26 Further rules on substitution: location and scope

The next few sutras deal with the finer mechanics of the substitution (‘of X, make Y’), eg. the narrowing down of the location where the effect takes place on the substituend (the X):

1.1.52 alo’ ntyasya

Alah (6/1) antyasya (6/1), şaşţhī (from #49)

1.1.53 ŋicca

ŋiT (1/1) ca (0), alah antyasya (from #52), şaşţhī (from #49)

1.1.54 ādeh parasya

ādeh (6/1) parasya (6/1),  alah (from #52), şaşţhī (from #49)

1.1.55 anekāl śit sarvasya

Aneka-al, anekāl (1/1), śiT (1/1), sarvasya (6/1), şaşţhī (from #49)

Let’s start with #52, alah antyasya. The first term is the genitive of al, or the pratyahara aL which denotes the whole range of letters(see the Page on Pratyaharas). The second word means ‘of the last’. By anuvŗtti we supply the understood word şaşţhī  from #49 (and perhaps sthāne). The paraphrase,  vŗtti, with my own translation in brackets, goes as follows:

vŗtti  of 1.1.52

 şaşţhī  nirdişţasya (of the specified sixth case ending, i.e. of the substituend) ya ucyate ādeśah (which is stated the substitute)  sa antyasya alah (that of the last letter) sthāne (in place) veditavyah (? Prescribed, located)

“ A substitute ordered for an item in şaşţhī  ‘genitive’ comes in place of its final aL (‘sound segment’)” (Sharma).

“The substitute takes the place of only the final letter (of that which is denoted by a term exhibited in the genitive or sixth case)” (Vasu). 

That is, the substitute doesn’t displace the whole word. This is extended by the following sutra 1.1.53 to a substitute marked by the label ŋ or Ŋ, the ng sound (which is technically termed a ŊiT); the marker Ŋ will however be dropped in the process of making the substitution):

Vŗtti of 1.1.53, with my attempt at elucidation:

ŋit ca ya ādeśah (also the substitute marked with the letter ŋ, or a ŊiT) sa anekāl (aneka-aL) api (though it may consist of more than one sound or letter aL) alah antyasya bhavati (is of the last letter)  (of the word in genitive, the substituend)

“A substitute marked with Ŋ and ordered for an item in şaşţhī  also comes in place of its final aL ‘sound segment’” (Sharma)

“And the substitute which has an indicatory Ŋ (even though it consists of more than one letter) takes the place of its final letter only of the original expression” (Vasu).

Something to note: these markers are supplied by the grammarian when giving labels to the respective affixes; they are not something natural or intrinsic to the language!

This is an exception (stated in advance!) to #55, which holds that  a multi-letter (aneka-aL, anekāl) substitute will replace the entire word of the original substituend. We will also get back to some sutras that come before this range starting at #49 about substitution, which also amount to an anticipatory exception.

vŗtti  of 1.1.54

parasya kāryam (operation of [on] a following, later [item]) śiśyamāņam (?) ādeh alah (of the starting, first letter, sound segment)  pratyetavyam (?)

“A substitute ordered for a following item comes in place of its initial aL” (Sharma).

“That which is enjoined to come in the room of what follows is to be understood as coming in the room only of the first letter thereof” (Vasu); a decidedly clumsier translation!

vŗtti  of 1.1.55

anekāl (aneka-al, more than one letter) ya ādeśah (the substitute, substituant), śiT ca (and [with] the marker Ś) sarvasya  şaşţhī  nirdişţasya (of all that marked by genitive case) sthāne bhavati (is in place)

“A substitute ordered for an item in şaşţhī  comes in place of the entire item when it (the substitute) consists of more than one aL or is marked with Ś” (Sharma).

“A substitute consisting of more than one letter, and a substitute having an indicatory Ś take the place of the whole of the original expression exhibited in the sixth case” (Vasu).

Thus this bunch of sutras, #52 to #55, are instructions on what is replaced in the X: the ‘default’ seems to be the LAST segment, but if the order is reversed, it may act on the FIRST segment, or if the substitute is multi-syllabic, or it comes with certain markers, it may replace the ENTIRE original.  Obviously these rules can be better understood only with actual examples, Vasu (p.40 onwards) being the more helpful, so here goes.

Examples for 1.1.52 alo’ ntyasya:

Pañcagoņih, ‘purchased for a price of five goņī (sacks)’; similarly, daśagoņih

The rule 1.2.50 id goņyāh (6/1) (see Vasu, p.40) stipulates the replacement by short i in the word that is in sixth case, goņī; this doesn’t mean that the whole word is replaced by short i, only the last syllable (the long ī) is replaced, by 1.1.52 alo’ ntyasya.

Examples for 1.1.53 ŋicca  (alo’ ntyasya):

Mātāpitarau ‘mother and father, two parents’; similarly hotāpotārau ‘two types of officiating priests’

A substitute having more than one syllable should normally replace the entire original substituendum (sthānī) by 1.1.55 anekāl śit sarvasya. However, if the replacement is marked by the indicative letter Ŋ, then it only replaces the initial letter, as in the normal case (#52 alo’ ntyasya). Now compounds formed from the –tŗ roots like pitŗ, mātŗ, hotŗ, potŗ, are governed by the rule 6.3.25 which states  that “In place of words ending in ŗ there is the substitution of ānaŊ in forming dvandvas” (Vasu, p.41), i.e. compounds. This substitute ānaŊ is a ŊiT element, i.e. marked with the Ŋ, so bringing into play rule 1.1.53 ŋit ca, thereby restricting the effect of substitution to the last syllable only. So from words like mātŗ, when used in a compound, only the final ŗ is replaced by ā (I am not quite clear what happens to the –na- in -ānaŊ), thus mātā-pitarau etc.

However, there is an exception to this, in the case of the substitute species tātaŊ in sutra 7.1.35 (Vasu, still on p.41). Even though it has the Ŋ marker, it does replace the whole original -tu and --hi, and not only the final –u and –i. Thus instead of jīvatu ‘may you live’ or jīva ‘may he live’, we get jīvatāt.  Sharma (Vol.II, p.55) however feels that 1.1.53 ŋicca refers to ŋit that do NOT have more than one letter aL, and will therefore replace only the final element by 1.1.52 alo’ ntyasya, while a substitute (ādeśa) that is both marked by ŋ AND has more than one letter, will be governed by the subsequent rule 1.1.55, and will therefore replace the whole substituendum (sthānin).  According to Sharma, the principle which dictates this outcome is rule 1.4.2 vipratiśedhe param kāryam, ‘when in doubt (do) the later operation’, here prefer rule 1.1.55 to 1.1.52. Of course, this does not resolve the case of ānaŊ, unless we argue that it has only ONE letter -ā as the substitute (ādeśa), whereas tātaŊ has more than one, t,  ā, and t. This suggests that we should not be translating aL as ‘syllable’, but stick to ‘letter’ as in Vasu, or ‘sound segment’ as in Sharma.    

Examples for 1.1.54 ādeh parasya (alah from #52, şaşţhī from #49)

dvīpam ‘that which has two waters; island’
antarīpam ‘part of land stretching out into sea’

These are cases where substitution is directed on a word (in sixth case), when it is FOLLOWING some other word: the substitution is made in the word-initial, not in the word-final element (thus an exception to 1.1.52). By 1.1.67 tasmād iti uttarasya (see post #3), this type of ‘context’ is indicated by the ablative (fifth, pañcamī) case for the word or element preceding the substuendum (sthānin, which will be in şaşţhī, genitive or sixth case). One such rule is 6.3.97 dvyantar upasargebhyo apah īt (Sharma, p.55), which is interpreted by Vasu (p.41) as “In the place of ap used AFTER the words dvi and antar and the particles called upasarga, there is ī”. Sharma denotes upasarga by “preverbs”. There is not really the explicit word for ‘after’ in the sutra, but it is to be understood by the use of the fifth case ending in –ebhyo (-ebhyah). One way to rationalise this is to imagine that the subsequent ap is ‘emanating from’ the end of the word in –ebhyah. So the replacement will be made in the starting (ādih) segment (aL) of the farther or later word (parasya), i.e. dvi+ap = dvi+ īp, giving dvīpam etc. 

The other example

āsīnah ‘seated’

is explained from 7.2.83 īdāsah or īT āsah, “long ī is the substitute of an when the latter comes after the root ās” (Vasu, p.41). Hence, ās+an= ās+īn= ās+īn. Here, since ās is the PRECEDING word, we will have to interpret āsah as being in the fifth case and hence the CONTEXT; but because it is in singular (5/1), the form itself is identical with the sixth case, so that it could as well have been the  substituendum (sthānin)! Such are the pitfalls of this ascetically spare discipline!

Examples of 1.1.55  anekāl śit sarvasya (şaşţhī sthāneyogā from #49)

Again, by #52, the substitution should only be of the last element (alo’antyasya), but here are yet other exceptions: if the substitute (ādeśa) is multi-letter. or if it is a single or multi-letter substitute marked by Ś (ŚiT) , it will replace the ENTIRE original substituendum (word in the sixth case), not just its final letter. Vasu (p.42) cites sutra 2.4.53 bruvo vacih, “in the place of brū let there be vac”, and since there are three letters (Vasu) in v-a-c, it is a total replacement for the whole root brū, giving forms like vaktā, ‘he will speak’. In counting the letters, any boundary-marker is to be ignored.  Another set of examples is

Bhavitā ‘that which is to be, become’
bhavitavyam ‘ought to be, become’
bhavitum ‘for being, becoming’

which presumably emanate from 2.4.52 Aster bhūh, in place of ast- words replace words derived from bhu-, ‘to be’.

An  example for by Vasu for substitute marked by Ś (ŚiT) is 5.3.3. “In the place of idam there is iŚ”, which being marked by the element Ś, is therefore to replace the whole word idam, not just the final letter; even though it is not a multi-letter entity, since it has only one letter i (the marker Ś not being included in the count).