' In a which expresse & r (e. g. 9
) that is no longer in the process of becoming but is now complete; and therefore ayar and off are to be classed under nouns or नामानि.
This is an explanation at once simple and adequate. It alone explains why the words gya, q : are specially selected. Besides it is more natural than the one offered by Durga.
II. R. 32.20, S II 51,1. Zertaraugu fua acarafa faqar qu e . Roth's translation or rather explanation of this passage is as follows:- The definition of the second class of particles apparently must be so understood ; that nipata, from the placing (setting) of which one can indeed see a separateness of the ideas, but not one (i. e, separateness) arising from a simple placing side by side as in individual mention (or enumeration), that is called arranging or adding' even owing to the separateness'.
Here again Roth does not appear to have understood the sentence properly. Here too he appears to have followed Durga and connects the abl. पृथक्त्वात् with मापसंमह: । would suggest that पृथक्त्वात् is parallel to भागमात् and is connected with औदेशिकामव. I would translate-Owing to whose advent (i. e. use) separateness of the 28 (senses or ideas) is indeed known, but not as in simple enumeration owing to separate position or independent mention, that is autem,-i. e. adding or putting together of the senses or ideas. Durga has understood wild rightly but he has spoiled the case by taking the word 9 to mean what it does in later grammar and connecting it with स कर्मोपसंग्रहः.
The case is like this. When you simply enumerate objects like 'cow, horse, man,' you are aware of the separateness of these objects by the very fact, that they are bodily mentioned as being separate. But in cases like st
914 , the idea of the separateness of the two pieces of work and their being executed by different persons is brought out by the nipata अह.
Durga has kept only in mind, when he takes me in his particular way, giving as an example r a t. Here he says' we understand the separateness by the supposition ( RATTATUETTE) or understanding of a 9. But this does not apply to the other examples of कर्मोपसंग्रह, like वा, स्वा, अह, 7 etc. In fact Durga appears to take कोपसंग्रहार्य and art as synonyms; while they are not so, as will be seen from the following.
While speaking of the fagra or particles, Yâska says that they are used in various senses; and immediately adds a threefold classification viz., to express a simile, to express
n y and as expletives. Then he says how four of the particles are used to express comparison and gives examples. As the sense of 799 was evident, he did not attempt any definition or description. Then follows the description of a n R. 32, 20; S II 51,1; up to
a
