Reviews Of Different Books

Page 11

REVIEWS 217 'operation'. He says (38b), "karyam offers no such problems (as does understanding sasthi to recur from 1.1.49), but it is arbitrary: it does not occur in any preceding rule, from where it could be taken to 'continue'. To me a metalinguistic genitive after 1.1.49 looks best for 1.1.66, 67, but this is not the place to go into so complex a problem." (bracketed suppletion mine, G.C.) In note 40 of page 38b, Scharfe suggests that 1.1.67 applies correctly in affixation rules, so that an affix is introduced as a replacement of zero. For example, 3.1.5 (gup-tij-kidbhyah san), which introduces san to form derived roots such as jugupsa 'shrink from', is translated by Scharfe as follows: "The suffix san (is added) after the [roots) ... [instead of what originally followed] (i.e. nothing)." He finds this "quite unobjectionable". If I understand Scharfe correctly, his conclusions are the following. 1.1.49, 66, 67 define metalinguistic values of the genitive, locative, and ablative which, though they derive in some unspecified way from normal Sanskrit usage, are totally distinct from the values of these forms in the object language. purvasya, uttarasya of 1.1.66, 67 are substituend genitives; Scharfe considers this the best interpretation although he shrinks from discussing "so complex a problem". Finally, 1.1.67 applies in affixation rules: these affixes are introduced as replacements of zero. A further conclusion reached by Scharfe is this: although Panini does indeed use the case forms mentioned with the values they have in Sanskrit, this usage is not correct with terms proper to the metalanguage. Scharfe says (34a), "Such non-technical employment of the cases should not occur with technical signs; in fact, they are extremely rare: the locative matau 'in the meaning (of the suffix] -mat occurs twice. ..." In addition (35a), "When technical terms and works taken from Sanskrit are joined in one sutra, we have a mixed syntax: cases following Panini's metarules and cases following Sanskrit practice. ..." In the case of nouns borrowed from Sanskrit and given technical meanings, "they follow in their inflected forms freely the syntactic rules of the object language or the metalanguage (35a)". I have noted that Scharfe has to admit of the nontechnical use of the locative in cases such as matau. His conclusions cause him other problems. I shall note a few of these with Scharfe's suggestions. 7.1.88 (bhasya ter lopah (pathi-mathy-rbhuksam 851) provides that the ti29 of the items pathin 'path', mathin "churning stick', rbhuksin (a name) is replaced by zero (lopa) if these units are bha;30 for example, patha (instr.sg.) <pathin-a. bhasya is the genitive singular of the technical term bha. Nevertheless, 7.1.88 is readily understood only if bhasya is not interpreted as denoting a substituend (1.1.49). Speaking of this and another rule, Scharfe says (34b), "How would it be, if we applied the rule of the metalanguage? "Disappearance of bha, for the last vowel plus any consonant that might follow'. ... We have in each sutra not one, but two genitives naming the substituendum; but the first ones (bhasya ...) are not precise." He then suggests interpreting 7.1.88 as stating, "Disappearance of bha [i.e. more precisely) for the last vowel plus any consonant that might follow", and says, "This interpretation avoids the assumption of technical terms being used in non-technical cases. But it implies, that Panini used his technical genitive without the usual precision." Later on the same page (34b) Scharfe tells us, "These few non-technical cases of metalinguistic terms are best regarded as slips, violating the style and system of the metalanguage." Scharfe (34b) also considers slips the locatives in rules 1.4.105, 107.31 He says (35a), 29 i denotes that part of a unit which begins with its last vowel (1.1.64: aco'ntyadi ti). 30 bha denotes a unit which occurs before a certain set of affixes beginning with a vowel or y (1.4.18: y-aci bham). 31 1.4.105: yusmady upapade samanadhikarane sthaniny api madhyamah, 107: asmady uttamah. See IIJ 12.229 (1970). These rules are discussed in some detail in the paper, "On the interpretation of Panini 1.4.105-108", appearing in The Adyar Library Bulletin. On upapada see IIJ 15,1 [1973] (review of Katre, Dictionary of Panini, re p. 123),