28 Substitute treated like the original

The next bunch of sutras talks of the equivalence of the substitute with the original (substituendum) for subsequent operations, with certain qualifications or exceptions. That is, we can do unto the substitute  as we would to the original, under certain conditions.  The first of these sutras is

1.1.56  sthānivad ādeśo’ nalvidhau

The word parsing is as follows:

Sthāni-vat (0) ādeśah (1/1) an-al-vidhau (7/1)

The first term means ‘like the Sthāni, i.e. the original’; being an indeclinable, it is marked (0) as to case and number. The second word, ādeśah, means the ‘substitute’; in the general parlance it means ‘an order, direction’, and is in nominative case, singular number (1,1). The third word is made up of the negative prefix an-, then aL, which is the pratyāhāra or code standing for ‘all letters’ (click on the Pratyahara TAB at top of page for some more info on these!); and vidhau, the seventh case (locative singular, 7/1) of vidhi, which means ‘rule’. The word al-vidhi is ‘a rule (based on) a letter’, or say a ‘letter-rule’; an-al-vidhi would be the ‘negation‘ or ‘absence’ of such a rule. The locative case form an-al-vidhau can be taken to mean ‘in the absence of a letter-rule’.

The paraphrase,  vŗtti, is:

Sthāni-vat (like a substituendum, i.e. the original) ādeśah (substitute) bhavati (is), āśrayeşu kāryeşu (? in related operations), an-al- āśrayeşu (? in non-letter related) sthāni-al-āśrayāņi (?letter-related) kāryāņi (operations) varjayitvā (having excluded)

“A substitute is treated like a substituendum, except when an operation relative to an original sound (aL) is to be performed” (Sharma, Vol.II, p.56).

“A substitute (ādeśa) is like the former occupant (sthānī), but not in the case of a rule the occasion for the operation of which is furnished by the letters of the original term” (Vasu, p.42).

We understand by this that any (subsequent) operations can be performed on the substituted term just as if it were on the original, except where these subsequent operations are closely linked to the actual letters or types of letters that were replaced. For example, if a vowel were to be replaced by a non-vowel, operations specifically possible on the vowels would obviously not be carried over to the substitute non-vowel. Let’s look at some of the examples provided; here Vasu is the more helpful, as he discusses each type of substitute individually.

According to the śāstrakāra-s then, there are 6 types of substituenda (plural of substituendum, (sthānī): dhātu ‘root’, aŋga ‘pre-suffixal base’, kŗt ‘primary affix’, taddhita ‘secondary affix’, avyaya ‘indeclinable’, sUP ‘nominal ending’ or ‘case affix’, tiŊ ‘verbal ending’ or ‘conjugational affix’, and pada ‘fully inflected word’ (Sharma, p/57; Vasu, p.43). In each case, the substitute orderd by any rule, would get the same treatment as the original it replaces, whatever the type was: substitute of a root (dhātu) is treated as a root, substitute of a case-ending (sUP) is treated as a case-ending, and so on. Let’s take just one example, from the many discussed by Vasu.  

From the table of noun case-endings or sUP (click on ‘Vibhakti’ TAB at top of page to get a tabular statement!), we know that Ŋe (Ŋ is the nasal at the back of the soft palate, ng) is the code for the dative (fourth, caturthī) case, denoting ‘to’ the noun. Obviously the letter Ŋ is just a marker or code provided by the grammarian (which is why it is shown in capitals by convention), and the actual case affix is –e. The marker Ŋ also shows that it is of the type ŊiT (see sutra 1.1.53), which is a grammarian’s contrivance, probably so that it can attract certain other rules with their own specific consequences. Now, as per the example cited by Vasu (p.44), by 7.1.13  ‘ya is the substitute of the sUP-affix Ŋe after an inflexive base ending in short a’. Then the ya is treated just like the original Ŋe, and by another sutra 7.3.102, there is “lengthening of the vowel”, e.g. vŗkşāya, dative of vŗkşa ‘to the tree’.

Now we need an example for the clause na-al-vidhau, ‘not in the presence of a letter-rule’, i.e. if the transformation refers to the particular sound (aL) in the original. Vasu (p.45) gives very briefly the following examples of substitution: of –v by –au in the word div by rule 7.1.84 to give inflected case-form dyauh, -n by -ā in pathin by 7.1.85 to give panthā, -d by –a in tvad by 7.2.102 to give the sah. The point is that of these affixes had been treated just like the originals. Rule 6.1.68 would have applied, “and the case-affix su [sU, the nominative singular] would have been elided”.  

Sharma (Vol.II) gives detailed examples in the Appendix (something which I have only recently realised!), and the an-aL-vidhau rule is illustrated on p.397 onwards in each of four distinct interpretations of the term. Vasu’s examples come under the second variation, “alah vidhih ‘operation obtaining after an item occurring after aL’ ” (Sharma, p.398). As rule 7.1.84 div aut (#1.1.52 alo ‘ntyasya) would require replacement by au of the terminal letter –v, Shrma says that the final s would have to be deleted in the inflected form div + s (U) = diau + s (I am not quite clear why!). Instead, we assume that an-al-vidhau comes into operation, the au is not treated as a v, so that diau+s will yield dyau+s, and by conversion of s into visarga h, dyauh. Similarly or the other examples above.

There are two more sutras in this vein:

1.1.57 acah (6/1) parasmin (7/1) pūrvavidhau (7/1) (#56 sthānivad ādeśah), whose paraphrase is:

Ac ādeśah (aj ādeśah) (substitute for a vowel) paranimittakah (? Conditioned by a right context) pūrvavidhau kartavye (with respect to an operation on a preceding element) sthānivad bhavati (is treated like its substituendum)

Further exceptions to 1.1.57 are given in 1.1.58 and 1.1.59, which I will not go into here at this first reading!