On the semantic foundation of P[a.bar]ninian derivational procedure: the derivation of kumbhak[a.bar]ra.
Scharf, Peter
The treatment of upapada-tatpurusa compounds in Grimal, Venkataraja
Sarnia, and Laksh-minarasimham's (2007) Book of Compound Words and
the treatment of the starting point in Paninian derivation in several
recent papers by Houben (2003, 2009a, 2009b, 2010) occasion a
rearticulation of initial phases and particular points of Paninian
derivational procedure. Grimal et al. (2007) omit early steps from their
derivations and, as a result, show nominal terminations present at their
first step in the derivation of upapada tatpurusa compounds. (1) Even
though their annotations reveal the correct understanding of
P[a.bar]nini's derivational procedure, omitting early steps gives
the incorrect impression that P[a.bar]nini's derivational procedure
begins with these speech forms present rather than with the semantic and
syntactic conditions that occasion them. Their exposition closely
follows that of Bhattojidiksita; yet the latter himself diminishes the
role of semantic and syntactic conditions in derivational procedure in
departure from his predecessors. Houben (2003, 2009a, 2009b,
forthcoming) deliberately argues that P[a.bar]ninian derivation begins
with speech forms and does not begin with the early steps in question at
all. He asserts that the derivation begins with a sentence or phrase
that the speaker uses the grammar to check for correctness. He argues
that semantic and syntactic conditions are incapable of determining
speech forms without the guidance of user decisions, and that the
grammar is used merely to reconstitute a preliminary sentence that the
user of the grammar has in view in order to validate its correctness.
Given these challenges to the view that P[a.bar]ninian derivation begins
with semantics, the occasion is ripe for an investigation of just what
speech forms are in view at the start of a P[a.bar]ninian derivation and
what semantic conditions are required. The pivotal issue arises in the
derivation of the upapada-tatpurusa compound kumbhak[a.bar]ra
'potter'.
1. WHAT THE POTTER HAS TO DO WITH SEMANTICS
1.1 Basic assumptions in linguistics
The clarification of what speech forms and what semantic conditions
are in view at the start of a P[a.bar]ninian derivation requires first a
clarification of some basic assumptions about the nature of linguistic
science as it was conceived by the ancient Indians. Ancient Indian
linguists begin from the conception of speakers and end with speech.
While Indian grammatical works presuppose an analysis of speech and
early modern Indian semantic works are concerned with cognition from the
perspective of a listener, none of the extant Sanskrit grammars begins
with actual speech. They all, from the ancient phonetic treatises proper
to particular Vedic traditions (Pr[a.bar]tisakhyas) to medieval
non-P[a.bar]ninian grammars and early modern reworkings of
P[a.bar]ninian grammars, derive actual speech from basic elements
previously abstracted in accordance with an assumed prior analysis. The
rules produce speech; they themselves, formulated to take the prior
analysis into account, do not analyze it. In that sense Indian grammar
is generative. It is constructed from the point of view of the speaker,
not of the listener. P[a.bar]ninian grammar in particular uniformly
instructs which speech forms are to be used under various conditions,
including some 735 semantics conditions described in Scharf 2009a
(101-9); conversely, the grammar never instructs what meaning is to be
understood from a speech form. P[a.bar]ninian grammar is therefore a
generative grammar beginning from basic linguistic units and semantics
and ending with actual speech forms. While P[a.bar]ninian grammar is
generative, it is not fully transformational; that is, it does not
transform one actual utterance into another. While it is
transformational to the extent that certain morphemes are posited as
basic and variations are produced by replacements, it does not give
preference, for instance, to the active voice over the passive voice in
the basic speech forms posited (as some forms of modern transformational
grammar do). Instead, alternate syntactic constructions that express
some common meaning are derived from abstract non-phonetic categories.
Identical conditions stated in various rules account for the common
meaning while variant conditions or unconditioned alternation account
for the differences in the alternate speech forms. P[a.bar]ninian
grammar therefore does not have a sentence as its starting point. It has
as its starting point a conception in the mind of a speaker embodied to
a limited extent, before the application of any rules, already in
certain basic, phonetic elements, namely roots and underived nominal
stems.
The question of what, if any, speech forms are in view as the
starting point for P[a.bar]ninian derivation is determinable from an
examination of the set of rules and its supplementary lists. The only
speech forms permissible at the start of a derivation are those (roots
and stems) listed as basic elements, those inferrable as being of the
same kind in lists of exemplary elements ([a.bar]krtigana), and those
included by specific semantic criteria. The supplementary lists consist
in particular of the Dh[a.bar]tupatha and ganas to which rules of the
Ast[a.bar]dhydyi refer. Numerous rules provide operations on some 282
lists (gana) mentioned in those rules, beginning with A. 1.1.27
sarvaclini sarvan[a.bar]m[a.bar]n by which speech forms in the list
beginning with sarva 'all' are termed sarvandman
'pronoun'. Roots listed in the Dh[a.bar]tupatha are termed
dhatu by 1.3.1 bh[u.bar]v[a.bar]dayo dh[a.bar]tavah. Finally an open
class of additional speech forms is included as basic elements under the
sole specification that they be meaningful. By A. 1.2.45 arthavad
adh[a.bar]tur apratyayall pr[a.bar]tipadikam, meaningful speech forms
(arthavat), other than roots, affixes, and speech forms that end with
them, are termed pr[a.bar]tipadika 'nominal base'. By A.
1.2.46 krttaddhitasam[a.bar]s[a.bar]s at, complex speech forms derived
by the grammar, including derivates from roots, derivates from nominal
stems, and compounds, are also termed pratipadika. Other basic elements
(affixes and augments) are explicitly introduced by rules. Nominal bases
and roots are then generally referred to as preceding contexts in rules
that provide affixes after them (e.g., dh[a.bar]toh in 3.1.91 and
pr[a.bar]tipadik[a.bar]t in 4.1.1). These are the only speech forms
present at the start of P[a.bar]ninian derivation; there are no others.
Semantic conditions serve as the remainder of the initial conditions for
the operation of rules of the Ast[a.bar]dhy[a.bar]y[i.bar].
1.2 Reconstitution rather than synthesis?
Houben accepts that there is a synthetic part to a grammar
user's use of P[a.bar]ninian grammar. What he denies is that
semantics lie at the foundation of sentence generation. He (2009b: 13)
rightly points out that certain basic units of speech are included at
the start of a P[a.bar]ninian derivation when he writes, for instance,
"the selection of a suitable root is normally the starting point of
the synthetic part of his consultation cycle." He indicates (p. 14)
the complementary absence of pure semantics while elaborating on the
presence of basic units of speech--writing, "the concrete starting
point for a derivation in the synthetic phase of the consultation cycle
of a user of grammar in PAnini's time will then never be
'pure' meaning or an autonomous level of semantic
representations but the selection of a root--for instance, bh[u.bar]
'to be'--or a form from lists of underived stems, pronominal
forms, etc. in which form and meaning are inseparably integrated."
He reiterates (p. 13) criticism formulated in Houben 1999 of the views
of Kiparsky and Staal (1969), Bronkhorst (1979), Joshi and Roodbergen
(1975), and Kiparsky (1982) "according to which
'semantics' or 'meanings' form the starting point of
the derivation," and directs that criticism against Kiparsky
(2009), who postulates a level of semantic information that forms the
starting point of the derivation of a complete sentence in which
"k[a.bar]rakas are assigned on the basis of 'semantic
information'." While accepting "at least two distinct
levels of derivation ... a level of morphological representations (where
we find roots, stems, suffixes) and a level of phonological
representations (with words in their final form after the application of
all substitution rules including those of sandhi)" (p. 15), Houben
writes, "no additional level of representation is needed to account
for Panini's system." He regards syntax and semantics "as
domains of consultation, which allow the user of the grammar to label
the linguistic forms of his preliminary sentence according to the
syntactically relevant categories of meaning or according to
semantically relevant generalizations of form (suffixes)" (p. 15),
stating, "As I argued extensively in 1999[: 26-27], the view that
P[a.bar]ninis grammar is a device 'to encode a given meaning and to
produce an expression' is untenable" (p. 13).
Rather than accepting a semantic foundation for P[a.bar]ninian
derivation, Houben asserts instead that the starting point is a
preliminary statement. Houben asserts that "the starting
point" of a P[a.bar]ninian derivation "is a preliminary
sentence that needs to be checked or that needs some little extra
refinement" (2009a: 524). He writes (2009b: 14),
The system of P[a.bar]nini's grammar "clearly requires a user who
wants to check and possibly improve a preliminary statement"
(Reuben 2003: 161). The system implies the presence of a
Knowledgeable user, a preliminary statement, and the application of
first analytic and next synthetic procedures to the words in it, with
the user keeping in mind the preliminary statement and its purport,
and aiming at the best possible, sam-skrta form of his preliminary
statement.
Houben writes (2009b: 19), "no-one has ever produced a correct
form through P[a.bar]nini's system that was not already his
starting point, or among his starting options. Usually the correct form
is put at the beginning after which it is derived through the
system." He continues, "the derivation of a word in a
preliminary statement by any potential user of P[a.bar]nini's
grammar will normally start with the selection of a root in the
Dh[a.bar]tu-p[a.bar]tha corresponding to a selected problematic word in
his statement." In conclusion, he considers it "more
comprehensive and realistic" to view "P[a.bar]nini's
grammar as 'reconstitutive' rather than one-sidedly
'synthetic" (p. 19). Houben reiterates these views in his most
recent work (forthcoming: 3-4), disputing that "the starting point
is in semantics (meaning elements, meaning conditions, etc.)" and
asserting instead that it is "in a preliminary statement."
1.3 Karman: conceptual object rather than speech unit
Although much of Houben's concern is with the sociological
question of the practical use of the grammar rather than with its formal
features, his description betrays a fundamental misconception of
P[a.bar]nini's linguistic system: he views speech forms rather than
meanings as the fundamental conditions for syntactic organization. In
Houben's view, speech forms rather than meanings are designated by
karaka terms, and speech forms rather than meanings are the conditions
for abstract tense. He would assign karaka terms and abstract tenses
(lat, etc.) "to the words of the preliminary utterance" rather
than "to the semantic representations of level one" (2009b:
16). Although his critical analysis of V[a.bar]kyapad[i.bar]ya 1.46
(2003: 148-55) is perspicuous in other respects, he is confused himself
when he calls "confused and confounding" understanding that
the term bruvikarman refers to an object of saying (p. 151 n. 32). He
insists there that the karman 'object' of saying cannot refer
"to an extralinguistic object," that it must refer to "a
grammatical object" and hence, "requires bruvi to refer to the
verb, not to its meaning." Here Houben asserts that a karman is a
speech form rather than a semantic object denoted by a speech form, and
that it has relation to a speech form, i.e., a verb, rather than to the
object denoted by a verb, namely an action. Such an assertion is
erroneous. Semantic objects, not speech forms, are classed as karman
under conditions stated in A. 1.4.49-53 kartur [i.bar]psitatmam karma,
etc. Semantic objects so classed are then the conditions for speech
forms, namely, for nominal terminations, as provided by 2.3.2 kartnaui
dvitzy[a.bar], etc. The karman is not a speech form; it is an object,
viewed as a participant in an action, that is desired by the agent of
the action. It is objects, not speech forms, that participate in action,
and it is participants in action, not speech forms, that are designated
by k[a.bar]raka terms.
It is precisely the issue of the status of what is termed karman as
the condition for the occurrence of krt-affixes and nominal terminations
that is the crux of a problem in the derivation of the upapada tatpurusa
compound kumbhak[a.bar]ra by Bhattojid[i.bar]ksita and hence by Grimal
et al. The fact that the derivation of the compound does not begin with
a corresponding phrase is significant for Houben's contention that
the derivation must begin with a "preliminary statement." The
sequence in which speech elements in the derivation are introduced and
the conditions for them reveal the extent to which P[a.bar]ninian
derivation begins with abstract semantic entities. Examination of
P[a.bar]ninian discussions concerning the derivation of the compound
kumbha-k[a.bar]ra 'pot-maker' demonstrates that nominal
terminations are not present at the stage of the provision of
krt-affixes, that krt-affixes are conditioned by speech forms denoting
semantic items designated by specific k[a.bar]raka terms, which in turn
are conditioned predominantly by semantics.
2. THE UPAPADA-TATPURUSA COMPOUND KUMBHAK[A.bar]RA
A reader seeing the compound kumbhakara would easily recognize that
it consists of the element kumbha 'pot' compounded with
k[a.bar]ra 'maker' and that the latter term governs the
former. The first assumption concerning its P[a.bar]ninian derivation
might be that it is a sasth[i.bar]tatpurusa compound equivalent to the
corresponding phrase (vigraha v[a.bar]kya 'analytic phrase'),
*kumbhasya k[a.bar]rah, as provided for by A. 2.2.8. A. 2.2.8
sayth[i.bar] provides that a word (pada) terminating in a sixth-triplet
nominal termination is optionally compounded with another word ending in
a nominal termination and that the resulting compound is termed
tatpurusa. Such compounds are merely optional because A. 2.2.8 occurs
under the heading A. 2.1.11 vih[a.bar]s[a.bar], which allows the
corresponding phrases to occur usually. The s[u.bar]tra accounts for
compounds such as r[a.bar]ja-purusa that have corresponding phrases such
as r[a.bar]j[n.bar]ah purusah.
The possibility that kwnbhak[a.bar]ra is a sasth[i.bar]-tatpurusa
compound is indeed raised by Pata[n.bar]jali, who mentions the example
as falling within the scope of 2.2.8 as well as 2.2.19 under 2.2.19 vt.
3. He later rejects this position, however, with linguistic
justification. The phrase * kumbhasya k[a.bar]rah never occurs in
Sanskrit, and k[a.bar]ra in the meaning 'maker' never occurs
as an independent word, only as the final element of a compound. Hence,
commentators on the Ast[a.bar]dhy[a.bar]y[i.bar] cite kumbha-k[a.bar]ra
as an example of an upapada-tatpurusa compound provided by A. 2.2.19
upapadam atin. For instance, Pata[n.bar]jali cites the example
kumbhak[a.bar]rah in the Mah[a.bar]bh[a.bar]sya on this sutra as does
Jay[a.bar]ditya in the K[a.bar]scik[a.bar].
P[a.bar]nini accounts for derivates that occur only as
compound-final elements in composition with the terms they govern by
stating the governed words (upapada) as conditions in rules that provide
an affix after a root, and by having syntactically subordinate speech
forms serve as conditions for the morphological derivation of the final
compound elements. He proceeds as follows. The governed terms are stated
in the locative in rules under the heading 3.1.91 dhatoh, valid through
the end of the third adhy[a.bar]ya. A. 3.1.92 tatropapadath
saptam[i.bar]stham states the principle that an item taught in the
locative in a sutra under that heading is termed upapada. The obligatory
compounding of a governed word with the word that governs it is
accounted for by A. 2.2.19-20. The term nityam 'obligatorily'
recurs in A. 2.2.19-20 from A. 2.2.17. These rules occur under the
heading A. 2.1.1 samarthah padavidhilz, which requires that potential
compound elements be syntactically connected with each other. The order
of elements in the compound is determined by two additional metarules.
A. 1.2.43 pratham[a.bar]nirditstain samosa upasarjanam provides that an
item taught in the nominative in a atta in the compound section is
termed upasarjana, and A. 2.2.30 upasarjanam p[u.bar]rvam provides that
an item termed upasarjana occurs first in the compound. The sutra A.
2.2.19 provides that a word termed upapada, excluding one that
terminates in a finite verbal affix (tin), is obligatorily (nityam)
compounded with a second item. Because the term upapada is taught in the
nominative in 2.2.19, the governed words under the heading 3.1.91,
termed upapada by 3.1.92, are termed upasarjana by 1.2.43 and therefore
occur first in the compound.
The compound kumbha-k[a.bar]ra is derived as an upapada-tatpurusa
compound with the vigraha v[a.bar]kya kumbham karoti, instead of as a
sasth[I.bar]-tatpurusa compound formed in accordance with A. 2.2.8 with
the vigraha v[a.bar]kya *kumbhasya kit" rah. The full derivation of
the compound (excluding accent) is shown in Table 1.(2) The entry under
kumbhak[a.bar]ra in Grimal et al.'s (2007: 266) The Book of
Compound Words clearly lays out the steps of the derivation immediately
relevant to compound formation. The steps in their derivation in order
are steps 7, 9, 17, 20, 21, 18, 19, 22, 24, 25 of the derivation shown
in Table 1. (2) The first line of their derivation cites A. 3.2.1
karmany an (cf. Table 1, step 7), which occurs under the heading A.
3.1.91 dh[a.bar]toh. The term karman in A. 3.2.1 is taught in the
locative in a s[u.bar]tra under the heading A. 3.1.91 and so is termed
upapada by A. 3.1.92 (cf. Table 1, step 5). The affix an, termed krt by
A. 3.1.93 krd at[I.bar]n (cf. Table 1, step 6), occurs under the
condition that an agent is to be denoted in accordance with A. 3.4.67
kartari krt (cf. Table 1, step 7a). Grimal et al. explain, in their
brief comment on their first derivational step, that the affix at/
occurs after the root kr (marked with [n.bar]) on the condition that the
agent (kartr) is to be denoted if a direct object (kar-man) is the
subordinate term (upapada) connected with it (karmany upapade
kr[n.bar]-dh[a.bar]toh kartari an-pratyayah). After accounting for
strengthening (vrddhi) of the root kr in the second step (cf. Table 1,
step 9), Grimal et al. cite A. 2.2.19 upapadam atin in the third step
(cf. Table 1, step 17) and explain that it accounts for the compound of
the upapada kumbha with k[a.bar]ra which ends in a kr-affix. In the
sixth step they cite A. 1.2.43 pratham[a.bar]nirdistam sam[a.bar]sa
upasarjanam (cf. Table 1, step 18) and explain that it accounts for the
speech form kumbha being termed upasarjana (kumbha-sabdasya
upasarjana-samj[n.bar][a.bar]). In the seventh step they cite A. 2.2.30
upasarjanath p[u.bar]rvam (cf. Table 1, step 19) and explain that it
accounts for the upasarjana kumbha being placed first (upasarjanasya
kumbha-fabdasya p[u.bar]rva-nip[a.bar]tah). Grimal et al. explain the
formation of the compound in their notes (tippan[I.bar]): the affix an
occurs after the root kr 'make' in the meaning of the agent
where the speech form kumbha 'pot', denoting the direct object
(karman), is the governed item (upapada) (karma-v[a.bar]cini
kumbhasgabde upapade kplah kartr-arthe an-pratyayah).
Table 1 Early steps in the derivation of kumbha-kara [irrelevant
stages, such as the deletion of markers, are left out; '+"
designates compounding; '-' designates affixation]
1
2 kumbha[ipsitatama]
kr[dh[a.bar]tu]
x [svatantra]
3 Kumbha [[I.bar]psitatama] 1.4.54
kr x[kartr]
4 Kumbha [karman] 1.4.49
kr x[kartr]
5 Kumbha [karman] 3.1.92
[upapada] kr
x[kartr]
6 [dh[a.bar]tu] 3.1.93
-an[krt]
7 Kumbha 3.2.1
[karman] kr-a
7a 3.4.67
8 kumbha 1.4.13
kr[anga]-a
9 kumbha k[a.bar] 7.2.115
[anga]-a
10 kumbha k[a.bar]ra 1.1.51
11 kumbha [pr[a.bar]tipadika] 1.2.45
k[a.bar]ra
12 kumbha-nas 4.1.2
k[a.bar]ra
12a 1.4.22
12b 2.3.65
13 kumbha[ahga]-nas 1.4.13
k[a.bar]ra
14 kumbha-nas[pada] 1.4.14
k[a.bar]ra
15 kumbhasya[pada] 7.1.12
k[a.bar]ra
16 Kumbhasya[pada] 1.2.46
K[a.bar]ra
[pr[a.bar]tipadika]
* kumbhasya [ pada] k[a.bar]ra-s 4.1.2
*a 1.4.22
*b 2.3.46
17 kumbhasya[pada] 2.2.19
+k[a.bar]ra
18 1.2.43
19 2.2.30
20 (kumbhasya+k[a.bar]ra) 1.2.46
[pr[a.bar]tipadika]
21 (kumbha+kdra) 2.4.71
[pratipadika]
22 (kumbha 4.1.2
+k[a.bar]ra)-s
22a 1.4.22
22b 2.3.46
23 ((kumbha+k[a.bar]ra)-s) 1.4.14
[pada]
24 ((kumbha+k[a.bar]ra)-ru) 8.2.66
[pada]
25 kumbhak[a.bar]rah 8.3.15
1
2 kumbha[ipsitatama]
kr[dh[a.bar]tu]
x [svatantra]
3 Kumbha [[I.bar]psitatama] svatantrah kart[a.bar]
kr x[kartr]
4 Kumbha [karman] kartur ipsitatamam karma
kr x[kartr]
5 Kumbha [karman] Tatropapadam saptamistham
[upapada] kr
x[kartr]
6 [dh[a.bar]tu] krd atin
-an[krt]
7 Kumbha karmany an
[karman] kr-a
7a kartari krt
8 kumbha yasm[a.bar]t pratyayavidhis
kr[anga]-a tad[a.bar]di pratyaye ngam
9 kumbha k[a.bar] Aco [n.bar]niti
[anga]-a
10 kumbha k[a.bar]ra ur an raparah
11 kumbha [pr[a.bar]tipadika] arthavad adh[a.bar]tur
k[a.bar]ra apratyayah pr[a.bar]tipadikam
12 kumbha-nas Svaujasamautchas ...
k[a.bar]ra
12a Dvyekayor dvivacanaikavacane
12b kartr-karmanoh krti
(an-abhihite 1)
13 kumbha[ahga]-nas yasm[a.bar]t pratyayavidhis
k[a.bar]ra tad[a.bar]di pratyaye fhgam
14 kumbha-nas[pada] suptihantam padam
k[a.bar]ra
15 kumbhasya[pada] t[a.bar]nasinas[a.bar]m
k[a.bar]ra in[a.bar]tsy[a.bar]h
16 Kumbhasya[pada] krttaddhitas[a.bar]m[a.bar]s ca
K[a.bar]ra
[pr[a.bar]tipadika]
* kumbhasya [ pada] k[a.bar]ra-s Svaujasamautchas ...
*a Dvyekayor dvivacanaikavacane
*b pratipadik[a.bar]rtha
-linga-parm[a.bar]na
-vacana-m[a.bar]tre
pratham[a.bar] (an-abhihite 1)
17 kumbhasya[pada] upapadam atin
+k[a.bar]ra
18 pratham[a.bar]nirdistam
sam[a.bar]sa upasarjanam
19 upasarjanam p[u.bar]rvam
20 (kumbhasya+k[a.bar]ra) krttaddhitasam[a.bar]s[a.bar]s
[pr[a.bar]tipadika] ca
21 (kumbha+kdra) supo
[pratipadika] dh[a.bar]tupr[a.bar]tipadikayoh
22 (kumbha svaujasamatitchas ...
+k[a.bar]ra)-s
22a dvyekayor dvivaccmaikavacane
22b pr[a.bar]tipadik[a.bar]rtha
-linga-parim[a.bar]na
-vaeana-m[a.bar]tre
pratham[a.bar]
23 ((kumbha+k[a.bar]ra)-s) suptihantam padam
[pada]
24 ((kumbha+k[a.bar]ra)-ru) sasajuso ruh
[pada]
25 kumbhak[a.bar]rah kharavasanayovisar-jan[I.bar]yah
The thought of the speaker is
represented in an image
incidentally.
1 [A masculine form is derived
rather than the feminine
kumbhak[a.bar]ri which is
accounted for by 4.1.15. As the
grammarians would say,
in the current derivation
feminine gender is unintended
(strltvam avivaksitam); see
table 2 for the derivation of
a feminine form. Image from
http://www.mainIesson.com/
dispIay.php7auth or=
iacobs&book=indian&story=notes]
2 kumbha[ipsitatama] Basic lexical speech forms are
kr[dh[a.bar]tu] selected to denote objects
x [svatantra] and actions the speaker has
in mind.
3 Kumbha [[I.bar]psitatama] The independent participant in
kr x[kartr] the action is termed 'agent'
(kartr).
4 Kumbha [karman] The object most desired by the
kr x[kartr] agent is termed 'direct object'
(karman).
5 Kumbha [karman] The speech form denoting the
[upapada] kr item termed karman, because the
x[kartr] term karman occurs in the
locative, is termed upapada.
6 [dh[a.bar]tu] The affix an in 3.2.1 is termed
-an[krt] krt.
7 Kumbha The affix an occurs after the
[karman] kr-a root km on condition that a
speech form denoting a direct
object (karman) is the
subordinate term (upapada)
connected with it.
7a The affix an, termed krt, occurs
on condition that the agent
(kartr) is to be denoted.
8 kumbha That speech form beginning with
kr[anga]-a that after which an affix is
provided is termed anga
with respect to that affix.
9 kumbha k[a.bar] Before an affix marked with
[anga]-a [~.n] or n, the final sound of
a stem (anga) ending in a vowel
is replaced by its closest
vrddhi sound.
10 kumbha k[a.bar]ra An a, i, or u that replaces the
vowel r is followed by an r.
11 kumbha [pr[a.bar]tipadika] A meaningful speech form, other
k[a.bar]ra than a verbal root or an
affix, is termed pratipadika.
12 kumbha-nas A nominal termination occurs
k[a.bar]ra after a nominal stem, or a
speech form ending in a
feminine affix hi or [a.bar]p.
12a A dual or singular nominal
termination occurs to denote
dual or singular number
respectively.
12b The sixth triplet nominal
termination occurs if the
agent or direct object, being
undenoted (an-abhihita) by a
verbal termination, krt-affix,
taddhita affix, or compound is
to be denoted and a nominal
base ending in a krt affix is
used (for the action in which
the agent or direct object
participate).
13 kumbha[ahga]-nas That speech form beginning with
k[a.bar]ra that after which an affix is
provided is termed anga
with respect to that affix.
14 kumbha-nas[pada] A speech form ending in a
k[a.bar]ra nominal or verbal
termination is termed pada.
15 kumbhasya[pada] After an a-final stem (anga),
k[a.bar]ra ta, nasi, and nas are replaced
by ina, at, and sya respectively.
16 Kumbhasya[pada] A meaningful speech form that
K[a.bar]ra ends in a krt or taddhita affix
[pr[a.bar]tipadika] or is a compound is termed
pr[a.bar]tipadika.
* kumbhasya [ pada] k[a.bar]ra-s A nominal termination occurs
after a nominal stem, or a
speech form ending in a
feminine affix ni or [a.bar]p.
*a A dual or singular nominal
termination occurs to denote
dual or singular number
respectively.
*b The agent being denoted
(abhihita) already by the
krt-affix an, the first-triplet
nominal termination s arises to
denote just the meaning of the
nominal base, gender, and number.
17 kumbhasya[pada] An upapada that does not end in
+k[a.bar]ra a verbal termination is
obligatorily compounded with
a syntactically related speech
form.
18 A speech form taught in the
nominative in the compound
section is termed upasarjana.
19 A speech form termed upasarjana
occurs initial in the compound.
20 (kumbhasya+k[a.bar]ra) A meaningful speech form that
[pr[a.bar]tipadika] ends in a krt or taddhita
affix or is a compound is
termed pr[a.bar]tipadika.
21 (kumbha+kdra) Nominal terminations within a
[pratipadika] pr[a.bar]tipadika are deleted
without a trace (i.e., are
replaced by luk).
22 (kumbha A nominal termination occurs
+k[a.bar]ra)-s after a nominal stem or a
speech form ending in a
feminine affix ni or [a.bar]p.
22a A dual or singular nominal
termination occurs to denote
dual or singular number
respectively.
22b A first-triplet nominal
termination occurs if just
the meaning of the nominal
base, gender, a measure, or
number are to be denoted.
23 ((kumbha+k[a.bar]ra)-s) A speech form ending in a
[pada] nominal or verbal
termination is termed pada.
24 ((kumbha+k[a.bar]ra)-ru) The final s of a pada is
[pada] replaced by ru
(rmarked with u).
25 kumbhak[a.bar]rah Before a voiceless consonant or
pause, pada-final r becomes
visarga.
Although the sixth-triplet nominal termination arises after the
nominal base kumbha in syntactic connection with k[a.bar]ra, it is not
the case that a nominal termination arises after k[a.bar]ra (Table 1,
step *). A sixth-triplet nominal termination is provided after a base,
such as kumbha in syntactic connection with an item ending in a
krt-affix, k[a.bar]ra, by A. 2.3.65 kartr-karmaryrn krti (Table 1, step
12b). The condition for the nominal termination in A. 2.3.65 is that it
be an agent (kartr) or direct object (karman) in syntactic connection
with an item ending in a krt-affix. These conditions are satisfied. The
form k[a.bar]ra ends in the krt-affix (an), and kumbha denotes the
karman of the action of making denoted by the root kr. After step 16 the
step marked with an asterisk would provide the nominal base k[a.bar]ra
with a nominal termination, which steps *a and *13 would restrict to a
singular first-triplet nominal termination. However, the steps never
occur because the obligatory compounding between the prior element and
the subsequent element that ends in the krt-affix in step 17 preempts
it. The arising of a nominal termination after the separate speech form
k[a.bar]ra is prevented because the tatpurusa compound of the upapada
kumbha with the speech form kara is brought about by A. 2.2.19 upapadam
atin before nominal terminations have the opportunity to arise.
The issue of the non-occurrence of nominal terminations after
upapada-tatpurusa compound constituents is discussed in
Patarijali's Mahabhasya under A. 2.2.19 (Kielhorn vol. 1, p. 418,
lines 1-13), which Grimal et al. aptly summarize in their notes. The
principle (paribh[a.bar]s[a.bar]) 75
gati-k[a.bar]rakopapad[a.bar]n[a.bar]m krdbhih saha sam[a.bar]sa-vacanam
pr[a.bar]k sub-utpattelj states that the provision of a compound of a
gati, k[a.bar]raka, or an upapada with an item ending in a kit-affix
occurs prior to the arising of nominal terminations. Since a nominal
termination has not yet arisen, there is not even a chance for the
formation of a sasth[I.bar]-tatpurusa compound in accordance with A.
2.2.8, which requires that an item terminating in a sixth-triplet
nominal termination compound with another item ending in a nominal
termination. As Grimal et al. write, an-utpanne supi
saythi-samasa-prasaktir eva nasti. Even if one could somehow form a
sasth[I.bar]-tatpurusa in accordance with A. 2.2.8 before nominal
terminations arose, such a compound is optional (vibh[a.bar]s[a.bar]
recurs in A. 2.2.8 from A. 2.1.11) while in contrast A. 2.2.19 is
obligatory (nityam recurs in A. 2.2.19 from A. 2.2.17). The obligatory
upapada-tatpurusa compound would occur, leaving no scope for the
optional compound. The result is that rule A. 2.2.8 never even comes
into conflict (vipratisedha) with A. 2.2.19, so that even the vigraha
v[a.bar]kya *kumbhasya karate has no opportunity to occur.
The derivation provided in the entry under kumbhak[a.bar]ra by
Grimal et al. (2007: 266) is almost entirely correct. Yet despite the
practical utility of the kumbhak[a.bar]ra entry and the penetrating
analysis of subtle issues by the authors in the notes, there appears to
be a problem with the derivation, which the authors have overlooked.
Although Grimal et al. in their notes clearly recognize that the
sixth-triplet nominal termination cannot arise prior to the provision of
the krt-affix an, the first step of derivation shows the sixth-triplet
termination has (as marked with it) already present when the krt-affix
an (a marked with ti) is provided. They silently include the
sixth-triplet nominal termination has after the nominal stem kumhha in
the first step of their derivation at the step in which A. 3.2.1 karmany
an provides the kit-affix an (cf. Table 1, step 7). Their step 1 first
presents the string kumbha-as + kr-a. However, such a string is
impossible. The nominal termination cannot be present already in step
one of the derivation where the krt-affix is provided, as it is
presented, because the krt-affix must be provided first in order to
serve as a condition for the provision of the sixth-triplet nominal
termination.
Grimal et al. recognize that the krt-affix is a condition for the
sixth-triplet nominal termination in their notes, which state, "the
sixth-triplet nominal termination arises after the nominal base kumbha
on condition that the latter occurs in syntactic connection with an item
ending in a krt-affix (krd-yoge kumbha-sabd[a.bar]t sasth[I.bar])."
Yet they apparently overlook the implication for the first step of their
derivation. The sixth-triplet nominal termination after a base in
syntactic connection with an item ending in a krt-affix is provided by
A. 2.3.65 kartr-karmanoh krti (cf. Table 1, step 12b). The condition for
the nominal termination in A. 2.3.65 is that it be in syntactic
connection with an item ending in a krt-affix. In the case of
kumbhak[a.bar]ra, the krt-affix an is provided by A. 3.2.1 (cf. Table 1,
step 7). The application of A. 2.3.65 requires A. 3.2.1 to have already
applied; A. 2.3.65 has no scope prior to the application of A. 3.2.1.
Hence the nominal termination cannot be present already in step 1 of the
derivation.
Moreover, a nominal termination never has the opportunity to arise
after the speech form k[a.bar]ra by itself (Table 1, steps *, *a, *b)
since compounding occurs obligatorily (Table 1, step 17) and takes
precedence over the provision of the nominal termination there. In
contrast to an upapada, which is subject to obligatory compounding with
an element ending in a krt-affix by A. 2.2.19, words ending in
sixth-triplet nominal terminations provided by A. 2.3.65 are subject to
optional compounding with another element ending in a nominal
termination (supa) by A. 2.2.8 sayth[I.bar]. The terms sup and
sup[a.bar] recur in A. 2.2.8 from A. 2.1.2 and A. 2.1.4 respectively so
that the compounding takes place between elements termed pada by A.
1.4.14 suptifiantarh padam. In particular, the v[a.bar]rttika stated
under A. 2.2.8., krdyog[a.bar] ca, allows such compounds with
syntactically connected words whose nominal bases end with krt-affixes.
Only where there is such optional compounding is there the possibility
for a nominal termination to arise after the krt-affix and then for
compounding to take place between the two elements both of which end in
nominal terminations. That there is no equivalent corresponding phrase
*kumbhasya k[a.bar]rat? in Sanskrit usage for the compound
kumbha-k[a.bar]ra is therefore critical: it is for this very reason that
P[a.bar]anini forms the compound with the subsequent element without the
nominal termination by A. 2.2.19 rather than with one by A. 2.2.8.
Is is crucial to note that there is no equivalent corresponding
phrase *kumhhasya k[a.bar]rah in Sanskrit usage for the compound
kumbha-k[a.bar]ra with which to begin a P[a.bar]ninian derivation, nor
does P[a.bar]nini's derivational procedure begin with the string
kumbha-as + kr-a since the krt-affix an does not arise until step 7, and
the sixth-triplet nominal termination has does not arise until step 1.2.
The only speech forms available for a "preliminary statement"
are kumbha and kr. A preliminary statement consisting of these speech
forms would be incomplete and incapable of determining the derivation of
the desired compound. The derivation would still depend upon pure
semantics--disembodied meanings still unencumbered by corresponding
speech forms--to condition the proper affixes and compound formation.
3. COMPOUND ELEMENTS WITHOUT NOMINAL TERMINATIONS
3.1 Upapada-tatpuru.ya compounds
A close examination of the commentaries demonstrates that
P[a.bar]nini's derivation of upapada-tatpurusa compounds does not
begin with a corresponding phrase (vigraha-vakya) nor with nominal
terminations present. Such an examination also reveals complex
linguistic issues in the syntax and morphology of compounds and the
techniques adopted by various commentators to account for the
complexities within the P[a.bar]ninian linguistic system. Some of the
techniques employed by certain commentators to solve certain
difficulties create undesirable side effects which are then dealt with
by subsequent commentators. The presence of a sixth-triplet or
second-triplet nominal termination on the initial compound element in
upapada-tatpurusa compounds before the application of A. 3.2.1 karmany
an is such an undesirable side effect produced by medieval commentators.
That the presence of a nominal termination at this stage of derivation
is a problem has apparently remained unnoticed. Its solution requires
revision of the conclusions of the commentators in question as well as
of the scholars who relied upon them.
In the Ast[a.bar]dhy[a.bar]y[I.bar], compounds are generally formed
from words ending in nominal terminations and alternate with
corresponding phrases. To ensure that compounds be formed from elements
ending in nominal terminations, the technical term for nominal
terminations sup recurs throughout most of the compound section, which
extends from A. 2.1.3 pr[a.bar]k kad[a.bar]r[a.bar]t sam[a.bar]salt to
A. 2.2.38 kad[a.bar]r[a.bar]h karmadh[a.bar]raye at the end of the
second pada of the second adhy[a.bar]ya. Interpreted in accordance with
A. 1.1.72 yena vidhis tadantasya, sup refers to a speech form that ends
in a nominal termination. The term recurs in two inflected forms, in the
nominative from A. 2.1.2 sub [a.bar]mantrite par[a.bar]ngavat spare and
in the instrumental from A. 2.1.4 saha sup[a.bar]. Together with other
headings, these terms indicate that a speech form ending in a nominal
termination compounds with a semantically and syntactically connected
speech form that ends in a nominal termination. Likewise, the term
vibh[a.bar]s[a.bar] 'optionally' is stated as a heading in A.
2.1.11 and recurs throughout most of the compound section to allow
compounds to alternate with corresponding phrases.
There are, however, compounds that cannot properly be formed from
constituent elements that end in nominal terminations. These include
compounds in which the prior element must compound with a subsequent
element that has not yet been supplied with a feminine affix. The
feminine affix must in turn occur prior to the provision of a nominal
termination. Because the selection of the appropriate feminine affix
depends upon the specific semantic, syntactic, and co-occurrence
conditions of the compound, the correct feminine affix can only be
provided subsequent to compound formation, and the nominal termination
only subsequent to that. Notable examples include compounds such as
dhanakr[I.bar]t[I.bar] '(a female) bought with wealth' formed
from A. 2.1.32 kartrkarane krt[a.bar] bahulam, and kacchap[I.bar]
'a female tortoise', an upapada-tatpurusa compound formed from
A. 2.2.19. The derivation of the example kacchap[I.bar] is presented in
Table 2. If the compounds were required to be formed from constituent
speech forms terminating in nominal terminations, erroneously only the
form dhanakrit[a.bar] would result from A. 2.1.32, and the incorrect
form kacchapa would result from A. 2.2.19 (Table 2, step 16). The
feminine affix t[a.bar]p would occur after the final constituents prior
to compound formation in accordance with A. 4.1.4 aj[a.bar]dyatas
t[a.bar]p (Table 2, step * after 1.5). Instead, in the derivation of the
correct form, the feminine affix nip occurs after the compound stem
subsequent to compound formation in accordance with A. 4.1.48
kr[a.bar]t[a.bar]t karanap[u.bar]rv[a.bar]t or A. 4.1.63 j[a.bar]ter
astr[I.bar]visayad ayopadh[a.bar]t (Table 2, step 19).
In exception to the general pattern of forming compounds from words
already equipped with nominal terminations, nominal terminations are
avoided on the final compound element prior to compound formation in
these examples. In the derivation of dhanakr[I.bar]t[I.bar], the term
krt[a.bar] in A. 2.1.32 specifies that the initial compound element
combine with a subsequent element that is a nominal base ending in a
kit-affix rather than with a word ending in a nominal termination. (The
term bahulam 'variously' in A. 2.1.32 is interpreted as
allowing dhanakr[I.bar]t[a.bar] as well.) Likewise, to form the
upapada-tatpurusa compound kacchap[I.bar] correctly, A. 2.2.19 upapadam
atin must be made to apply in the absence of nominal terminations on the
final compound element. The term a-tin, referring to a speech form that
does not end in a verbal termination, indicates that the restriction to
speech forms that end in nominal terminations is no longer valid.
Commentators and modern translators differ in their characterization of
the criteria specified by the rule and the interpretation of the
significance of the term a-tin. They do agree that the term nityam
'obligatorily' in A. 2.2.17 nityam
kr[I.bar]d[a.bar]j[I.bar]vikayoh, which recurs through A. 2.2.20, stops
the recurrence of vibh[a.bar]s[a.bar] in the rule, which thereby forms
compounds obligatorily and does not permit corresponding phrases.
Table 2
The derivation of kaccha-pi
[irrelevant, stages, such as the deletion of markers, are left
out; '+' designates compounding; '-' designates affixation]
1
2 kaccha[s[a.bar]dhakatama]
p[a.bar] [dh[a.bar]tu]
x[svatantra]
3 kacca[s[a.bar]dhakatama] 1.4.54
p[a.bar] x[kartr]
4 kaccha[karana] pa 1.4.42
x[kartr]
5 kaccha[karana] 1.2.45
[pr[a.bar]tipadika]
p[a.bar] x[kartr]
6 Kaccha-[a.bar] p[a.bar] 4.1.2
x[kartr]
6a 1.4.22
6b 2.3.18
7 Kaccha[ariga]- [a.bar] 1.4.13
p[a.bar] x[kartr]
8 kaccha-ina p[a.bar] 7.1.12
x[kartr]
9 kacchena p[a.bar] 6.1.87
x[kartr]
10 kacchena[upapada] p[a.bar] 3.1.92
x[kartr]
11 [dh[a.bar]tu]-ka[krt] 3.1.93
12 Kacchena[upapada] 3.2.4a
p[a.bar]-a[krt]
12a 3.4.67
13 kacchena[upapada] 1.4.13
pa[anga]-a[krt]
14 Kacchena[upapada] p[a.bar] 6.4.64
[krt]
15 kacchena[upapada] 1.2.46
pa[pr[a.bar]tipadika]
* kacchena [upapada] 4.1.4
pa-[a.bar]
16 kacchena + pa 2.2.19
17 (kacchena + pa) 1.2.46
[pratipadika]
18 kacchapa[pratipadika] 2.4.71
19 kacchapa-i 4.1.63
20 kacchapa[anga]-i 1.4.13
21 kacchapa [anga] [bha] - i 1.4.18
22 kacchapi 6.4.148
23 kacchapis 4.1.2
23a 1.4.22
23b 2.3.46
24 kacchapts[pada] 1.4.14
25 kacchapi 6.1.68
1
2 kaccha[s[a.bar]dhakatama]
p[a.bar] [dh[a.bar]tu]
x[svatantra]
3 kacca[s[a.bar]dhakatama] sva-tantrah kart[a.bar]
p[a.bar] x[kartr]
4 kaccha[karana] pa S[a.bar]dhakatamam karanam
x[kartr]
5 kaccha[karana] arthavad adh[a.bar]tur
[pr[a.bar]tipadika] apratyayah pr[a.bar]tipadikam
p[a.bar] x[kartr]
6 Kaccha-[a.bar] p[a.bar] svaujasamautchas ...
x[kartr]
6a Dvyekayor dvivacanaikavacane
6b kartrkaranayos trtiy[a.bar]
7 Kaccha[ariga]- [a.bar] vasm[a.bar]t pratyayavidhis
p[a.bar] x[kartr] tad[a.bar]di pratyaye 'ngam
8 kaccha-ina p[a.bar] t[a.bar]hasihas[a.bar]m
x[kartr] in[a.bar]tsy[a.bar]h
9 kacchena p[a.bar] [a.bar]d gunah
x[kartr]
10 kacchena[upapada] p[a.bar] Tatropapadarh saptami-stham
x[kartr]
11 [dh[a.bar]tu]-ka[krt] krd atin
12 Kacchena[upapada] supi ([a.bar]tah kah 3)
p[a.bar]-a[krt] [yoga-vibh[a.bar]ga]
12a kartari krt
13 kacchena[upapada] yasm[a.bar]t praiyayavidhis
pa[anga]-a[krt] tad[a.bar]di pratyaye 'ngam
14 Kacchena[upapada] p[a.bar] [a.bar]to lopa iti ca
[krt]
15 kacchena[upapada] krttaddhitasam[a.bar]s[a.bar]s
pa[pr[a.bar]tipadika] ca
* kacchena [upapada] aj[a.bar]dyatas t[a.bar]p
pa-[a.bar]
16 kacchena + pa upapadam atin
17 (kacchena + pa) krttaddhitasamasas ca
[pratipadika]
18 kacchapa[pratipadika] supo
dh[a.bar]tupr[a.bar]tipadikayoh
19 kacchapa-i j[a.bar]ter astrlvisay[a.bar]d
ayopadh[a.bar]t
20 kacchapa[anga]-i yasm[a.bar]t pratyayavidhis
t[a.bar]dadi pralyaye 'ngam
21 kacchapa [anga] [bha] - i yaci bham
22 kacchapi yasyeti ca
23 kacchapis svaujosamaufchas ...
23a Dvyekayor dvivacanaikavacane
23b Pr[a.bar]tipadik[a.bar]rtha -
linga - parim[a.bar]na - vacana
- m[a.bar]tre pr[a.bar]thama
24 kacchapts[pada] sitptinantam padam
25 kacchapi Halny[a.bar]bbhyo
d[I.bar]rgh[a.bar]t sutisy
aprktam hal
1 The thought of the speaker
is represented in an image
incidentally. The image
depicts the penultimate
scene in the tale of the
tortoise and two geese
(Kacchapa jataka Fausb0ll
215; Pancalantra 1.13;
Hitopadesa 4.2).
[Image from:
http://www.
allindiaarts.com
/painting_detail.asp?
paint_id=205&country=eu]
2 kaccha[s[a.bar]dhakatama] Basic lexical speech forms
p[a.bar] [dh[a.bar]tu] are selected to denote
x[svatantra] objects and actions the
speaker has in mind.
3 kacca[s[a.bar]dhakatama] The independent participant
p[a.bar] x[kartr] in the action is termed
'agent' (kartr).
4 kaccha[karana] pa The object most efficacious
x[kartr] in accomplishing the act is
termed 'instrument
(karana).
5 kaccha[karana] A meaningful speech form,
[pr[a.bar]tipadika] other than a verbal root or
p[a.bar] x[kartr] an affix, is termed
pratipadika.
6 Kaccha-[a.bar] p[a.bar] A nominal termination occurs
x[kartr] after a nominal stem or a
speech form ending in a
feminine affix hi or
[a.bar]p.
6a A dual or singular nominal
termination occurs to denote
dual or singular number
respectively.
6b The third triplet of nominal
terminations occurs on
condition that an agent or
instrument not already
denoted is to be denoted.
7 Kaccha[ariga]- [a.bar] That speech form beginning
p[a.bar] x[kartr] with that after which an
affix is provided is termed
anga with respect to that
affix.
8 kaccha-ina p[a.bar] After an a-final stem
x[kartr] (anga), ta, nasi, and has
are replaced by ina,
[a.bar]t, and sya
respectively.
9 kacchena p[a.bar] Short or long a and a
x[kartr] following dissimilar simple
vowel are replaced by the
latter's corresponding guna
sound.
10 kacchena[upapada] p[a.bar] The speech form ending in a
x[kartr] nominal termination, because
the term supi occurs in the
locative, is termed
upapada.
11 [dh[a.bar]tu]-ka[krt] The affix ka in 3.2.4a is
termed krt.
12 Kacchena[upapada] The affix ka occurs after an
p[a.bar]-a[krt] [a.bar]-final root on
condition that a speech form
ending in a nominal
termination is the
subordinate term (upapada)
connected with it.
12a The affix ka, termed krt,
occurs on condition that the
agent (kartr) is to be
denoted.
13 kacchena[upapada] That speech form beginning
pa[anga]-a[krt] with that after which an
affix is provided is termed
ahga with respect to that
affix.
14 Kacchena[upapada] p[a.bar] The final [a.bar] of a stem
[krt] (ahga) is deleted (replaced
by lopa) if ... an affix
marked with k or h follows.
15 kacchena[upapada] A meaningful speech form
pa[pr[a.bar]tipadika] that ends in a kit or
taddhita affix or is a
compound is termed
pratipadika.
* kacchena [upapada] The affix t[a.bar]p occurs
pa-[a.bar] after a nominal base
(pratipadika) in the
feminine.
16 kacchena + pa An upapada that does not end
in a verbal termination is
obligatorily compounded with
a syntactically related
speech form.
17 (kacchena + pa) A meaningful speech form
[pratipadika] that ends in a krt or
taddhita affix or is a
compound is termed
pr[a.bar]tipadika.
18 kacchapa[pratipadika] Nominal terminations within
a pratipadika are deleted
without a trace (i.e., are
replaced by lnk).
19 kacchapa-i The feminine affix n[I.bar]s
occurs after a nominal base
(pr[a.bar]tipadika) that is
a generic term, that does
not occur exclusively in the
feminine, and that does not
have a penultimate y.
20 kacchapa[anga]-i That speech form beginning
with that after which an
affix is provided is termed
anga with respect to that
affix.
21 kacchapa [anga] [bha] - i A speech form followed by an
affix beginning with su
(taught in 4.1.2 and
following rules) not termed
sarv[a.bar]namasth[a.bar]na
that begins with y or a
vowel is termed bha.
22 kacchapi A vowel of the i or a class,
final in a stem (anga)
termed bha, is deleted
(replaced by lopa) if an
affix beginning with i or a
taddhita affix follows.
23 kacchapis A nominal termination occurs
after a nominal stem or a
speech form ending in a
feminine affix ni or
[a.bar]p.
23a A dual or singular nominal
termination occurs to denote
dual or singular number
respectively.
23b A first-triplet nominal
termination occurs if just
the meaning of the nominal
base, gender, a measure, or
number are to be denoted.
24 kacchapts[pada] A speech form ending in a
nominal or verbal
termination is termed pada.
25 kacchapi After a speech form that
ends in a consonant, or a
long vowel that is a
feminine affix n[I.bar] or
[a.bar]p. the singular
first-triplet nominal
termination su, or the third
or second person singular
verbal terminations si or
ti, when a single consonant,
are deleted.
3.2 K[a.bar]ty[a.bar]yana and Patat[[n.bar]]ali
Examination of the statements of commentators concerning the
prevention of nominal terminations on final compound constitutents prior
to compounding begins with K[a.bar]ty[a.bar]yana (fourth or third
century B.C.E.). In A. 4.1.48 varttika 4
gatik[a.bar]rakopapad[a.bar]n[a.bar]m krdbhih saha sam[a.bar]savacanam,
K[a.bar]ty[a.bar]yana requires that certain initial compound elements be
compounded with a final compound element that is a nominal base
terminating in a krt-affix. The initial compound constituents to which
the requirement applies include preverbs and other preverbal elements
termed gall, speech forms denoting participants in action
(k[a.bar]rakas), and upapadas. The second category includes compounds
such as dhanakr[I.bar]t[I.bar] provided by A. 2.1.32; the third includes
compounds such as kacchapi provided by A. 2.2.19.
Among the reasons for stating the varttika, Pata[n.bar]jali (c. 150
B.c.E.) mentions the provision of the feminine affix nis after a generic
term (j[a.bar]ter nisvidhane prayojanam) and supplies
vy[a.bar]ghr[I.bar] 'tigress' and kacchap[i.bar] 'female
tortoise' as examples. Pata[n.bar]jali explains the motivation for
the varttika with respect to the first example; (3) his explanation is
adapted here to apply to the latter, since kacchapa is an
upapada-tatpurusa compound, so that reference may be made to the
derivation in Table 2. Patailjali cites kacchapah as an example to which
the first portion of A. 3.2.4 divided into two rules is applicable
(Table 2, step 12). If compound constituents ended in nominal
terminations, the feminine affix tap would occur after the nominal stem
of the final constituent prior to compounding by A. 4.1.4 ajadyatas
t[a.bar]p (Table 2, step * after 15), and the final constituent pa
terminating in long a would be compounded. The feminine affix n[i.bar]s
would then not occur by A. 4.1.63 j[a.bar]ter astr[I.bar]visayad
ayopadh[a.bar]t (Table 2, step 19) since it is provided only after a
nominal base ending in a short a. (As the Kasika observes, the term atah
'after a short a' recurs from A. 4.1.4.) The statement of the
V[a.bar]rttika solves the problem.
Under A. 2.2.19, Pata[n.bar]jali argues that it is not necessary to
state v[a.bar]rttika 4 under A. 4.1.48 because the mention a-tin in A.
2.2.19 upapadam atin achieves its purpose. The recurrence of sup and
sup[a.bar] in A. 2.2.19 would disallow the rule from applying to finite
verbs anyway, even without mentioning that it does not apply to speech
forms ending in verbal terminations (a-tin). Patanjali writes,
Therefore, since it is successful in this way, the fact that the
teacher (P[a.bar]nini) mentions the negation, "not a speech form
ending in a verbal termination," serves to make known that the terms
sup and sutra do not recur in these two rules (A. 2.2.18-19). What is
the reason for making this known? The principle
(paribh[a.bar]s[a.bar]) that a gati, k[a.bar]raka, or upapada is
compounded with a nominal base ending in a krt-affix need not be
stated. (evam tarhi siddhe sati yad atin iti pratisedham
s[a.bar]sti taj j[a.bar]apayaty [a.bar]c[a.bar]ryo 'nayor yogayor
nivrttam sup supaiti. kim etasya j[n.bar][a.bar]pane prayojanam.
gatik[a.bar]rakopapad[a.bar]n[a.bar]m krdbhih saha
samaso bhavat[I.bar]ty es[a.bar] paribh[a.bar]s[a.bar]
na kartavy[a.bar] bhavati. MBh. 1.417.18-20 (4)
Finally, Pata[n.bar]jali clarifies that the final compound
constituent with which elements termed gati, speech forms denoting
participants in action (k[a.bar]rakas), and upapadas are compounded is
simply a semantically and syntactically related speech form. The
Mah[a.bar]bh[a.bar]sya passage continues, "If this is made known,
then with what are they compounded? With a semantically and
syntactically related speech form" (yady etaj j[n.bar][a.bar]pyate
kened[a.bar]n[I.bar]m sam[a.bar]so bhavisyati. samarthena). The final
compound constituent can be any speech form; it need not be one that
ends in a nominal termination.
As mentioned in section 2, K[a.bar]y[a.bar]yana's
v[a.bar]rttikas 3-4 under A. 2.2.19 and Pata[n.bar]jali's
commentary thereon conclude that the formation of an upapada-tatpurusa
compound by A. 2.2.19 takes precedence over the formation of a
sasth[I.bar]-tatpurusa compound by A. 2.2.8. V[a.bar]rttika 3, "an
upapada-tatpurusa compound takes precedence over a
sasth[I.bar]-tatpurusa compound by vipratisedha"
(sasth[I.bar]sam[a.bar]s[a.bar]d upapadasam[a.bar]so vipratisedhena.
MBh. 1.418) suggests that A. 2.2.19 takes precedence after the two rules
come into conflict (vipratisedha) since each rule has its own scope
while they both have scope in the formation of compounds such as
kumhhakara. Presumably, the latter rule would apply in accordance with
the principle stated in A. 1.4.2 vipratiyedhe param k[a.bar]ryam that
the latter rule applies in cases of such conflict. Katynyana in varttika
4 and Patafijali in his comments thereon reject v[a.bar]rttika 3's
suggestion that A. 2.2.19 takes precedence over A. 2.2.8 by
vipratisedha. Varttika 4 states, "no, an upapada-tatpurusa compound
occurs because there is no sasthi-tatpurusa compound" (na va
.yasthisamasasyabhavad upapadasamasak MBh. 1.418). A. 2.2.8 has no scope
to form compounds such as kumbhak[a.bar]ra, Pata[n.bar]jali points out,
because of the statement of the principle that a gati, karaka, or
upapada is compounded with a nominal base ending in a krt-affix prior to
the arising of nominal terminations (gatikarakopapadanarhkrdbhit saha
samasavacanam prak subutpatter iti vacanat. MBh. 1.418.7-8). Since he
has just argued that the statement of this principle is not necessary,
he offers a second reason: A. 2.2.19 is obligatory while A. 2.2.8 is
optional (upapadasamaso nityasamasab sasthisamaso vibhasa. MBh.
1.418.10). An obligatory rule takes precedence over one that is not
obligatory.
The fact that Katydyana and Pata[n.bar]jali consider the
possibility that the compound be formed by A. 2.2.8 sasth[I.bar] implies
that they consider that a sixth-triplet nominal termination is present
in the initial compound constituent at the stage of compounding (Table
1, step 17). The statement of the principle that a gati, k[a.bar]raka,
or upapada is compounded with a nominal base ending in a kit-affix prior
to the arising of nominal terminations preempts the occurrence of a
nominal termination only in the final compound constituent. The
inclusion of a-tin in A. 2.2.19 that makes the statement of this
principle unnecessary likewise preempts the occurrence of a nominal
termination only in the final compound constituent.
Although K[a.bar]ty[a.bar]yana and Pata[n.bar]jali accept that the
initial compound constituent in an upapada-tatpurusa compound terminates
in a nominal termination prior to compounding, Pata[n.bar]jali nowhere
insists that the term upapada itself implies the presence of nominal
terminations. Hence there is no reason to assume the presence of a
nominal termination in kumbha at the time of application of A. 3.2.1
karma iv an (Table I, step 7) just because that which denotes the direct
object (karman is termed upapada by A. 3.1.92 tatropapadath saptamistham
(Table 1, step 5). The question arises as to whether the term upapada
implies the technical sense of the term pada provided by A. 1.4.14
suptitiantath padam, namely, that it terminate in a nominal termination
because the term upapada includes the string pada. A similar question
arises with regard to the terms for compound constituents purvapada and
uttarapada. The answer is that the terms do not imply the technical
sense of the term pada provided by A. 1.4.14; they do not necessarily
have to terminate in nominal terminations.
Under A. 3.1 .92, Pata[n.bar]jali accepts that the reason for
stating the long technical term upapada is that it be understood as a
term in accordance with its conventional meaning (mahaty[a.bar]h
sa[n.bar]jn[a.bar]y[a.bar]h karana etat prayojanam
anvarthasa[n.bar]j[n.bar]a yath[a.bar] vij[n.bar][a.bar]yeta. MBh.
2.76.7-8). The term upapada is a long term (upapadam iti mahatiyam
sa[n.bar]j[n.bar][a.bar] kriyate. MBh. 2.76.6). The conventional meaning
to be understood from it is the adjacent word uttered (upocc[a.bar]ri
padam upapadam. MBh. 2.76.8). The hint of the word pacda in the term
upapada serves to induce the principle in rules in which the term is
mentioned that the rule concerns syntactically related speech forms
(yavato cedunah padagandho 'sti padavidhir ayam bhavati. padavidhis
ca samarthanarit bhavati. MBh. 2.76.9-10). The term thereby prevents
rules from applying to syntactically unrelated speech forms. The point
is that the speech forms must be syntactically related, not that they
terminate in nominal terminations.
In this context, Pata[n.bar]jali debates the application of A.
3.2.1 karmany an to cases where the verb has an independent connection
with two verbal complements not directly connected with each other. He
considers the case in which the vigrahav[a.bar]kya contains two
accusatives, mahantarn kumbhath karoti. If the sentence means "he
makes a great pot," there is a direct syntactic connection between
the two accusatives, and these have a uniform connection with the verb.
In that meaning Pata[n.bar]jali permits the rule to apply (bhavitavyaM
yadaitad v[a.bar]kyark bhavati: mah[a.bar]n kumbho mah[a.bar]kumbhah,
mah[a.bar]kumbhath karotiti mah[a.bar]kumbhak[a.bar]rah MBh.
2.75.22-76.1). However, if the sentence means "he makes the pot
large," there is no direct unmediated syntactic connection between
kumbham and matteimam, so the rule does not apply (yad[a.bar] tv etad
vakyam bhavati: mah[a.bar]ntarn kumbharh karot[I.bar]ti tada na
bhavitavyam. MBh. 2.76.2). In that case Pata[n.bar]jali disallows the
rule to apply because of the lack of syntactic connection (tatra
as[a.bar]m[a.bar]rthy[a.bar]n na bhavisiyati. MBh. 2.76.10). He does,
however, make an exception in the similar case of at least one compound
formed with the affix cvi (istam evaitad gonard[I.bar]yasya). In the
sentence "I want a maker of wild sugarcane grass into mats"
(icch[a.bar]my aham kathkat[I.bar]k[a.bar]ram), A. 3.2.1 does provide
the affix an after kr with two complements k[a.bar]sa 'wild
sugarcane grass' and kata 'mat' (MBh. 2.76.13-14).
While the debate concludes by broadening the scope of rules that
include an upapada as a condition so that they include cases of slightly
looser syntactic connection, it illustrates well what Patai[n.bar]jali
means the purpose of stating the long term upapada to be: it indicates
that rules apply to syntactically related speech forms, not to speech
forms that are not syntactically related. Pata[n.bar]jali makes no
mention of a requirement that the hint of the word pada (pada-gandha) in
the term upapada implies that an upapada in a rule such as A. 3.2.1 must
terminate in a nominal termination in accordance with the formal
requirements of A. 1.4.1 suptinantarh padam. Hence there is no need for
a nominal termination in kumbha at the time of application of A. 3.2.1
(Table 1, step 7). In contrast, the reason a nominal termination is
required in kacchena at the time of application of A. 3.2.4a supi (Table
2, step 12) is that the rule specifically refers to a speech form ending
in a nominal termination sup.
3.3 Jinendrabuddhi and Bhoja
According to Jinendrabuddhi (c. 750 c.E.) in his Nyasa on the
K[a.bar]sik[a.bar] (seventh century) under A. 2.2.19 upapadam atin,
nominal terminations are generally present neither in the initial nor in
the final compound element in upapada-tatpurusa compounds. He considers
that the mention of the term a-tin serves as an indication that neither
sup (from A. 2.1.2) nor sup[a.bar] (from A. 2.1.4) recurs in A. 2.2.19.
Jinendrabuddhi considers it appropriate that neither term recurs (yukta
dvayor api nivrttih) because the indication applies generally to
interrupt the nominal termination heading (s[a.bar]m[a.bar]nyena
subadhik[a.bar]ra-nivrtty-upalaksan[a.bar]rthatvat). He considers that
the term upapada does not necessarily mean a speech form ending in a
nominal termination (subantam) in accordance with the technical sense of
pada in A. 1.4.14 supthiantarh padam. First, in accordance with
Pata[n.bar]jali's statement under A. 3.1.92, he accepts that the
term upapada includes not only what is taught in the locative under the
heading A. 3.1.91 in accordance with A. 3.1.92 tatropapadath
saptam[I.bar]stham (na hi dvit[I.bar]yadh[a.bar]tvadhik[a.bar]re yat
saptamy[a.bar] nirdistarh tad evopapadasayhjiiath bhavati) but also that
which is enunciated nearby (api tu yad apy upocc[a.bar]ritarit pathuh
tad apy upapadarh bhavaty eva). Moreover, he takes the term pada in
upapada to mean "that by means of which a meaning is
understood" (padatvarh punas tasya padyate gamyate
'nen[a.bar]rtha iti krtv[a.bar]), not "that which ends in a
nominal termination" (na tu subantatvat). The reason he interprets
pada in this way is that it is impossible that a nominal termination
occur after the final compound element in the derivation of forms such
as asvakr[I.bar]t[I.bar] 'a female bought with a horse' (iha
supo 'sumbhav[a.bar]t). In asvakr[I.bar]t[I.bar] as in
kacchap[I.bar], nominal terminations occur after the feminine affix
(Table 2, steps 23, 23a, 23b). The feminine affix i occurs in accordance
with A. 4.1.50 kr[I.bar]t[a.bar]t karama[[u.bar]rv[a.bar]t only after
the compound ava-krita is formed (cf. Table 2, step 19); before compound
formation, the affix [a.bar] would occur after the final compound
element kr[I.bar]ta in accordance with A. 4.1.4 aj[a.bar]dyatas
t[a.bar]p (Table 2, step *). Therefore, nominal terminations do not
arise in upapada-tatpurusa compounds prior to compounding (subanutpatteh
pr[a.bar]k samasat).
Jinendrabuddhi is aware that there are cases in which nominal
terminations are required after the first compound element. To account
for these, he asserts that the indication that neither sup nor supd
recurs does not apply universally (asarvavitsayatv[a.bar]d asya
j[n.bar]apakasya). He asserts that the indicated principle
(paribh[a.bar]y[a.bar]) that compounding occurs prior to the provision
of nominal terminations for certain speech forms including upapadas does
not apply universally (na by anena sarvatra 'gatikdrakopapadandth
krdbhih prak subutpatteh samdso hhavati' iti j[n.bar][a.bar]pyate).
Rather (kith tarhi) it applies only in certain desired instances (kva
cid evesta-visaye). It is known that Panini permitted nominal
terminations to occur at the end of the initial compound element before
a final element ending in a krt-affix because he allows nominal
terminations not to be deleted in such compounds. A. 6.3.14 provides
non-deletion (a-luk) of a seventh-triplet nominal termination before a
final compound element that ends in a krt-affix (tatpuruiye krti hahulam
iti krdanta uttarapade saptamyd alugvidh[a.bar]n[a.bar]t). If nominal
terminations never arose at the end of initial compound elements before
final compound elements that end in krt-affixes, it would make no sense
to provide for the non-deletion of seventh-triplet nominal terminations
because they would not have arisen in the first place. Moreover forms
such as bileklya 'lying in a cave', where the singular
seventh-triplet termi-nation occurs, would not be accounted for.
Therefore, Jinendrabuddhi concludes that a compound occurs prior to the
arising of nominal terminations only in certain instances (tasmat kvacid
eva prak subutpatteh sam[a.bar]sah), not universally (na sarvatra). In
this way one can account for dhanakr[I.bar]t[a.bar], where the feminine
affix t[a.bar]p does occur after the final compound element prior to
compounding, as well as dhanakr[I.bar]t[i.bar], where it doesn't.
In the latter, the final compound element is left ending in a short a so
that instead the feminine affix n[I.bar]s occurs after compound
formation (cf. Table 2, step 19).
In his Srg[a.bar]rapak[a.bar]sa (1005-1062 C.E.), Bhoja agrees with
Jinendrabuddhi on the one hand that neither sup nor supa, which specify
that compound constituents end in nominal terminations, recurs in A.
2.2.18-19, and on the other that the principle that a gati,
k[a.bar]raka, or upapada is compounded with a nominal base ending in a
krt-affix prior to the arising of nominal terminations does not apply
absolutely. He argues that the term sup does not recur because the
mention of a-tin, which is explained as a separate sutra divided from A.
2.2.19 that completes both A. 2.2.18 and A. 2.2.19, stops it
('kugatipr[a.bar]dayali', 'upapadam atin' ity atra
atingrahanenobhayas[u.bar]trasesatay[a.bar]
vt[a.bar]khy[a.bar]yam[a.bar]nena sub ity etasya nivrttih kriyate. SPr.,
p. 46). Likewise the term sup[a.bar] does not recur because in A. 2.1.32
it is understood that compounds form at the stage where the final
constituent ends in a krt-affix. One gets that the final constituent
ends in a kit-affix already just by the fact that the compound is
provided for initial constituents that denote an agent (kartr) or an
instrument (karana). (Agents and instruments are participants in action.
Action is denoted by roots, and krt-affixes are provided after roots.
Hence the only speech forms that denote participants in action that take
nominal terminations are krt-derivates.) Because kit is specifically
mentioned even though one already understands this, its mention
particularly indicates a krt-final nominal base without a nominal
termination. ('kartrkarane krt[a.bar] bahulam' ity atra ca
kartrkaranayoly sam[a.bar]savidh[a.bar]n[a.bar]d uttarapadasya
krdantat[a.bar]y[a.bar]m labdh[a.bar]y[a.bar]m krdgrahan[a.bar]d
atirikt[a.bar]t tadant[a.bar]vasthoy[a.bar]m eva
sam[a.bar]s[a.bar]bhyanuj[n.bar][a.bar]ne supety etad api nivartate.
SPr., p. 46.) Bhoja concludes that the non-recurrence of these terms
justifies the formation of gati, karaka, and upapada compounds from
speech forms that don't end in nominal terminations.
Conversely, Bhoja concludes that the inclusion of the term bahulam
in A. 2.1.32 allows such terminations where desired.
Therefore, the principle that a gati, k[a.bar]raka, or upapada is
compounded with a nominal base ending in a kit-affix prior to the
arising of nominal terminations is made known. And it is determined
that compounding occurs in some instances between two nominal bases,
in some instances between two speech forms ending in nominal
terminations, and in some instances between a speech form ending in a
nominal termination and a nominal base because the mention of
'variously' (bahularn) in A. 2.1.32 serves the purpose of achieving
whatever is desired. (tatas ca gatikarakopapad[a.bar]n[a.bar]m
krdbhih saha sam[a.bar]savacanam subutpatteh pr[a.bar]g eva
bhavat[I.bar]ty [a.bar]khyatam. bahulagrahanasya
cestasiddhyarthatv[a.bar]t sa kvacin n[a.bar]mabhy[a.bar]m kvacit
subant[a.bar]bhy[a.bar]m kvacin n[a.bar]masubant[a.bar]bhy[a.bar]m
nisc[I.bar]yate. (SPr., p. 46 with correction of sentence and
paragraph segmentation.)
Bhoja cites and justifies examples of compounds that require
nominal terminations on initial constituents (carmak[a.bar]rah) and on
final constituents (dadhisek, dhanakrit[a.bar]). He also cites and
justifies examples of compounds that require the absence of nominal
terminations on initial constituents (as[u.bar]ryarnpasy[a.bar]) and on
final constituents (clhanakr[I.bar]t[I.bar]). It is necessary to allow
the initial or final element in karaka and upapada compounds to end in a
nominal termination to account for operations on the initial or final
element that can only occur under the condition that it is termed pada.
A. 1.4.14 suptinantarh padarn provides that a speech form that ends in a
nominal or verbal termination is termed pada. A number of rules in the
eighth adhyaya of the Ast[a.bar]dhy[a.bar]ly[I.bar] provide operations
that take place at word boundaries. For example, A. 8.3.109
s[a.bar]tpad[a.bar]dyoh negates retroflexion of the initial s of a pada
where retro-flexion would otherwise occur after a simple vowel other
than a or [a.bar] located in a prior compound element by A. 8.3.104
p[u.bar]rvapad[a.bar]t. Many rules provide replacements to sounds that
occur final in a pada. Thus A. 8.2.7 nalopah pratipadikantasya occurs in
the section headed by A. 8.1.16 padasya. Thereby the term padasya is
understood to recur in A. 8.2.7. This rule then provides the deletion of
the final n in a nominal stem (pratipadika) that is termed pada. The
rule accounts for the deletion of the n of r[a.bar]jan 'king'
in the masculine nominative singular r[a.bar]j[a.bar], and in oblique
forms beginning with a stop or spirant such as the instrumental plural
rajabhih and locative plural rajasu. A. 8.2.7 likewise accounts for the
deletion of the final n when the word occurs as the initial element in
compounds such as r[a.bar]ja-purusa.
Bhoja gives dadhi-sek 'yogurt-sprinkler' as an example of
a compound requiring its final constituent to end in a nominal
termination (SPr., p. 46). A. 8.3.109 s[a.bar]tpad[a.bar]dyoh negates
retroflexion of the initial s of sek if it is a pada. If the final
compound constituent sec did not end in a nominal termination prior to
compounding, it would not be termed pada by A. 1.4.14, and the initial s
of sec would be subject to retroflexion by A. 8.3.104.
As an example of a compound formed from an initial constituent
ending in a nominal termination and a final constituent consisting of a
nominal base, Bhoja gives carmakarah 'leather-worker' (SPr.,
p. 46). The compound carma-k[a.bar]ra is an upapada-tatpurusa compound
accounted for by A. 2.2.19 just as kumbha-k[a.bar]ra is (Table 1, step
17). Prior to compound formation, A. 3.2.1 provides the affix an after
the root kr when carman occurs as an upapada in relation to the root kr,
just as it does when kumbha occurs as an upapada in relation to the same
root (Table 1, step 7). The deletion of the final n of carman
'leather' is required when it occurs as the prior member in
the compound carma-ka ra. Now if the prior element did not end in a
nominal termination, it would not be termed pada by A. 1.4.14, and the
deletion of the final n would not occur by A. 8.2.7.
Bhoja writes, "the final subsequent compound constituent in
dadhisek is made to end in a nominal termination to achieve the negation
of replacement by retroflex s initial in a pada by A. 8.3.109
s[a.bar]tpad[a.bar]dyoh, and the prior compound constituent in
carmak[a.bar]ra is made to end in a nominal termination for the purpose
of deletion of pada-final n." ('dadhisek' ity atra
uttarapadasva, 's[a.bar]tpad[a.bar]dyoh' iti
pad[a.bar]di-nibandhana-satva-pratisedha-siddhaye 'carmakara'
ity arta tu p[u.bar]rvapadasya pad[a.bar]nta-laksatja-naloparthath
subantata kriyate. SPr., p. 46.)
Why dhanakr[I.bar]t[I.bar] requires the absence of nominal
terminations on the final constituent to condition the feminine affix
n[I.bar]s and dhanakr[I.bar]t[a.bar] requires their presence to
condition the feminine affix t[a.bar]p has been explained above.
Finally, Bhoja cites asarywhpa.s500. The initial constituent
a-s[u.bar]rya, he asserts, is a compound formed from the nominal bases
na[n.bar] (the negative particle with the final marker [n.bar]) and
s[u.bar]rya 'sun' without nominal terminations.
There are no nominal terminations on na[n.bar] and slitya in
asarvathpascya because na[n.bar] and sarva are not in direct
syntactic connection. The negative particle nail surya 'sun' are
mutually unconnected because negation denoted by nail and the sun
denoted by s[u.bar]rya are both connected with the action of seeing
denoted by the root trs. (and by the present stein pa.slya
which replaces it by A. 7.3.78 p[a.bar]ghradhm[a.bar]
...). For here. in the corresponding phrase, "They don't see even
the sun" (sarvam api na pa.s5anti), the negative particle nun expects
the action of seeing which has the sun as its direct object: it does
not expect the entity the sun directly. The compound is formed just of
the two nominal bases (zaman), nail and stirya (devoid of nominal
terminations), even though they are not syntactically connected,
because of the explicit mention of a-s[u.bar]rya in A. 3.2.36
as[u.bar]-lal[a.bar]tayor drsi-tapoh. ('asarvainpagy[a.bar]' ity
atra nansuryayor drsikriyaya sambandh[a.bar]t parasparam
asambandhe s[a.bar]marthy[a.bar]bh[a.bar]v[a.bar]d
vibhaktyabh[a.bar]vah, atra hi s[u.bar]ryam api na
pasyant[I.bar]ti na[n.bar] suryakarmik[a.bar]m
drsikriy[a.bar]m apeksate, na suryasatt[a.bar]m, '
as[u.bar]ryalalatayor drsitapoh' (A. 3.2.36) iti vacanad
as[a.bar]marthye' pi n[a.bar]mmor eva samaso bhavati. SPr.,
pp. 46-47.)
Jinendrabuddhi and Bhoja understand Pata[n.bar]jali (see section
3.2) to mean that neither sup nor sup[a.bar] recurs in A. 2.2.18-19 and
that the mention of a-tin allows both initial and final compound
elements in upapada-tatpurusa compounds to lack nominal terminations at
the time of compound provision. They account for the required presence
of nominal terminations on these elements at the time of compounding in
numerous examples by broadening the scope of indeterminate variation
indicated by the term bahulam in A. 2.1.32 kartrkarmanoli koi haliulam.
Rules of indeterminate variation carry a cost to the robustness of
linguistic description. Linguistic science in general and P[a.bar]ninian
grammar in particular engage in the systematic explanation of language.
Rules of indeterminate variation should he appealed to as little as
possible to preserve the robustness of the scientific explanation. As I
wrote (2008: 16), paraphrasing Thieme (1935: 61). "it is likely
that Panini formulated such rules to account for such unusual
occurrences after he had exhausted all attempts at systematic
explanation." I therefore. concluded (p. 15), "the new school
account of the subjunctive is more convincing than the old school
account because it provides a more precise systematic account of a
larger scope of data than the old school and relies on rules of
indeterminate variation for a smaller scope of data." It is the
undesirability of broad rules of indeterminate variation that prompts
Kaiyata, Haradattamigra, and later grammarians to frame the rules
regarding terminations on compound constituents more precisely. (5)
3.4 Kaivata and Haradattamiscra
In disagreement with Jinendrabhuddhi and Bhoja, HaradattamiSra (c.
1100 c.a.) in his Padama[n.bar]jarion A. 2.2.19 upapadamatin understands
that the paribh[a.bar]s[a.bar] gatik[a.bar]rakopapad[a.bar]n[a.bar]m
krdbhih pr[a.bar]k subutpatteh sam[a.bar]so bhavati concerns the
occurrence of nominal terminations only after the final compound
element. He writes that the principle means, "the compound formed
from a gati, k[a.bar]raka, or upapada as initial element compounded with
a krt-derivate as final element is to be formed before the occurence of
nominal terminations on the final element, but the initial element does
indeed terminate in a nominal termination when it compounds"
(gatin[a.bar]m k[a.bar]rak[a.bar]n[a.bar]m upapad[a.bar]n[a.bar]m ca
krdbhih saha yah sam[a.bar]sas tena tena laksanena sa uttarapadat
subutpatteh pr[a.bar]g eva k[a.bar]ryah, p[u.bar]rvapadarh to subantam
eva samasyate). With Bhoja's remarks regarding asaryarkpaiya in
view, he apparently mocks his predecessors who allow terminations to
occur at random and apparently pays respect to Kaiyata's Pradipa
commentary on Pata[n.bar]jali's Mah[a.bar]bh[a.bar]sya. For he
concludes with the verse
tad etat pratipadyantam bh[a.bar]sye krtapariaramah. n[a.bar]nye
sahasrarn apy andh[a.bar]h s[u.bar]ryam payanti n[a.bar][n.bar]jasa.
Let those who have exerted effort in the Mah[a.bar]bh[a.bar]sya
understand this; Even a thousand other blind people
do not see the sun without ointment.
In his Prad[I.bar]pa commentary on the Mah[a.bar]bh[a.bar]sya on A.
2.2.19, Kaiyata (c. eleventh century C.E.) remarks on
Pata[n.bar]ali's statement that a-tin serves to make known that the
terms sup and sup[a.bar] do not recur in the two rules A. 2.2.18-19. He
writes that the inclusion of the term a-tin indicates that only the term
supti ceases to recur, but the term sup does indeed recur in order to
allow operations that take place on a pada to occur on the initial
constituent (tena supety asyaiva nivrttir j[n.bar][a.bar]pyate.
subgrahanam tu p[u.bar]rvasya padak[a.bar]ry[a.bar]rytham anuvartata
eva). The term supt[a.bar] in the instrumental indicates that the final
compound element ends in nominal terminations; its cessation allows the
final element not to have nominal terminations. Kaiyata takes the term
a-tin in apposition to the heading samizsalt in A. 2.1.3 pr[a.bar]k
kad[a.bar]r[a.bar]t sam[a.bar]sah. That the resulting compound is a-tin
amounts to making the final compound element, which ends in a krt-affix,
a-tin. (6)
Kaiyata initially rejects the example dadhi-sek 'yogurt
sprinkler' adduced by Bhoja as evidence of an upapada-tatpurusa
compound whose final compound constituent has nominal terminations prior
to compound formation. Kaiyata suggests that the compound is not an
upapada-tatpurusa compound formed by A. 2.2.19 upapadam atilt at all;
rather it is a sasthi-tatpurusa compound formed by A. 2.2.8
sasth[I.bar]. The final element is not a derivate formed on condition
that an upapada occurs in syntactic connection with a root; rather, it
is a derivate formed by provision of the affix kvip after the causative
of the root sic without dependence upon an upapada by A. 3.2.178
anyebhyo 'pi drsyate (kvip 177). (7) Since there is no doubt that
A. 2.2.8 requires nominal terminations on both constituents, it is clear
that the final constituent sec is termed pada and is subject to the
negation of retroflexion stated in A. 8.3.109. Kaiyata represents the
rejected view as follows:
But if a nominal termination does not arise after the final compound
constituent, then in compounds such as dadhisecau (masculine or
feminine nominative or accusative dual of dadhisee), the negation of
replacement by retroflex s by A. 8.3109 s[a.bar]tpadadyott would not
occur because the dental s does not occur at the beginning of a pada.
And because it is not termed pada, it cannot be designated a final
compound constituent uttara-pada and therefore the accent that
depends upon it being so termed would not succeed. (yadi tarhy
uttarapadat sub notpadyate tad[a.bar] dadhisecav ity adau
pad[a.bar]ditv[a.bar]hh[a.bar]v[a.bar]t yatvapratisedho
na prapnoti. padatv[a.bar]bh[a.bar]v[a.bar]d
uttarapczdavyapadeta ca na, taws ca tannibandhanasvaro na sidhyati.)
A. 6.2.139 gatik[a.bar]rakopapad[a.bar]t krt (uttarapada 6.2.111)
provides that the original accent of the final constituent following a
gati, karalca, or upapada is retained in a tatpurusa compound. Kaiyata
rejects the objection:
This is not a problem. The negation of replacement by retroflex s
will occur because a sasth[I.bar]tatpurusa compound will be formed
after having provided the affix kvip following the causative of the
root sic without an upapada. (naisah dosah. nirupapadat secayateh
kvipi krte sasth[I.bar]sam[a.bar]sah kriyata iti satvanisedho
bhavisyati.) (8)
However, Kaiyata subsequently withdraws his suggestion for
reinterpreting the compound dadhi-sec as a sasth[I.bar]-tatpurusa
instead of an upapada-tatpurusa because he recognizes that it is
necessary to accept indeterminate variation regarding the presence or
absence of nominal terminations on the final compound constituent anyway
in order to account for dhanakrit[a.bar], which requires nominal
terminations on the final compound constituent, as well as
dhanakr[I.bar]t[I.bar] which requires the absence of nominal
terminations on the final compound constituent (see section 3.3).
Or rather, since the term sup[a.bar] ceases to recur, in order to
achieve operations as desired, a compound is formed in some instances
after a nominal termination has arisen and in some instance before a
nominal termination arises. In this way, because of the mention of
bahulam 'variously', a k[a.bar]raka compound too occurs in some
instances after a nominal termination has arisen. Thus the usage "For
she is his woman bought with money (dhanakrit[a.bar])" is accounted
for.(9) (yad va supety asya nivrttau satyarn yathestam karyasiddhaye
kvacid utpanne supi sam[a.bar]sah kvacit pr[a.bar]k
subutpatteh. evam karakasam[a.bar]so 'pi bahulagrahan[a.bar]t
kvacit subutpatter bhavatiti sa hi tasya dhanakriteti
prayoga upapannah.)
Now if the final compound constituent in dadhi-sec is accepted as
being a nominal base without nominal terminations at the time of
compound formation, it remains to justify the accent in accordance with
A. 6.2.139, which requires that the final compound element be termed
uttarapada. Kaiyata concludes that the term uttarapada conventionally
refers to any speech form that occurs as a subsequent compound
constituent. It does not refer to what is termed pada in the technical
sense of the term; that is, its scope is not limited to what ends in
nominal or verbal terminations as required by A. 1.4.14 suptthantath
padam. Kaiyata there-fore concludes, "there is no problem there
either because the term uttarapada conventionally refers to a particular
part of a compound" (uttarapadasabde samasavayavavisesasya rudhir
iti tatrapy adosah). Regarding the accentual rule A. 6.2.139, which
provides that the original accent of the final constituent following a
gati, karaka, or upapada is retained in a tatpurusa compound, Joshi and
Roodbergen (1973: 223) clearly state, "in these rules the term
uttarapada does not mean a case-inflected final cp.-member, that is, A
pada in the technical sense of the word, but it only means the final
part of a cp."
According to Kaiyata, the recurrence of sup in the nominative in A.
2.2.19 requires that the initial compound constituent terminate in a
nominal termination, not the final compound constituent. The initial
constituent is then termed pada in the technical sense of the term by A.
1.4.14. Since the initial compound constituent is termed pada, the
principle stated in A. 2.1.1 samarthah padavidhih, which is relevant to
rules concerning a pada, applies. The principle restricts compound
formation to semantically and syntactically connected speech forms.
Where Patanjali writes under A. 2.2.19 that an element termed gati, a
speech form denoting a participant in action (karaka), or an upapada is
compounded with a semantically and syntactically related speech form
(see section 3.2), Kaiyata states that this is due to the fact that the
principle of semantic and syntactic connection presents itself because
compound formation is a rule concerning a pada by virtue of the fact
that the term sup recurs (sub ity asy[a.bar]nuvrttau saty[a.bar]m
sam[a.bar]sasya padavidhitv[a.bar]t
samarthaparibh[a.bar]sopasth[a.bar]n[a.bar]t). The final compound
constituent, according to Kaiyata then, can be any semantically and
syntactically related speech form.
3.5 Bhattojid[I.bar]ksita, N[a.bar]gesca, and their commentators
Bhattojid[I.bar]ksita (early seventeenth century) adopts the view
propounded by Kaiyata and Haradattamigra that in upapada-tatpurusa
compounds the initial compound constituent terminates in a nominal
termination and that just the final compound constituent does not. He
goes further in stating that it is a pada that is termed upapada by A.
3.1.92 tatropapadam saptamistham in rules under the heading A. 3.1.91
dh[a.bar]toh. He thereby departs from Jinen-drabuddhi's conclusion
that the term upapada does not include the technical sense of pada as
that which ends in a nominal or verbal termination (see section 3.3). He
makes clear that the nominal termination present at the time of
compounding by A. 2.2.19 upapadam atilt in the derivation of
kumhha-k[a.bar]ra is a sixth-triplet termination (a genitive ending),
not a second-triplet one (an accusative ending). N[a.bar]gega
(eighteenth century) concurs.
In the Siddhantakaumudi, Bhattojid[I.bar]ksita makes clear that a
nominal termination occurs at the end of the upapada, which occurs as
the initial member of the compound, but not on the derivate formed from
the root, which occurs as the final member. The term sup, designating
the subordinate compound element that ends in a nominal termination,
recurs in A. 2.2.19 from A. 2.1.2 sub amantrite parangavat svare, but
the term sup[a.bar] in A. 2.1.4 saha supa, designating a principal
compound element that ends in a nominal termination, does not. He writes
under A. 2.2.19 upapadam (din, "an upapada that ends in a nominal
termination is obligatorily compounded with a syntactically connected
item" (upapadam sub-antam samarthena nityam samasyate). In
contrast, he states that the term supa in the instrumental does not
recur from A. 2.1.4 (sup[a.bar] iti ca nivrttam). It is the absence of
the nominal termination on the subsequent compound element, the derivate
-kara, at the time of compound formation by A. 2.2.19 that satisfies the
principle (paribh[a.bar]s[a.bar]) that the compounding of an upapada
with a krt-derivate occur prior to the arising of a nominal termination
(tath[a.bar] ca'gatikarakopapad[a.bar]n[a.bar]m krdbhih saha
sam[a.bar]savacanam pr[a.bar]k subutpatteh' iti siddham).
V[a.bar]sudevadiksita provides the example of carmak[a.bar]ra in
the B[a.bar]lamanorama to demonstrate the necessity of understanding
that a nominal termination occurs generally after the prior element in
upapada-tatpurusa compounds. The deletion of the n in carman is required
if it occurs as an upapada in an upapada-tatpurusa compound. He writes,
"nor can one argue that there is no reason for the term sup to
recur (in A. 2.2.19 from A. 2.1.2) because it serves the purpose of the
deletion of n in carma-k[a.bar]ra (na caivam sub ity anuvrtteh
prayoj[a.bar]nabh[a.bar]va iti v[a.bar]cyam, carmak[a.bar]ra ity atra
nalop[a.bar]rthakatv[a.bar]t).
In order to demonstrate that no nominal termination occurs after
the subsequent compound element that is a krt-derivate in an
upapada-tatpurusa compound, Bhattojid[i.bar]ksita cites the form
kacchapi 'female tortoise'. Vasudevadiksita indicates that the
parallel sentential usage that illustrates the meaning of the compound
is either kacchena pibati " ... drinks by means of the edge,"
or kacche pibati " ... drinks at the edge." He writes kacchah
tiram, tena tasmin v[a.bar] pibat[i.bar]ti kacchap[i.bar]. The
derivation of the form shown in Table 2 assumes the first meaning.
In a departure from the views of Kaiyata and Bhoja,
Bhattojid[I.bar]ksita introduces an innovation in stating that it is a
pada that is termed upapada in a s[u.bar]tra of the section headed by A.
3.1.91 dh[a.bar]toh. He writes under A. 3.1.92 tatropapadam
saptam[I.bar]stham,
When there is a word ending in a seventh-triplet nominal termination,
such as karmani, a pada such as kumbha that denotes a direct object
(karman), present as that which is to be denoted by the term karmani,
is termed upapada. And only when that is present does the affix that
will be provided occur. (saptamy ante pade karmani ity [a.bar]dau
v[a.bar]cyatvena sthitam kumbh[a.bar]di tadv[a.bar]cakam padam
upapadasamj[n.bar]am syat. tasmims ca saty eva vaksyam[a.bar]nah
pratyayah sy[a.bar]t)
In the B[a.bar]lamanorama. V[a.bar]sudevad[I.bar]ksita writes
thereon.
The affix an occurs after the root in the meaning of an agent. but
the pada that denotes the direct object (kanttan), such as kumbha,
is to be understood as termed upapada. The result is that only when
the upapada is present does the affix au occur. (dh[a.bar]tor an
sy[a.bar]t kartary arthe, karmav[a.bar]cakam to kumbh[a.bar]dipadam
upapadasanjnam pratyetavyam tasminn upapade saty ev[a.bar]n
sy[a.bar]d evan syad iti phalati.)
Commenting on A. 3.1.92 in his Laghusabdendusekhara, N[a.bar]gega
too insists that the upapada terminates in a nominal termination in A.
3.2.1 karmatyy an as well as in s[u.bar]tras in which the term supi
occurs. In commenting on Bhattojid[I.bar]ksita's use of the term
pada in the phrase "the pada that denotes that (karman)"
(tadv[a.bar]cakath padam), he states, "a pada here ends in a
nominal termination" (padam at ra vibhaktyantam). Bhairavamisra, in
his commentary Cadrakal[a.bar] on the Laghulabdetzdttlekham, summarizes
N[a.bar]gega's conclusion, "the term upapada applies only to a
pada" (padasyaivopapadasamj[n.bar][a.bar]).
N[a.bar]gesa confirms that the prior element in upapada-tatpurusa
compounds ends in a nominal termination, commenting on A. 2.2.19 in the
Laghusabdendusekhara. He writes that Bhattojidiksita's
qualification of the term upapada with the term 'ending in a
nominal termination' (subanta) is gotten by force of the fact that
it is a long term (subantam iti mahasanjnabalalabdham). The Candrakala
glosses N[a.bar]gesa's use of the term
mah[a.bar]sa[n.bar]j[n.bar][a.bar] under A. 3.1.92 stating that a long
term is used for the purpose of indicating a sense in accordance with
its meaning. In this case that meaning is the word (pada) enunciated
nearby (s[a.bar] c[a.bar]nvarthatv[a.bar]ya krt[a.bar]--sam[I.bar]pa
uccariwm padam N[a.bar]gega considers that any use of the term upapada
refers to a word that ends in a nominal termination. N[a.bar]gega makes
very clear, in sharp contrast to Jinendrabuddhi, that he considers that
the term upapada includes the term pada in its technical sense, even in
sutras headed by A. 3.1.91. He interprets the principle stated in A.
3.1.92 tatropapadam saptamistham in application to A. 3.2.1 karmany an
to mean that the word ending in a nominal termination that denotes the
direct object (karman) is termed upapada.
Likewise in his Paribh[a.bar]sendusekhara, N[a.bar]gega writes that
the reason for stating paribh[a.bar]s[a.bar] 76
gatik[a.bar]rakpapad[a.bar]n[a.bar]m krdbhih saha sam[a.bar]savacanant
pr[a.bar]k subtapatteh is to prevent the incorrect feminine affix as
[a.bar](t[a.bar]p) from occurring on the final compound element
asvakriti, vy[a.bar]ghri, and kacchap[I.bar]. The correct affix i (nis)
occurs after the compound stem and requires that the compound be formed
prior to the occurrence of nominal terminations. That the
paribh[a.bar]s[a.bar] is not obligatory (nitya) allows [a.bar] where it
occasionally occurs, as in asvakrita. Alternatively, such words are
included in the list ajadi, allowing tap to occur in exception to iris
by A. 4.1.4 aj[a.bar]dyatas t[a.bar]p, and the paribh[a.bar]s[a.bar] is
obligatory, including in cases such as kumbhak[a.bar]r[a.bar]. The
paribh[a.bar]s[a.bar] does not prevent terminations from occurring after
the initial compound element. Quite the contrary. Not only does
N[a.bar]gega want the termination after the initial compound element
prior to compound formation, he wants it prior to provision of the
kit-affix av that forms the final compound constituent.
The termination that occurs on the initial compound element is a
sixth-triplet nominal termination, not a second-triplet nominal
termination. The sentence with an accusative ending is provided just as
an actual usage in parallel meaning, not as a prior step in the
derivation of the compound. Immediately after he gives the example
kumbhakara and shows its meaning with a parallel sentential usage that
contains the word kumbha in the accusative (i.e., with a singular
second-triplet nominal termination) (kumbhath karotiti kumbhakarah),
Bhattojid[I.bar]ksita shows a grammatical formula at a step in the
derivation prior to the formation of the compound. The derivational
formula contains a singular sixth-triplet nominal termination (iha
kumbha as kara ity alaukikam prakriyav[a.bar]kyam).
V[a.bar]sudevad[I.bar]ksita makes clear in the B[a.bar]lamanorama that
the grammatical formula, not the parallel sentential usage, is the
precondition for the derivation of the compound: "the essence is
that only the grammatical formula is the basis for the occurrence of the
compound; the sentence kumbhark karoti is merely for showing its
meaning" (alaukika-vigraha-v[a.bar]kya eva samasa-pravrttilh
kumbham karotiti tadartha-pradarsana-m[a.bar]tram iti bh[a.bar]vah). He
goes on to emphasize that a sixth-triplet nominal termination, not a
second-triplet one, occurs in the derivational formula. He states that
kumbha-am kara is an erroneous reading because the sixth triplet is
provided in conjunction with a krt-derivate (kumbha am kara ity
apap[a.bar]thah, krdyoge sasthy[a.bar] vidhanat). The sixth triplet
occurs in accordance with A. 2.3.65, as explained above and shown in
Table 1, step 12b.
N[a.bar]gda likewise affirms that it is a sixth-triplet nominal
termination and not a second-triplet nominal termination that occurs at
the end of the word kumbha in the derivation of the upapada-tapurusa
compound kumbha-k[a.bar]ra. The sixth triplet provided by A. 2.3.65
kartrkarmarjoh krti occurs in exception to A. 2.3.2 karmani
dvitiy[a.bar]. It is not the case that the latter takes precedence over
the former by virtue of the principle of being more internally
conditioned (antarahga). He entertains the supposition that A. 2.3.2
would take precedence over A. 2.3.65 because A. 2.3.65 depends on the
direct object having connection with action denoted by a kit-affix
because the sutra states krti. He rightly dismisses this suppostion
because A. 2.3.2 equally depends upon the direct object having
connection with action, even without mentioning a term referring to
action, just by virtue of a direct object (karman) being a participant
in action (k[a.bar]raka): "and here a sixth triplet occurs
conditioned by connection with a kft-affix--nor is the second triplet
more internally conditioned (antarariga)--because a general rule applies
considering the domain of its exceptions" (krdyogalak.sand catra
sasthi. na cantaranga dvitiya. prakalpyapavadaviyayam utsargapravrtteh).
At the same time Nagega denies that kumbha-k[a.bar]ra is a
sasth[I.bar]-tatpurusa compound formed by A. 2.2.8. The reason he denies
this is that an upapada-tatpurusa compound formed by A. 2.2.19 is more
internally conditioned because it is provided prior to the arising of
nominal terminations on the final compound constituent (atra
tgasthisamaso na. uttarapade vibhaktyutpattetz parvam evasya
pravrttyantarahgatvat). (10)
3.7 Joshi and Roodbergen
Joshi and Roodbergen (1973: 42) accept that sup recurs in A.
2.2.18-19 and just sup[a.bar] is discontinued, in disagreement with
Jinendrabhuddhi and Bhoja, and in agreement with Kaiyata,
Haradattamigra, Bhattojid[I.bar]ksita, and N[a.bar]gega. The result is
that in an upapada-tatpurusa compound an initial compound constituent
that ends in a nominal termination is compounded with a final
constituent that is any syntactically related speech form. They comment,
"Tradition rejects the continuation of the condition sup sup[a.bar]
as a whole ... Our assumption is that supd is discontinued on the basis
of s[a.bar]marthya ... The point is that the cp.-constitutents are
joined together before a case ending (or a fem. suffix) is added to the
second cp.-constituent." Likewise they write (p. 203), "But
the fact is that in all desired upapada cps the upapada is always a
case-inflected word ... What we want is the discontinuation of sup with
reference to the word with which the upapada is to be compounded. That
is to say, we want the discontinuation of the condition
sup[a.bar]." They correctly observe (p. 220), regarding the
derivation of kacchapi, "in order to derive the desired form, the
upapada is compounded with a krdanta stem, before the case-ending has
been added." The purpose of discontinuing sup[a.bar] is to prevent
the feminine affix t[a.bar]p from arising after the stem pa in kacchapi,
after the stem ghra in vy[a.bar]ghri, and after the stem krita in
dhanakriti, asvakriti, vastrakriti, etc. They provide derivations of
several of these forms. (11)
Working out the details of the derivation of the forms under
discussion in the commentaries brings problems to light that went
unnoticed previously. One such problem is determining exactly which
nominal termination is present on the upapada prior to compounding. A
second is determining the sequence of the provision of the nominal
termination on the upapada and the provision of the krt-affix. In the
derivation of kacchapi, Joshi and Roodbergen show the first step as
(kaccha-am + p[a.bar]-ka) with the nominal termination after kaccha
already present at the time of the provision of the krt-affix after the
root pa. There they make the provision of the krt-affix simultaneous
with the compounding of the upapada with the krt-derivate kara by A.
2.2.19. (12) They argue that the upapada denoting the karman in
kumbha-kara is accusative rather than genitive. In their translation of
Patanjali's Mah[a.bar]bh[a.bar]sya on A. 2.2.19, they comment (p.
203), "we can derive kumbhak[a.bar]rah: 'pot-maker' from
(kumbha + am) + k[a.bar]ra," and show a singular second-triplet
nominal termination on the upapada kumbha. In their translation of the
Ast[a.bar]dhy[a.bar]y[I.bar] (1997: 45), they analyze the compound
differently to show that the upapada denoting the karman is a condition
for the affix an: ((kumbha-am + kr)-su). Their braces indicate that the
second-triplet termination is present before the affix can is provided
by A, 3.2.1 karmauy an. They rule out a genitive because the rule that
provides a sixth-triplet nominal termination requires the presence of
the kit-affix in advance. In their translation of A. 2.3.65
kartrkarmanott krti, they write (1998: 112), "(the sixth case
endings are added after a pr[a.bar]tipadika) in the sense of kartr
'agent' or karman '(direct) object', given
(construction with a word ending in a) krt (-suffix) (unless the kartr
or karman has already been expressed otherwise)." The phrase,
"given construction with a word ending in a krt-suffix,"
implies that the affix an is already present before the rule applies.
They recognize (1973: 232) that a problem of mutual dependence would
arise if the sixth-triplet nominal termination provided by A. 2.3.65
were required to be present prior to the provision of the krt-affix an
by A. 3.2.1: "P. 2.3.65 only applies when the word representing the
object is connected with a krdanta form. That is to say, unless kara has
been derived we cannot apply P. 2.3.65. But in order to derive kara from
the root kr-we must shoW that kr-is accompanied by a
karma-upapada." They propose to solve the mutual dependency by
having the karman be denoted by a second-triplet nominal termination
provided by A. 2.3.2 karmani dvitiya instead: "the only rule by
which we can show that kumbha is a karma-upapada is P. 2.3.2. Therefore
the technical analysis should read [(kumbha + am) + kr-]+an (1973:
232)."
Joshi and Roodbergen must be credited with recognizing that the
problem of mutual dependency would arise if the sixth-triplet nominal
termination denoting a karman were required prior to the provision of
the kit-affix web As pointed out towards the end of section 2 above, the
sixth-triplet nominal termination denoting a karman is provided after a
nominal base by A. 2.3.65 under the condition that it occurs in
connection with a speech form ending in a krt-affix, but the krt-affix
an is provided by A. 3.2.1 after a root on the condition that an upapada
denoting a karman occurs. It is impossible for the upapada to get the
sixth-triplet termination before the root gets the krt-affix that is a
condition for getting the sixth-triplet termination. The only solution
they see is to provide a second-triplet termination to denote the karman
rather than a sixth-triplet termination. They therefore conclude (1973:
238), "For the derivation of the form kara we require an upapada
which is a karman: 'object'. In order to assign the sense of
karman to the upapada, we can only apply the general rule P. 2.3.2,
which prescribes the accusative case and not the genitive. Therefore the
analysis of kumbhakarah can only be [(kumbha + am) + kr-] + an."
Historically, their proposal has some merit. Many similar
compounds, such as janamejaya, priyarhvada, and vacamyama preserve what
appears to be an accusative termination on the prior compound
constituent. Yet Panini does not analyze them thus. He does not provide
non-deletion (aluk) of a second-triplet nominal termination before a
final compound constituent (uttarapada), although he provides such
non-deletion in some twenty-four rules headed by A. 6.3.1 alug
uttarapade for third-through seventh-triplet nominal terminations.
Instead he provides the augment mum at the end of the initial compound
constituent by A. 6.3.67-72. The first of these, A. 6.3.67
arurdvisadajantasya mum, provides the augment where the final compound
element is formed by adding affixes marked with kh after roots. The
affixes khal and khac are provided by A. 3.2.28-47 after roots under the
condition that there is an upapada. A. 3.2.28 ejeh khas provides the
affix khasc after the root ji in the example janamejaya, and A. 3.2.38
priyavae vadat) khac and veici yamo vrate provide the affix khac after
the roots vad and yam in the examples priyarhvada and veicarhyama
respectively. A. 2.2.19 then forms upapada-tatpurusa compounds. If
P[a.bar]nini had provided non-deletion (aluk) of the second-triplet
nominal termination before a final compound constituent (utta-rapada),
then there would be the possibility that the wrong termination, namely
the sixth-triplet nominal termination rather than the second-triplet
termination, would enter into usage in examples such as janamejaya, etc.
However, since Papini derives such examples with the augment mum
instead, there is no such possibility. What looks like an accusative
singular in these examples is not, according to Parrini, hence it cannot
serve as evidence of the provi-sion of a second-triplet nominal
termination rather than a sixth-triplet in upapada-tatpurusa compounds
like kumbha-k[a.bar]ra in P[a.bar]ninian derivation.
In spite of its historical merit, and in addition to the linguistic
evidence adduced in its favor in the preceding paragraph being
irrelevant, Joshi and Roodbergen's conclusion is untenable. In
P[a.bar]nini's derivational system a second-triplet nominal
termination does not have the opportunity to arise. The second-triplet
nominal termination is provided after nominal bases by A. 2.3.2 karmani
dvitiy[a.bar] on condition that a karman is to be denoted and under the
additional condition that it has not already been denoted. A. 2.3.2
comes under the heading A. 2.3.1 anabhihite 'not already
denoted'. In answer to the question, "Not already denoted by
what?" (ken[a.bar]nabhihite?), Jay[a.bar]ditya replies in the
k[a.bar]sik[a.bar] "by a verbal termination, a krt-affix, a
taddhita affix, or a compound" (tinkrttaddhitasam[a.bar]saih),
citing K[a.bar]ty[a.bar]yana's v[a.bar]rttika 5 and
Pata[n.bar]jali's comment theron (tinkrttaddhitasamasaih
parisamkhyanam. MBh. 1.441.20-22). Nominal terminations are not provided
after nominal bases denoting participants in action until after verbal
terminations and krt-affixes are provided after the roots denoting the
action to which the participants are subordinate. Even in the equivalent
sentence kumbharh karoti, derived from kumbha-am kr-u-tip, the verbal
termination tip is provided by A. 3.2.78 tiptas-jhi, etc., prior to the
provision of the nominal termination am by A. 4.1.2 svaujas, etc. This
is necessarily so, because it is only by virtue of being undenoted by
the verbal termination tip that the direct object (karman) is denoted by
the second-triplet nominal termination by A. 2.3.2 karmarzy an. If the
karman were denoted by the verbal termination te (< ta), A. 2.3.2
would not apply. The first-triplet nominal termination would occur
instead by A. 2.3.46
pr[a.bar]tipadik[a.bar]rtha-litiga-parim[a.bar]na-vacana-m[a.bar]tre
prathama, and the passive sentence kumbhah kriyate would result instead.
Just as selection of the nominal termination depends upon the selection
of the verbal termination in the derivation of the equivalent sentence,
it depends upon the selection of the krt-affix in the derivation of the
upapada-tatpurusa compound. No nominal termination can arise on the
upapada denoting a direct object (karman) until an affix arises after
the verbal root denoting the action in which the direct object
participates. Therefore. the rule that provides the krt-affix an after
the root occurs prior to either of the rules that provide a nominal
termination after the upapada come into play. In particular, A. 3.2.1
karmany an. applies prior to either A. 2.3.2 karmani dvitiya or A.
2.3.65 kartrkarmanoh krti coming into play.
Joshi and Roodbereen are correct to state (1973: 238), "for
the derivation of the form k[a.bar]ra we require an upapada which is a
karman: 'object." However, it is incorrect for them to suggest
that A. 2.3.2 has anything to do with assigning the sense of karman to
the upapada. They argue (1973: 238), "in order to assign the sense
of karman to the upapada, we can only apply the general rule P. 2.3.2,
which prescribes the accusative case and not the genitive."
Moreover, their statement (1973: 232) that A. 2.3.2 is "the only
rule by which we can show that kumbha is a karma-upapada" is
irrelevant. Such statements confuse the relation between semantics and
phonetics in Pituinian grammar. Parini does not "assign
sense." He does not teach meanings on the ground of phonetic
conditions; he teaches speech forms on the ground of semantic
conditions. The sense of karman does not depend upon the accusative case
or the genitive case; rather second-triplet or sixth-triplet nominal
terminations are provided in various contexts under the condition that a
karman is to be denoted. That an object is termed karman does not
necessarily require any speech form at all; an object may be termed
karman under purely semantic conditions without reference to any speech
forms whatsoever. Although certainly some rules do take co-occurrence
conditions into account, it is essential to note that general karaka
rules do not. A. 1.4.49 kartur ipsitatamam karma, for example, terms a
pot karman in the derivation of kumbhakara (Table 1, step 4) under the
sole condition that it is most desired by the agent. The pot is termed
karman regardless of the speech form used to denote it, and, patently,
regardless of the nominal termination (second triplet or sixth triplet)
used to denote that it is a karman.
Moreover, the accusative case is not necessary to condition the
affix an by A. 3.2.1; only that an object has been termed karman is. It
is irrelevant whether or how the presence of such an object can be shown
by speech forms. The upapada that serves as a condition for the affix an
in A. 3.2.1 must therefore be any semantically and syntactically related
speech form that denotes an object termed karman: it need not be a pada,
in the technical sense of the term, ending in a nominal termination.
Therefore, Kaiyata is correct in his suggestion that the
pr[a.bar]tipadika denotes the karman. Commenting on kumbhak[a.bar]rah
under A. 2.2.19, varttika 3, Kaiyata suggests that the pr[a.bar]tipadika
itself, possessed of five meanings (a generic property, an individual
object, its gender. its number, and its participation in the action),
denotes the karman: "if the group of five is the meaning of a
nominal base, then because the nominal base itself denotes the direct
object, the affix an must he provided on the condition that just the
nominal base is the upapada" (pancake pr[a.bar]tipadikarthe
pr[a.bar]tipadikenaiva karmana uktatv[a.bar]t tatraivopapade
'n[a.bar] bh[a.bar]vyam). A. 2.3.2 or A. 2.3.65 would still apply
to provide a nominal termination after the nominal base, even though its
being the direct object in relation to the action was denoted by the
nominal base, since the nominal base is not among the speech forms
denoted by which a participant in action would not condition a nominal
termination. Hence A. 3.2.1 applies when just the nominal base
(pr[a.bar]tipadika) is upapada. Moreover, this works even if
participation in action is not accepted as being denoted by a nominal
base. A. 3.2.1 requires that a speech form that denotes a direct object
(karman) be upapada; it does not require that the speech form denote the
relation of being a direct object (karmatva). The nominal base denotes
the direct object already, even without a second-triplet or
sixth-triplet termination conditioned by its being termed karman.
Therefore, mutual dependency is avoided in the derivation of
kumbha-k[a.bar]ra even if a sixth-triplet nominal termination is
provided after the nominal base kumbha; A. 2.3.65 will apply after the
affix an has been provided by A. 3.2.1 but before A. 2.2.19 where a
nominal termination is required. Although not required in the derivation
of kumbha-k[a.bar]ra, a nominal termination is required in the
derivation of like compounds such as carma-k[a.bar]ra to allow
operations that depend upon its being termed pada, in the technical
sense of the term, to apply to the initial compound constituent.
3.8 Grimal et al.
The derivation of kumbha-k[a.bar]ra presented in Grimal et al.
follows the views expressed by Bhattojid[I.bar]ksita,
V[a.bar]sudevadiksita, N[a.bar]gega, and Bhairavamigra. The initial
compound constituent, the upapada, in an upapada-tatpurusa compound
terminates in a nominal termination; the final compound constituent
terminating in a krt-affix does not. The sixth-triplet nominal
termination provided by A. 2.3.65 is accepted as the termination on the
upapada. The presence of the sixth-triplet nominal termination on the
upapada at the time of application of A. 3.2.1 indicates that they
accept that the term upapada implies the technical sense of the term
pada; that is, to be termed upapada, it must end in a nominal
termination just as it must to be termed pada. Unfortunately, Grimal et
al. did not notice the mutual dependency that these views entail.
3.9 Mutual dependency
In a few instances (13) Pata[n.bar]jali escapes from the mutual
dependence of the provision of an affix upon the presence of a preceding
speech form and vice versa by stating that the affix in the locative is
a locative of domain (visaya-saptam[I.bar]) rather than a right-context
locative (para-saptam[I.bar]). For example, he escapes from the mutual
dependence of the provision of an ardhadhatuka-affix conditioned by a
preceding root and a root replacement conditioned by a following affix
in this way. At the conclusion of his commentary on A. 2.4.35
[a.bar]rdhadhatuke he proposes that the term [a.bar]rdhadhatuke is a
visaya-saptami. The replacement thereby occurs in the intended domain of
an ardhadhatuka-affix rather than when followed in sequence by the
speech form (asati paurv[a.bar]parye visayasaptami vifriasyate.
[a.bar]rdhadhatukavisaya iti). Jay[a.bar]ditya in the K[a.bar]sik[a.bar]
on A. 2.4.35 states that thereby the replacements are made under the
intention to use an [a.bar]rdhadh[a.bar]tuka-affix; once the
replacements have been made, the affixes occur as provided afterwards
(visayasaptami ceyarh, na parasaptami.
tenardhadhatuka-vivaks[a.bar]y[a.bar]m [a.bar]delesu krtesu pasc[a.bar]d
yath[a.bar]pr[a.bar]ptarh pratyay[a.bar] bhavanti). For example, A.
2.4.52 aster bh[u.bar] provides that the root as is replaced by the root
bhu in the domain of an ardhadhatuka-affix. A. 3.1.97 aco yat provides
that the affix yat occurs after a vowel-final root. In order to obtain
the form bhdvyam the affix yat must occur after the root bh[u.bar].
However, the affix yat cannot occur until the root as is replaced by bhu
since it only occurs after vowel-final roots; it doesn't occur
after the root as, which ends in a consonant. If ardhadhatuke were a
para-saptami, the replacement of the root as by the root Mir, could only
occur after the [a.bar]rdh[a.bar]dhatuka-affix had been provided.
Similarly, the question of the mutual dependence of a
secondary-root-forming affix and a following
[a.bar]rdh[a.bar]dhAtuka-affix arises under A. 3.1.31
[a.bar]y[a.bar]daya [a.bar]rdhadh[a.bar]tuke v[a.bar]. There
Pata[n.bar]jali writes,
This is not a problem. [a.bar]rdhadh[a.bar]tuke is not a
para-saptam[I.bar]; rather it is a visaya-saptami meaning 'in the
domain of an [a.bar]rdhadh [a.bar]tuka-affix'. In that case, once the
secondary-root-forming affixes beginning with [a.bar]ya (provided in
A. 3.1.28-30) have been provided in the domain of an
[a.bar]rdhadh[a.bar]tuka-affix, the affix that
would occur after the secondary root occurs. (naisa dosah.
[a.bar]rdhadh[a.bar]tuka iti naisa parasaptami. ka
tarhi. visayasaptaimi. ardhadhatukavisaya iti. tatra
[a.bar]rdhadh[a.bar]tukavisaya [a.bar]y[a.bar]diprakrter
[a.bar]y[a.bar]disu krtesu yah yatatt pr[a.bar]tyayah
prapnoti sah tato bhavisyati. MBh. 2.41. 17-19)
The k[a.bar]sik[a.bar] states, "the secondary-root-forming
affixes beginning with [a.bar]ya (provided in A. 3.1.28-30) optionally
occur in the domain of an [a.bar]rdhadh[a.bar]tuka-affix, i.e., when
there is the intention to articulate an Ardhadhatuka-affix"
([a.bar]rdhadh[a.bar]tukavisaye [a.bar]rdhadh[a.bar]tukavivalsvayam
[a.bar]y[a.bar]dayah pratyay[a.bar] v[a.bar] bhavanti).
The third and final situation in which Pata[n.bar]jali solves the
question of mutual dependence by resorting to a locative of domain is
under A. 4.1.90. A. 4.1.90 y[u.bar]ni luk (aci 89) provides deletion
(luk) of the affix previously provided in the sense of a
yuvan-descendant. The deletion occurs if a vowel-initial affix in the
section headed by A. 4.1.83 is to follow. The vowel-initial affix
provided after the nominal base denoting the yuvan-descendant occurs
after the form of the stem once the yuvan-affix has been deleted, but
the yuvan-affix is deleted on condition that the vowel-initial affix is
provided. If the locative in the term aci were a parasaptami, the rule
would provide deletion before a vowel-initial affix that had already
been provided after the form of the nominal base terminating in the
yuvan-affix. Thus wrong affixes would result. (y[u.bar]ni lug aciti cet
pratyayasy[a.bar]yathestaprasangah. A. 4.1.90, v[a.bar]rttika 1. MBh.
2.242.15,) To get the correct form, provision of the vowel-initial affix
has to occur once the deletion has been done. To avoid mutual
dependence, Pata[n.bar]jali states that the term aci in A. 4.1.90 is a
visaya-saptam[I.bar] meaning "in the domain of a vowel-initial
affix." In that case, the affix that occurs after the nominal base
is the affix that would occur once deletion has been done in the domain
of the vowel-initial affix. (naisa dosah. aciti naisa parasaptami. ka
tarhi. viyayasaptami. ajadau visaya iti. tatraci visaye luki krte yah
yataly pratyayah prapnoti salt taw bhavtyyati. MBh. 2.242,21-23.) The
K[a.bar]sik[a.bar] states, "deletion (luk) occurs in place of the
yuvan-affix when the vowel-initial affix provided under the heading A.
4.1.83 is intended to be articulated, still in mind, not yet arisen.
Once the yuvan-affix has been deleted, the affix that would occur after
the nominal base in that form occurs" (pr[a.bar]gdivyatiye
aj[a.bar]dau pratyaye vivaksite buddhisthe 'nutpanna eva
yuvapratyayasya lug bhavati. tasmin nivrtte sad yo yatah pr[a.bar]pnoti
sa tato bhavati).
The visaya-saptami is only resorted to under duress. It is
preferable to find another means to achieve derivation. P[a.bar]nini
avoids similar situations of the mutual dependence of stem and affix by
stating the relevant rules in the asiddhavat section headed by A. 6.4.22
asiddhavad atr[a.bar]bh[a.bar]t. For example, the verbal stem s[a.bar]s
is replaced by s[a.bar] before the second person singular active
imperative termination hi by A. 6.4.35 s[a.bar] hau. At the same time,
the second person singular active imperative termination hi is replaced
by dhi after the root hu and roots ending in a non-nasal stop or spirant
by A. 6.4.101 hujhalbhyo her dhih. Neither rule would apply if subject
to the conditions produced by the other having applied first. The
derivation works by applying rules in the section headed by A. 6.4.22
asiddhavad atrabhat as if operations provided by other rules in that
section had not taken place.
If nominal terminations were required on upapadas prior to the
provision of krt-affixes, the result would be mutual dependence between
the rules that provide the nominal terminations and the rules that
provide the krt-affixes. The fact that the Mahabh[a.bar]sya does not
raise the issue of mutual dependence between rules that provide
krt-affixes and rules that provide nominal terminations on upapadas
serves as evidence, though it be evidence of silence, that
Pata[n.bar]jali did not consider nominal terminations to be required.
The conditions under which the krt-affix an occurs require that
there be a speech form termed upapada denoting an object termed karman.
For the object to be termed karman, a nominal termination is not
required. Quite the opposite; it is the condition for the occurrence of
the nominal termination. The only circumstance that suggests that there
is a nominal termination present at the time of A. 3.2.1 coming into
play is the interpretation of pada in the term upapada in the technical
sense that it is provided by A. 1.4.14 suptinantam padam. A. 1.4.14
terms a speech form pada if it ends in a nominal or verbal termination.
This inter-pretation is questionable. It requires accepting that the
purpose of using a long term (upapada) is that the term carry its
meaning and that the specific meaning it carry be the technical sense
requred by A. 1.4.14. That the purpose of using a long term (upapada) is
that the term carry its meaning is not objectionable. But that pada
therein carries the technical meaning of a speech form ending in a
nominal termination is objectionable. The latter is not accepted by
Jinendrabhuddhi or Bhoja. Jinendrabuddhi provides a conventional meaning
for the term pada instead: that by means of which a meaning is
understood. Although Haradatta is quite right to point out that a
nominal termination must be permitted to occur on the upapada prior to
compounding so that it does get termed pada according to A. 1.4.14 and
become subject to operations that require the technical term (such as
deletion of pada-final n by A. 8.2.7 in which the term padasya recurs),
there is no need for the term upapada to carry that technical sense of
the term pada. After the occurrence of the krt-affix an (Table 1, step
7), conditions are satisfied to allow a sixth-triplet nominal
termination to arise in accordance with A. 2.3.65 (Table 1, step 12b)
and for the upapada, which now does end in a nominal termination, to be
termed pada by A. 1.4.14 (Table 1, step 14). Not before. Conditions are
simply not present to allow a nominal termination to arise on the
upapada prior to the provision of an affix after the root. The
morphology of the governing word determines that of the governed.
4. SEMANTICS DRIVE PANINIAN DERIVATION
Grimal et al. did not include early steps in the derivation. They
did not work out the steps by which a nominal termination would arise on
the upapada prior to the provision of the krt-affix an after the root.
The result is that they reproduced the views of Bhattojid[I.bar]ksita,
Nagega, and their commentators, and steps critical to demonstrate both
the sense of the compound and P[a.bar]nini's methodology are
absent. One is allowed to get the impression that the derivation begins
with speech forms already in mind, either in the form of a vigraha
v[a.bar]kya such as *kumbhasya keirah or in the form of a string such as
kumbha-as + kr-a. The latter string could result directly from the
provision of the affix an by A. 3.2.1 karmatyy an only if the term krti
in A. 2.3.65 kartrkarmanob krti were a visaya-saptami. In that case the
speaker's anticipation of a certain speech form would serve as the
condition for the provision of another speech form. This anticipation of
speech forms in P[a.bar]ninian derivation is resorted to only rarely,
only three times under duress in the case of mutual dependence of speech
forms on each other. It is not necessary in the derivation of
upapada-tatpurusa compounds, nor is it the general procedure adopted in
P[a.bar]ninian grammar.
That P[a.bar]ninian derivation begins with speech forms already in
mind is the assertion Houben erroneously makes. He asserts that the
derivation begins with some sort of sentence that the speaker uses the
grammar to check for correctness (see section 1.3). Yet, as explained in
section 1.1, the only speech forms available at the start of a
derivation are roots and nominal bases. Semantic conditions are required
in the grammar to determine their relation, the proper affixes used to
denote those relations, and compound formation. The only speech forms
available at the start of the derivation of kumbha-k[a.bar]ra are the
nominal base kumbha and the root kr. The derivation of kumhha-k[a.bar]ra
does not require any other speech form at all until the affix art is
introduced after kr in step 7 of Table 1. As sections 2-3 have argued,
the condition for the affix my is a semantic object termed karman, not a
sixth-triplet nominal termination as stated by Bhattojidiksita, Nagesa,
and their commentators, and reiterated by Grimal et al., nor a
second-triplet nominal termination as argued by Joshi and Roodbergen.
The condition for the affix an is not a speech form at all; it is a
semantic object devoid of any speech form whatsover; it is a disembodied
meaning intended by the intellect of a speaker.
Although a user of the grammar may have sentences in mind he wants
to check the procedure of the grammar he uses to check them derives such
sentences by relying on semantic conditions. It is not the case that
semantics are resorted to just to "label the linguistic forms of
his preliminary sentence according to the syntactically relevant
categories of meaning," as Houhen asserts. It is not the linguistic
form that gets labeled; it is a meaning, accompanied or not by any
linguistic form. In the derivation of kumbha-k[a.bar]ra, it is not the
speech form kumbha that is termed karman, it is the pot, regardless of
the word used for it or the language. The pot is termed karman solely by
that object's relation to an action, without regard to any speech
form. Even the presentation of the derivation in Table 1 is susceptible
to the misinterpretation that the speech forms such as kumbha are
k[a.bar]rakas. They are not. The semantic objects denoted by these
speech forms are k[a.bar]rakas. K[a.bar]rakas are participants in the
action. It is the objects that participate in action, not the words that
denote those Objects. The words that denote objects are introduced in
the derivational steps in the tables only because in some derivations,
though not in the ones presented, co-occurrence conditions are taken
into account even at the stage in which objects are designated by
k[a.bar]raka terms.
P[a.bar]nini derives speech forms from the point of view of the
speaker. He begins with semantics, with what the speaker wants to
express. Objects in the conception of the speaker are the starting
point. Specifying semantic objects and co-occurring speech items as
conditions, he designates items by k[a.bar]raka terms. Items designated
by specific k[a.bar]raka terms condition verbal terminations,
krt-affixes, and compounding. Only semantic conditions that remain
undenoted after verbal terminations, krt-affixes, taddhita-affixes, or
compounds have been provided condition the occurrence of nominal
terminations. Therefore, nominal terminations would not arise after
kumbha in the derivation of kumbha-k[a.bar]ra until steps 12-12b, after
the provision of the krt-affix an in step 7.
Pata[n.bar]jali explicitly states in several places that semantics
drives the derivation of speech forms and not vice versa, and details
the sequence of derivational steps from verbal semantics, to the
semantics of participation in the action of the verb, to the provision
of karaka terms for those participants, and finally to the arising of
nominal terminations. He does so, for example, under 2.3.50 vt. 5 uktam
parvena. The context concerns an explanation of why a sixth-triplet
nominal termination arises after the stem tajan and not after the stem
puntya in the phrase rapialy purusah. While his remarks concerning the
derivation of the particular phrase in question there are not relevant
for the derivation of kumbhakara, his general remarks are.
na hi sabdakrtena n[a.bar]m[a.bar]rthena bhavitavyam. arthakrtena
n[a.bar]ma sabdena bhavitavyam. For it is not the case that meaning
occurs caused by speech forms; speech form occur caused by meanings.
(MBh. 1.464.15-16; also at 1.362. 17-18)
Pata[n.bar]jali proceeds to provide details of the sequence of
derivational steps as follows:
Particular relations of the objects denoted by nominal stems
originate caused by the action. And the terms karman, karanam,
ap[a.bar]d[a.bar]nam, samprad[a.bar]nam, adhikranam arise caused by
those particular relations. And those in turn are sometimes adopted as
conditions for the arising of triplets of nominal terminations,
sometimes not. And when are they adopted as conditions for the
arising of triplets of nominal terminations? When they differ from
the meaning of a nominal base. For when they don't differ from the
meaning of the nominal base, then the explicit terms themselves,
karman, kranam, ap[a.bar]d[a.bar]nam, sarhpradanam, adhikaranam, occur
(pr[a.bar]tipadik[a.bar]rth [a.bar]n [a.bar]m kriy[a.bar]krt[a.bar]
vises[a.bar] upaj[a.bar]yante tatkrt[a.bar]s c[a.bar]khy[a.bar]h
pr[a.bar]durbhavanti karma k[a.bar]ranam ap[a.bar]dan [a.bar]m
samprad[a.bar]nam adhikaranam iti. t[a.bar]s ca punar
vibhaktin[a.bar]m utpattau kad[a.bar]cin nimittatvenopadiyante kadacin
na. kada ca vibhaktinam utpattau nimittatvenop[a.bar]diyante?
yad[a.bar] vyabhicaranti pr[a.bar]tipadik[a.bar]rtham. yad[a.bar] hi
na vyabhicaranty akhyabhuta eva tada bhavanti karma karanam
[a.bar]pad[a.bar]nam samprad[a.bar]nam adhik[a.bar]ranam iti. MBh.
1.464. 18-23)
Kaiyata provides the example "he cuts with a knife"
(d[a.bar]trena lun[a.bar]ti) to show what happens when the object
denoted by the nominal base participates in an action. The relation the
knife (datra) has with the action differs from the meaning of the
nominal base; the relation is not denoted by the base, but instead
conditions a third-triplet nominal termination. He provides the example
"the knife is the instrument" (d[a.bar]tram karanam) to show
what happens when the relation is explicitly stated by the nominal base.
The relation does not differ from the meaning of the nominal base and
does not condition a third-triplet nominal termination; it occurs in the
nominative.
The crucial point is that semantics drive P[a.bar]ninian
derivational procedure. Semantics condition the naming of certain
intentional objects by k[a.bar]raka terms. These k[a.bar]raka terms then
condition speech forms. It is worth reiterating my explanation (Scharf
2009a: 101) that the Ast[a.bar]dhy[a.bar]y[I.bar] is composed in a
manner that selects certain speech forms for use on the basis of certain
semantic conditions. Subrahmanyam (1983) demonstrates the significant
role semantics plays in the Ast[a.bar]dhy[a.bar]y[I.bar], and I describe
the role of some 735 semantic conditions stated therein (2009a: 101-11).
The procedure of the grammar models the fact that a speaker selects
speech forms to use on the basis of the meaning he wishes to convey. As
I explained (1995), K[a.bar]ty[a.bar]yana himself says so in his very
first v[a.bar]rttika (MBh. 1.6.8): "since the usage of speech is
prompted by meanings in accordance with ordinary usage, the science (of
grammar) restricts (usage to correct speech forms) for the sake of
dharma." The restriction set forth by the grammar limits speech
forms on the basis of semantic conditions in the same manner speakers
select speech forms on the basis of the meanings they wish to convey.
(1.) See the review by Scharf 2009b.
(2.) Accent is not shown since it would needlessly complicate the
issue at hand to which it is not relevant. For a discussion of
accentuation replete with the derivation of examples see Scharf 2008.
(3.) subant[a.bar]n[a.bar]m sam[a.bar]sah.
tatr[a.bar]ntarangatv[a.bar]t t[a.bar]p. t[a.bar]py utpanne
sam[a.bar]sah. ghr[a.bar]sabdah samasyeta. tatra j[a.bar]ter
astr[I.bar]visay[a.bar]d ayopadh[a.bar]d ak[a.bar]r[a.bar]nt[a.bar]d iti
n[I.bar]s na pr[a.bar]pnoti. MBh. vol. 2, p. 218, line 26-p. 219, line
2.
(4.) Cf. Joshi and Roodbergen's (1973: 214-15) translation.
(5.) Regarding the account of the subjunctive examined by me in
Scharf 2008, Haradattamigra and N[a.bar]gesa. in contrast. opt for broad
coverage of rules of indeterminate variation over a more precise
systematic account.
(6.) See Joshi and Roodbergen 1973: 218 for detail.
(7.) Joshi and Roodbergen (1973: 223) suggest alternatively that
the final constituent sec is derived from the root sic + vic by A.
3.2.75 anyebhyo 'pi drlyate without causative meaning.
(8.) See Joshi and Roodbergen 1973: 216-17.
(9.) See Joshi and Roodbergen 1973: 217.
(10.) Bhairavamisra's candrakal[a.bar] glosses asya here as
upapadasam[a.bar]sasya.
(11.) ry[a.bar]ghr[I.bar] on pp. 218-19, *vy[a.bar]ghr[a.bar] on
pp. 219-20; kacchap[I.bar] on p. 220, and *kacchap[a.bar] on pp. 221-22;
vastrakriti and vastrakrit[a.bar] on p. 222.
(12.) It is apparently an oversight that they provide (p. 220) a
second-triplet termination rather than the third or seventh indicated as
possibilities by V[a.bar]stidevadiksita and give the s[a.bar]tra number
for the affix can (A. 3.2.2) rather than ka (A. 3.2.4). See section 3.5
above and Table 2, steps 6b and 12.
(13.) [a.bar]rdhadh[a.bar]tuke in A. 2.4.35
[a.bar]rdhadh[a.bar]tuke; [a.bar]rdhadh[a.bar]tuke in A. 3.1.31
[a.bar]y[a.bar]daya [a.bar]rdhadh[a.bar]tuke v[a.bar]; and aci in A.
4.1.90 y[u.bar]ni luk (aci 89).
REFERENCES
Bronkhorst, J. 1979. The Role of Meanings in P[a.bar]nini's
Grammar. Indian Linguistics 40: 146-57.
Cardona, George. 1967-68. Anvaya and vyatireka in Indian Grammar.
In Dr. V Raghavan Felicitation Volume. Adyar Library Bulletin 31-32:
313-52.
Grimal, F.; V. Venkataraja Sarma; and S. Lakshminarasimham. 2007.
P[a.bar]niniyavy[a.bar]karanod[a.bar]haranakosah; La Grammaire
panineenne par ses exemples; Paninian Grammar through Its Examples, vol.
II: Sam[a.bar]saprakaranam, Le Livre des mots composes; The Book of
Compound Words. Rashtriya Sanskrit Vidyapeetha Series, no. 150;
Collection indologie 93.2. Tirupati: Rashtriya Sanskrit Vidyapeetha;
Pondichery: Ecole Francaise d'Extreme-orient; Institute Francaise
de Pondichery.
Houben, Jan E. M. 1999 [20011. Meaning Statements in Panini's
Grammar: On the Purpose and Context of the Ast[a.bar]dhy[a.bar]y[I.bar].
Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik 22: 23-54.
--.2003. Three Myths in Modern P[a.bar]ninian Studies. (Review of
Recent Research in Paninian Studies, by George Cardona.) Asiatische
Studien I Etudes Asiatiques 57: 121-79.
--.2009a. Bhartrhari as a "Cognitive Linguist." In
Bhartrhari: Language, Thought, Reality: Proceedings of the International
Seminar on Bhartrhari, New Delhi, December 2003, ed. Mithilesh
Chaturvedi. Pp. 523-43. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
--.2009b. P[a.bar]nini's Grammar and Its Computerization: A
Construction Grammar Approach. In Sanskrit Computational Linguistics:
Third International Symposium, Hyderabad, India, January 15-17, 2009,
Proceedings, ed. Amba Kulkarni and Gerard Huet. Pp. 6-25. Lecture Notes
in Artificial Intelligence, no. 5406. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
--. Forthcoming. Studies in India's Vedic Grammarians, 1:
N[a.bar]rayanabhatta's Prakriy[a.bar]sarvasva and
P[a.bar]nini's (ms. provided by author, a preliminary version of
which was presented at the 14th World Sanskrit Conference, 1-5 September
2009, Kyoto University, Kyoto). In Proceedings of the 14th World
Sanskrit Conference, 1-5 September 2009, Kyoto University, Kyoto:
Vyakarana, ed. George Cardona and Hideyo Ogawa.
Joshi, S. D., and J. A. F. Roodbergen. 1973. Pata[n.bar]jali's
Vyakarana-Mah[a.bar]bh[a.bar]sya tatpurus[a.bar]hnika (P. 2.2.2-2.2.23):
Edited with Translation and Explanatory Notes. Pune: University of
Poona.
--.1975. Pata[n.bar]jali's
Vy[a.bar]karana-Mah[a.bar]bh[a.bar]sya k[a.bar]rak[a.bar]hnika (P.
1.4.23-1.2.55): Introduction, Translation, and Notes. Publications of
the Centre of Advanced Study in Sanskrit, Class C, no. 10. Pune:
University of Poona.
--. 1997. The Ast[a.bar]dhy[a.bar]y[I.bar] of Panini: with
Translation and Explanatory Notes, vol. VI: 2.2.1-2.2.38. New Delhi:
Sahitya Akademi.
--. 1998. The Astadhyayi of P[a.bar]nini: with Translation and
Explanatory Notes, vol. VII: 2.3.1-2.3.73. New Delhi: Sahitya Akademi.
Kiparsky, P. 1982. Some Theoretical Problems in Panini's
Grammar. Post-graduate and Research Department Series, no. 16. Pune:
Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.
--. 2009. On the Architecture of P[a.bar]nini's Grammar. In
Sanskrit Computational Linguistics: First and Second International
Symposia, Rocquencourt, France, October 2007; Providence, RI, USA, May
2008: Revised Selected and Invited Papers, ed. Getard Huet, Amba
Kulkarni, and Peter Scharf, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence,
no. 5402. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 2009.
http://sanskrit.inria.fr/Symposium/Program.html.
Kiparsky, P., and F Staal. 1968. Syntactic and Semantic Relations
in Mini. Foundations of Language 5: 83-117.
MBh.: The Vy[a.bar]karana-mahahh[a.bar]sya of Pata[n.bar]jali. Ed.
Lorenz Franz Kielhorn. 3 vols. BSPS 18-22, 28-30. Bombay: Government
Central Press: Vol. I, 1880; Vol. 2, 1883; Vol. 3, 1885. Second edition:
1892, 1906, 1909. Third edition revised and furnished with additional
readings references and select critical notes by K. V. Abhyankar. Pune:
BORI, 1962, 1965, 1972. Reprint: 1985. (references: volume, page, line)
Scharf, Peter. 1995. Early Indian Grammarians on a Speaker's
Intention. JAOS 115: 66-76.
--.2008. Minim Accounts of the Vedic Subjunctive: let krnvaite.
Indo-Iranian Journal 51.1: 1-21.
--.2009a. "Modeling P[a.bar]ninian Grammar." In Sanskrit
Computational Linguistics: First and Second International Symposia,
Rocquencourt, France, October 2007; Providence, RI, USA, May 2008;
Revised Selected and Invited Papers, ed. Gerard Huet, Amba Kulkarni, and
Peter Scharf. Pp. 95-126. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 5402.
Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 2009.
--.2009b. Review of Grimal et al. 2007. JAOS 129.4: 715-19.
Subrahmanyam, P. S. 1983. Panini's Use of Semantics. In
Proceedings of the International Seminar on Studies in the
Ast[a.bar]dju[a.bar]y[I.bar] of P[a.bar]nini (Held in July 1981), ed. S.
D. Joshi and S..D. Laddu. Pp. 127-36. Pune: University of Poona.
SPr.: Srg[a.bar]raprak[a.bar]sa [S[a.bar]hityaprak[a.bar]sa], vol.
1 [1-14 Prak[a.bar]sa] critically edited by Rew[a.bar]pras[a.bar]da
Dwived[I.bar] and Sad[a.bar]givakum[a.bar]ra Dwived[I.bar]. New Delhi:
Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts; Varanasi:
K[a.bar]lid[a.bar]sasamsth[a.bar]na, 2007.
Thieme, Paul. 1935. P[a.bar]nini and the Veda: Studies in the Early
History of Linguistic Science in India. Allahabad: Globe Press.
PETER SCHARF BROWN UNIVERSITY
