World Sanskrit Conference (WSC) (17th : 2018)

French Grammars of Sanskrit and Word-Class Systems Aussant, Émilie 2019

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata


70440-Aussant_Emilie_French_grammars_2019.pdf [ 770.84kB ]
JSON: 70440-1.0379844.json
JSON-LD: 70440-1.0379844-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 70440-1.0379844-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 70440-1.0379844-rdf.json
Turtle: 70440-1.0379844-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 70440-1.0379844-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 70440-1.0379844-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

 French Grammars of Sanskrit and Word-Class Systems  Émilie Aussant Proceedings of the 17th World Sanskrit Conference, Vancouver, Canada, July 9-13, 2018, Section 3: Vyākaraṇa.  Section Convenors: Malhar Kulkarni and Peter Scharf
General Editor: Adheesh Sathaye Published by the Department of Asian Studies, University of British Columbia, on behalf of the International Association for Sanskrit Studies. DOI: 10.14288/1.0379844.
URI: Suggested Citation Format: MLA:
Aussant, Émilie. “French Grammars of Sanskrit and Word-Class Systems.” Proceedings of the 17th World Sanskrit Conference, Vancouver, Canada, July 9-13, 2018, Section 3: Vyākaraṇa. Edited by Malhar Kulkarni and Peter Scharf, 2019. DOI: 10.14288/1.0379844. APA:
Aussant, É. (2019). French grammars of Sanskrit and word-class systems. In M. Kulkarni  and P. Scharf (eds.) Proceedings of the 17th World Sanskrit Conference, Vancouver, Canada, July 9-13, 2018, Section 3: Vyākaraṇa. DOI: 10.14288/1.0379844. Chicago:
Aussant, Émilie. 2019. “French Grammars of Sanskrit and Word-Class Systems.” In Proceedings of the 17th World Sanskrit Conference, Vancouver, Canada, July 9-13, 2018, Section 3: Vyākaraṇa, edited by Malhar Kulkarni and Peter Scharf. DOI: 10.14288/1.0379844. Proceedings of the 17th World Sanskrit Conference, July 9-13, 2018 University of British Columbia, Vancouver, CanadaTHE   17TH    WORLD   SANSKRIT  CONFERENCEVANCOUVER, CANADA • JULY 9-13, 2018Copyright © 2019 by the author. Content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).वैधुसव ्मकबुंटुकअ ारा यसं तृा यनसमवायःINTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SANSKRIT STUDIES THE 17TH WORLD SANSKRIT CONFERENCE, VANCOUVER, CANADA, JULY 9-13, 2018 French Grammars of Sanskrit and Word-Class Systems Émilie Aussant CNRS UMR 7597 HTL, Université de Paris,  Paris, France. Abstract French grammars of Sanskrit – and, more broadly, Western grammars of San-skrit – bring two different languages face to face (Sanskrit and French) but also two different descriptive models as well as two different metalanguages, both resulting from secular practices and thinking. Given this framework, two ques-tions arise which constitute the main lines of thought which underlie the reflec-tion within which the present study falls: how have French grammars of Sanskrit navigated between these two descriptive models and metalanguages, while at the same time dealing with word classifications? And what does this tell us about “Extended Sanskrit Grammar”? To answer both these questions, a very brief overview of word classifications elaborated by ancient Indian scholars for San-skrit is given as a first step; then, as a second step, a synthesis of the various con-figurations one finds in French grammars of Sanskrit with concrete illustrations is presented. Keywords: Word-Class System; Vyākaraṇa; French grammars of Sanskrit; Ex-tended Sanskrit Grammar. Introduction The analysis of language into units seems to have been fundamental in all tradi-tions of language study. Yet, classifying words is an activity which is neither self-explanatory nor consistent: the classifier has an epistemological aim (i.e. some-thing to explain) and we must consider the regularities (in other words, the classes) established on this basis. Epistemological aims have varied greatly throughout history, from one tradition of language study to another as well as within one and the same tradition. Even today, category-assignment and the nature of categories (language-particular categories vs. pre-established – hence, universal – categories) are hotly debated topics in descriptive linguistics and linguistic typology. Proceedings of the 17th World Sanskrit Conference, Vancouver, Canada, July 9-13 2018, Section 3: Vyākaraṇa, edited by Malhar Kulkarni and Peter Scharf, 2019. DOI: 10.14288/1.0379844. AUSSANT 2In a paper presented on the occasion of the 14th International Conference on the History of the Language Sciences (see Aussant 2020), I studied, from the perspective of “Extended Sanskrit Grammar,”  how some word classes elaborated 1by ancient Indian scholars for Sanskrit were transferred to Hindi and Ma-layalam. Here, I consider how French grammars describing Sanskrit have re-sorted to word classes elaborated by ancient Indian scholars for Sanskrit.  We 2are still in line with the “Extended Sanskrit Grammar” perspective, but now I take a different angle: French grammars of Sanskrit – and, more broadly, West-ern grammars of Sanskrit – bring two different languages face-to-face (the lan-guage described, i.e. Sanskrit, and the language of description, French in the present case) but also two different descriptive models as well as two different metalanguages (the Vyākaraṇic model and its metalanguage and the Graeco-Latin model and its metalanguage), both resulting from secular practices and thinking. Given this framework, two questions arise which constitute the main lines of thought which underlie the reflection within which the present study falls: how have French grammars of Sanskrit navigated between these two de-scriptive models and metalanguages, while at the same time dealing with word classifications? And what does this tell us about “Extended Sanskrit Grammar”? To answer both these questions, I give, as a first step, a very brief overview of word classifications elaborated, by ancient Indian scholars, for Sanskrit; then, as a second step, I present a synthesis of the various configurations one finds in French grammars of Sanskrit with concrete illustrations.   For a general presentation of “Extended Sanskrit Grammar” and a description of the 1current state of the art, see Aussant 2017. For a general presentation of the reception of the Vyākaraṇic descriptive model in 2French grammars of Sanskrit, see Aussant forthcoming. French Grammars of Sanskrit and Word-Class Systems 31. Overview of word-class systems elaborated for Sanskrit in Sanskrit When one looks at word classifications elaborated in Sanskrit scholarly disci-plines dealing with language,  one observes, among other things, that:  3 41) There is a wide range of word classifications.  2) These word classifications are based on different criteria: mainly se-mantic, formal and pragmatic. 3) Words – and nouns especially – are more often classified according to semantic criteria. 4) Among the Sanskrit scholarly disciplines dealing with language (see note 3), grammar resorts to the widest range of word classifications (semantic, formal, pragmatic). Though these classifications are not mu-tually exclusive, as far as I know, there is no attempt, in grammar, at a global classification that attempts to include the various word-class sys-tems into one single system. 5) Some word classifications have circulated among these disciplines and have been diversely re-used, with or without change, and/or have been merged – outside grammar – with another classification. One may mention an example coming from dialectics. Dialecticians mainly devel-oped two classifications of nouns: one according to kinds of noun-object relation and one according to what causes the application of a noun (a classification which originates from grammar). In his Śabdaśakti-prakāśikā, Jagadīśa, a dialectician of the late 16th century, combined both classifications in a general word-class system which even includes grammatical categories: see Figure 1 (diagram borrowed from Matilal 1975).  5 Padapāṭhas, phonetics (Śikṣā), metrics (Chandas), grammar (Vyākaraṇa), semantic 3explanation (Nirvacana, Nirukta), Vedic hermeneutics (Mīmāṃsā), lexicography (Nighaṇṭu and later, Kośa), poetics (Alaṃkāra) and dialectics (Nyāya). For a detailed study of the various word classifications elaborated in Sanskrit scholarly 4disciplines dealing with language, see Aussant 2016. The classification based on the kinds of noun-object relation is underlined, the classifi5 -cation based on the cause of application is in capital letters and grammatical cate-gories – mainly based on formal criteria – are in bold type. AUSSANT 4Figure 1. This kind of mixed classification is particularly interesting for it ties in with what we very often find in grammars resulting from a transfer. In some grammars of Hindi, Bengali or Malayalam which are modelled on the grammati-cal description of Sanskrit, indeed, one observes a fairly clear trend which con-sists in combining word-class systems based on different criteria.  A noteworthy 6feature of these mixed classifications is that, though the majority of the distinct word-class systems they merge with were developed within the scope of Sanskrit grammar (Vyākaraṇa), some come from other Sanskrit scholarly disciplines dealing with language (dialectics and poetics,  among others) or even from an7 -other grammatical tradition entirely (Tamil). Now, what is the situation in French grammars of Sanskrit, which navi-gate between the Graeco-Latin model/metalanguage and the Vyākaraṇic model/metalanguage?  See Aussant 2020 for more details.6 For instance, in Rājā Shivprasād Sitār-e-Hind’s Hindī vyākaraṇa (1875), one finds a class 7of meaningful words (sārthak) – presumably opposed to a class of non-meaningful words – which is subdivided into denotative (vācak) and connotative (lakshak), both terms which originate from Sanskrit poetics. French Grammars of Sanskrit and Word-Class Systems 52. Word-class systems in French grammars of Sanskrit Before addressing the data, I have to say a word regarding the corpus studied here. The present study is based on 22 French grammars of Sanskrit for which I was able to find references. It goes without saying that French studies of San-skrit language are inextricably tied to French and Western Linguistics, as well as to French and Western Oriental Studies, both these fields of research having a long and complex history. These strong ties with different disciplines and with different Western approaches (German, English, etc.) make the corpus of French grammars an excellent entry point to study the way Western grammars of San-skrit navigated between descriptive models and metalanguages while they were dealing with word classifications.  8The table below (Table 1) presents the data I have found in the 22 gram-mars. It has one row per grammar and four columns, each of these correspond-ing to one of the four structures of word classifications I have identified:  1) The “fully exclusive use of one word-class system” column includes grammars where the Graeco-Latin or the Sanskrit model/metalanguage is exclusively used. 2) The “partially exclusive use of one word-class system” column includes grammars where, for instance, the Graeco-Latin model/metalanguage is exclusively used for verbs while compounds are exclusively classified according to the Sanskrit model/metalanguage. 3) The “juxtaposition of word-class systems” column includes grammars where different models/metalanguages are successively mentioned with-out being interconnected.  94) The “amalgamation of word-class systems” column includes gram-mars where different models/metalanguages are interconnected. NB: superscript numbers added to X are not references to footnotes but references to explanations and examples given below the table.  Some incursions in Western grammars of Sanskrit written in languages other than 8French show that the approaches are fully comparable. For an illustration coming from the Latin grammatical tradition, see Taylor 1991: 89-90.9 AUSSANT 6Table 1. Grammar Fully exclusive use of one word-class system Partially exclusive use of one word-class systemJuxtaposition of word-class systemsAmalgamation of word-class systemsDe la Syntaxe, Father Jean-François Pons, 1730 (?)X1Notes grammaticales sur le sanscrit, Claude Fauriel, 1802-1843 (?)X  (Graeco-Latin word-class system)Grammaire sanscrite-française, Alix Desgranges, 1845-47X2 X3Abrégé de grammaire sanscrite dicté par E. Burnouf, Eugène Burnouf, 1824X4 X5Grammaire sanscrite. Résumé élémentaire de la théorie des formes grammaticales en sanscrit, Frédéric Baudry, 1853X (e.g. separate classes for adjectives and pronouns)X (declensions)Méthode pour étudier la langue sanscrite, Émile-Louis Burnouf and L. Leupol, 1859X6 X (suffixes)Grammaire sanscrite, Jules Oppert, 1859X (e.g. Sanskrit classification of compounds)X  (present-stem formations)X  (declensions) French Grammars of Sanskrit and Word-Class Systems 7Grammaire abrégée de la langue sanscrite, Léon Rodet, 1859-60X  (e.g. presentation of declensions according to the Greek model)X  (present-stem formations)Grammaire pratique de la langue sanscrite, Charles de Harlez, 1878X  (e.g. Sanskrit classification of compounds)X  (present-stem formations)Manuel pour étudier la langue sanscrite. Chrestomathie, lexique, principes de grammaire, Abel Bergaigne, 1884X  (Graeco-Latin word-class system)Éléments de sanscrit classique, Victor Henry, 1902X  (Graeco-Latin word-class system + see X7)X7  Grammaire élémentaire de la langue sanscrite comparée avec celle des langues indo-européennes, Albert Joseph Carnoy, 1925X  (Graeco-Latin word-class system, with the exceptional mention of the Sanskrit ten classes of present-stem formations)X (present-stem formations)Grammaire sanscrite, Louis Renou, 1930X8 (compounds, indeclinables, derivatives, nouns, verbal endings, present-stem formations)Grammar Fully exclusive use of one word-class system Partially exclusive use of one word-class systemJuxtaposition of word-class systemsAmalgamation of word-class systems AUSSANT 8Grammaire élémentaire du sanscrit classique, Henri Courbin, 1931X  (Graeco-Latin word-class system, see X9)X9Saṃskṛtaṃ vyākaraṇam, René Daumal, 1934-44X (e.g. separate class for adjectives)X (present-stem formations)Précis de grammaire du sanscrit classique, Adriaan Scharpé, 1945  X (e.g. separate classes for adjectives and pronouns)X  (present-stem formations)Grammaire sanskrite élémentaire, Louis Renou, 1946X10 Grammaire du sanskrit, Jean Varenne, 1971X (e.g. Sanskrit classification of compounds vs thematic/athematic declensions and conjugations)Grammaire sanskrite pāṇinéenne, Pierre-Sylvain Filliozat, 1988X (Sanskrit word-class systems with the exceptional mention, regarding the verb, of the thematic/athematic distinction – see X11)X11 Éléments de grammaire sanskrite – Gīrvāṇa-bhāṣā, La langue des dieux, Vasundhara Filliozat, 1998X (Sanskrit word-class systems)Grammar Fully exclusive use of one word-class system Partially exclusive use of one word-class systemJuxtaposition of word-class systemsAmalgamation of word-class systems French Grammars of Sanskrit and Word-Class Systems 9X1: In his description of Sanskrit compounds, Father Pons exclusively resorts to Sanskrit classification.  Particularly noteworthy is his juxtaposition of two San10 -skrit classifications of compounds: the first classification, which is introduced by the sentence “Le samāsa se divise généralement en quatre espèces” (p.30, “Samāsas are generally divided into four kinds”),  distinguishes between 11nityasamāsa (“necessary compound”), anityasamāsa (“non-necessary compound”),  12lug[sic]samāsa (“compound where the case-affix is elided before the final mem-ber”) and alug[sic]samāsa (“compound where the case-affix is not elided before Grammaire élémentaire et pratique du sanskrit classique, Sylvain Brocquet, 2010X (e.g. Sanskrit classification of compounds)X (declensions and present-stem formations)Le sanskrit, Nalini Balbir, 2013X (e.g. separate classes for adjectives and pronouns, syntax; Sanskrit classification of compounds)X (present stem-formations)Grammar Fully exclusive use of one word-class system Partially exclusive use of one word-class systemJuxtaposition of word-class systemsAmalgamation of word-class systems Note that Father Pons made a Latin (shortened) translation of the Saṃkṣiptasāra (see J. 10Filliozat 1937). His general description of Sanskrit illustrates the “partially exclusive use of one word-class system” for, in his Sanskrit grammar written in Latin, he has a separate chapter for pronouns (De pronominibus) (J. Filliozat 1937: 278). Pages are those of the manuscript digitized by Gallica.11 Anitya-samāsa is used by Pāṇini (A 6.1.169); he also uses nityam in relation to compounds 12(A 2.2.17-19). But nitya-samāsa seems to have been used for the first time by Patañjali, in his commentary on the vārttika 4 ad A 2.2.19. The couple nityasamāsa-anityasamāsa seems to have been used for the first time in the Kāśikāvṛtti ad A 6.1.169. AUSSANT 10the final member”).  The second classification, introduced by the sentence “Mais 13pour donner une connaissance plus exacte du samāsa on le divise plus partic-ulièrement en six espèces […]” (p.30, “In order to provide a more precise under-standing of samāsas one divides them into six kinds […]”), distinguishes between tatpuruṣa samāsaḥ, karmadhāraya samāsaḥ, dvigou [dvigu] samāsaḥ, dvandva samāsaḥ, bahu brīhi [bahuvrīhi] samāsaḥ, and avyaya bhāvaḥ [avyayībhāva]. All these terms are already used by Pāṇini but, in his grammar, some of them de-note subcategories of compounds: karmadhāraya (i.e., appositional determina-tive compounds) constitute a subcategory of tatpuruṣa compounds, and dvigu (i.e. determinative compounds), with a numeral as the first member, constitute a subcategory of karmadhāraya compounds. This hierarchy has not always been preserved by later grammarians, who simply mentioned karmadhāraya and dvigu compounds on an equal footing with the other compounds. Note that native classification of Sanskrit compounds has varied greatly (even within the Pāṇinian school) and it is not always easy to trace its develop-ments. As mentioned above, Pāṇini (as well as some non-Pāṇinian grammarians like Candra) distinguishes between four classes of compounds on the basis of semantics,  while Kauṇḍabhaṭṭa distinguishes, on the basis of morphology, six 14classes of compounds (cf. Bṛhadvaiyākaraṇabhūṣaṇa p.143). X2: Desgranges, who is particularly sensitive to the native view of the language, very often follows Sanskrit classifications.  One can easily assess this while look15 -ing at the list of Sanskrit metalinguistic terms Desgranges gives in his Prolegom-ena (vol. 1: XXV-XLII). A good example is the classification of nouns – very likely of vernacular origin – given on p. xxxix, which distinguishes between dravyavācaka  The elision (luk-) of endings before the final member of a compound is prescribed by A 132.4.71 and aluk- (“non-elision”) is used in reference to compounds in A 6.3.1. But I could not find the first occurrence of the couple luksamāsa-aluksamāsa. Note that this first fourfold classification already juxtaposes two different classifications: the nityasamāsa-anityasamāsa classification which is based on a semantic criterion (the meaning of a necessary compound cannot be grasped by the corresponding analytical sentence) and the luksamāsa-aluksamāsa classification which is based on a morphological criterion (the elision or the non-elision of case affix of the first member of the compound). According to Patañjali (cf. Mahābhāṣya ad A 2.1.6), the difference between the four 14classes of compounds is correlated to the distribution of the semantic predominance of compound components. Desgranges follows occasionally Western classifications, as in the passage dealing with 15indeclinables (vol. 2: 269). French Grammars of Sanskrit and Word-Class Systems 11“nom commun, substantif” (“common noun, substantive”), nāmavācaka “nom propre, substantif ” (“proper name, substantive”), saṃghavācaka “nom collectif” (“collective noun”), bhāvavācaka “nom abstrait” (“abstract noun”), prāṇivācaka “noms d’êtres animés” (“nouns for animate beings”), aprāṇivācaka “noms d’êtres inanimés” (“nouns for inanimate beings”) and kriyāvācaka “nom verbal” (“verbal noun”). One finds this classification – or a very similar one – in Carey (1805: 30) as well as in Rev. Adam (1837: 6-7), but I have not yet been able to identify its source.  X3: In different places, Desgranges amalgamates Sanskrit and Graeco-Latin word-class systems and says this openly. A good example is provided in the 2nd vol., p.1:  Les Indous ont fait deux classes [de mots dérivés] : la première, celle des dérivés de dhatous immédiatement, et compris tous sous la dénomina-tion de kṛdanta […] ; la deuxième, celle des dérivés de mots quelconques autres que les dhatous eux-mêmes et compris sous la dénomination de taddhita. Dans chaque classe les mots sont rangés en liste, chacun sous son affixe, sans plus de distinction  ; mais dans les grammaires eu-ropéennes on a établi des subdivisions, qui sans nuire au système indou, rendent plus claire et plus facile le développement des règles. Les mots qui dans nos grammaires constituent le mode infinitif, sont en sanscrit tout simplement quelques-uns d’entre les kṛdanta  ; mais comme ils ont des rapports directs et spéciaux chacun avec un temps du verbe, et qu’ils traduisent nos participes, tandis que les autres dérivés répondent seule-ment à l’idée que présente le dhatou, et qu’ils ne sont que de simples mots ou noms verbaux [footnote: Nomina verbalia, dit Ramus], on a jugé convenable d’en faire deux parts  : la première sous la dénomination connue et adoptée de participes [footnote: Participium, dit Quintilien], auxquels on adjoint l’infinitif ; la deuxième sous la dénomination de par-ticipiaux, dénomination semblable à la précédente, assignée à ces mots dans des grammaires antérieures à celle-ci, et acceptée par Chézy.   16“Hindus distinguish between two classes [of derivative words]: the first one [gathers together words] directly derived from dhātus and all desig-nated by kṛdanta […]; the second one [gathers together words] derived  Participiaux include: 1) agent nouns, 2) attributives of possession or of aptitude, etc., 3) 16substantives immediately derived from the root, 4) different nouns derived with the help of uṇādi affixes. AUSSANT 12from any word other than dhātus and designated by taddhita. In each class, words are listed, each of them under its affix, without further dis-tinction; but in European grammars, subdivisions have been established which make the development of rules clearer and easier without affect-ing the Hindu system. Words which in our grammars represent the in-finitive mood are simply some of the kṛdantas in Sanskrit. But as each of them have direct and special relations with a verb tense and as they con-vey our participles whereas the other derivatives correspond to the idea expressed by the dhātu only and are simple words or verbal nouns [Nomi-na verbalia, as Ramus says], it has been deemed appropriate to categorise them in two parts: the first one designated by the known and accepted [word] participles [Participium, as Quintilian says ] and within which the infinitive falls; the second one designated by participiaux, a name similar with the previous one, which is given to these words in former gram-mars and approved by Chézy.” X4: In Burnouf's Abrégé, a feature common to almost all French grammars of Sanskrit can be noted, that is a chapter (or a section) specifically devoted to ad-jectives (p.26 and following), a grammatical category which does not exist in na-tive Sanskrit grammar  and which is a pure product of the “extended Latin 17grammar.” The same often applies for pronouns (as in Burnouf's Abrégé, p.30 and following), which are presented in a separate section in French grammars of Sanskrit whereas native Sanskrit grammars include them in the noun category. On the other hand, Burnouf closely follows the native classification of verbs in ten conjugations (p.36 and following).  18X5: Burnouf, like many other French authors of Sanskrit grammars, amalga-mates Sanskrit and Graeco-Latin declensional classifications. He distinguishes between five kinds of declensions (p.11):   Adjectives and substantives have the same inflexion in Sanskrit, the chief difference 17between them being that the former class has three gender variants. Pāṇini neverthe-less uses the terms viśeṣaṇa (“qualifier”) and viśeṣya (“qualified”) in one rule (A 2.1.57) to distinguish the qualifier and the qualified in compounds such as nīla-utpala “blue lo-tus.” Patañjali, one of the commentators on Pāṇini, introduces two terms which will continue to be used thereafter: guṇa-vacana “which expresses quality” and dravya-va-cana “which expresses substance.” Sanskrit grammarians distinguish between ten root classes, differentiated by the for18 -mation of the present tense stem. French Grammars of Sanskrit and Word-Class Systems 13Il y a cinq déclinaisons dont quatre se terminent par des voyelles et une par des consonnes, quelques substantifs se terminent par des diph-tongues mais ils sont irréguliers. “There are five declensions, four of which end with a vowel and one ends in consonants; some substantives end with diphthongs but they are ir-regular.” Burnouf 's first declension (given on p.12) includes masculine nouns end-ing in “ah” (a-stems), feminine nouns ending in “ā” (ā-stems) and neuter ending in “am” (a-stems). The second declension (given on p.13) includes nouns ending in “i” (i-stems) or “ou” (u-stems). The third declension (given on p.14) includes nouns ending in “ī” (ī-stems) or “oū” (ū-stems) which are almost all feminine. The fourth declension (given p.16) includes nouns ending in “ṛi” (ṛ-stems). The fifth declension (given p.17 and p.20-22) includes nouns ending in a consonant, which can be a guttural, a palatal, a velar, a dental, “an,” “in,” a labial, “r,” “ś,” “s.” Like most Latin declensional classifications,  Burnouf's classification focuses exclu19 -sively on one formal criterion (stem-endings); gender – though mentioned – plays no role in the classification, contrary to the Sanskrit tradition of topically organised grammars,  which bases declensional classification upon both stem-20 For an overview of Latin declensional classifications, see Taylor 1991 and Colombat 191999: 281-337. Pāṇini's Aṣṭādhyāyī consists in a derivational model of a highly technical nature, made 20up of approximately 4,000 rules (sūtra) and which includes numerous metalinguistic rules (metarules, rules related to technical terms, headings). Due to the need for a more practical and pedagogical grammar and to a divergence of opinion regarding theoretical issues, some grammarians moved away from Pāṇini’s work. That is how an arrangement of grammatical rules by topic emerged, as well as a reduction (or even a suppression) of the metalinguistic tools and the removal of rules teaching purely Vedic forms. As far as one knows, grammars arranged by topic firstly appeared in the Bud-dhist and Jaina spheres (that is to say outside the Pāṇinian school which is of Brah-manical or Hindu tradition), after Sanskrit versions of their canonical texts were adopted. AUSSANT 14endings and gender.  From Sanskrit declensional classifications, Burnouf re21 -tains – in addition to stem-endings – the Sanskrit order of declensions (which follows Sanskrit alphabetical order: a, i, u, ṛ and the corresponding long vowels). X6: In their Préface (p. iv-xi), (É.-L.) Burnouf and Leupol state explicitly their methodological choices, for instance on pages iv-vi:  On eût pu dédoubler la sixième [déclinaison], distinguer les parisyl-labiques des imparisyllabiques, et rentrer entièrement dans le système de la déclinaison grecque; mais la division indienne s'applique mieux que toute autre au sanscrit. Elle est très simple en elle-même; elle souf-fre moins d'exceptions que quelque autre que ce soit; elle répond d'ailleurs assez bien au latin et au grec: nous l'avons donc adoptée. De plus, suivant l'idée très-juste des Indiens, nous avons réuni sous un même titre les substantifs, les adjectifs et tous les mots indéclinables: ces mots ont logiquement une origine commune [...]. Mais la conjugai-son des verbes sanscrits est présentée par nous tout autrement qu'elle ne l'est en Allemagne [...où] on a conservé intégralement les habitudes des savants indous. [...] nous avons la certitude de n'avoir fait qu'adopter l'ordre naturel, en rendant la conjugaison sanscrite conforme à celle du grec et du latin. “One could have split the sixth [declension], distinguished between pari-syllabics and imparisyllabics and fully fit it into the system of Greek de-clension; but the Indian division better applies to Sanskrit than any oth-er. It is very simple in itself; it has fewer exceptions than any other; it is quite well adapted to Latin and Greek: we have therefore adopted it. Moreover, following the very accurate idea of the Indians, we have in-cluded substantives, adjectives and all the indeclinable words under one and the same title: these words obviously have a common origin. [...] But we present the conjugation of Sanskrit verbs in a very different way  Though the notion of grammatical gender is very ancient in Sanskrit grammatical 21texts, it was used – as a criterion to classify nouns – very sparingly until the 10th c. We find, in the Aṣṭādhyāyī and the Kātantra, among others, a few technical terms to desig-nate masculine or feminine stems ending in -i/ī or -u/ū, as well as operations (elision or substitution of nominal endings according to the gender and the phonological form of the stem). But the use of gender, combined with stem-ending, as a criterion for classifying nouns appears for the first time in Dharmakīrti’s Rūpāvatāra, a Sanskrit grammar of the 10th century (?), topically organised. It is commonly used in grammars – such as the Rūpāvatāra – which rearrange the order of Pāṇini’s rules.  French Grammars of Sanskrit and Word-Class Systems 15than it is presented in Germany [...where] the habits of Indian scholars have been fully retained. [...] by bringing Sanskrit declension into line with Greek and Latin declension, we are confident that we have adopted the natural order.” The quotation is self-explanatory. X7: Regarding word-class systems, Henry does not resort to native models. Only once, on p. 104, does he mention the Sanskrit ten verbal-class system in the fol-lowing terms:  Le type en -cha n'est pas compté par les grammairiens indigènes comme une classe à part. À titre de renseignement, on indiquera ici en termi-nant leur classification, tout arbitraire d'ailleurs et sans aucune valeur scientifique [suivent les dix classes]. “Type -cha is not considered by native grammarians as a separate class. For illustrative purposes, we will end by giving their classification here, which is, as it happens, fully arbitrary and without any scientific value [the ten classes follow].” X8: Renou explicitly resorts to Indian grammatical texts – he claims to follow the Pāṇinian school but does not restrict himself to it and quotes other works – as well as to Western studies on Sanskrit, such as Wackernagel’s grammar. These distinct sources are harmoniously put together, on an equal footing and from this synthesis – which takes place in a structuralist scientific context – results a complete synchronic description of the Sanskrit language.  The following pas22 -sage, though not dealing with a classification of words but with a classification of word components, provides a good illustration of Renou's approach (1996: 400-402):  Les désinences comportent deux séries, la série primaire qui sert pour les temps primaires, le présent proprement dit à l'indicatif et le futur ; la série secondaire pour l'imparfait, l'aoriste, le conditionnel, l'optatif ; parfait et impératif ont en partie des désinences spéciales. [...] Les dési-nences (P. vibhakti tiṅ)  et affixes verbaux sont classés par les gr. en sār23 -vadhātuka “qui s'attache au radical entier (= au thème),” soit, approxima-tivement, les affixes du présent et toutes désinences, sauf celles du par- This does not have an equivalent in the West, except Whitney’s grammar.22 P stands for Pāṇini.23 AUSSANT 16fait et du précatif – et en ārdhadhātuka “qui s'attache au demi-radical (= à la racine)” pour les autres caractéristiques, soit en gros les systèmes ex-térieurs au présent.   24“Endings include two series, the primary series which is used for prima-ry tenses, the present strictly speaking in the indicative mood and the future; the secondary series for the imperfect, the aorist, the condition-al, the optative; perfect and imperative mood have partly distinct end-ings. [...] Endings (P. vibhakti tiṅ) and verbal affixes are classified by the gr[ammarians] as sārvadhātuka ‘which is connected to the entire root (= to the stem),’ that is to say, approximately, the present affixes and all the endings except perfect and precative endings – and as ārdhadhātuka ‘which is connected to the half of the root (= to the root)’ for the other characteristics, in other words, broadly speaking, the systems other than present.” X9: Courbin mainly follows the Graeco-Latin word-class system. He resorts to Sanskrit metalinguistic terminology on two occasions only: firstly in his section on the Sanskrit sound system (where he uses guṇa and vṛddhi among others), secondly in the chapter devoted to compounds, where he mixes Western and Sanskrit approaches (p.109-112) and distinguishes between: “composés copulat-ifs (type dit dvandva, couple)” (“copulative compounds – the so-called dvandva type, couple”); “composés distributifs” (“distributive compounds”);  “composés 25appositifs” (“appositive compounds”);  “composés de dépendance (type dit tat26 -puruṣa)” (“dependency compounds – the so-called tatpuruṣa type”); “composés possessifs (type dit bahuvrīhi)” (“possessive compounds – the so-called bahuvrīhi type”) and “composés de composés” (“compounds of compounds”). X10: In this grammar which describes the basic characteristics of the Sanskrit language, Renou resorts to both the native and the Graeco-Latin models. The most salient features are the following: from the native (Pāṇinian) model, he re-tains the classification of words into two main categories (nouns and verbs), but he adds a third section, devoted to the sentence, a section which does not come from the native model; another Pāṇinian feature is the inclusion of indeclinables  For more details about sārvadhātuka and ārdhadhātuka, see Shefts 1961: 13-16, Cardona 241980: 198 and Chatterji 2003: 50-55. Ex.: ekaika “one by one.”25 Ex.: dīrghasattra “long sacrifice.”26 French Grammars of Sanskrit and Word-Class Systems 17(“invariants”) in the noun category. The description of the verb category seems more to follow the Graeco-Latin model. X11: P.-S. Filliozat gives (p.107), side by side, the traditional Sanskrit list of ten verbal classes and the corresponding Western designation for each class, for in-stance: “1. bhvādi vikaraṇa śap (présent thématique sans affixe à degré plein)” (“1. bhū- etc. [with the] modifier śap = thematic present without affix and with sec-ond vocalic grade”). Elsewhere, one more often finds juxtapositions of different native classifications, as on p.64-65, where P.-S. Filliozat mentions the different subclasses of pada (“word”) according to the criterion of definition (formal crite-rion: two subclasses, subanta “nouns” and tiṅanta “verbs”; semantic criterion: dravya “[which refers to a] substance,” guṇa “[which refers to a] quality,” kriyā “[which refers to an] action”; logical criterion: jāti “[which has a] generic property [as cause of application (pravṛtti-nimitta)],” guṇa “[which has a] quality [as cause of application],” kriyā “[which has an] action [as cause of application],” yadṛcchā “[which has the] wish of the speaker [as cause of application]”). Conclusion The table given above shows a clear tendency to establish a kind of synthesis of ancient Indian and Western approaches, a conclusion already reached in a pre-vious study (see Aussant forthcoming). Among the 22 grammars studied, indeed, only seven exclusively use one word-class system (but even in some of these grammars, things are not always clear-cut, as we have seen). Now, how did the remaining 15 French grammars of Sanskrit navigate between the two descriptive models and metalanguages, while at the same time dealing with word classifica-tions? Three different attitudes can be observed: 1) a distribution of word-class systems according to the categories under consideration (most frequently: San-skrit classification for compounds and Graeco-Latin classification for verbs); 2) a juxtaposition of word-class systems which juxtaposes native and Western classi-fications, the contrast being positively or negatively emphasized; 3) an amalga-mation of word-class systems which mixes native and Western classifications. As mentioned in the first section of this paper, this structure is observable with-in the Indian tradition of language studies (Sanskrit or other Indian languages) itself. It would be interesting to know if this was practised within other gram-matical traditions or linguistic spheres. Lastly, what does this tell us about “Ex-tended Sanskrit Grammar”? In some cases (Father Jean-François Pons, Des-granges, Burnouf, and P.-S. Filliozat), it can be observed that the “Sanskrit”  AUSSANT 18word-class systems resorted to are not Pāṇinian. This phenomenon confirms the idea that the path of the transfers did not start only, or directly, from the Pāṇin-ian model: it often took complex routes where different native models were in-tertwined. Acknowledgments I warmly thank Prof. George Cardona as well as Peter M. Scharf for their kind help. Bibliography Primary sources Adam, Rev. M.T. 1837 [1827]. A Hindee Grammar for the instruction of the young in the form of easy questions and answers. Calcutta, School-Book Society Press. Balbir, Nalini. 2013. Le sanskrit. Chennevières-sur-Marne: Assimil. Baudry, Frédéric. 1853. Grammaire sanscrite; Résumé élémentaire de la théorie des formes grammaticales en sanscrit. Paris: Durand. Bergaigne, Abel. 1966 [1884]. Manuel pour étudier la langue sanscrite; Chrestomathie, lexique, principes de grammaire. Paris: Champion. Bhaṭṭoji Dīkṣita. 1995 [1906]. The Siddhānta Kaumudī of Bhaṭṭoji Dīkṣita, edited and translated by Śrīśa Chandra Vasu, 2 vol.. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Bopp, Franz. 1832. Grammatica critica linguae sanscritae. Berolini: Dummler (digi-tized by the Digital Library of India: Brocquet, Sylvain. 2010. Grammaire élémentaire et pratique du sanskrit classique. Bruxelles: Safran. Burnouf, Émile-Louis & Leupol, L. 1859. Méthode pour étudier la langue sanscrite. Paris: Duprat. Burnouf, Eugène. 1824. Abrégé de grammaire sanscrite dicté par E. Burnouf. MS 160. Paris: Bibliothèque Victor Cousin. Candragomin. 1918. Candra-vṛtti, der original Kommentar Candragomin’s zu seinem grammatischen Sūtra. Herausgegeben von Bruno Liebich. Abhandlungen fuer die Kunde des Morgenlandes, 14. Leipzig: Brockhaus. Carey, William. 1805 [1801]. A Grammar of the Bengalee Language. The Second Edition, with Additions. Serampore: The Mission Press.  French Grammars of Sanskrit and Word-Class Systems 19Carnoy, Albert Joseph. 1925. Grammaire élémentaire de la langue sanscrite comparée avec celle des langues indo-européennes. Louvain: Universitas. Courbin, Henri. 1931. Grammaire élémentaire du sanscrit classique. 2 vol. Paris: Mai-sonneuve. Daumal, René. 1934-44. Saṃskṛtaṃ vyākaraṇam. MS (facsimile reprint: 1985, Pa-ris: L’Originel). Desgranges, Alix. 1845-47. Grammaire sanscrite-française. 2 vol. (1st vol.: 1845, 2nd vol.: 1847). Paris: Imprimerie royale.   Fauriel, Claude. 1802-43 (?). Notes grammaticales sur le sanscrit. MS 2334/4. Paris: Institut de France. Filliozat, Pierre-Sylvain. 1988. Grammaire sanskrite pāṇinéenne. Paris: Picard. Filliozat, Vasundhara. 1998. Éléments de grammaire sanskrite; Gīrvāṇa-bhāṣā, La langue des dieux. Palaiseau: Āgamāt. de Harlez, Charles. 1878. Grammaire pratique de la langue sanscrite. Paris: Leroux. Henry, Victor. 1975 [1902]. Éléments de sanscrit classique. Paris: Maisonneuve. Jagadīśa. 1934. Śabdaśaktiprakāśikā, edited by D. Sastri with two commentaries. Kashi Sanskrit Series 109. Benares: Chaukhamba Sanskrit Series Office. Jayāditya and Vāmana. 1985. Kāśikāvṛtti of Jayāditya-Vāmana (Along with Commenta-ries Nyāsa of Jinendrabuddhi and Padamañjarī of Haradatta Miśra), 6 vols., edi-ted by Dr. Srīnārāyaṇa Misra. Varanasi: Ratna Publications. Kātyāyana. 1880-85. Vārttikas, edited along with the Mahābhāṣya of Patañjali (see below). Kauṇḍabhaṭṭa. 1985. Bṛhadvaiyākaraṇabhūṣaṇa, edited with Rupālī, Notes and Appendix by Pt. Manudeva Bhaṭṭachārya. Varanasi: Chaukhamba Ama-rabharati Prakashan. Oppert, Jules. 1864 [1859]. Grammaire sanscrite. Berlin: Springer / Paris: Maison-neuve & Cie.   Pāṇini. 1989. Aṣṭādhyāyī of Pāṇini. Roman Transliteration and English Translation by Sumitra M. Katre. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Patañjali. 1880-85. The Vyākaraṇa-Mahābhāṣya of Patañjali, edited by F. Kielhorn (vol. 1: 1st ed.: Bombay, 1880, 2nd ed.: 1892; vol. 2: 1st ed.: Bombay, 1883, 2nd ed.: 1906), revised and furnished with additional readings, references,  AUSSANT 20and select critical notes by K.V. Abhyankar (vol. 1: 3rd ed.: 1962, 4th ed.: 1985, reprint 2005; vol. 2: 3rd ed.: 1965, 4th ed.: 1996). Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. Pons, Jean-François (Father). 1730 (?). Syntaxe, ms 596 A, Paris, Bibliothèque na-tionale de France (digitized by Gallica: Rājā Shivprasād Sitār-e-Hind. 1875. Hindī vyākaraṇa – Hindī Grammar. Allahabad: Government Press. Renou, Louis. 1963 [1946]. Grammaire sanscrite élémentaire. Paris: Maisonneuve. ———. 1996 [1930]. Grammaire sanscrite. Paris: Maisonneuve. Rodet, Léon. 1859-60. Grammaire abrégée de la langue sanscrite. 2 vol. (1st vol.: 1859, 2nd vol.: 1860). Paris: Challamel.  Śarvavarman. 1987. Kātantra-Vyākaraṇa, edited by R.S. Saini. Delhi/Varanasi: Bharatiya Vidya Prakashan. Scharpé, Adriaan. 1945. Précis de grammaire du sanscrit classique. Vol. 1. Louvain: Vlaamsche Drukkerij. Varenne, Jean. 1979 [1971]. Grammaire du sanskrit. Paris: Presses universitaires de France. Secondary sources Aussant, Émilie. 2016. Classifications of words in traditional Sanskrit grammar and related disciplines. Habilitation Thesis, Paris Diderot University. Aussant, Émilie. 2017. “La Grammaire Sanskrite Étendue – État des lieux.” His-toire Épistémologie Langage 39.2: 7-20. Aussant, Émilie. 2020. “Extended Sanskrit Grammar and the classification of words.” In  “Extended Grammars,” edited by Émilie Aussant and Jean-Luc Chevillard. Special Issue, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft 30.1: 9-22. Aussant, Émilie. Forthcoming. “The Vyākaraṇic descriptive model and the French grammars of Sanskrit.” In Festschrift in honor of Georges-Jean Pinault, edited by H.A. Fellner, M. Malzahn and M. Peyrot. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave Press.  French Grammars of Sanskrit and Word-Class Systems 21Cardona, George. 1980 [1976]. Pāṇini: A Survey of Research. Delhi: Motilal Banarsi-dass. Chatterji, Kshitish Chandra. 2003 [1948]. Technical Terms and Technique of Sanskrit Grammar. Kolkata: Sanskrit Book Depot. Colombat, Bernard. 1999. La grammaire latine en France à la Renaissance et à l'Âge classique. Théories et pédagogie. Grenoble: Ellug. Filliozat, Jean. 1937. “Une grammaire sanscrite du XVIIIe siècle et les débuts de l’indianisme en France.” Journal Asiatique: 275-284. Matilal, Bimal Krishna. 1975. “Jāgadīśa’s Classification of Grammatical Catego-ries.” In Sanskrit and Indological Studies – Dr. V. Raghavan Felicitation Volume, R.N. Dandekar, R.K. Sharma, M. Mishra, Satyavrat & S.S. Janaki. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 221-229. Shefts, Betty. 1961. Grammatical Method in Pāṇini: His Treatment of Sanskrit Present Stems. New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society. Taylor, Daniel J. 1991. “Latin declensions and conjugations: from Varro to Pris-cian.” Histoire Épistémologie Langage 13.2: 85-109.


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items