37 Vowel joining (ac-sandhi)-I: Section 2 of the Laghu-Siddhanta-Kaumudi

As I said before, the advantage in following a rearranged version of Panini’s grammar, such as the Siddhanta-Kaumudi or its Lite version, the Laghu-S-K, is that it takes us rapidly into the bowels of the system, as related sutras which may be far apart in the original, are brought together according to the topic under discussion. There are some differences even between Varadaraja’s Laghu and its mentor, the S-K of Bhattoji Dikshita, which I will explain later; for the present, I will follow the Laghu.

The last two posts covered the first section of the Laghu, that to do with defining terms (saṃjñā), with a number of sutras drawn from the first quarter (pāda) of Panini’s first Book (adhyāya), and a few besides from other pāda-s. Now the second section of the Laghu is captioned Ac-sandhiḩ, or Vowel-joining. However, the corresponding section in the full-length S-K is captioned Paribhāṣā-prakaraṇam. We will follow the Laghu in the first instance here.

This section starts off with

Laghu 21. Iko yaṇaci (Panini 6.1.77)

We have referred to this already in the course of Panini’s first pāda. Two issues are in consideration here: one, the import or meaning of this sutra, and the other, the specific significance of the particular case (vibhakti) endings (sUP forms), i.e. the meta-language used by Panini. We have actually already covered these topics; here’s how the Laghu S-K approaches them (Laghu 21):

ikaḥ (possessive case, of the iK = of the vowels i, u, ṛ, ḷ, and their variants) sthāne (in place) yaṇ (nominative case, the yaṆ semi-vowels =  y, v, r, l) syāt (let there be), aci (locative case, in [the presence of] the aC = the vowels) saṃhitāyām viṣaye (in the matter of saṅhitā = contact)

Ballantyne’s rendering: “Instead of a letter denoted by the pratyāhāra iK, let there be one denoted by the pratyāhāra yaṆ, in each instance where one denoted by the pratyāhāra aC immediately follows”.

That is, when one of the vowels included in the set iK is followed by any other vowel in “closest proximity” of contact called saṅhitā (see the previous post # 36, here http://readingpanini.blogspot.com/2016/06/36-section-i-of-laghu-siddhanta-kaumudi.html), then the first vowel is substituted by the corresponding ‘semi-vowel’ from the set yaṆ.

The example given is a phrase such as sudhī (‘the intelligent’) upāsya (‘to be worshipped’) = sudhyupāsya (‘the intelligent fit to be worshipped, or God’. The long –ī at the end of the first word, sudhī, is substituted by the corresponding ‘semi-vowel’ sound from the yaṆ set, y. It is apparent that the two sets, which have an equal number of members (four in each) are matched in the order given in the siva-sutras: i (and its variants) with y, u with v, ṛ with r, and ḷ with l. A point to note is that each member of the iK also refers to its variants (as regards length, etc.).

The second issue was to do with the meta-language of Panini. In this sutra, there is a clear application of the special sense in which the possessive case, the nominative case, and the locative case of technical terms are used. The paraphrase suggests these conventions: the possessive case denotes ‘in place OF’, the nominative case denotes the item which is used, and the locative case denotes the condition IN which the operation takes place. This special usage of technical terms is explicitly defined as follows:

Laghu 22. Tasminniti nirdişţe pūrvasya (Panini 1.1.66)

We have of course already dealt with this and other meta-rules (see Post 31 here), where we also studied Panini’s sutra 1.1.67 tasmād ity uttarasya. Taking 1.1.66 first, Panini refers to terms in the locative case by tasmin iti, ‘in that, thusly’.  The word nirdişţe itself is in the locative case, which I rendered as ‘in the specification (that)’. Tasminniti nirdişţe  (‘given the specification in that, or a locative case ending’), pūrvasya (‘of the preceding’) (eva, ‘only’  kāryam bhavati, ‘work transpires, exists’). Sharma calls this a “right context” for the operation itself.

In our example, the presence of a vowel immediately after the iK is required for the substitution to transpire. This is denoted by aCi, locative (seventh or saptamī vibhakti) case form of aC, ‘vowels a to au’. This is what Sharma calls a “right context” for the operation on the preceding item, the iK vowel. So according to this meta-rule, a term in the locative case refers to the mandatory condition or environment that follows (is to the right of) the thing operated on in a phrase.

Ballantyne’s version: “When a term is exhibited in the seventh case, the operation directed is to be understood as affecting the state of what immediately precedes that which the term denotes”.

Admittedly, this is a convoluted sentence that most of us may find difficult to understand. A simpler way of putting it is that a term in the locative case specifies the condition or context required for a certain operation to take place on something which comes before (precedes) it. It may be noted that the meaning and terminology of the case endings are themselves laid out in some other, much later sutras (Laghu 137, to be precise, and similarly in Panini). Thus my understanding that the grammar is not really expected to be used in a linear (first to last) sequence, but in a recursive, even circular, manner. That is what pulling oneself up by one’s bootstraps connotes!

The Laghu then goes on to:

Laghu 23. Sthāne antartamaḥ (Panini 1.1.50)

We have already dealt with this one too. It says that when choosing substitutes, we select the closest in place (of order in a list, or place of articulation?) to that which is replaced. A palatal y is put in place of a front vowel i, and so on, out of the two ‘matching’ sets iK and yaṆ, as already explained above.

Now the S-K brings in a number of sutras from later parts of the Panini. This is one of the benefits of following the S-K. There are of course some differences between the Laghu and the full S-K. I will take up the sutras in the Laghu in the next post. I mentioned the other similar meta-rule sutra

Panini 1.1.67 tasmād ity uttarasya.

This is dealt with in the S-K proper in this same section, but is apparently in some other section in the Laghu (this has to be verified!). Very similarly to 1.1.66, this one (1.1.67) lays down that when a (technical) term is used in the ablative case of ‘from that’ (fifth, pañcamī, case), it denotes the condition which gives rise to an operation on a following, or later object (uttarasya kāryam bhavati). Analogously to the previous, Sharma calls this a “left context” for an operation on something to its right, i.e. later in the phrase or sequence. It denotes an ‘if-then’ conditional rule.

32 Form versus meaning: what terms represent

We now come upon another metarule, a rule about rules or a convention. This is

1.1.68 svam rūpam śabdasyāśabdasamgῆā

Parsing:

Svam (1/1, nominative singular: ‘own’), rūpam (1/1: ‘form’),  śabdasya (6/1, genitive singular: ‘of a word’), ā-śabda-samgῆā (1/1: ‘not-word-technical term’)

A word occurring in the grammar denotes its form only, and not its meaning or synonyms; except when it is a technical term or name,  samgῆā, in which case it obviously refers to the thing denoted by that term, and not its form or shape. Note the extremely condensed way in which the last word – a phrase in itself – is built up.

In popular speech, a word has some meaning as it refers to a concrete thing or entity that may be referred to by other synonymous names.  This sutra is saying that we should not assume any such equivalence when we see words used in the grammar. Most words refer to some form or shape, rather than to a concrete thing as would be assumed in normal conversation.

Here’s the grammarians’ interpretation or Vŗtti (paraphrase):

Śāstre (‘in the treatise’) svam eva rūpam (‘own form only’) śabdasya grāhyam bodhyam pratyāyyam (‘the word’s significance’) bhavati (‘is’), na bāhyo (a)rthah (‘not any other meaning’) śabda-samgῆām varjayitva (‘technical terms excepted’).

In the above rendering, I have to admit that I have sort of glossed over the word-for-word translation. 

Sharma (Vol.II, p.68) just renders it as follows:

“A word other than one which is a technical term (samgῆā) of the grammar denotes its form only”.

Let’s see whether Vasu makes it any clearer:

“In this Grammar, when an operation is directed with regard to a word, the individual form of the word possessing meaning is to be understood, except with regard to a word which is a definition” (Vol.1, p.61).

Some examples from the literature are then provided. There is a sutra or rule 4.2.33 agner ḍhak. This denotes that after the word agni comes the suffix dhak or ḍhaK, a code or iT, which transforms the word to mean ‘whose deity is’: it makes the form āgneya, ‘belonging to agni’. The rule 1.1.68 says that the transformation will apply only to the specific word form agni, and not to its synonyms (fire). Other examples are given.

The book of explanations (vārttika) gives four exceptions to this principle, as follows. These are words ‘marked’ with the iT-markers S- (sit), P- (pit), J- (jit) and JH (jhit) (Sharma, p.69; Vasu, p.62). The words do not actually carry these letters, but are defined in a virtual manner to be so marked.  There is apparently no uniformity in the way these species behave in rules. One may represent themselves and their synonyms, in which case a rule may extend to their own form (sva-rūpa) as well as the synonyms; another may refer only to synonyms, not themselves. We will not go into these details; let us go forward to some of the subsequent developments.

1.1.69 aņudit savarņasya cāpratyayah

aņudit (1/1, nominative singular) savarņasya (6/1, genitive singular: ‘of similar letters’) ca a-pratyayah (1/1, nominative singular: ‘and not-an-affix’)

The first word is a compound, made up of the terms aņ and ut. The first aņ represents the letters from a to the marker Ņ in the Siva-sutras (look up the Page!). It may be noted that the marker Ņ occurs twice, and this sutra refers to the second of them: this covers the whole range of vowels (a to au) as well as the consonants h, y, v, r, and l. The second component ut or UT represents sounds marked with U. For instance, there is a set marked with U termed kU: these represent the set of velar stops, k kh g gha and ŋ, that is, k and its savarņa’s.

This is apparently an exception (or, one could say, an extension) of the rule 68 which said that a word represents only its own form. Here we are saying that a sound denoted by aŅ (the vowels from a to marker Ņ) will represent not only itself, but also similar letters (those sounded in similar fashion, including long and nasal versions). Further, letters marked by U will also denote all the savarna’s, and not just their own form (svam rūpam). Analogously, the other consonant series are termed cU, ṭU, tU, pU.

This extension does not include sounds which are added as affixes (pratyaya). Obviously, the rule-maker must take care to remember this caveat when formulating his rules!

Here’s one more extension:

1.1.70 taparastatkālasya

Parsing:

Ta-parah (1/1, nominative singular) tat-kālasya (6/1, genitive: ‘of that duuration’) (svam rūpam)

The first word ta-parah can be interpreted as ‘that which is followed by a T’ OR ‘that which follows a T’, a T being a marker (an iT). 

Sharma translates the Vŗtti as follows:

“A vowel followed by by t denotes sounds of the same duration” (p.71).

Vasu has:

“The letter which has t after or before it, besides referring to its own form, refers to those homogeneous letters which have the same prosodial length or time” (p.63). This is obviously a little more forthcoming than Sharma’s rendering!

Thus a form denotes at (aT) will include variants of a, like different tones, and nasalised, but not long a or extra-long a. If there were not the T (before or after the letter), however, all forms would be denoted, as per the preceding sutra about aŅ (see above).

Yet another explanation:

1.1.71 ādir antyena sahetā

Word parsing:

Ādih (1/1, nominative: ‘an initial item’) antyena (3/1, instrumental) saha (0: ‘with a final’) itā (3/1, instrumental: ‘with an iT’) (svam rūpam).

I’m not giving the detailed paraphrase (vŗtti) but going to the translations set forth by Sharma:

“An initial item joined with a final iT denotes not only itself but also all intervening items” (p.72)

And Vasu:

“An initial letter, with a final iT letter as a final, is the name of itself and of the intervening letters” (p.64).

This rule is supposed to be the one which tells us that a pratyāhāra includes all the letters in the range from the initial letter to the final iT.

1.1.72 yena vidhistadantasya

Yena (3/1: ‘by which’) vidhih (1/1: ‘a rule’) tat-antasya (6/1: ‘having that at its end’) (svam rūpam).

Vasu: “An injunction which is made with regard to a particular attribute, applies to words havig that attribute at their end as well as to that attribute itself”.

Sharma: “That (qualifier) by means of which a provision is made (in a rule) denotes an item which ends in it”.

This is understandable: it stretches a denotation to a whole set of similarly ending words. An explanation states that this should not be stretched to compound words with the given ending.

This brings us to the end of the svam rupam series. What is left in this quarter of the first adhyaya are a couple of sutras: 1.1.73 states that words which have a vŗddhi as the first among its vowels will be called vŗddham. Sutra 1.1.74 states that the words tyad etc. are also called  vŗddham. This denotation apparently facilitates the application of certain derivations given in later rules. The last type of vŗddham is in rule 1.1.75, which states that names of Eastern countries with the letter e or o (eŋ) as the first among their vowels, will also be designated as vŗddham.

We thus come to the end of the first quarter or chapter of Book One, 1.1, and it’s quite an achievement. Just to vary the pace a bit, I propose to shift to another version of the grammar, the Laghu or Light version of Varadaraja, the Laghu-siddhanta-kaumudi, which itself is an abridgement of the Siddhanta-kaumudi of Bhattoji Dikshita. The arrangement and sequence is different from the Ashtadhyayi, although the material is substantially the same. Let us see whether the cryptic and convoluted structure of the Paniniyam is mitigated at all by the Kaumudi!

31 Metarules: locative, ablative

Here’s two metarules (rules about rules) now; i.e. prescriptions on how certain conventional case forms are to be interpreted (this has already been talked about in the early posts; we will reinforce that here).

1.1.66 tasminniti nirdişţe pūrvasya

Parsing of words:

Tasminn (7/1) (in that) iti (0, so saying) nirdişţe (7/1, in the specification), pūrvasya (6/1, of the preceding)

Vŗtti (paraphrase):

Tasminn iti (saying ‘in that’) saptamyartha- (in the meaning of the saptamī, i.e. seventh or locative, case) nirdeşe (in the specification) pūrvasyaiva (pūrvasya eva) kāryam (operation of the preceding only) bhavati (is, transpires), nottarasya (na uttarasya, not of the following).

“An element which is referred to by a locative (saptamī) form is understood as a right context for an operation on that which preceded it” (Sharma, II.67).

Thus, we may interpret the technical word in the locative case (saptamī) as something like ‘in the case of’, ‘in the context that’. In short, the locative case denotes the ‘if’ part of a ‘if-then’ statement. An interesting feature of the sutra is that it uses the very technical device it is defining, by putting nirdişţe in the locative case: if we translate nirdeşa as ‘specification’, the term reads ‘in the specification in the seventh case’, which we can expand as ‘in the context of a specification in the seventh case’ or ‘in the presence of… etc.’. In simple terms, ‘if there is a (term) specified in the seventh (locative, saptamī) case, then…’.

The ‘…then’ part is given by the last word, pūrvasya, ‘of the previous’, which is in the genitive, sixth case.  We obviously have to supply some words to round out the meaning.  The vŗtti sensibly supplies the term kāryam, ‘operation, work’. That is, if there is a term specified in locative case, then the operation is that of the preceding (term), the term (technical or operative word) that comes before the term in the locative case. Sharma calls the locative word a “right context” for the operation specified previously in the given rule. That is, the ‘if’ portion is given on the right of the operative term, which means that this is a ‘do Y if X’ type of instruction (X being the required condition, the subsequent term in locative case, and Y the antecedent, operation term), rather than ‘if X then Y’.   This is just a convention of ordering the terms, as far as I can make out at this stage.

An example is the already familiar rule  6.1.77 iko yaņ aci, where the last word aci is in the locative case: ‘in (the case of occurrence of a) vowel’; i.e. ‘if there is a vowel aC’. This is the X, the if- condition, but here termed the “right context” not just because it comes at the end of the rule, but implying that the X has to be present to the right, i.e. after the element on which the operation Y is to be performed. And what is the action Y (kāryam) to be performed, the ‘do’ instruction? That is: iko yaņ which uses the genitive case of iK, ‘of the short vowels (iK)’. This genitive (possessive, sixth case) has to be interpreted according to 1.1.49 şaşţhī sthāne-yogā, ‘the possessive case (means, signifies) the replacement-relation’. Or, ‘(in place) of short vowels (iK) (put) semi-vowels (yaŅ), IF there is a vowel aC following (right context)’.

Here’s another case ending which has a specific grammatical interpretation:

1.1.67 tasmād ity uttarasya

Word parsing:

 tasmād (5/1) (‘from that’) iti (0) (‘so saying’) uttarasya (7/1) (‘of the following’)

Sharma (II:68) denotes this as a “left context” of the operation to be carried out as per the following term ‘uttarasya’. Vŗtti (paraphrase):

tasmād  (tasmāt ‘from that’) iti  (‘so saying’) pañcam-artha-nirdeśa (‘fifth case signifying specification’) uttarasya eva kāryam (‘operation only of the following’) na pūrvasya (‘not of the preceding’)

“An element referred to by an ablative form (not otherwise interpretable in a given context) is a left context for an operation on what follows it” (Sharma, II:68).

“An operation caused by the exhibition of a term in the ablative or fifth case, is to be understood to enjoin the substitution of something in the room of that which immediately follows the word denoted by the term” (Vasu, p.60; decidedly a prolix rendering totally at odds with the spirit of the old grammarians!).

 The “left context” implies that the operation prescribed is to be done on the element which follows the instruction: ‘if x then do Y’. I like to look at the ablative as emanating something that affects the target and effects the change: in 8.4.61, for instance, it states that after ud with following sthāna and stambha, substitution of the initial of the second (following) word is done with “a letter belonging to the class of the prior” (Vasu, p.60), i.e. stha- or sta- is replaced with sounds homologous to the –d of ud-, giving forms like utthāna. In this sutra, the ablative case is used for the originating condition: udah. Given ud on he left, stha- is replaced by a sound of the dental class, etc.

Here are two gratuitous comments from my side. One is, the nebulous nature of the distinction between the two types of clauses, ‘do Y in case of X obtaining’ using the locative case, and ‘from the influence of X do Y’ using the originator in the ablative. Both pretty much seem to imply ‘if X, Y follows’.   The distinction seems to be mainly that in the first formula, the X is to be verified to the right, after the element operated upon; in the second, the originator is already on the left of the element acted upon. One wonders whether there is not a simpler way of specifying these conditions.

The second comment is that the actual case suffix form (the sUP-antam) of ablative and genitive are often the same, if not also the locative. So in some cases it must be a close call, and the  choice is made probably on some prior external knowledge of the patterns in the language!

Before we leave these two metarules, let’s just take a glimpse of how the Mahābhāşya treats them (Shastri, III:218 to 231). The close parallelism between the two rules is shown by treating them together, quoting them together at the opening.

Patanjali (as per the commentary by Shastri) deals with three aspects. The first is kim udāharaņam, what is the example(s). These are given as the rule iko yaņ aci for tasminn…, leading to the derivation of forms (like) dadhyatra and madhvatra (replacement of I, u by y, v before a vowel aC). For tasmād…, the examples are the derivation of dvīpam, antarīpam for rule 6.3.97 dvyantarupasargebhyo’pa īT, whereby in dvi+ap ‘two waters’, the final sound in the preceding dvi conditions the initial sound in the subsequent ap giving dvi+ip, dvīp (Sharma, II:68). There follows a discussion on the import and effect of the word iti (which I have rendered in my home-spun way as ‘so saying’), when treated as a technical term in the grammar. The commentator says that the word iti “changes the meaning of the word”: tasminn iti means the locative case (rather than ‘inside something’), tasmād iti means ‘the ablative’ (rather than ‘out of something’). Then follows an extended quibble about which is the general class, which is the specific case (example): we can know this “from the desire of the speaker”.

The second issue dealt with is the use of the word nirdişţe in the sutra. Here (as I understand the sentence) the operation takes place on the word (śabda) in locative (saptamī) case, and not on the meaning (artha) denoted by that word, which may the case in certain other rules: in 4.2.81 janapade lup, or  5.3.55 atiśāyane tambişţhnāu, the words in locative case “denote ar tha and not  śabda” (Shastri III:221).

The third issue taken up is kimartham punaridam ucyate ‘what for are these sūtras read?” (Shastri III:222). Since the locative or ablative case ending can apply equally to right-condition or left- condition  (pūrvatva and uttaratva), as I have also hinted above, statement of the two sutras “is for niyama, as in dadhyudakam and pacatyodanam” (I would interpret niyama as rule, constraint). The use of locative or ablative as the case may be will then serve to decide “whether, when both are mentioned in a sutra, the kārya happens to that which precedes or to that which follows”; in case of vipratişedha conflict, the later rule generally prevails (Shastri III:223). There follow a number of applications of these principles in elucidation of various rules.

24 Metarule: sixth case denotes substitution

We skip forward a few sutras to 1.1.49, which we have referred to previously as a metarule (see Post #3, January 2011):

1.1.49 şaşţhī sthāneyogā

The word division is as follows:

şaşţhī (1/1) sthāneyogā (1/1)

Thus both words are in first case (nominative), singular number. The first, şaşţhī, refers to terms in the sutras that are seen to be in the sixth case, which is the possessive or genitive: ‘of something’. The second word, sthāneyogā, tells us how to understand the possessive: i.e. as referring to ‘in place of’, rather than say ownership or proximity or part-whole relationship and so on. The vŗtti or paraphrase is rather involved, and only a sense of it can be got from the translation in Sharma or Vasu:

Iha śāstre (in this canon [the sutras]) yā şaşţhī (that in the sixth case) a-niyatayogā (? Not a fixed relationship) srūyate (? Which is heard), sā (that [sixth case])   sthāneyogā eva bhavati (is only the sthāneyogā), na anyayogā (not another relationship) sthāneyoganimittabhūte sati  sā pratipattavyā (?).

Formally,

"The force of the genitive case in a sutra is that of the phrase in the place of  when no special rules qualify the sense of the genitive“ (Vasu)

 “A genitive ending (which is not otherwise interpretable in its context) signifies the relation in place of” (Sharma).

The main point here is that the genitive case ending is interpreted in the sense of sthāneyogā, “in place of”  relationship. Thus, in the previous post, we discussed

ik 1/1 yaņah 1/1 (6/1?) samprasāraņam 1/1

where the second word is in the sixth case. So there it was interpreted as the sthāneyogā relation ‘in place of (y^aŅ, the semi-vowels)’, rather than, say, svaswāmi owner-owned  *‘of the y^aŅ’. Put together, it denotes ‘iK (short vowels) in the place of y^aŅ (the semi-vowels)’. The caveat is that the genitive or possessive (sixth) case should not be amenable to interpretation in a normal sense (i.e. other than this technical relation of sthāneyogā ‘in place of’) in the particular context.

Vasu (1891, p.36-37) seems to have somewhat more helpful explanations for this sutra. He suggests that the word  sthāna here has the sense of prasaŋga,  ‘occasion’, i.e. in the occasion of X, then Y, which then translates as ‘in place of’. In the sutra

2.4.52 Aster bhūh, the first word (removing sandhi), asteh,  is the possessive (sixth) case of asti; and the sense of the phrase would be, ‘in place of ast, (use) bhu’ as in forms such as bhavitā (future – will be), bhavitum (gerund – to be), bhavitavyam (passive participle – that has been).  

  

Vasu also unpacks the compound  sthāneyogā as a bahuvrīhi compound, where the first element sthāne is in seventh case (locative): that which has the relationship (yogā) denoted by sthāne (in the place).