________________
NOVEMBER, 1916]
among the Kambojas, whereas only the derivative is used in the Aryan Language. I don't quite see how III, 18 'इवाशुयायी शक्तेर्वास्यात् गतिकर्मण:' contradicts 'शवतिर्गतिकर्मा काम्बोजेष्वेव . The former means that could be derived from the root which means to go. Does this look like the root or base itself being current among the Aryans? It is only a derivative from it that is current. The same can be said of IV, 13: is derived from to go.' Does this say that the base itself is current in the Aryan language? It is only the derivative that is current there. And there is no harm in deriving a derivative from a root that might not happen to be current in the same dialect.
SOME NOTES ON YASKA'S NIRUKTA
177
Yaska has clearly said in the sentences immediately proceeding this passage that roots or bases only are used in certain regions, while derivatives from these bases only in others. As an example, the root only is current among the Kambojas, while its derivative only is_current_among the Aryans. प्रकृतय एव एकेषु भाष्यन्ते विकृतय एव एकेषु R. 40, 15. VII.R. 40, 19 and 20 S. II 161, 2 and 3. दण्डो ददतेर्धारयतिकर्मणोऽक्रूरो ददते मणिमित्यभिभाषन्ते । Durga's note on the passage at S. 552. 18ff runs thus. Do we anywhere find in the sense of fa-he holds? Yes; both in Veda and in common parlance (what Yaska calls भाषायां or इति अभिभाषन्ते, भाष्यते, eg. R. 33, 5 नूनामेति विचिकित्सार्थीयो भाषायामुभयमन्वध्यायम्). In the Veda in far gent care VII, 33, 11. see R. 84, 11. In common parlance or colloquially' etc. Akrûra was a king, the ruler of the a. He holds the jewel named on his head'. Durga evidently refers to the celebrated theft of the jewel, a dark episode in Krishna's life.
Roth's remark on this passage is as follows. If one would draw literary-historical conclusions from this example, taken from the well-known legend of the Yâdava race regarding the jewel a, we must draw attention to the fact, that the example is here inserted (interpolated) in a form, which nowhere else occurs in Yâska.
What Roth means by the last words of his remarks is not very clear. Perhaps Roth finds it strange that Yâska should take a colloquial passage to support this view. If so, I think justice is scarcely done to Yâska, who now and again points out differences between the भाषा and the वेद. The contrast भाषायां and अन्वध्यायं is a constant feature of the exposition of निपात or particles ; eg R 32, 10 इवेति भाषायां वान्वध्यायंच etc.
The whole passage R. 32, 24 to 33, 7 points to the fact that Yâska has drawn many examples from the living dialect, called भाषा e. g. कथं हि ब्याकरिष्यतीति खलु कृत्वा खलु कृतम् . It is true Yâska has not repeated the words af after these, as in our passage. But so much is clear that Yâska has not totally disregarded the Tr in his exposition. And it is not at all strange that he should quote a passage from the rar, even if it looks like a half verse. It is again in the fitness of things that in this particular connection Yáska should prefer the भाषा to the अध्याय or वेदः for दण्डपुरुष is not a Vedic word occuring in the fog. It occurs incidentally just as an example in the course of the exposition of general principles of etymology, which Yâska lays down at the beginning of the second chapter.
I think no valid reason has been brought forward by Roth to prove that the passage is an interpolation. इस्याभिभाषन्ते is a parallel expression to इति विज्ञायते which latter is used when the quotation is from a T (although far is often used in such cases) or at any rate not from the ar or colloquium.
Now what are the literary-historical conclusions that Roth fears to draw? Well they are that Yâska knew the Syamantaka story. This places the episode beyond Yâska; and so far as we know there is no absurdity that could vitiate the conclusion. The passage may also suggest that Akrûra's time was not far anterior to Yâska, if the present tense of is respected. But it might be a sort of adage and therefore the present tense need not carry us to any conclusion like that.
