Reviews Of Different Books

Page 10

216 REVIEWS cedure refers to) that which precedes'. It is mainly in the metalinguistic treatment of suffixes and augments, that these technical cases are important: a suffix A is added after a root X, an accretion B is added to a root Z before a suffix Y."24 Scharfe informs us (33b, note 11) that these translations are in accord with what is said in the Kasika,25 but that he himself has a different interpretation of these rules. Scharfe approaches this second interpretation of 1.1.66, 67 circuitously. On page 36b, he translates a small part of a Mahabhasya passage in which a particular view is espoused. The Bhasya discussion concerns rules 3.1.68 (kartari sap (sarvadhatuke 67]), 3.1.69 (div-adibhyah syan), and subsequent rules which introduce post-verbal affixes in the derivation of presential forms. 3.1.68 provides that sap is introduced after a root26 when this is followed by a sarvadhatuka ending which has been introduced to denote an agent. 3.1.69 introduces syan under the same condition after roots of the group div etc. The proposal is made27 that syan and other affixes introduced by subsequent rules be made replacements of sap.28 3.1.69 should then state: div-adibhyah sapah syan ('After diy etc., syan in the place of sap.'), with the substituend genitive (1.1.49) sapah. This genitive is obtained by letting the nominative sap of 3.1.68 carry into 3.1.69. In the latter rule, 1.1.67 applies to interpret the ablative div-adibhyah: 1.1.67 serves to convert the nominative sap to the genitive sapah. Under this interpretation, then, 1.1.66, 67 serve to convert nongenitive forms to genitives. This entails reading 1.1.66 tasminn iti nirdiste purvasya sasthi, 1.1.67 tasmad ity uttarasya sasthi, with sasthi understood as recurring from 1.1.49. Scharfe cites the Bhasya passage noted and approves of the proposal made therein: "This rule (tasmad ity uttarasya) states, that an element in the ablative determines the following element as the substituendum: properly marked by a genitive ending. This model changes the nominative sap to a genitive *sapah (36b)." Indeed, he takes pride in ostensibly following Patanjali and somewhat haughtily disagrees with another view (36b, note 24): "It is evident that 1, in following Patanjali, do not agree here with. ..." However, a bit later (38) Scharfe modifies his view. He notes that interpreting 1.1.66, 67 as containing sasthi carried over from 1.1.49 is difficult : "sasthi would continue not in direct line from 1.1.49 to 1.1.66, 67 - it would have to jump over the rules 1.1.50-65, in which it has no place. Besides, it creates difficulties for the suffix rules, which can be disposed of only with highly sophisticated argumentations (38b)." Scharfe then considers the Paniniya view, namely that in 1.1.66, 67 one is to understand karyam 24 Emphasis Scharfe's. I have substituted Italics for the boldface of the original. 25 The Kasika glosses 1.1.66 as follows: tasminn iti saptamy-artha-nirdese purvasya karyam bhavati nottarasya. According to the Kasika, then, tasminn iti refers to what is denoted (artha) by any locative form (tasmin, loc. sg. of tad used as a variable). Further, the Kasika emphasises that an operation (karya) applies to what precedes that which is denoted by a locative, not what follows it. This is in accord with what is said in the Bhasya. I do not think Scharfe has fully grasped what the Kasika is driving at. Certainly Scharfe's subsequent suggestions (see below) show a disregard for the subtleties of what the Paniniyas say. He has also not understood the import of Panini's using iti in 1.1.66, 67, as is clear from Scharfe's discussion of quotation (44a-45b, especially 45a). I reserve discussion of this for another occasion. 26 3.1.68, 69 come under the heading of 3.1.1. (see note 7), so that sap, syan are affixes. By virtue of the heading 3.1.2 (paras ca), all affixes occur after units unless a particular provision to the contrary is made (e.g., akac, see below). 27 Bhasya I.86.20 (and elsewhere): sab-adesah syann-adayah karisyante. Scharfe cites four lines beginning immediately after this. He also does not consider the full context in which this claim is made. This is discussed in some detail in the paper, 'On Panini's metalinguistic use of cases", appearing in the Charu Deva Shastri Felicitation Volume. 28 The finally acceptable view is that syan blocks the introduction of sap: 3.1.69 is an exception (apavada) to 3.1.68.