________________
NOVEMBEH, 1916)
SOME NOTES ON YASKA'S NIRUKTA
173
SOME NOTES ON YASKA'S NIRUKTA. BY PROF. P. D. GUNE, M.A., Ph.D.; POONA.
(Continued from p. 160.) Before trying to determine the sense, we have to see what Yaska means by Hima Durga is not right when he paraphrases it by 'ay are a : i. e., in their case there is no disagreement.' To settle the sense, we shall examine other passages where this word occurs, in this or in other forms. In R. 31, 13 and S. II 23, 15 it is used without the preposition fr. carla Tortartare a G T A szertrü ta' because the word in Tervasive and subtle, it is used by people in common ir: tercourse to denote objectx.' a t is therefore denotation, conventional denotation.
In R. 119, 20 we have the word with both the prepositions and this passage therefore is very useful in determining the true or Yaska's sense of संविज्ञात. 'तान्द त्येके समामनन्ति भूयार्सि T ATA 2 Art FareerFuegra EA some enumerate even these (i. e. attributes like , among the names of gods); they are however too many for such enumeration. I shall however collect only that (attribute or name) which has become a ma (a name by which a god is known among the people) and by which a deity receives independent praise. This passage shows that attributes can't be regarded as names of gode, until and unless people conventionally agree that a certain attribute shall be regarded as a distinctive name of a certain deity. A
a name therefore is a conventional name. And this is the sense that is most suitable in the passage under discussion and not that proposed by Durga. Roth has probably seen this. We agree with him when he regards संदिज्ञातानिहानि यथा गौरवः etc. as the first point in गाय great indictment of the Nirukta school. Such names, says he, as :, : etc. are conventionally given and cannot be traced to any root.
There remains only one difficulty now. What is to be made of the relative sentence ending with furar ? Unless there is some idea corresponding to it and forming the principal sentence, it sounds incomplete and therefore very irregular. For an explanation we shall turn to Yaska's rejoinder to Gårgya.
The reply of Yâska is contained in the passage R. 36, 10 to 22, S. II 94, 7ff. i. e. from aut 104 Errerit... to **73 fa. If we examine the passage closely, we find that Yaska proceeds to controvert Gârgya, statement by statement. While doing so he repeats Gârgya's statement, placing it between yet yaa and gra. For example 4 Tag fasta SASOTTSFAT -aftra, ara fasta fase di. Here fac... fara a is Gârgya's statement and from that onwards in Yaska's reply. Here then we find Gárgya's statements (without examples) quoted word by word. Now what is the first statement that is replied to by Yáska? It is in the very first sentence bracketed by gut taa and . It runs thus:-OUT ( 1) gaa aGT THE U Trafara oraritat Farai ir Fuar T rawliere the accent and formation are regular and are accompanied by an explanatory root, all that is die (i. e. to be derived from the root). If this is what it means, it is no taunt (or objection, because we say the same thing). This clearly shows that the principal sentence corres ording to the relatives sentence ending in an is a acara . And that is also what we expect. Strangely enough, it is omitted in the original statement of the quoted above. To whatever cause we attribute the omission, we have no doubt that the initial staterr.ent at R. 35, 20 is incomplete without Y TA. And we are also sure, comparing the initial passage with its counterpart in Yaska's reply at R. 36, 10, that a aa 9.19 must have been
