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).

23 Substitution of semi-vowels by short vowels: samprasāraņam

Sutra 1.1.45 denotes by the technical term (samjñā), samprasāraņam, the replacement of the ‘semi-vowels’ y, v, r, l (see Coulson, p.14) by the ‘short’ vowels i, u, ŗ, ļ:

1.1.45 igyaņah samprasāraņam

The word parsing (according to Sharma, Vol.II, p.44) is as follows, but I think the case-ending of the second word has been mistakenly shown as 1/1 (nominative case, singular number), whereas in fact it should be 6/1 (possessive case, singular):

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

As to the wider meaning of the term, I am unable to come up with anything plausible. However, I do feel the effort should be made, because it may throw light on the grammarian’s thought process and intentions. If I do come across some allusion as to the common meaning of the term, I will insert a note here later.

The explanation of the sutra from the Kāsikā is the following vŗtti:

ik yo yaņah sthāne [bhūto bhāvī vā] tasya  samprasāraņam iti eşā  samjñā bhavati

(I have removed the sandhis in the original, i.e. igyo and ityeşā). This explains that the term (samjñā) i.e. samprasāraņam, denotes the sounds included in the range iK of the Shiva-sutra (Coulson calls these the ‘short’ vowels i, u, ŗ, ļ), which are put in place (sthāne) of the yŅ sounds (yaņah, 6/1) of the Shiva-sutra (these are the ‘semi-vowels’ y, v, r, l - see Coulson, p.14). The tasya means ‘its’; the samprasāraņam OF the yŅ sounds. We may remind ourselves that these upper-case letters in the range-names like the K in iK and the Ņ in yŅ are just artificial boundary-markers, or iT, to mark off the stretch of letters (or sounds) as laid out in the Shiva-sutra  - see the corresponding Shiva-sutra PAGE above! The range-names are akin to our usage of short forms like ‘A to Z’ which literally translates as aL of the Shiva-sutra (all the sounds from a to h, plus L the last boundary-marker). It is interesting that the sound a (alef) leads the rest in both notations!

Two points to note: one is the technical use of the possessive or genitive case (6) in  yaņah. This is part of the metalanguage used in the grammar, as already mentioned in Post #3 (January 2011!) and which will be discussed again when we deal with sutra 1.1.49 shortly. The genitive case is interpreted as ‘in place of’, in the phrase: yaņah, of yŅ, sthāne, in place, hence ‘in place of the  yŅ’. The sutra, however, has the brief version yaņah; the sthāne is sort of ‘understood’!

The second point here is the words [bhūto bhāvī vā] from the vŗtti (paraphrase), which I have put within square brackets (not in the original!). This is actually a subtle point of order which Sharma, for one, makes much of. The point is that the implicated replacement may have already taken place (bhūta, become, past), or (vā) it may be just contemplated or going to happen (bhāvī). If it is the first situation, fait accompli, bhūta, then it can be understood that the replacement sounds iK are referred to as the corresponding samprasāraņam. It is the second situation, imminent or bhāvī, that causes logical nightmares. Sharma explains it thus:

“Normally, one would expect the nominatum (samjñin) to exist at the time when the name (samjñā) is assigned. The difficulty is this: samprasāraņa cannot be assigned unless yŅ is replaced by iK, and yŅ cannot be replaced unless samprasāraņa is assigned. … This is the reason why … samprasāraņa must be interpreted as a name for both bhūta and bhāvī replacements of yŅ by iK.” However, “vārttika three on 1.1.45 offers another possible interpretation. That is, the rule itself provides that both the vowels that substitute for semi-vowels and the process of substituting vowels for semi-vowels may be called samprasāraņa, as is made clear by the different examples cited” (Sharma, VolII, p.45). This is termed the problem of interdependence or anyonyāśrayatva (Sharma, Vol.II, p.45).

My own reaction is that this is splitting hairs somewhat. It’s like ruling out a statement like “There’s no cat here” or a statement “A griffin doesn’t exist”, on the ground that you can’t use the name (samjñā) unless the thing (samjñin) exists. Obviously, if the replacement has already taken place, the term  samprasāraņa would be understood as referring to the replacements; if we are discussing a hypothetical or future situation, it is (or rather, will be!) the process that will be called samprasāraņa. Of course, we could also assume that the term samprasāraņa would refer to those contemplated replacements as they would transpire, but the grammarians seem to have been disturbed by this sort of loose thinking!

It would be instructive to just glance at Vasu’s treatment, and for the really tough ones to look at the Patañjali Mahābhāşya (edition of Subrahmanya Sastri, Annamalai University – see Resources PAGE!). Vasu (Vol.I, p.34) applies the term samprasāraņa “properly” as the name of the iK vowel sound that has replaced the semi-vowel yŅ, but the term is also used “to designate the whole process of the change of semi-vowels into vowels as in VI.1.13; VI.4.131”. Vasu does not expand further on the ‘before-and-after’ conundrum, apparently satisfied that allowing the application of the term  samprasāraņa to either the process or the end-result will suffice for the average student of the grammar. But then, Sharma does feel that Vasu tends to gloss over the niceties (see Resources PAGE).

Patañjali’s treatment is explained in the first chapter of Subrahmanya Sastri’s Lectures, Vol.III. Amazingly, Sastri’s treatment of 1.1.45 only stretches to short of 7 pages, and it dives straightaway into the discussion of what the term samprasāraņa refers to: either to the very sentence yaŅah ig bhavati, or to the resulting letters iK. The same problem of interdependence or itaretarāśrayam (Sastri, Vol.III, p.3) crops up. Since the sutras use different case forms of the word samprasāraņa, the commentator feels it would be reasonable to infer that the term (samjñā) refers to the letters (varņa, p.3). However, in another place the sutras talk about the samprasāraņa of a sentence (vākya) as well. The bhāşyakāra, Patañjali, therefore concludes that the term is given to that which is to come later (p.6). An analogy is given to the sentence, “Spin a cloth of this yarn” (asya sūtrasya śāţakam vaya iti). This has the same problem of interdependence, because “if it is already a cloth, there is no need to spin; if it is to be spun, it is not already  a cloth; it is contradictory to say ‘Spin a cloth’. But he has said ‘Spin a cloth’ anticipating the name cloth; thence I think it should be spun and it will get the name of cloth after the yarn is spun” (p.7). Is it not amazing what a fine yarn these hoary logicians could spin with their meagre threads (sūtra)!

Finally, an example or two should be cited for the feel of this type of substitution; Sharma gives the pairs

Yaj – işţam ‘that which has gone through the sacrifice; desired’
Vap – uptam ‘sown’
Grah – gŗhītam ‘grasped’

To which we can add

Svap = suptam ‘slept’

These examples of past participles (nişţhā, see Post #22, April 2015) are formed from other strings of rules, such as VI.1.15, which can be referred to in Sharma (Vol.II, p.45).

References

(see also the Resources page for downloadable versions, by clicking on Tab on top!)

Coulson, Michael. 1976. Sanskrit. An Introduction to the Classical Language. Teach Yourself Books. Hodder & Stoughton. (many printings, probably new editions).

Rama Nath Sharma, The Ashtadhyayi of Panini, published in 1987 (first edition) and revised and enlarged (second edition) in 2002, by Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers, New Delhi 

Sastri, Subrahmanya. Lectures on Patañjali’s Mahābhāşya, Vol.III (Āhnikas 7 to 9). Published by the author, 1955, Tiruchrapalli.

Vasu, Srisa Chandra. Ashtadhyayi of Panini original 1891-1898, Indian Press, Allahabad. Reissued, in 2 volumes, by Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, Delhi from 1962 (2009 reprint).

22 Past participle endings, nişţhā

We had overlooked a sutra in the previous sequence of articles, pertaining to the endings of the past participle forms. Before going further, let us look at it now:

1.1.26 ktaktavatū  nişţhā

The words are parsed (Sharma, Vol2, p.27) as follows: the first is in nominative case, dual number 1 /2, the second is in singular 1/1. The paraphrase or vŗtti is as follows:

Ktaśca ktavatuśca ktaktavatū pratyayau nişţhā sam̨jñau bhavatah̨

Or,

ktah̨ ca (Kta and) KtavatUh̨ ca (ktavatu [and])  ktaktavatū (the pair) pratyayau (affixes) nişţhā sam̨jñau (words, entitites [dual number]) bhavatah̨ (are, constitute [dual number]). To simplify,

'The affixes Kta and KtavatU constitute the nişţhā entities, i.e. are called nişţhā entitites.'

Vasu (p.21-22) renders this simply as follows:

“The affixes Kta and KtavatU are called nişţhā.” 

It may be noticed here that we are showing the indicatory or boundary markers (following the convention in Sharma) by upper case in the formulations Kta and KtavatU: the actual affixes are only ta and tavat. The other small point to note is how the word ktaktavatū is formed by combining the two affixes, but the final –U of the latter (KtavatU) is taken as the nominative case ending and lengthened to –ū to make it dual (number). Correspondingly, the succeeding words are also in dual number, the noun sam̨jñau, and the verb, bhavatah̨.

These are actually affixes of the past participle:

Kŗtah ‘done’
Kŗtavān ‘he did’ (nominative masculine singular from kŗtavat)
Bhuktah ‘eaten’
bhuktavān ‘he ate’ (nominative masculine singular from bhuktavat)

(I would translate Kŗtavān as ‘he who has done’ etc.)

Vasu refers to the K marker as indicating these affixes as KiT, subject to all the rules regarding such entities; one instance is rule 1.1.5, which is supposed to block the application of guņa and vŗddhi substitutions of iK vowels by rule 1.1.3, “when that which is marked by K, G, or Ŋ conditions the replacement” (Sharma, Vol.2, p.9).

In a similar fashion, Vasu points out that the –U of the affix  KtavatU leads to formation of femininine forms by adding a long vowel ī, e.g. kŗtavat- kŗtavatī.

Sharma goes on to describe a quibble on calling something by a technical  term (here, nişţhā), when that term is not invoked until later, in sutra 3.2.102: “If these affixs are to be nişţhā, they must be introduced without assigning the term nişţhā” (Sharma, Vol.1, p.27). He goes on to resolve this seeming contradiction in terms, which I for one have difficulty following. It seems that he wants the affixes to be defined independently, and then given the appellation nişţhā. It seems to me that this is not the way the grammarian works; he does not generally give any common language terms of description to his entitities, but defines them by the relationships. He does not, in this case for example, say that these are the affixes that form past participles; he just calls them nişţhā, and I do not see any connection with what this term may denote in common parlance.   

21 On Option rules, vibhāşā

1.1.44 naveti vibhāşā

This is a deceptively short and seemingly straightforward sutra, and Vasu (Vol.I) deals with it in a brief half page. The words are as follows.

na (not) vā (or) iti (thus) vibhāşā (vibhāşā)

The explanation or vŗrtti is  as follows.

Na iti (saying thus: not) pratişedho (alternative?) vā iti (saying thus: or) vikalpah (suggestion?) tayoh (of the two) pratişedha-vikalpayoh (of the alternative-suggestion? pair)  vibhāşā iti (thus, vibhāşā) samjñā (technical term) bhavati (is)

In plain terms,

The term vibhāşā (option) refers to the pair of “may or may not”.

Thus, where there is a certain prohibition and then an alternative option, there is a vibhāşā. The option may be given where there is a given initial rule, and then an option is given (prāpta- vibhāşā, the word prāpta meaning attained, obtained); the second type is where there is no initial condition or negation, but an option is given (aprāpta- vibhāşā); and a third type is where both situations co-exist (prāptāprāpta - vibhāşā , note the sandhi joining).

Sharma, however gives this sutra as many as 4 pages of dense prose, amounting more or less to the same thing, except that he gives illustrations (from the commentaries) of different types, which are rather involved and will be probably incomprehensible to us until we have gone through the concerned rules and sutras (scattered through different chapters). We did come across an example earlier

1.1.32 vibhāşā jasi, to which we have to add, by carry-forward

Dvandve (#31) na (#29) sarvādīini sarvanāmāni (#27)

That is, sarva- list words are usually sarvanāmāni, but not in dvandva (binary) compounds; however, there is an alternative option in the Jas case, i.e. nominative plural (see Vibhakti page). The option is expressed as two forms of the declined compound noun, depending on whether we treat it like a sarvanāman or not (na va!). This would be a prāpta- vibhāşā, as there is a rule to start with to which an option is given.

This is a good example to explore how the commentators of yore attack the matter, such as the explanations in Patañjali’s great commentary (mahābhāşya), as interpreted in p.236 to p.270 of Subrahmanya Shastri’s lectures (Vol.2, downloadable from archives.org, see the Resources page). If you thought Sharma was prolix, Patanjali is verbose, dealing with this one sutra in the sixth “āhnika” or day’s lecture. In these 36 pages, Patanjali explores all possible variations and aspects of the sutra. Sharma has exposed a summary in his four pages, which themselves soon become opaque to our understanding, therefore as beginners we cannot really hope to follow Patanjali in all the twists and turns of his arguments, but we can try and understand broadly how he approaches the question of reading, and understanding, Panini. Briefly, then, let me try and expose the contents of Patanjali’s sixth āhnika on vibhāşā.

The first part of the commentary is concerned with how we parse the words in the sutra. Patanjali first states that we should understand the form naveti as its meaning, and not just as the word as it is sounded. It is the meaning of naveti that gets the appellation or samjñā name of vibhāşā. This distinction is somewhat academic, because some sutras define just the sound or śabda as a certain entity, whereas in this sutra we are to understand the meaning, or artha, as the target of the definition of vibhāşā. Examples of sutras where only the sound is taken include dādhāghvadāp (1.1.20), taraptamapau ghah (1.1.22), which as we mentioned in passing, define the entities ghu and gha merely by the existence of certain sound groups like dā, dhā, tara, tama, etc. There is no meaning attached to these sounds (apart from their grammatical significance, of course). On the other hand, in the present sutra, it is not that vibhāşā occurs wherever the sound group naveti occurs, but we have to take the meaning, and not just the sounds, of naveti to understand vibhāşā.  One justification for taking the meaning as the objective is that it fits in wherever the term vibhāşā is used; or, as the commentator puts it, if the samjñā were to retricted to the śabda (sound), it cannot reach the artha as elsewhere (and, by implication, we may add that it would not make sense in the different contexts in which the term is used). The use of the word iti (thus said) also denotes that we are considering the meaning of the word group navā, rather than just the sounds. The discussant questions this kutah? (how) and gets the terse reply lokatah (from the world), i.e. from common usage.

Thus much for the preliminary sparring. Now let us come to the interpretation of the meaning. There is an extended discussion on why we should not interpret navā in the sense of new (feminine), as in navā  kuņd̨ikā or navā ghaţikā (Shastri, vol.2, p.239). So we rule out any suggestion that navā vibhāşā means ‘newness is termed vibhāşā’. The na is a vidhi, condition, preceding the vā, and can mean only pratişedha (opposition?), yathā loke (as in this world) (p.240). The listener chides the speaker for giving an example with  a non-feminine word following navā, which sort of begs the question, as we would say, and he asks him to provide an example with a feminine noun following navā: “The humour in the method of presentation is to be noted”, says Shastri, apparently a man easily amused.

The commentary goes on to explain how na introduces nişedha (prohibition), and vā removes it by pratişedha (counter-option? alternative?), so that there is no conflict (vipratişedha). Here the concepts of prāpta (obtained) and aprāpta (not obtained) are introduced. The option (vibhāşā) may be available aprāpte (to “one which has not been enjoined”, p.243), or prāpte (to one which has already been enjoined, p.244). That is, the option is available either without any preceding statement of prohibition (aprāpte), or after such a prohibition (prāpte). The discussant demurs: vidhi-pratişedhayor-yuga-pad-vacanam nopapadyate (remember Krishna admonishing Arjuna that his cowardice does not behove him, na upapadyate) (“the inappropriateness of the mention of vidhi condition and pratişedha counter? at the same time). The commentator reiterates that when the option pratişedha comes into operation, the vidhi prohibition cannot be accomplished. Pūrva-vidhim-uttaro-vidhir-badhyate (the preceding rule is set at naught by the following rule, p.245).

The discussion meanders on somewhat after this. At one point, the commentator is reduced to arguing that viditatvāt – yadanena yogena prārthyate tasyārthasya viditatvāt (“since it is known – the object which is sought by this sutra is already known”, p.250). Further, “Acharya Panini... expresses the same idea through other expressions like bahulam, anyatarasyām, ubhayathā, vā, ekeşām” (p.250). There is ambiguity, says the discussant, whether the vibhāşā is operative prāpte, aprāpte, or ubhayatra (in both cases), and he points to sutra 1.1.32

1.1.32 (dvandve ca) vibhāşā jasi 

(which we came across before), as such a case (for Patanjali’s explanation, see p.252). A number of other such cases are exposed and disposed of by the expert. This goes on, case after case, till p.270 and the end of āhnika 6. The whole discussion, as already stated, is summarised by Sharma in four pages, and bypassed by Vasu with just a mention of the three contexts, prāpte, aprāpte and ubhayatra. 

20. On case endings (vibhakti)

After the sutras on avyaya (indeclinables), a couple of sutras follow on the topic of case endings (vibhakti). We have come across the case ending for nominative plural termed jas or Jas: the actual ending is –as, realised as –ah, as indicated in the last post. The J- in Jas is a mere marker, an iT. Here are the seven case endings in three numbers and the corresponding technical terms for them.

	Case	singular	dual	plural
1st. Prathamā	Nominative (name by itself, subject)	sU	au	Jas
2nd. Dvitīyā	accusative (as an object)	am	auŢ	Śas
3rd. Tŗtīyā	Instrumental (by)	Ţā	bhyām	bhis
4th. Caturthī	dative (to)	Ŋe	bhyām	bhyas
5th. Pañcamī	ablative (from)	Ŋasi	bhyām	bhyas
6th. Şaşţhī	Genitive or possessive (of)	Ŋas	os	ām
7th. Saptamī	locative (in)	Ŋi	os	suP
	vocative (hi!)

The ordinal names Prathamā etc. in Sanskrit stand for 1^st, etc. as indicated in the first column, and the name of the relationship in English is given in the second column, and the respective case endings in the subsequent columns for singular number, dual, and plural respectively. Some of the case endings have an in-built iT or marker, e.g. the J- in Jas, and so on, whereas others like au, am do not. This is a riddle to be answered when we come to the way rules re formulated to provide for all the existing variations in the respective endings. We can probably surmise, however, that what the absence of iT markers suggests is, that some cases are inherently less variable, and therefore do not need to be expressed or invoked in an abstract manner of naming, while those provided with an iT marker are probably inherently more variable. The correctness of this suggestion will be proved or disproved s we come to the specific case endings and their related rules.

Here’s another convention regarding these case endings: by combining the initial letter (sound) of an earlier case ending with the last letter of a subsequent case ending, we can make short hand notations for a range of case endings (just like we had pratyāhāra for letters, e.g. iK, aiC, etc., in fact these are pratyāhāra for case endings): sUP covers all the 21 vibhakti, taking the first sound in sU and the last sound in suP. Similarly, the first five endings are termed sUŢ, taking the initial sound in sU and the last sound in auŢ. These five forms – nominative (all three numbers) and accusative singular and dual – often have one type of base, and the other forms have  different base, for the same noun. This is an empirical observation, obviously, and not a rule contrived by the grammarian. The upshot is, however, that a special name is given to this group of the first five case forms, and this term is sarvanāmasthāna, as expressed in this sutra:

1.1.42 śi sarvanāmasthānam

Both words are in nominative singular (1/1), and the paraphrase is:

Vŗtti: śi iti (thus) etat (this) sarvanāmasthāna-samjñam (specific word) bhavati (is, constitutes).

That is, the term śi just stands in for the group called sarvanāmasthāna- samjñam. As we saw in the past, the sutra merely associates the terms, but does not throw any light on what it signifies; that information is dispersed in other, remote parts of the grammar, specifically here in sutras like 7.1.20, which assigns the term śi (or Śi, if we recognize that the initial letter is just a marker), to Jas and Śas, that is plural nominative and accusative forms of neuter gender.

Apart from this, Sharma refers to two other contexts in which the sarvanāmasthānam appellation is invoked. One is from 7.1.72, wherein the augment n (nUM) is introduced into neuter stems nominative and accusative). The other is the lengthening of the short vowel in such neuter gender stems, by sutra 6.4.8. These rules generate the forms (declension) characteristic of neuter stems, e.g. phalam phale phalāni; madhu madhunī madhūni, and so on.

There is one more sutra regarding this group of forms, and this refers to words that are not of neuter gender:

1.1.43 sud̨anapumsakasya          or,

Suţ (1/1) anapumsakasya (6/1)

Adding, by anuvrtti or carry-forward the appropriate term from the preceding sutra, and dividing the phrases into the constituent words, we get the paraphrase

Vŗtti:

suţ (sUŢ) iti (the items denoted by the group of endings called sUŢ, see sutra 4.1.2) pañca (five) vacanāni (word-forms) sarvanāmasthāna- samjñani (sarvanāmasthāna- words) bhavanti (are), napumsakād anyatra (when they occur after a non-neuter stem).

That is, even in non-neuter stems, these five forms will have the lengthening of the vowel and introduction of –n in the stem before the case endings sUT, if they are termed as sarvanāmasthānam stems:

E.g., the word rājan ‘king’ has the base rājān before the sUŢ case endings, and the base rāgñy (or rāgŋy, I really am not sure how to represent the combination of  velars and nasals!) in other cases, thus

Nominative: rājā rājānau rājānah

Accusative: rājānam rājānau rāgŋyah

The first five (nominative - all three numbers, accusative - singular and dual) show the lengthening and introduction of –n (not in the nominative singular though: there is a separate injunction for this specific case).

In summary, we see that the type of word sarvanāmasthāna- samjñam refers to neuter nom. and acc. plural (Śi), or to non-neuter nouns in the first five forms of the vibhakti (case endings), with some other environment conditions that will occur in the concerned sutras.  This wraps up this little sally into the sarvanāmasthāna word forms.

19. More on avyaya (indeclinables)

Following on the sutra 1.1.37 that introduced avyaya (indeclinables) (see previous post), additional groups are added to the category.

1.1.38 taddhitaś cāsarvavibhaktih̨

Word division: taddhitah̨ (1/1) ca (0, zero, indicating an avyaya, indeclinable!) asarvavibhaktih̨ (1/1),

and supplying, by anuvŗtti from 1.1.37:

(avyayam #37), the paraphrase or expansion of the sutra is as follows:

Vŗtti: taddhitāntah̨ śabdah̨ or śabdo’ (word in taddhita affix ending) ca (and) a-sarva-vibhaktih̨ (not-all-case ending, i.e. not declined in all cases)  avyaya-samjñah̨ (samjño) (indeclinable word) bhavati (is, constitutes).

Points to note includes the close attention required to be given to the sandhi rules in unpicking the individual words, in cāsarvavibhaktih̨. It is not ca sarva etc., but the exact opposite, ca asarva etc. Words with a taddhita affix that do not take all the seven case endings are also avyaya, indeclinable. Examples supplied are tatra ‘there’ , yatra ‘where’, tadā ‘then’, etc. The sutra requires the condition of taddhita suffix to be satisfied, which prevents attaching of all the vibhakti (case) endings, and hence makes them avyaya, indeclinable.

The explanation introduces further categories like the taddhitāntāh̨ (words ending in taddhita affixes). There is a whole raft of conditions governing the taddhita suffixes which we will encounter later; we will have to wait till the appropriate sutra occurs (4.1.76 taddhitāh̨). Then we have the vibhakti endings; these are the seven case-endings, nominative (name by itself, as a subject), accusative (as an object) instrumental (by), dative (to), ablative (from), possessive (of), locative (in), and vocative (hi!). They are known technically as the sUP endings, sup-antāh̨, where the UP is a marker (iT), and the ending is represented by –s, expressed as a – h̨: rāmah̨ from rāmas (like remus), dāmas (like domus). Sometimes the ending is expressed as an –r, similar to the –r- sound introduced in English speech between two vowels, e.g. Lisa-r-and-Angela (no friends of mine!). The case endings, of course, are what we learn in the basic tables of declension:  rāmah̨ rāmau rāmāh̨,  rāmam rāmau rāmān, rāmeņa rāmābhyām rāmaih̨, etc. The case endings are known as sUP (U as in German unten, not English sup! Nothing is ever straight-forward!).

Here’s another category of avyaya (indeclinable):

1.1.39 kŗn mejantah̨

Word division: kŗt (1/1) mejantah̨ (1/1); and adding by anuvŗtti

(avyayam #37), we have the explanation

Vŗtti: kŗd (kŗt, without the sandhi)  yo (yah̨)  makārāntah̨ (kŗt- which ends in -m) ejantaśca  (ejantah̨ ca) (and eC-ending) tadantam (that ending) śabda-rūpam (word-form) avyaya-sam̨jñam̨ (avyaya-word, indeclinable) bhavati (is).

Again, there are two new terms here. One is a kŗt ending: apparently we have to go to 3.1.93  kŗd atiŋ to get the definition (note also how the last letter in kŗt changes according to rules of sandhi, t> d before a voiced sound, t>n before a nasal m). These kŗt  may be termed agent words for the present; they are a-tiŋ, not-tiŋ, where tiŋ stands for verb (declension) endings, obviously on the analogy of he ending –ti s in bhavati, is (3^rd person, singular). They are derived from verbs, but not verbal forms. Additionally, these kŗt endings have to also end in –m or one of the eC vowels (e, o, ai, au – remember the siva-sutras ending in ouch!). Examples of kŗt affixes ending in m are:

Svādumkāram bhunkte ‘he eats after sweetening’

lavaņamkāram bhunkte ‘he eats after salting’

Examples in –eC ending vowels are said to be prevalent in Vedic:

Vakșe rāyah ‘for naming the wealth’,

from vac ‘to say (cognate with vox, voice)’, plus ending –se which is transformed to vak- șe. The –se has the import of the affix –tum, the desiderative ‘to do something’: kartum, to do, for instance. The ending –tum (denoted technically as tumUN with the iT added) is itself a kŗt affix ending in –m, hence is avyaya ‘indeclinable’. In Vedic, there are forms like vakșe giving the sense of –tum, ‘to say’ (or vaktum, if I am not mistaken).  Other such affixes listed in the explantions are ŅamUL, KamUL, and KHamUÑ, which are –am suffixes coming from different angles,  hence differentiated by different iT markers (the rules for these affixes are in other parts of the Ashtadhyayi). (One of the questions I hope to find an answer to is: whether there is a logic to Panini’s choice of the precise letters for the iT markers; does it have anything to do with the specific transformations the marker itself would undergo when juxtaposed to different affixes?).

The next is another cryptic clue to avyaya ‘indeclinable’:

1.1.40 ktvātosunkasunah̨

which is a noun (1/3, nominative or 1^st vibhakti, plural according to Sharma). By anuvŗtti, we add

avyayam (#37) from 1.1.37. The expansion is interpreted as:

vŗtti: ktvā tosun kasun (the affixes Ktvā tosUN kasUN) ityevam (iti evam, and thus, respectively) antam (ending) śabda-rūpam (word-form) avyaya-sam̨jñam̨ (avyaya-word, indeclinable) bhavati (is).

What are the three types of affixes specifies here? Ktvā is a familiar ending -tvā, denoting a past participle, kŗtvā ‘having done’, pītvā ‘having drunk’. This is an indeclinable, it does not take noun endings although it looks like a qualifier or attributive (adjective) that could well change according to gender and number and case (it doesn’t). The affix tosUN refers to -toh̨, the affix KasUN  refers to -ah̨, as in the examples given by Sharma (who has got them from the vārttika):

purā sūryasyodetoh̨ (sūryasya udetoh̨) ‘before the rising of the sun’.

purā krūrasya visŗpah̨ ‘befor the cruel one gets away’

The purpose of assigning them to avyaya is to facilitate deletion of noun endings sUP.  A final category of avyaya is given by

1.1.41 avyayībhāvaśca

Aunvrtti: (avyayam #37)

The avyayībhāvah̨ is a special kind of samāsa ‘compound’ (2.1.5 avyayībhāvah̨) which has a meaning that is an indeclinable (a somewhat circular chain of definitions!):

vŗtti: avyayībhāva- samāso (the avyayībhāva-compound) ‘(a)vyaya-sam̨jño (avyaya-word, indeclinable) bhavati (is).

Note all the different ways sandhi transforms the terminal - ah̨ (masculine, singular) ending, since samāsah̨ is obviously masculine singular. Examples:

Pratyagnim ‘in front of the fire’

Upāgnim ‘near the fire’

Here’s another explanation of the purposes which assignment to the avyaya category serves. One, as already described, is to block the attachment of noun declension endings (sUP). The second reason is to block assignment of the high pitch accent (udātta) in a bahuvrīhi compound with mukha (which need not concern us here), The third is to block transformation of terminal visarga -ah̨ to –as, technically termed upacāra. Thus,

*ayah̨-kārah̨ ‘one who makes iron, blacksmith’ would become ayaskārah̨ by changing to - h̨ to –s, but

upa-payah̨-kāmah̨ ‘he who is near the one desirous of milk’ does not make this change, as the first part upa-payah̨ is itself an avyayībhāva compound, hence the correct form of the whole compound is upapayah̨kāmah̨. (I am a bit leery of this reasoning, as I feel the division should be payah̨-kāmah̨, ‘the one desirous of milk’, which is not itself an avyayibhava, but let it go for now!).

This concludes the section on avyaya, indeclinable.

  

18. Introducing a new species of word – avyaya (indeclinables)

We saw, in sutra 1.1.27 sarvādīni,  that Panini defines something akin to pronominals by a list of words starting with sarva, ‘all’ in his Gaņapāţha (list of groups). The next batch of sutras is introduced in a similar way, based on the list of words starting with svar ‘heaven’ in the Gaņapāţha, to define (and describe the behaviour of) a category or species termed avyaya (‘unchanging’, i.e. indeclinables).

1.1.37  svarādinipātamavyayam

Dividing this into the constituent words with case and number:

Svarādi nipātam (1/1) avyayam (1/1)

And the expansion is as follows (with hyphens to help clarify out the compounds):

Vŗtti: svar-ādīni (the list starting with the word) svar (at the head) śabda-rūpāņi (word forms) nipātāh ca (and nipāta words) avyaya-samjñāni  (indeclinable words) bhavanti (are, constitute).

The sutra merely defines avyaya words, without telling us anything further about them, just as the previous batch started with a definition of sarvanāma without saying much about their behaviour. That is because this first part of the Ashtādhyāyi is all about definitions, and the domain of these initial sutras is supposed to be distributed all over the remaining, operational, sections. This is very much like an old-fashioned Fortran program which sets up the names of entities first, and then goes on to elaborate their behaviour through various operations.

Another thing to note is that there are two, distinct, types of words defined as nipāta, linked only by the conjunction ca ‘and’: the first type is merely the list of words svar etc., and the second type is words called nipāta. The conjunction has to be supplied, otherwise we may be mistaken to understand svarādi words as nipāta. They are two distinct categories, and both are subsumed under the category avyaya.

The svar etc. group is a long list indeed, starting with svar ‘heaven’, antar ‘midst’, prātar ‘in the morning’, and so on. The nipāta words are defined further on, in sutras 1.4.56 to 61, and can be taken to mean particles (words that have fallen nearby, under the tree?).

The next few sutras add on other groups under the definition of avyaya, such as forms ending in suffixes (affixes) ktvā etc. (participles), forms ending in kŗt affixes, and avyayībhāva samāsa (compounds).