29 Reducing an element to zero: lopa

Sutra 1.1.60 introduces a concept that has, if I remember right, been made much of in linguistics theory: the ‘zero’ affix or element, which still remains in a hidden form to condition the preceding base. This concept allows many transformations to be carried through in a virtual sense even without an actual element being present, somewhat like scaffolding and centering allows complicated constructions to be erected.   

1.1.60 adarśanam lopah

a-darśanam (1/1) lopah (1/1)

This is a definition of the concept lopah, the paraphrase, vŗtti, being:

a-darśanam (‘non-visiblity’) aśravaņam (‘non-audiblity’) anuccāraņam (‘non-vocalizing’) anupalabdhih (‘non-attainablity’) abhāvo (‘non-existence’) varņavināśa (‘letter or element destruction’) iti (thus, and so on) anarthāntaram (‘converting to non-entity, neutralizing’) etaih śabdaih (‘by such words’) yo’artho (‘this meaning’) (lopah)

 “Non-appearance (adarśana) is termed LOPA” (Sharma).

“The substitution of a blank (lopa)signifies disappearance”, also called ‘elision’ (Vasu).

There is a certain amount of (seemingly pedantic!) discussion to the effect that lopa refers to the concept of adarśanam (‘non-visiblity’) etc., and not the actual sounds represented by the letters. In the absence of this clarification in the commentaries, one may be tempted to substitute the actual letters lopa or adarśana wherever a sutra prescribes it. As put by Sharma (Vol.ii, p.61) “…the term LOPA should be  assigned to the meaning of the word adarśana and not to its form, the word adarśana itself”. It is also noted that lopa is the disappearance of some entity that was in existence in some context, and not merely absence.

The grammarians recognise different types of blank or zero elements:

1.1.61 pratyayasya lukślulupah (#60 adarśanam)

Pratyayasya (6/1) lukślulupah (1/1)

The paraphrase, vŗtti is

Pratyaya-adarśanasya (the non-appearance, disappearance of an affix) luk ślu lup iti (like LUK, ŚLU, LUP) etāh samjñā bhavanti (these are the entities, terms)

“Non-appearance of an affix is termed LUK, ŚLU, or LUP” (Sharma, II.62)

“The disappearance of an affix when it is caused by the words LUK, ŚLU, or LUP are designated by those terms respectively” (Vasu, p.56).

These terms LUK, ŚLU, or LUP are obviously technical codes, samjñā, created by the grammarians to trigger certain routines, and not real words in the language (which is why we have shown them in upper case, as we do markers or iT’s). These samjñā will be provided in other rules dealing with elision operations in certain appropriate contexts. There is again discussion (in my opinion somewhat pedantic) of the chicken-or-egg question of anyony-āśrayitva ‘interdependency’  (we saw this in 1.1.45 ig yaņah samprasāraņam, see post #23): there has to be something for the lopa operation to work on, which means there has to be an assignment of the name LUK or ŚLU  or LUP before the elision can take place. “Commentators resolve this difficulty by stating that whenever these terms are used in ordering the operation of zeroing, the assignment of the name follows zeroing. That  is, assignment of a name (samjñā) is treated as ‘yet to be brought about’ (bhāvinī)” (Sharma, II.63). The three types of elision (zeroing) operations are collectively termed LU-mān, and are marked respectively by K, Ś and P in the connected rules. It is noted that the LU- elisions are applied to affixes (pratyaya) and not to bases.

Here are some examples from Vasu (p.56). Rule 2.4.72 attaches the label LUK to the affix (augment, vikaraņa) śap in forming the present singular from the verb ad, ‘to eat’: ad + śapLUK + ti = ad+ti = atti ‘(3^rd person/1) eats’. The LUK indicates that the śap (which would have introduced –a-) is elided. In forming juhoti ‘(3^rd person/1) invokes’ the śap is elided by the label śLU (2.4.75). Why the same code is not used in both situations is not clear at this point, hopefully it will become clearer as we come across those other sutras.

Here is a further complication or extension dreamed up by our grammarians: certain operations are carried out even under the elision condition (this is the feature so admired by twentieth century linguistics). This gives the grammarian the facility to make general rules of transformation applicable in a wider range of situations.

1.1.62 pratyayalope pratyayalakşaņam

Pratyaya-lope (7/1)  pratyaya-lakşaņam (1/1)

Vŗtti, paraphrase:

Pratyaya-lope kŗte ([even] given affix-elision) pratyaya-lakşaņam (affix-? Indication; “the effect by which an affix could be recognised”, Vasu p.57) pratyaya-hetukam kāryam (operations conditioned by affix) bhavati

“An operation conditioned by an affix applies even if the affix has been replaced by zero” (Sharma).

“When elision of an affix has taken place (lopa), the affix still exerts its influence, and the operations dependant upon it, take place as if it were present” (Vasu).

The repetition of the words pratyaya and lopa indicate that this rule obtains only where the whole affix has been elided, and not if only a part of it has been elided. Only such subsequent operations are allowed as are caused by the affix as such, not orthographic changes due to particular letters etc.

As an example is the word agnicit ‘he who heaped the fire’ or somasut ‘he who pressed soma (the energetic drink of the Vedic priests)’, which have had their final case ending sUP (nominative case, singular, see the Vibhakti Page) elided or lopped off (lopa) . A pada is defined as an entity with a case ending sUP-anta or a verb ending tiŊ-anta (1.4.14 suptiŋantam padam). On this basis, the words cited will not be called pada, so that operations permitted on a pada will be precluded. However by the sutra 1.1. 62 the entity still functions like a pada, as if the elided case ending sUP or  affix (pratyaya) were still visible.  

As is usual, the latitude conferred by #62 is restricted by

1.1.63 na lumatāŋgasya

Na (0)  lumatā (3/1) aŋgasya (7/1) (#62 pratyayalakşaņam)

Vŗtti:

lumatā śabdena (‘by a term which contains [the marker] LU’) lupte pratyaye (given the elision of an affix’) yad aŋgam (‘a pre-suffixal base’) tasya (‘its’) pratyaya-lakşaņam kāryam (‘operation in the presence of the affix’) na bhavati (does not take place’).

“An operation for a pre-suffixal base (aŋga) does not apply (although it would otherwise apply by 1.1.62) if the affix in question is replaced by zero referred to by a term which contains LU (LUK, ŚLU or LUP; see 1.1.62)” (Sharma).

Thus not all elisions to zero preserve the original character of the lopped off (lopa) affix. If the lopping has been the end effect of a LU instruction, then the elided affix’s properties will not persist. The definition of an aŋga, or pre-suffixal base, is the root (dhātu) followed by the affix (pratyaya), before attaching the case-ending (sUP).