________________
not described by Panini, that they "escaped his observa
tion," as Palsule (1982, 188) claims. 3. Balasubrahmanyam (1981, 400) notes that in the sample
studied by him, "three per cent of the exclusive Vedic vocabulary differs from Plāņini)'s accentual system, and four per cent of the common vocabulary manifests the apparent difference between P[anini) and the Veda with
reference to the systems of Kyt accentuation." 4. Even Kätyāyana and Patañjali sometimes ascribe an accent
to a Vedic word that deviates from the accent found in the surviving texts (see Balasubrahmanyam 1974, 3, on
sthāsnu). 5. The fact that the Phitsūtras of Santanava ascribe to
arya, jyestha, and kaniştha the accents found in the extant Vedic literature is reason to think that Säntanava is later rather than earlier than Panini; cf. Kielhorn (1866, 1f.) and Devasthali (1967, 39f.). Kapila Deva Shastri (Sam 2018, 28f.) argues for an earlier date of the Phitsutras on insufficient grounds (Cardona 1976,
176). 6. Cf. Kiparsky (1980, 69) and Devasthali (1984, 137). 7. Thieme (1985) shows that the accents prescribed by
Panini in the case of words that are commonly used to address people are the initial accents of the vocative. He concludes that Panini's accents are later than the (differing) Vedic ones. This may be correct, yet it does not by itself prove that all the texts having Vedic accentuation in these cases are older than Panini. It is certainly conceivable that the Vedic texts were composed in a form of language that was kept archaic also
in its accents. Pāņini's bhāṣā, too, is younger than Vedic, yet Panini does not for that reason necessarily
postdate scriptures that use the Vedic language. 8. Note that MS-1.5.12 (p. 81 1.2-6) uses rätri in the
language used by the gods and rätri elsewhere; this was
pointed out to me by Professor Witzel. 9. P.2.3.62, 4.39, 73, 76, 3.2.88, 5.2.122, 6.1.34, 70, 133,
178, 2.199, 4.75, 7.1.8, 10, 103, 3.97, 4.78. Cf. Shiva
ramaiah (1969) 10. It goes without saying that the generality of such rules
can be restricted in various ways such as the presence of
rules that account for exceptions (apavāda). 11. For a brief description, see Chakrabarti (1980, 134-36)
and Jha (1942, 294-99). 12. The following examples are taken from Bharthari's dis
cussion of iha in his commentary on the Mahābhāşya (see
below). 13. We should not be misguided by this late date. Bhart
hari made use of works on Mimamsă older than Sabara's, among them probably the one by Bhavadāsa. See Bronk
horst (1989a). 14. The relevance for grammar is, of course, that in this way
it can be decided whether or not Vedic rules are to be used in the modified mantras. Note that Kumărila's Tantravārttika on PMS 1.3.24 maintains that üha is brought about without the help of grammar but rather with
forms found in the Veda. 15. SSS 6.1.15, similarly, prescribes substitution of medha
pataye or medhapatibhyaḥ for, apparently, medha patibhyām, as instances of wha.
106
107.
