________________
A. WEZLER
.68).
vyañjanam iti //. “Yet, on account of which [reason did you right now assert]: ‘These (i.e. the udātta, anudātta and svarita) are qualities of a vowel, but due to its proximity to it a consonant, too, is perceived as being qualified by them', not, however, (the opposite, viz.] that they are qualities of a consonant, but that due to its proximity to it a vowel, too, is perceived as being qualified by them? [The reason is that] even without (i.e. in the absence of) a consonant they are recognized as qualities of a vowel and nothing else, but that, on the other hand, without a vowel a consonant cannot even be pronounced [so that the question whether it is qualified by an accent and, if so, why, does not at all arise]. And the etymology [of the terms svara and vyañjana) indeed also corresponds to [this their] meaning i.e. indicates this important difference between them); [for] 'vowels' [are sounds which] 'shine by themselves / on their own' [and] a 'consonant' [is a sound which] 'follows' i.e. becomes qualified by the accent only afterwards)".
In this case it is hence as plain as it can be that the sentence anvartham khalv api nirvacanam is merely meant to corroborate what is already stated in the preceding sentence, viz. that a vowel by its very nature is a completely independent type of sound, whereas a consonant is in contradistinction to it dependent on a vowel even for being pronounced, not to speak of its being. qualified by an accent: The topic to which in the last sentence attention is called is 'new' only in the sense that what has been stated in the preceding sentence is now further supported by pointing to the etymology of the terms svara and vyañjana themselves which allegedly-confirms the correctness of this phonetic statement.
But what about the second instance? It is found in the M. under Pāṇini's rule 8. 2. 48, or, to be more precise, in the discussion following upon vārtt. 3 in which it is stated that the root añj is in certain cases used añcatyarthe, "in the meaning of the root añc", viz. prakāśana. In concluding this part of the discussion Patañjali says (M. III 408. 24-409. 2):
tathāñjer vyañjanam vyañjanam ca prakāśanam / yat tat snehena madhurena ca jadikytānām indriyāņām svasminn ātmani vyavasthāpanam sa
