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).