________________
16. ghas replaces ad before aorist endings according to
P.2.4.37 (lunsanor ghas!). 17. The value of this case is somewhat in doubt since TB
2.8.2.5 cites the same mantra as RV 10.47.1 with
jagrohna; it may have contained jagrbhma. 18. My friend Dr. Harry Falk points out in a forthcoming
article that Panini cannot have known AV$ 6.16.3, the reason being that Pāņini derives ailayit from elayati: the same mantra contains the form ilaya (avelaya), so that Panini, had he known AVS 6.16.3 as a whole, would have derived ailayit from ilayati rather than from
elayati. 19. This was pointed out by Manjul Mayank in a paper read at
the Seventh World Sanskrit Conference, Leiden, 1987. 20. The corresponding plural dădhrati occurs at TS 2.3.1.2,
5.3.9.2; MS 2.2.1; and KS 11.6. However, the juxtaposi. tion of dadharti, dardharti, dardharşi, and other finite verb forms seems to indicate that the precise form
dādharti is meant. 21. For example, P.7.1.57 goh pädänte) prescribes that the
genitive plural of go at the end of a verse-foot in ritual literature is gonām. This is illustrated in RV 10.47.1. But the Käsikā rightly observes that there are exceptions: RV 10.166.1 has gavām at the end of a verse
foot. 22. The Kānva parallel SBK 6.1.3.12 (chägänäm havişām
prasthitam preşya) seems to be the only example in Vedic literature in which P.2.3.61 is obeyed. Note that the single vārttika on P.2.3.61 is intended to make the rule invalid where the oblation is prasthita. This would
justify all, or almost all, deviations from Panini's rule, yet the fact that Panini says nothing about prasthita in this context shows that he did not know, or accept, these counterexamples. Similarly, see Navathe
(1987). 23. bähvojas in RV 8.93.2 is considered a Bahuvrihi, and not
therefore a Tatpuruşa compound, by Oldenberg (1909-12, 2:144). soma parvabhih in RV 1.9.1 - AVS 20.71.7 - VSM 33.25 - VSK 32.2.8 - SVK 1.180 = SVJ 1.2.1.7.6 can be
derived from parva, by P.7.1.10. 24. Note that the insufficiency of Păņini's grammar with
regard to the Vedic data has been known for a long time in the Pāṇinian tradition. Kumārila Bhatta, in his Tantravärttika, cites in this connection SVK 2.1006 = SVJ 4.17.11 (madhya apasya tisthati), which has apasya
instead of apām. 25. Caland (1921, 3) observed that the Āpastamba Srauta Sutra
refers to mantras of the Taittiriya Samhita by way of their initial words, and to those of the Taittiriya Brähmana by citing them in full. Kashikar (1968, 400) has also shown that mantras from the Taittiriya Brāhmana are often quoted by pratika. The Bharadvä ja Srauta Sutra
follows a similar practice (Kashikar 1968, 401). 26. That is, not even the forms ayakşmamkarana and sarūpam
karana, without the feminine i, are derived. 27. Note that the Mahābhāşya also prefers the Paippalāda
version of the Atharvaveda in some citations (see Renou 1953, 463).
108
109
