Reviews Of Different Books

Page 15

REVIEWS 221 ore only as a locative about pure and simple. nnot here have it t madhyama, uttama) are allowed to occur only in given contexts. There is no question of contiguity between yusmad and endings. Nor is there any question of a particular domain (visaya) in which the restriction applies: it applies in Sanskrit pure and simple. Hence, the locative yusmadi is interpretable only as a locative absolute (sat-saptami). Further, upapada cannot here have its technical meaning; it means simply a cooccurring item. As for 5.3.71, the wording is not merely a stylistic variant, as Scharfe claims. This rule introduces an affix (pratyaya) ak. Normally, an affix occurs after the unit to which it is introduced (see note 26). Hence, Panini had to formulate this rule as he did in order to have ak occur within indeclinables and pronominals; e.g., ucсakaiḥ, not *uccaisak. Moreover, a bit of thought shows that a wording avyaya-sarvanamnam akac lau is absurd. A ti is a part of a unit. How then can one speak of a whole unit occurring in contiguity with part of itself? Finally, let us consider what Scharfe has to say about applying 1.1.67 in affixation rules. Not only is this not unobjectionable, as Scharfe would have us believe, it is absolutely undesirable. Once 1.1.67 is allowed to apply in affixation rules, 3.1.2 (see note 26) becomes superfluous: why state a particular heading whereby a unit is introduced after another unit if the same results can be gotten by applying a general metarule? Moreover, once one considers an affix a replacement of zero, as Scharfe suggests, a veritable Pandora's box of problems is opened. Nothing is obviously not a sound. Now, for reasons not considered here, Panini has to state a rule whereby a substitute (adesa) is treated as having the value of its substituend (sthanivat) except with respect to operations which would then be conditioned by an original sound (1.1.56: sthanivad adeso'nal-vidhau). Consider the derivation of divyati 'gambles'. The ending ti is allowed to occur after the root div (div-ti), which is then followed by syan (div-ya-ti); then the -j- of div is replaced by i; div-ya-ti. If, now, ya has replaced zero, div-ya-ti can be treated as though it were div-ti. ti is a sarvadhatuka affix and the base to which it has been introduced has a short penultimate vowel. Therefore, the rule (7.3.86: pug-antalaghupadhasya ca (sarvadhatukardhadhatukayoh 84, gunah 82]) can apply whereby i, u, r, I of a presuffixal base with a short penultimate vowel is replaced by guna before a sarvadhatuka or ardhadhatuka affix: div-ti - dev-ti. In addition, v is deleted before a consonant such as t (6.1.66: lopo v-yor vali): dev-ti-de-ti. This and other equally undesirable results cannot be avoided, except through extremely tricky arguments which are ultimately unacceptable, once one takes the step Scharfe has taken. I am, it is obvious, convinced that Scharfe's thesis regarding Panini's syntax is unacceptable and that Scharfe has not thought through the problems involved. His proposal involves so many problems, some of which he does not mention or consider in any depth, that it must be rejected. The Paniniya point of view, on the contrary, involves none of these problems. The Paniniya interpretation also does not assume, as Scharfe assumes erroneously, that the syntax of grammatical statements is radically different from that of the Sanskrit which Panini describes. I have considered three major parts of Scharfe's monograph. I have done this in order to present Scharfe's views in detail and as faithfully as possible and also to discuss questions which Scharfe has omitted although he should have taken them into consideration. There are other parts of Scharfe's monograph open to serious doubts. However, the sections dealt with in this review are sufficient both to present Scharfe's attitudes and conclusions and to justify my opinion of his work. Scharfe's conclusions are interesting and challenging. They are also based on an insufficient consideration of materials which call for a great deal more depth and subtlety than is demonstrated by Scharfe. It is to be hoped that in his next work on Paninian grammar Scharfe will be less amenable to allying himself with an ekadesin and that he will make far less use of the sthali-pulaka-nyaya. George Cardona