17. Further properties of sarvanāma (pronominals) – in compounds

We saw in sutra 1.1.27 that Panini defines something akin to pronominals by a list of words starting with sarva, ‘all’ in his Gaņapāţha (list of groups). One of the implications of being a sarvanāma is that the case endings are special: nominative plural masculine sarve (rather than sarvāh), certain oblique cases with special endings like –smai in the dative singular (rather than -āya), -smin in locative singular rather than –e (I don’t quite understand why –smat ablative case is not also cited in the special endings). But in compound words, this doesn’t happen; and Panini devotes the next nine sutras to laying out these exceptions.

1.1. 29 na bahuvrīhau

The words are

Na (0, particle),    bahuvrīhau (7/1, locative singular)

And the meaning is

Na (not) in bahuvrīhi compounds. The anuvŗtti (carried forward) would be:

sarvādīni sarvanāmāni (from 23), and the paraphrase is:

vŗtti: bahuvrīhau samāse (in bahuvrīhi compounds)  sarvādīni  (words from sarva) sarvanāma samjñāni (sarvanāma ‘species’) na bhavanti (are not).

A bahuvrīhi compound is one where two words together describe a third entity. Suppose the word were redhead; if it were a bahuvrīhi, it would mean, not a red head, but a redheaded person or bird. In Sanskrit, they describe this by adding the possessive phrase, “who has, that person”, red head yasya sah. Such compounds are not declined (given case endings) like a sarvanāma even if they end in sarva etc.; they decline like a normal noun. Examples provided are:

Priyavisva, priya ‘beloved’, visva ‘(of) all’, which describes a third entity, hence is a bahuvrīhi compound; but it will be declined "normally”, priyavisvāh (not priyavisve), priyavisvāya (not priyavisvasmai), etc.

Priyobhaya, priya ‘beloved’, ubhaya ‘(of) both’, declined as a normal term, priyobhayāya, etc.

There is however a slight modification of this rule, which is actually in the preceding sutra,

1.1.28 vibhāșā (1/1) diksamāse (7/1) bahuvrīhau (7/1)

Anuvrtti: sarvādīni sarvanāmāni (from #27)

Here vibhāșā means ‘option’, and a diksamāsa is a samāsa ‘compound’ with the word of dik (meaning diś ‘direction’), i.e. a compound with a word of direction as the first element. Examples are

Uttara-pūrva ‘north-east’, which can form oblique case forms either way,

Uttara-pūrvasmai or uttara-pūrvāya, etc. (the  hyphen is just for clarity, not used in the original).

There are further exceptions to the sarvanāma definition:

1.1.30 tŗtīyā-samāse (7/1)

to which we add, by anuvŗtti,

na (from 29),  sarvādīni sarvanāmāni (from #27), giving the sense:

‘compound words of tŗtīyā type with sarva etc. (from the list) are not sarvanāma words’. These tŗtīyā compounds are those with the first word in the third case (tŗtīyā), or the instrumental ending (‘by’ or ‘with’). These are a type of tatpurusha compounds, where the first word qualifies the second (redhead to describe a head, not a pretty girl, redcap to describe a cap, not a bird), and the second component is of the particular type referred here (and specified in rule 2.1.31, but that need not throw us here on a first reading. I think it suffices to know that compounds in –sarva etc. which have a third case ending for the first component will not be a sarvanama.

Examples are given with the second component –purva ‘prior’, one of the sarvādini list, thus:

māsapūrva = māsena pūrva, ‘(by) a month earlier’, which is declined normally,

māsapūrvāya ‘for one who was born a month earlier’ etc., not māsapūrvasmai etc.

Another exception:

1.1.31 dvandve (7/1) ca (0)

‘And in dvandva’, with carry-forward by anuvŗtti as before:

 na (from 29),  sarvādīni sarvanāmāni (from #27). This extends the exclusion to compounds that are co-ordinate, dual, dvandva:

pūrvāparāņām and not pūrvāparesām (possessive plural 6/3 of pūrvāh-parāh ‘the priors and the posteriors’). However, under dvandva, there is an exception:

1.1.32 vibhāșā (1/1) jasi (7/1), and by anuvŗtti we add the words

sarvādīni sarvanāmāni (from #27) dvandve (from 31) na (from 29), meaning:

vŗtti : ‘Optionally, in the nominative plural ending (jas), dvandva compounds in sarva etc. may not be called sarvanāma’. This rather clumsy sentence is actually meant to make the exclusion optional: dvandva compounds in nominative plural case may or may not be excluded from the sarvanama category, i.e.  we should be allowed to make the plural of the example given above either way, pūrvāparāh or pūrvāpare. Note also the species jas, which is denoted Jas with an upper case initial J to indicate that it is an iT, a marker. The ending is –as, of the plural (which transforms to -āh̨ according to other rules which we have not encountered).

The vibhāșā  jasi (option in nominative plural 1/3 forms) cases are extended in sutras 1.1.33, 34, 35, and 36 to other members of the sarva- list (not limited to dvandva compounds). Thus many of these plural forms can be used in either form: prathame/prathamāh 'first' (under rule 33), pūrve/pūrvāh 'front, east, prior' (rule 34), sve/svah 'self, own' (rule 35, but why not svāh?), antare/antarāh ‘outside, anterior’ (rule 36). In each of these rules, Panini specifies that the option is available when the words are used in a certain sense, and not in some other sense, so he puts each subset in a separate rule (otherwise I can see no reason why he could not have bunched the lot in a single list, given his frugality of expression).  In 1.1.35, for instance,

1.1.35 svamagñātidhanākhyāyām,

Which parses into svam (1/1) agñātidhanākhyāyām (7/1), to which is added by carry-forward,

Anuvrtti: vibhāșā  jasi (from #32), sarvanāmāni (from #27).

The meaning (vrtti) is as follows: word forms in svam ‘own’ are sarvanāmāni ‘pronominals’ vibhāșā ‘optionally’ jasi ‘in operations relative to Jas, the nominative plural ending’, (provided that they are) ākhyāyām ‘in the sense of’ a-gñāti ‘not a relative’ or (a-)dhana ‘(not) wealth, property’. What this portends is that sva- words are usually a pronominal (hence take all those special endings like –e, -smai, -smin, -eshām), but in forms where the Jas suffix (nominative plural) comes into operation, they can be optionally pronominal or ‘normal’ (endings like –āh, --āya, -e, -ānām). In #31, apparently, the reference to a compound is not carried forward, so the sva- word can be just by itself:

sve OR svah putrāh  ‘one’s own sons’ (but why not svāh?)

sve OR svah gāvah ‘one’s own cows’ (surely there is no implication that the two are equivalent!).

The above option will be available only when sva is used in the sense of ātman ‘self’ or ātmiya ‘one’s own’, and not if it is used in the other two senses of gñāti ‘a relative’ (cognate with agnate?) or dhana ‘wealth, property’; in these latter contexts sva will always be a sarvanāman, and declined accordingly. (Does this explain the phrase used in Rgveda 1.1.8, sve dame ‘in [Agni’s] own home’, where sva- is used in the sense of ‘one’s own’, and so is declined like a normal noun, and not a sarvanāman which would give svasmin? Further, is the option restricted to nom. pl. Jas, or extended to other cases like the locative singular as in sve dame?)

The above span of sutras (from 1.1.26 to 36) dealt with sarvanama, pronominals, and we can make two observations. One is that somewhere in between (from #33), we had to drop the anuvrtti of dvandve na ‘not in dvandva compounds’, and only carry forward sarvanāmāni 'pronominals’. There is no clear indication of where this sort of change occurs, but it may be implied by choice of a particular case ending, or gender, or number.

The other observation is a question of where these rules come from. It would be unreasonable to assume that Panini is making up all these variations (like a Mozart or a Beethoven) just to please himself; much more likely would be that he is reflecting the prevalent usage. This suggests the extraordinary care with which he, and perhaps his associates and predecessors, have listened to the speech of the people, cultivated though they may be. This is apparently not an artificially crafted perfectly consistent rule-bound language, a vase of silk flowers as it were, but a living idiom, a living plant lovingly nurtured in an earthen pot of natural ingredients with all its quirks and inconsistencies. We could, perhaps, devise some involved explanation of why a particular sarva- word ceases to have a pronominal value in a particular context or environment (such as in a compound), but it appears rather that Panini has reflected the natural shape and contours of the native idiom rather than try to craft an artificial set of rules, and to that extent we may have to be content with a description rather than a satisfactory explanation of the underlying rationale for all these variations.  

16. Introducing pronominals – sarvanāman

Moving over a couple of sutras defining species called nișţhā, and picking up the pace a little, we cover the sutras 1.1.27 to 1.1.36, dealing with pronominal words, called sarvanāma in Sanskrit. This span or domain of sutras demonstrates the overall structure of the Ashtadhyayi, in which the first adhyāya or book serves to introduce various types of grammatical categories or ‘species’, as I have been calling them, essentially by defining them. That is, Book One is an introductory, stage-setting portion of the grammar, and the operational rules are going to be encountered only after we get past this stage.

A second character of Panini’s approach seems to be that he is not principally concerned with the meanings underlying the categories and technical terms he uses. It’s not clear how many of the category names and technical terms he uses were prevalent as common words, and which of them he either coined or used in a particular, technical sense for the first time. In the case of sarvanāma, for instance, he does not define them as ‘words standing in for other persons or things’, or some such statement. For the purpose of Book One, sarvanāma is defined as a list of words starting with sarva. Similar formulations are made for other lists as well in various sutras.

And where are these lists to be found? They are provided as appendices to the main work, and called the Dhātupāţha (the reading of roots) and the Gaņapāţha (the reading of groups). These are, respectively, the list of roots (the core of verb formations), and the list of nominal bases or stem forms (both representing the abstract form of the word, without any ‘inflectional’ endings  in the case of verbs, or declensional endings in the case of nouns).

With this introduction, we can rapidly transit the sarvanāma sutras, starting with:

1.1.23 sarvādīni sarvanāmāni

Both the phrases are in 1^st case (nominative), plural number (1/3), neuter gender.

Vrtti: sarva śabdah̨ (the word sarva) ādih (starting, head) yesām (whose) tānīmāni (those nominals)  sarvanāma samjñāni (sarvanāma ‘species’) bhavanti (are). (Note: the term ‘species’ for samjñam is my own innovation, not from any standard text!)

The paraphrase is that the words called sarvanāman are defined as the words listed in the group starting (ādi) with sarva. And what are these words? Vasu very helpfully gives the full list: they are sarva ‘all’, vișva ‘all’, ubha ‘both’, ubhaya ‘both’, words with suffix (d̨a)tara and (d̨a)tama like  katara ‘which of two, katama ‘which of many’, anya ‘other’, anyatara ‘either’, itara ‘other’, tvat ‘other’, tva ‘other’, nema ‘half’, sama ‘all’, sima ‘whole’, tyad ‘he, she, it’, tad ‘he, she, it’, yad ‘who’, etad ‘this’, idam ‘it’, adas ‘that’, eka ‘one’, dvi ‘two’, yușmad ‘you’, asmad ‘I’, bhavatu ‘you’, kim ‘what’. Then there are some words of direction and precedence used in terms of time or place (but not when they are used as names), pūrva ‘east’, ‘prior’, para ‘subsequent’, avara ‘west’ or ‘posterior’, dakșiņa ‘south’ or ‘right’, uttara ‘north’ or ‘subsequent’, apara ‘other’ or ‘inferior’, adhara ‘west’ or ‘inferior’, antara ‘outer’ or ‘under or lower garment’. Another, sva, is a sarvanama when used in the sense of ‘own’, but not when used in the sense of ‘treasure’ or ‘kinsman’ (‘agnate’).  

Then follow a number of exceptions and special cases to qualify the broad definition. Before going into these, it would be as well to clarify what the speciality is about these types of words that requires a special appellation. Sharma lists these specialities as the following three: 1) the nominative plural which is termed Jas is replaced by the ending Śī (as per the rule 7.1.17); 2) the dative singular ending Ńe is replaced by –smai (rule 7.1.14); 3) the locative singular ending Ńi is replaced by –smin (rule 7.1.15).  Vasu gives more explanation for the student: which makes his work more helpful and illuminating for the beginner on the whole (we saw this in the preceding post as well). Vasu explains that the declension (of nouns; for verbs, we talk of inflections) is modified in the case of these sarvanāma words. For instance, we remember the first declension we learn of  nouns ending in –a, like rāma: nominative (first) case rāmah rāmau rāmāh, accusative (second) case rāmam rāmau rāmān. We would expect a word like sarva ‘all’ to follow the same paradigm. But being a sarvanāman, it replaces the nominative plural ending –āh (which is referred to by Panini as Jas, which is the iT or handle that Sharma uses above), by the ending –e (technically, a Śī). Thus, instead of sarvah sarvau sarvāh, we have sarvah sarvau sarve, as in sarve sukhino bhavantu, ‘may all be happy’. How Jas is transformed into –āh, or Śī into –e (or the transformation of Ńe and Ńi), is not the concern of sutra 1.1.27; that is dealt with in sutra 7.1.14 and following. In fact, 1.1.27 does not even refer to the modified declensions (endings) at all; we have added that in the discussion only because the commentators have already gone through the whole work and are able to correlate the rules across the books and sections. At the first reading, all that the sutra 1.1.27 is concerned with is that the species defined as sarvanāman by the list sarvādīni, will behave as provided in subsequent parts of the canon.

Apart from nominative plural sarve and similar forms for the others, endings are modified in dative , ablative and locative singular: instead of sarvāya and sarvāt (on analogy with rāmāya, rāmāt) and sarve (analogous to rāme, in Rama), we have sarvasmai, sarvasmāt and sarvasmin. Plural forms include genitive sarveșām (rāmāņām). Suggestively, the rāma declension does have the intervening sibilant in genitive singular rāmasya, and locative rāmeșu; whether this is a vestige of an underlying older pattern I cannot say without further study.

There are some additional transformations enabled by the appellation of sarvanāman, which we need not go into at this initial reading. A last interesting feature which occurs to me is the closeness of these tiny words to cognates in other indo-european languages, especially Russian: tat, etat, katara, ubhaya, will be understood without modification!

After introducing the definition, Panini proceeds to state some exceptions and reservations, in sutras 28 to 36, which will also illustrate the mechanism of anuvŗtti (carrying forward of repeating phrases from sutra to sutra, without having to repeat them each time), which I believe is termed ellipsis or ellipse, as used in a different context by Michael Coulson on page 47 of his superb book in the Teach Yourself series (Coulson, 1976, see references page). 

15. More rules for (șaţ) numbers (samkhya samgnya)

There are some more sutras for numbers (sam̨khyā) in the domain of sutra 1.1.23 (see previous post, 14).

1.1.24  șņāntā șaţ

Both the components (words) of this sutra are in nominative case, singular number (1/1). By carrying forward the topic from the previous, head or adhikāra sutra, by anuvrtti, we supply the understood word sam̨khyā,

1.1.24 șņāntā șaţ (sam̨khyā #23), the hash number denoting the sutra under the same adhyāya (volume or book) and pāda (quarter or section).

Next, the vŗtti or paraphrase, supplying all the understood words to complete the thought in the form of a statement:

Vŗtti: șakārāntā nakārāntā ca yā sam̨khyā sā șaţ samgñā bhavati

Now, to understand this thought, we need recourse to the commentaries. The first word component of the sutra refers to words ending in ș and in n; here we run into one of the peculiar occupational hazards of Panini’s bootstrapping exposition, that is that the original letters are changed by the rules of sound modification (sandhi), and we have to assume that it is the pre-sandhi sounds that the sutra is referring to, in this case ș and n, not ņ. Vasu points out that by putting the word form into feminine nominative, șņāntā, the sutra is indicating the implicit presence of the word sam̨khyā, also feminine gender. Such sam̨khyā or numbers are defined as șaţ, a special species of sam̨khyā. Vasu explains also the speciality of this type: as per sutra 7.1.22, they “lose their nominative and accusative plural endings”, as in pañca gacchanti, ‘five go’, șaţ paţhanti ‘six read’.

The numbers ending in ș or in n (șaţ  numbers) are the following:  pañcan ‘five’, șaș ‘six’, saptan ‘seven’, aștan ‘eight’, navan ‘nine’, daśan ‘ten’. They do take plural endings in the remaining vibhakti cases, it is only in nominative (first) and accusative (second) case that they stand shorn of endings as shown in the examples. Also, note that the form used is not the base form with the  terminal ș or n, but a modified form (pañca, șaţ). No doubt there will be rules for these transformations which we will come across by and by!

One more species of number  (sam̨khyā) is defined in the next sutra:

1.1.25 ḑati ca

Again the first element ḑati is in nominative case, singular number (1/1), and by anuvrtti we supply the understood words carried from the previous sutras,

Anuvŗtti: ḑati ca (șaţ sam̨khyā)

The vŗtti or paraphrase goes as follows:

Vŗtti: ḑatyantā ca yā sam̨khyā sā șaţ samgñā bhavati

“Numerals which end in D̨ati also are termed șaţ.”

The D̨ati word forms are already numerals, sam̨khyā, by 1.1.23 (previous post 14); now they are specified as  șaţ as well, which implies (by 7.1.22) that they lose their plural endings in nominative and accusative case, example:

Kati bhavanti ‘how many are existing’

Kati paśya ‘see how many’

We have a choice now of either jumping to the domain of the rules (here, 7.1.22 etc.), following the thread (sutra) literally, or keeping the application of rules for the future and carrying on with the current section (pāda). I thought it would be less confusing to carry on with the current section, 1.1, and reverting to the applications after we have done a good body of the basic definitions in Book 1.  

14. Rules for number words (sam̨khyā samgñyā)

Skipping over a couple of sutras that define species (samgñya) called ghu (applied much later in 6.4.66) and gha (applied in 6.3.43), we come to a short span of sutras led by

1.1.23 bahugaņavatud̨ati sam̨khyā

As per standard practice, we first see the case endings of the component phrases to start understanding the relation expressed; in this case, both are in first case, singular number,

bahugaņavatud̨ati 1/1 sam̨khyā 1/1

Next, we break the phrases up into the individual ‘words’, thus:

bahu gaņa vatu d̨ati sam̨khyā,

and we look at the vŗtti or paraphrase (presumably from the Kāśikā, see Post 12­):

bahugaņavatud̨ati sam̨khyāsamgñyā bhavanti

or, with hyphens (little dashes) between individual words or lexemes, for convenience in reading

bahu-gaņa- vatu- d̨ati sam̨khyā- samgñyā bhavanti.

Of course, this itself needs an elucidation, which is given by Rama Nath Sharma as follows:

“Items bahu ‘many’, gaņa ‘class, group’, as well as those which end in vatU (5.2.39 yattadetebhyah…) and D̨ati (5.2.41 kimah̨…) are termed sam̨khyā”.

In interpreting this vŗtti, we may note that the first two ‘items’ are normal words (lexemes), which actually mean something (bahu =‘many’, gaņa =‘class, group’), whereas the latter two are bits which serve as affixes, and not words with meaning themselves. Further, they are denoted by the affixed it (iT) endings in upper case letters: vat-U, D̨-ati, by which we may expect that the actual particles under discussion are -vat and -ati-. How they enter the word formation can be seen in the examples that follow the vŗtti or paraphrase, but meanwhile we may also note that the author cites the relevant sutras (5.2.39, 5.2.41) that deal with the usage of these affixes, and even gives their opening phrases for our convenience as an aid to recollection and cross-linking.

Just for our education, here is how S.C.Vasu treats the vŗtti and explanation:

Vŗtti: bahu- gaņa- vatu- d̨ati iti ete (ityete) sam̨khyā- samgñyā bhavanti.

“The words bahu ‘many’, gaņa ‘class’, and the words ending in the affix vatu (V.2.39) and d̨ati (V.2.41) are called numerals (sankhyā).”

Here also the relevant sutras are cited, although without the opening phrases, and the particles are explicitly termed as affixes. (Also, we note the various types of transcription followed for the nasalized m (or n) before kh in sankhyā).

All this is fine, but it still only gives a very formalised translation of the sutra. What does it actually signify in practical terms?  Or are the sutras just empty spells, as a great sage imputes in one of his verses? Well, we have to turn to the grammarians, their bhāshya or vyākhyāna, commentaries and explanations, or at least the modern interpretations of these.

We understand that the species samkhyā (numbers) is being defined here in order to make other rules or operations applicable at the relevant place in the Ashtādhyāyi. Sharma, for instance, explains that what is being referred to is not the concept of numerals on the whole (one, two, three etc.), but specific words that are defined as samkhyā for specific purposes. Subsequent operations mandated on samkhyā  in the work, may apply only to these defined items, and not to the generally understood category of numerals. (At least this is how I interpret Sharma’s explanation; the wording is so involved, however, that he may well be saying the opposite. Which it is will be known, I suppose, only when we come to the relevant sutras that refer to the technical species samkhyā later in the work).

Now examples of the words formed with these (four) affixes follow:

bahukŗtvah̨ ‘many times’

katikŗtvah̨ ‘how many times’

gaņakŗtvah̨ ‘a series of times’

tāvatkŗtvah̨ ‘that many times’

Further, the words bahu or gaņa need to be used in the sense of numbers, whereas if they are used in the more general sense of ‘abundance’ or ‘group’, such compound words would not qualify as samkhyā. A few examples will make this distinction clearer:

bahurodanah̨ ‘too much crying’

mahān gaņah̨ ‘very large group’ (of ascetics etc.)

These are not by definition samkhyā, and the operations specified will not apply. (We still haven’t dealt with the question of what those mysterious operations are). Further, according to Sharma, the rule is required not only to extend the definition of samkhyā to the number words formed by these affixes, “but also to exclude words such as bhūri and prabhūti from being designated samkhyā, even though these words are similar to bahu and gaņa in the sense that they mean ‘much, abundant’ and so on”. (It appears to me that Panini was perhaps aiming to provide rules to describe common usage as well as prescribe correct word formation). Sharma cites the “scope” of the rule as “2.1.19 samkhyā vamśyena, and so on”.

Vasu seems a little more forthcoming in his explanations. He calls samkhyā ‘numerals’, along with the ‘ordinary’ numerals one, two, three etc., not making the distinction Sharma seems to be making (or which I have misunderstood Sharma to be making!).  Vasu explains (up front) that certain words denoting number, formed with words like bahu and gaņa, “and those that have the affixes vat and ati”, are of this class. Most helpfully, Vasu also explicitly states that the letters u in vatu and d̨ in d̨ati “are it, or indicatory”, and the actual affixes are just vat and ati. He also most helpfully clarifies up front that words with affix vatU (I am supplying upper case U to denote an iT, following Sharma’s practice) “are generally compound pronouns”, such as tāvat ‘so much’, yāvat ‘as much’, etāvat ‘ as much’, and similarly words in D̨ati e.g. kati ‘how many’, tati ‘so many’, yati ‘as many’.

And what of these types of words?  Vasu explains (a little more clearly than Sharma, who at times can be cryptic -- like Panini!) that certain compounds (samāsa) formed with these words are to be treated like numerals, for the application of samāsa rules and the suffixing of kan (suffix –ka). Other words of quantity formed with words like bhūri are not defined as samkhyā, and therefore will not be treated like numerals in samāsa and affixing kan. These details, of course, will be clear only when (and if!) we get to the relevant sutras in the Ashtadhyayi. Vasu cites rules like the ordinal prefixes in 5.2.48, 5.2.49, 5.2.51 etc., and ordinals with ardha ‘half’. 

(All these examples and the explanations seem to be taken from the vārttika in the traditional literature. The vārttika, which as we saw are attributed to Kātyāyana, reads as follows:

Vārttika: ardhapūrvapadaśca pūraņapratyayāntah sam̨khyā samgñyo bhavatīti vaktavyam, samāsakan vidhyartham.)

The next post will continue with the succeeding three sutras in this domain of samkhyā, which hopefully will make things clearer.