Reviews Of Different Books

Page 13

REVIEWS 219 (al) mama pituh samipe devadattah 'Devadatta is near my father'. (a2) mama pituh sthane'ham atra 'I am here in place of my father'. (b1) kupe devadattah 'D. is at the well'. (62) agate devadatte gato'ham 'I left when D. arrived'. (cl) gramat purvah parvatah (c2) gramad uttarah parvatah "The mountain is north of the village'. Note that two genitives occur in (a1), (a2): mama 'my', pituh 'of father'. Only the latter is construed with an item which fills the blank in (a). Let us call forms such as mama, pituh, which are respective values of tasya, and tasya, in (a), bound and unbound genitives respectively. Note also that (b1), when it has the meaning shown (and not ... is in the well'), does not convey where precisely Devadatta is relative to the well, whether to the east, west, north, or south of it. Consider now the following grammatical statements. (1) 1.4.80: te prag dhatoh (2) 1.4.105: yusmady upapade samanadhikarane sthaniny api madhyamah (3) 6.4.34: sasa [upadhaya 24] id an-haloh (4) 6.1.77: iko yan aci (5) 3.1.91: dhatoh (6) 8.1.28: tin atinah (1) is immediately understandable from one's knowledge of Sanskrit: they (the items classed as upasarga and gati by previous rules) occur before (prak) a root (dhatu). The ablative dhatoh is construed with prak in accord with the normal syntactic pattern accounted for by 2.3.29. (2) also is immediately understandable: the verb endings called madhyama occur when the L-member which has been replaced tentatively by any finite ending denotes the same thing (samanadhikarana) as a potentially used (sthaniny api) cooccurring item (upapada) yusmad. The other sentences are not immediately susceptible of a unique interpretation: they are not really full sentences. (3) is like (a1), (a2) in that it contains both a bound and an unbound genitive. The relation signified by the genitive ending of sasah is obvious: a penultimate sound (upadha) is part of a unit. However, (3)6.4.34 does not immediately tell the reader what relation holds between this penultimate sound of sas ('instruct') and i (denoted by it). (4) is similarly incomplete. The rule does not directly state what relation holds between the vowels i, u, r, ! (denoted by ik, gen. ikah) and their corresponding semivowels (denoted by yan). In both cases one could, from one's knowledge of Sanskrit, supply samipe, sthane as in (a1), (a2) or some other relational item in order to complete the sentences. There is an additional obscurity. The locative aci is immediately interpretable as denoting loci. It is also true that the only locatival relation which obtains between linguistic items is contiguity. However, one does not know from (4) whether the operation stated applies before or after contiguous vowels (ac). Rule (6) requires a suppletion in order to be fully understood. One could, then, understand either atinah purvas tin a form terminating in a verb ending (tin) and which preceedes a form terminating in a nonverbal ending (has no high pitched vowel)' or atinah paras tin 'a form terminating in a verb ending and which follows ...'; cf. (cl), (c2). Similarly, one does not directly understand from (5) whether the units introduced by subsequent rules are to occur after a root or before a root. Clearly, if a Sanskrit speaker were left to understand such rules without further rules to guide him in interpreting them, he would be at a loss. Panini supplies such rules. (5)3.1.91 is stated in a section of the grammar headed by 3.1.1. Within this section another heading is in force, 3.1.2 (see note 26): a unit introduced and classed as affix (pratyaya) occurs after (para) that to which it is introduced. The ablative dhatoh is thus construed with the direction word para according to normal Sanskrit syntax. A rule such as 3.1.97 (aco yat) together with the headings and 1.1.72 (yena vidhis tad OL.