________________
176
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
(NOVEMBER, 1916
Now we have to turn to the end of the Erst chapter. There, after mentioning the circumstances which very probably must have led to the compilation of the lists of words, Yaska also puts forward a general scheme of division of the work into three great parts.
1. GER: HATHITT YT: gare HRT . So many are the roots having the same meaning ; so many are the names of this object. It is easy to see that this means synonyms: several words whether roots or nouns, having identical sense.
2. partat TANTE So many senses are conveyed by this name (this approaches homonyms); one and the same word having different senses.
When we compare this with the above, we easily see that this is the same twofold division, as has been mentioned in the sentence of the fourth chapter quoted above. Yâska has not left us in doubt as to the names of these two sections they are 4 and TH respectively. The third, as we know, is tan.
The second and the third chapter of the front constitute therefore the go o , the following three the r i s and the last six the . We know that there is also another name for the second book; it is hafan R. 65-2. We have seen how the name could have arisen. If we laid too much stress on cam so they call it R. 65-2, then we might say that it is a name in use before Yåska ; his name for the section is 'TH. We can also see how that section could have received this name. Because it contained chiefly Path or Vedic words' whose fit is not known, therefore it was 9703. See Max Müller A. S. L. 155.
It is possible to apply this division also to the face. The first three chapters of these lists, containing words from ara unafft mana constitute gogon; the fourth, from जहा to भाबीसं, forms the नैगम or the ऐकपदिक and the fifth the देवत. But as a rule it is applied only to the pot. Roth is therefore wrong in calling the whole of the lists themselves the aqugchah'or a section of the work.
VI. R. 40, 15 and 16; S. IL-160,13. afaifa antar at i fara rirag 99 it is only among the Kambojas that the root uie, meaning' to go' is used ; its derivative 79, is used among the 'Aryans.' Roth has a long note on this passage. It means:-“This passage is more than a riddle. The first distinction is made between the Kambojas and the Aryans i. e, the people of the North-west, who were formerly Aryans, but who now no longer have a common faith and learning (with the Aryans), and the genuine Aryans. The former are supposed to say Tafmiferant, the latter on the contrary fafa
f. So far as the Aryans are concerned, this is wrong according to all the other older grammars that we know and according to Yaska's own work, who in III, 18 and IV, 13 says Tydeffe , although no one would regard him as & Kamboja (for that). Further the Easterners, who with the Northerners form only sub-sections of the Aryans themselvescompare the use of the term in Pân; Böhlingk II S..V.-would also use the same terminology as is current among the Kambojas; and therefore the first distinction (between Aryans and Kambojas) would be done away with. Under these circumstances, the only possible explanation appears to me to be that we have to banish from our texts the words- to T a ' as an unskilful interpolation of a wiser grammarian. But still the passage is valuable as it shows that the existence of) a Sanskrit grammar among the Kambojas was at any rate presumed."
The passage therefore, is an interpolation according to Roth. I think this conclusion is based upon a misconception: first because there is no mention of a terminology that was current in certain regions eto; and secondly because Roth has not understood the meaning properly. For the passage certainly does not mean the Kambojas say ugrasifant.' The meaning of raw and appears to have puzzled Roth. It means 'is spoken' s. e. is current in the language. The passage only means that the root itself is current
