________________
160
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
(OCTOBER, 1916.
Tutar T S
a ara R. 34, 25; S. II 73,9. After this comes the description of the particle in the expletive sense. Yo Teasüs te qug 14447 Tregant 49 AHUTUT: R. 35, 1 and S. II 73, 10. The fara therefore expresses 1 a simile, 2 *ATH and lastly no sense at all. According to this classification, , ar, , , , , fo , uy up to and including < are all examples of the second division, i. e., they are
Altragris. As we actually have it, however, they have each a different sense to express, viz., 2, fat, fara , fara T ax and others. Th98 therefore must cover all these cases. Durga is not unconscious of the fact, when at S. 473, 12 ff, he says, व्याख्याताः कर्मोपसंग्रहार्थीयाः तत्पसंगेन नीहीत्येवमादयोऽन्यार्थी अत्युक्ताः प्रतिज्ञाप्रसिक्तानेवाधुना पदपूरणान्वक्ष्यामः .We have explained the कर्मोपसंग्रहार्थीय. Together with them even हि etc. which have got different senses (i. e. not KAITĖ9) have been mentioned. Now we shall speak of the expletives, in consonance with our original statement.' The original statement or प्रतिज्ञा is namely Yaska's statement "अपि उपमार्थेऽपि कर्मोपसंग्रहार्थेऽपिपदपूरणाः"S, II 44
To my mind therefore FAITĖ9 does not cover or only, according to Durga, but all the other अर्थs, excepting उपमा and पदपरण. It is a wider term than समचथ. 'By it is known a variety (or separateness) of senses, but not as in simple enumeration of objects, where the very fact that they are bodily mentioned separately, is a sufficient guarantee that they are distinct and separate.
III. R. 35, 20. S. II 83 13, A T ETTİFAK auf gift tota spanit Farai fenata तानि यथा गौरश्वः पुरुषो हस्तीति.
Here Durga makes a division after alla. He paraphrases where the accent and the grammatical form are regular and are accompanied by an explanatory wig, there we agree (gartfarar: i.e. there we also say that such nouns are derived from roots.). Not however as in 1: : 969: graft etc. As examples of the nouns whose derivation from roots might be agreed to even by गाग्र्य, Durga adds कर्ता, कारक, पाचक ete. In short, he stops at arra and seems to think that the examples of agreement are to be understood ; while the examples actually quoted he looks upon as examples of disagreement between the and Trit. It is however strange that the sentence or idea of Traf, for which ITT: etc. are supposed to be given as examples, has to be taken as understood. This would be the first example of its kind, where Yâska leaves out a whole idea to be understood and gives only its examples. Not even the most laconic s, where brevity is the soul of wit, omit words that are essential, not to speak of whole ideas. Durga is again led by his own hobby of threefold division of nouns. Teuforfor, acararfor, forfatter, (i. e, where the til or root is apparent, where it is to be thought out or supplied and where it does not exist at all), and imposes it upon Yaska, who has not yet told us of this.
Roth has perhaps seen the difficulty and divided the sentence after area. He translates Gârgya and some other grammarians, however, do not allow this of all nouns (this w
), but only of such nouns as are regularly formed in respect of accent and grammatical form, and at the same time contain an explanatory root; T: 79: 16: on the contrary, are arbitrarily (conventionally) named.'
I have to say at the outset that Roth's explanation appears to be satisfactory, although it is not clear how he has completed the first sentence. It is evidently a relative clause, from agy to eat, and must have another principal one to correspond to it. The initial तत् may perhaps stand for the whole idea नामान्याख्यातजानि and यत्र to स्यातां serve as a restraining clause. But this would be attributing too much to the harmless little thing qa, au simply corresponds to the English then or therefore. This will be clear from the first sentence of Yâska's reply to it, qui IT Tag aa' eto. R. 36, 10.
(To be continued.)
