Open Collections

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

What Is the Purpose of Restating dā in Aṣṭādhyāyī 5.3.19 : tado dā ca? Kawamura, Yūto 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-Kawamura_Yuto_Purpose_restating_2019.pdf [ 658.11kB ]
JSON: 70440-1.0379846.json
JSON-LD: 70440-1.0379846-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 70440-1.0379846-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 70440-1.0379846-rdf.json
Turtle: 70440-1.0379846-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 70440-1.0379846-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 70440-1.0379846-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

 What Is the Purpose of Restating dā in Aṣṭādhyāyī 5.3.19: tado dā ca? Yūto Kawamura 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: 10.14288/1.0379846.
URI: Suggested Citation Format: MLA:
Kawamura, Yūto. “What Is the Purpose of Restating dā in Aṣṭādhyāyī 5.3.19: tado dā ca?” 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: 10.14288/1.0379846. APA:
Kawamura, Y. (2019). What is the purpose of restating dā in Aṣṭādhyāyī 5.3.19: tado dā ca? In M. Kulkarni and P. Scharf (eds.) Proceedings of the 17th World Sanskrit Conference, Vancouver, Canada, July 9-13, 2018, Section 3: Vyākaraṇa. DOI: 10.14288/1.0379846. Chicago:
Kawamura, Yūto. 2019. “What Is the Purpose of Restating dā in Aṣṭādhyāyī 5.3.19: tado dā ca?” 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: 10.14288/1.0379846. Proceedings of the 17th World Sanskrit Conference, July 9-13, 2018 University of British Columbia, Vancouver, CanadaCopyright © 2019 by the author. Content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).   17TH    WORLD   SANSKRIT  CONFERENCEVANCOUVER, CANADA • JULY 9-13, 2018वैधुसव ्मकबुंटुकअ ारा यसं तृा यनसमवायःINTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SANSKRIT STUDIES THE 17TH WORLD SANSKRIT CONFERENCE, VANCOUVER, CANADA, JULY 9-13, 2018 What Is the Purpose of Restating dā in Aṣṭādhyāyī 5.3.19: tado dā ca? Yūto Kawamura Department of Indian Philosophy, Hiroshima University,  Hiroshima, Japan. Abstract A 5.3.15: sarvaikānyakiṁyattadaḥ kāle dā introduces the affix dā after tad termi-nating in seventh-triplet endings on condition that reference is made to a time. By this rule obtains the derivate tadā corresponding to the string tasmin kāle. Despite this, A 5.3.19: tado dā ca also provides that tad in seventh-triplet endings takes dā under the same condition, thus resulting in the same derivate. Whereas Kātyāyana and Patañjali consider it meaningless to restate dā in A 5.3.19, four solutions to this problem are offered by some other grammarians. Three of the four solutions are unacceptable from the viewpoint of Pāṇinian grammar. What one must pay careful attention to is the remaining explanation mentioned by Kaiyaṭa: There is a difference between the two tadās derived by A 5.3.15 and A 5.3.19; the former serves to derive tadā́ (tad + Ṅi + dā́) with high pitch on its last vowel and the latter to derive tádā (tad + Ṅi + ádā) with high pitch on its first vowel. That is, A 5.3.19 is to be read as tado 'dā ca. Although tadā́ is a regular formation, tádā also could be secondarily formed due to various linguistic factors. It is therefore possible that tádā did exist in the language Pāṇini describes and he accounted for it by A 5.3.19. In this context, it is compelling that this form is actually found in Ṛgveda Khila 1.8.1.  Keywords: Pāṇini; Aṣṭādhyāyī 5.3.15; Aṣṭādhyāyī 5.3.19; tadā; tadānīm. Introduction A 5.3.15: sarvaikānyakiṁyattadaḥ kāle dā introduces the taddhita affix dā after the pronominal tad “that” terminating in seventh-triplet endings (saptamī) on condi-tion that reference is made to a time (kāla).  By this rule obtains the derivate tadā 1 PK on A 5.3.15 (I.905.2-3): ebhyaḥ saptamyantebhyo dāpratyayaḥ syāt kāle 'rthe | tralāder 1apavādaḥ || Proceedings of the 17th World Sanskrit Conference, Vancouver, Canada, July 9-13 2018, Section 3: Vyākaraṇa, edited by Malhar Kulkarni, Hideyo Ogawa, and Peter Scharf, 2019. DOI: 10.14288/1.0379846. KAWAMURA 2“then, at that time” corresponding to the alternative string tasmin kāle (A 4.1.82: samarthānām prathamād vā). However, consider the following rule:  A 5.3.19: tado dā ca || This rule teaches that the pronominal tad in seventh-triplet endings takes dā or dānīm (← ca) under the same condition as A 5.3.15, thus resulting in two de-rivates: tadā and tadānīm “then, at that time,” which alternate with the equivalent string tasmin kāle.  A question naturally arises: why did Pāṇini state dā again in A 25.3.19 when A 5.3.15 already accounts for the form tadā?  Kātyāyana, Patañjali, the Kāśikāvṛtti, and Bhaṭṭoji Dīkṣita declare that it is meaningless (anarthaka) to restate dā in A 5.3.19 since the introduction of dā after tad is already provided for by A 5.3.15 (vihitatvāt),  thereby indicating that A 35.3.19: tado dā ca can be reduced to *A 5.3.19: tadaś ca (tadaś cety eva sūtraṃ paṭhanīyam).    4A 5.3.15: sarvaikānyakiṁyattadaḥ kāle dā || (→ tadā)
. . . 
A 5.3.18: dānīṃ ca || (→ idānīm)
*A 5.3.19: tadaś ca || (→ tadānīm) The present paper attempts to find a valid reason for this seemingly re-dundant statement of dā in A 5.3.19, considering four solutions offered to this problem by some indigenous grammarians.  The item ca in A 5.3.19 is to cause dānīm to recur therein from A 5.3.18: dānīñ ca. In Joshi 2and Bhate (1983: 64), this type of ca is categorized as “giving rise to abbreviative inter-pretation.”  vt. 1 on A 5.3.19: tado dāvacanam anarthakaṃ vihitatvāt || MBh on vt. 1 to A 5.3.19 (II.3406.13-14): tado dāvacanam anarthakam | kiṃ kāraṇam | vihitatvāt | vihito 'tra pratyayaḥ sarvaikānyakiṁyattadaḥ kāle deti || KV on A 5.3.19 (II.535.5): tado dāvacanam anarthakaṃ vihitatvāt || SK 1968 (II.595.3): tado dāvacanam anarthakaṃ vihitatvāt |
Note that according to Ben-Dor (2016: 76), the authors of the Kāśikāvṛtti “always try to mention a purpose for a term in the sūtra or for a sūtra as a whole and nowhere do they argue that it would be useless” and “one of the aims of the authors of the Kāśikāvṛtti is to provide a purpose to every part of Pāṇini’s sūtras.” Their comment tado dāvacanam anarthakaṃ vihitatvāt on A 5.3.19 is one of the three exceptions to this general attitude (Ben-Dor 2016: 76, note 59). TB on SK 1968 (II.595.29-30): tadaś cety eva sūtraṃ paṭhanīyam iti bhāvaḥ |4 What Is the Purpose of Restating dā in Aṣṭādhyāyī 5.3.19? 3First Solution: vaicitryārtham Jinendrabuddhi (ca. 700, CE) opines that Pāṇini’s restatement of dā in A 5.3.19 is to add variety/ attractiveness to the Aṣṭādhyāyī (vaicitryārtham), that is, it is sim-ply for the sake of variety/attractiveness of style without any other specific pur-pose in view.  This solution is also said to be indicated by Rāmacandra (ca. 514th-15th c. CE) in his Prakriyākaumudī.  It is known that grammarians resort to 6the concept of vaicitrya in order to justify Pāṇini’s otherwise inexplicable phrase-ology. This type of solution might sometimes make sense, but clearly not in our case. Would Pāṇini have wanted to make his grammar more attractive in terms of its wording, by adding dā to A 5.3.19? The solution presented by Jinendrabud-dhi sounds too contrived and hence too far-fetched to be acceptable.  Second Solution: sakṛdbaddham anityaṃ dvirbaddhaṃ ca su-baddham In the course of the discussion on the vocative singular form subhru, “O fair-browed [lady]” used by Kālidāsa, Haradatta (c. 1000-1100 CE) refers in his Padamañjarī to some grammarians’ view that the repetition of dā in A 5.3.19 is to be assumed as an implication (jñāpakam) for the following metarule because oth-erwise Pāṇini’s wording would become pointless:  sakṛdbaddham anityaṃ dvirbaddhaṃ ca subaddham ||   Nyāsa on KV to A 5.3.19 (VI.249.31-32): anarthakam iti | vaicitryārtham | anyasyābhāvād 5anarthakaṃ vaicitryeṇa sārthakam eva | According to the Prasāda, a commentary on the Prakriyākaumudī, Rāmacandra indicates 6this when he says punardāvidheḥ phalaṃ cintyam – “the purpose of providing for dā again [in A 5.3.19] is questionable” – otherwise he would not have used the term cintyam. PK on A 5.3.19 (I.906.9-10): tadaḥ saptamyantāt dā syād dānīṃ ca kāle || tadā | tadānīm | punardāvidheḥ phalaṃ cintyam |. Prasāda on PK to A 5.3.19 (I.906.14-17): nanu sarvaikānyakiṁyattadaḥ kāle dety anenaiva dāvidheḥ siddhatvāt punardāvidhir vyartha ity āśaṅkyāha punardāvidher iti | phalaṃ cintyam ity anena vaicitryārthavyatiriktaṃ phalaṃ nāstīti sūcitam | yadi sarvathā phalābhāva evābhipretaḥ syāt tarhi cintyam iti nāvakṣyat | KAWAMURA 4[A provision] made [only] once is not obligatory, but if made twice, it becomes well-made.  7Needless to say, “it becomes well-made” (subaddham) in this metarule is intended as “it becomes obligatory” (nityam).  8   The point is this. As described above, in the Aṣṭādhyāyī the introduction of the affix dā to tad is provided for twice: by A 5.3.15 and A 5.3.19. This is, accord-ing to some grammarians, to imply that the introduction at issue is to be deemed obligatory. This means that one is not permitted to employ the expres-sion tasmin kāle as an alternative for the derivate tadā.  To teach us this, Pāṇini 9mentioned dā in A 5.3.19 as well as A 5.3.15.    This metarule is made use of to justify Kālidāsa’s use of the ungrammatical form subhru.  The deduction of such a metarule is, however, untenable. It is quite 10 PM on KV to A 1.4.4 (I.506.13-15): anye tv āhuḥ – anityo 'yaṃ pratiṣedhaḥ sakṛdbaddhatvāt | 7tathā ca paribhāṣā – sakṛdbaddham anityaṃ dvirbaddhaṃ ca subaddham iti | atra ca jñāpakaṃ tado dāvacanam ity āhuḥ || 
Others, on the other hand, say: this prohibition [of applying the class name nadī to items such as bhrū] is not obligatory since [the prohibition] is made [only] once. Such being the case, a metarule applies [here]: sakṛdbaddham anityaṃ dvirbaddhaṃ ca subaddham. And they say that the statement of dā with respect to tad is an implication for this [metarule]. The literal translation of the metarule would be “what is bound with [grammatical rules 8only] once is not obligatory, but if bound twice, it becomes well-bound.” To the best of my knowledge, no Paribhāṣā works list this metarule. I consider that this is because the metarule in question is quite unreasonable, as shown below. 
The latter part of this metarule, dvirbaddhaṃ subaddham, “if bound twice, [it] becomes well-bound,” is given by Patañjali as a kind of maxim to furnish a reason for the redundancy of words. MBh on vt. 2 to A 6.1.223 (III.119.19-21): athavā halsvaraprāptau vyañjanam avidyamānavad bhavatīty eṣā paribhāṣā kartavyā | kimartham idam ubhayam ucyate na halsvaraprāptāv avidyamānavad ity evocyeta svaraprāptau vyañjanam avidyamānavad iti vā | dvirbaddhaṃ subaddhaṃ bhavatīti ||. Here a discussant argues that the words hal and vyañjana denote the same meaning, “consonant,” and one of them would therefore be unnecessary. Patañjali invokes the maxim as an answer to this objection. As Kaiyaṭa explains, what Patañjali means to say is that stating the two words serves a purpose in that it affords a better understanding of the meaning.  Pradīpa on MBh to vt. 2 ad A 6.1.223 (IV.532.15): dvirbaddham iti | ubha-yopādāne spaṣṭāvagatir bhavatīty arthaḥ | Still, one can use this expression as an alternative for the derivate tadānīm.9 See Kawamura 2018 for details.10 What Is the Purpose of Restating dā in Aṣṭādhyāyī 5.3.19? 5obvious that Pāṇini’s system of grammar would collapse if we accepted this metarule as valid, since most provisions are made only once in the Aṣṭādhyāyī. Pāṇini could not have intended to imply such a metarule when formulating A 5.3.19. Third Solution: sakṛddvandvam anityam According to Bhaṭṭoji Dīkṣita (ca. 16th-17th c. CE), some grammarians view Pāṇini’s restatement of dā in A 5.3.19 as a sign that the introduction of dā after tad is to be considered not obligatory (anitya), deducing another metarule:  sakṛddvandvam anityam || [The application of the rule in question to] an item which has once formed a dvandva compound [with an other related item] is not obligatory.  11In the expression sarvaikānyakiṁyattadaḥ of A 5.3.15, the item tad is once combined with the other items to form a dvandva, before A 5.3.19. As such, tad as given in A 5.3.19: tado dā ca falls under the domain of this metarule: the introduc-tion of dā or dānīm by A 5.3.19 to tad is regarded as optional, which sanctions one to use tasmin kāle as the utterance equivalent in meaning to tadā or tadānīm. It is to hint at this metarule that Pāṇini repeated dā in A 5.3.19. Again, this metarule is introduced to explain the vocative singular form subhru; but the deduction of this metarule too is without support. First and fore-most, the introduction of taddhita affixes is basically optional (vā), in accordance with the heading A 4.1.82: samarthānām prathamād vā that governs taddhita affixation rules. A 5.3.15 and A 5.3.19 are no exceptions. There is thus no need of indicating the metarule at hand by adding dā to A 5.3.19. Bhaṭṭoji Dīkṣita denies this metarule as well.   12Fourth Solution: tadā́ and tádā Kaiyaṭa (ca. 11th c. CE), while commenting on Patañjali’s discussion of the item dā in A 5.3.19, brings forward some grammarians’ argument:   Again, as far as I know, this metarule is not found in any paribhāṣā work. The reason 11seems to be the same as the unsound metarule sakṛdbaddham anityaṃ dvirbaddhaṃ ca subaddham. See note 8. ŚK (103.33-104.3): ke cit tu tado dāvacanena sakṛddvandvam anityam iti paribhāṣājñāpanam 12āśrityānityo 'yaṃ pratiṣedha iti samādadhuḥ | kintv etat sakalapramādeṣu suvacam | tado dā-vacanapratyākhyānaparabhāṣyādiviruddhaṃ ca | KAWAMURA 6Pradīpa on MBh to A 5.3.19 (IV.184.18-19): sūtrakāreṇa tv adāpratyayaḥ kṛta ity āhuḥ | svare ca viśeṣaḥ | adāpratyaye tadāśabda ādyudātto bhavati | dāpratyaye tv antodāttaḥ| On the other hand, some say that the affix adā has been uttered by the author of sūtras (Pāṇini). There is a difference in accent: when the affix adā follows, the word tadā has high pitch on its first syllable; when the affix dā follows, the word tadā has high pitch on its last syllable. Here some grammarians argue that there is a difference between the two tadās derived by A 5.3.15 and A 5.3.19: the former serves to derive tadā́ (tad + dā́) with high pitch on its last vowel (antodātta) and the latter to derive tádā (tad + ádā) with high pitch on its first vowel (ādyudātta) in conformity with A 3.1.3: ādyudāt-taś ca. That is to say, A 5.3.19 is to be read as tado 'dā ca, not tado dā ca (praśliṣṭanird-eśa, akārapraśleṣa).  The derivation of tadā́ and tádā can be shown as follows:  13 tasmin kāle (1) tasmin + dā́ (A 5.3.15: sarvaikānyakiṁyattadaḥ kāle dā)   (tad-Ṅi + dā́) (2) tad-φ + dā́ (A 2.4.71: supo dhātuprātipadikayoḥ)
(3) taa + dā́ (A 7.2.102: tyadādīnām aḥ)
(4) ta + dā́ (A 6.1.97: ato guṇe)   tadā́  tasmin kāle (1) tasmin + ádā (A 5.3.19: tado 'dā ca)  (tad-Ṅi + ádā) (2) tad-φ + ádā (A 2.4.71: supo dhātuprātipadikayoḥ)
(3) taa + ádā (A 7.2.102: tyadādīnām aḥ)
(4) ta + ádā (A 6.1.97: ato guṇe)
(5) tádā (A 6.1.97: ato guṇe; A 8.2.5: ekādeśa udāttenodāttaḥ)  tádā     This view is also introduced in the Padamañjarī, which is dated later than Kaiyaṭa’s 13Pradīpa. PM on KV to A 5.3.19 (VI.249.20-21): apara āha—adāpratyayo 'yaṃ na dāpratyaya iti | tatrādyudāttatvaṃ pakṣe bhavati |. Nāgeśa denies this way of thinking for the simple reason that it goes against the Bhāṣya. Uddyota on Pradīpa to MBh ad A 5.3.19 (IV.184.22): ity āhur iti | atrārucibījaṃ bhāṣyavirodhaḥ ||.  What Is the Purpose of Restating dā in Aṣṭādhyāyī 5.3.19? 7It is highly significant in this connection that although the oxytone tadā́ is a regular formation, attested from the Atharvaveda (both recensions) onwards, the barytone tádā is also found in ṚVKh 1.8.1:  yadā́ yuñjā́the maghávānam āśúṃ puruspṛh́aṃ pṛtanājyáṁ suvī ŕam |
suváśvaṃ dasrā rátham ā́ havéṣu tádā yutī ŕ yāti  rásas  tanū́nām || 14 15When you two (Aśvins), at our calls, harness the chariot which is boun-teous, swift, much-desired, driving to battle, carrying great heroes, drawn by good horses, o wondrous ones, then the essence of our bodies gets united. This verse is the only example in which the word tadā is employed in the Ṛgveda Khila.  The accentual shift in tádā might be explainable as a device to 16emphasize the function of this temporal adverb: “It is exactly/only when you two harness the chariot that the essence of our bodies gets united.” Moreover, accent is known to be subject to analogical changes (Lubotsky 1988: 15); analogy with other adverbs derived from tád could also result in this barytone tádā:   17 Scheftelowitz (1906: 64) proposed that the reading yeti be corrected to yāti.  This 14emendation is accepted in the text presented in Bhise (1995: 43). Bhise (1995: 93) notes Scheftelowitz’s proposal. Sontakke and Kashikar (1946) and Bhise (1995) read rasaṃ, and Scheftelowitz (1906) 15reads rasan. Rasaṃ cannot be a nominative of the noun rasa since it is a masculine noun, although the translation of the fourth line given in Bhise (1995: 93) presupposes that rasaṃ is a nominative: “then the essence of our popersons (sic) gets united (with the body).” Yutī ŕ in the verse is an accusative form of the stem yuti, so that rasaṃ as an accusative does not work in this situation. Nor does rasan (“roaring”) as a present participle fit in with the context; the word tanūnām (“of bodies”) is clearly construed with the noun rasa, as in ṚV VII.104.10. It is therefore reasonable to suggest that the readings are to be corrected to rasas, a nominative singular of the masculine noun rasa. It is noteworthy in this connection that the characters s and m are frequently confused in Śāradā manuscripts, as Scheftelowitz (1906: 47) noted. See Sontakke and Kashikar (1946: 901-907) and Bhise (1995: 8-16) on the date of Khila 16verses and their relation to the Ṛgveda. Bhise (1995: 16) summarizes: “The Khilasūktas, thus, contain some parts which are of high antiquity like Ṛgvedic hymns and others which are either contemporanous (sic) with the Brāhmaṇas, Upaniṣads or the Gṛhyasūtras.” Notice also that the barytone kádā is also attested in the Ṛgveda (ṚV I.84.20; I.105.3; I.17139.5; VI.54.9; X.48.5; X.152.1). KAWAMURA 8táthā (ṚV +) tátas (ṚV +) tátra (ṚV +) tárhi (ṚV X.129.2, AV +) táti (AV)  18All of these adverbs have high pitch on the first syllable, like tádā.  19All this leaves open the possibility that the form tádā did exist in the lan-guage Pāṇini knew and that, as some grammarians referred to by Kaiyaṭa as-sume, Pāṇini actually accounted for the form in his grammar by A 5.3.19.    20A 5.3.15: sarvaikānyakiṁyattadaḥ kāle dā || (→ tadā́) A 5.3.19: tado 'dā ca || (→ tádā, tadā́nīm) Conclusion The two metarules deduced to justify Pāṇini’s repetitive use of dā are scarcely acceptable from the viewpoint of Pāṇini’s grammatical system. On the other hand, given that the barytone tádā, as a result of natural linguistic behavior, could have existed in the language Pāṇini was familiar with, the fourth solution  See Mayrhofer (1992-2001) for further details of these forms.18 The suffixes thāL (A 5.3.23: prakāravacane thāl → táthā), tasIL (A 5.3.7: pañcamyās tasil → 19tátas), traL (A 5.3.10: saptamyās tral → tátra), and rhiL (A 5.3.20: tayor dārhilau ca chandasi → tárhi) are marked with L to show that the first vowel which precedes these elements in a derivate is high-pitched (A 6.1.193: liti). Pāṇini does not account for táti.   The fact that Pāṇini did not mark the suffix dā with L might be considered as a handicap against the fourth solution under discussion. But the point of this solution is that A 5.3.15 explains the oxytone tadā́ as derived with the suffix dā́ and A 5.3.19 explains the barytone tádā as derived with the suffix ádā – there is no need of marking the latter suffix with L since its initial vowel is supposed to be high-pitched by A 3.1.3: ādyudāttaś ca, and as such this suffix automatically derives the barytone tádā, as shown in the derivational procedure presented above. Scheftelowitz (1906: 64) is suspicious of the reading tádā and proposes that (1) tádā be 20modified as the regular form tadā́ or (2) be read as tád ā́ (ā́ construed with yāti). Another possibility (3) is to read tádā  yutī ŕ  as tád ā yutī ŕ (the word *āyuti is not attested in any Sanskrit literature, though). However, in view of the fact that tádā could be in fact formed due to some linguistic factors, as described above, (1)-(3) are not necessarily called for. What Is the Purpose of Restating dā in Aṣṭādhyāyī 5.3.19? 9submitted in Kaiyaṭa’s Pradīpa cannot be completely rejected and may indeed capture the real intention of Pāṇini. Otherwise, one would have to turn to Jinen-drabuddhi’s solution: vaicitryārtham. We are still caught in the intricate maze of Pāṇini’s elaborate diction. vicitrā sūtrasya kṛtiḥ pāṇininā | 
Wondrous is Pāṇini’s composition of sūtras.  21Epilogue Whereas grammarians devote considerable efforts to the justification of Pāṇini’s wording in A 5.3.19, there is a possible, simple solution to the problem which is not discussed by any indigenous grammarian. Suppose that Pāṇini formulated A 5.3.19 as tadaś ca.   A 5.3.15: sarvaikānyakiṁyattadaḥ kāle dā || *A 5.3.19: tadaś ca || *A 5.3.19 lets the affix dānīm occur after the same item tad under the same condition as A 5.3.15. Such being the case, this reformulated rule should be an exception (apavāda) to A 5.3.15. For, the domain of application of *A 5.3.19 is wholly included within the domain of application of A 5.3.15, which applies to the items sarva, eka, anya, kim, yad, and tad. Consequently, the application of A 5.3.15 to tad is always blocked by A 5.3.19;  and therefore Pāṇini’s grammar be22 -comes unable to account for the form tadā, which is supposed to be derived by A 5.3.15. To avoid this, Pāṇini stated dā again in A 5.3.19.  A 5.3.15: sarvaikānyakiṁyattadaḥ kāle dā || (→ sarvadā, ekadā, anyadā, kadā, yadā, tadā) A 5.3.19: tado dā ca || (→ tadā, tadānīm) We will now face the following question: why did Pāṇini then include tad in A 5.3.15 when A 5.3.19 is expected to derive both tadā and tadānīm: Pāṇini could have formulated A 5.3.15 as sarvaikānyakiṁyadaḥ kāle dā without -tad. *A 5.3.15: sarvaikānyakiṁyadaḥ kāle dā || (→ sarvadā, ekadā, anyadā, kadā, yadā)  KV on A 2.2.15 (I.122.11). See also KV on A 4.1.166 (I.359.11) and on A 7.2.78 (II.820.8).21 For this kind of “simple blocking,” see Scharf 2012: 319-320.22 KAWAMURA 10 A 5.3.19: tado dā ca || (→ tadā, tadānīm) An immediate answer to this would be that in A 5.3.15 Pāṇini just listed all the common stems from which forms ending in dā (sarvadā, ekadā, etc..) are de-rived, without any other intention.  Now, the remaining question to be asked is why any grammarian does not touch upon the fact that *A 5.3.19 (and A 5.3.19) behaves as an exception to A 5.3.15, a question which I cannot answer at the moment. Nevertheless, it is my hope that this paper would serve as a stimulant to further investigation into the Indian grammatical thoughts.  Acknowledgments I gratefully acknowledge helpful discussions with George Cardona, Werner Knobl, Eizirō Dōyama, Adam Catt, and Junichi Ozono on several points in this paper. Bibliography Abbreviations/Primary Sources A: Aṣṭādhyāyī. See Appendix III (Aṣṭādhyāyīsūtrapāṭha) in Cardona 1997. KV: Kāśikāvṛtti. See A. Sharma, K. Deshpande, and D. G. Padhye 1969-1970. MBh: Mahābhāṣya. See Abhyankar 1962-1972.  Nyāsa: See Miśra 1985.  PK: Prakriyākaumudī. See Trivedi 1925-1931. PM: Padamañjarī. See Miśra 1985. Pradīpa: See Vedavrata 1962-1963. Prasāda: See Trivedi 1925-1931. ṚV: Ṛgveda. See Aufrecht 1877. ṚVKh: Ṛgveda Khila. See Scheftelowitz 1906, Sontakke and Kashikar 1946, and Bhise 1995. ŚK: Śabdakaustubha. See Nene 1929. SK: Siddhāntakaumudī. See Caturveda and Bhāskara 1958-1961.  What Is the Purpose of Restating dā in Aṣṭādhyāyī 5.3.19? 11TB: Tattvabodhinī. See Caturveda and Bhāskara 1958-1961. Uddyota: See Vedavrata 1962-1963. vt.: vārttika. See Abhyankar 1962-1972. Secondary Sources A. Sharma, K. Deshpande, and D. G. Padhye. 1969-1970. Kāśikā: A Commentary on Pāṇini’s Grammar by Vāmana & Jayāditya. 2 vols. Hyderabad: Sanskrit Aca-demy. Abhyankar, K. V. 1962-1972. The Vyākaraṇa-Mahābhāṣya of Patañjali: Edited by F. Kielhorn. 3 vols. Bombay: Government Central Press, 1880-1885. Third edition, revised and furnished with additional readings, references and select critical notes by K. V. Abhyankar. 3 vols. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1962-1972. Aufrecht, T. 1877. Die Hymnen des Ṛigveda. 2 bde. Bonn: Adolph Marcus. Ben-dor, S. 2016. “On the Relation of the Kāśikāvṛtti to the Mahābhāṣya.” In Vyā-karaṇaparipṛcchā: Proceedings of the Vyākaraṇa Section of the 16th World Sanskrit Conference, edited by George Cardona and Hideyo Ogawa. New Delhi: DK Publishers Distributors, 53-97. Bhise, U. 1995. The Khila-sūktas of the Ṛgveda: A Study. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. Cardona, G. 1997. Pāṇini: His Work and Its Traditions. Volume One. Background and Introduction. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1988. Second edition, revised and enlarged, 1997. Caturveda, G. Ś. and P. Ś. Bhāskara. 1958-1961. Śrīmadbhaṭṭojidīkṣitaviracitā vaiyā-karaṇasiddhāntakaumudī śrīmadvāsudevadīkṣitapraṇītayā bālamanoramākhya-vyākhyayā śrīmajjñānendrasarasvatīviracitayā tattvabodhinyākhyavyākhyayā ca sanāthitā. 4 vols. Varanasi: Motilal Banarsidass. Joshi, S. D. and S. Bhate. 1983. The Role of the Particle ca in the Interpretation of the Aṣṭādhyāyī. Pune: University of Poona. Kawamura, Y. 2018. “Sakṛdbaddham anityaṃ dvirbaddhaṃ ca subaddham.” Journal of South Asian Languages and Cultures 9: 77-93. Lubotsky, A. 1988. The System of Nominal Accentuation in Sanskrit and Proto-Indo-European. Leiden: E. J. Brill.  KAWAMURA 12Mayrhofer, M. 1992-2001. Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen.  3 bde. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.  Miśra, Ś. 1985. Kāśikāvṛtti of Jayāditya-Vāmana (along with Commentaries Vivaraṇa-pañcikā-Nyāsa of Jinendrabuddhi and Padamañjarī of Haradatta Miśra). 6 vols. Varanasi: Ratna Publications. Nene, P. G. Ś. 1929. The Śabda Kaustubha by Pandit Bhattojidīkshit. Vol. II, Fas. 5 to 10. From the Second Pāda of 1st Adhyāya to Second Pāda of 3rd Adhyāya and Sphoṭa Candrikā by Pandit Srikrisna mauni. Benares: Vidya Vilas Press. Scharf, P. M. 2012. “Rule Selection in the Aṣṭādhyāyī, or Is Pāṇini’s Grammar Me-chanistic?” In Studies in Sanskrit Grammars: Proceedings of Vyākaraṇa Section of the 14th World Sanskrit Conference, edited by George Cardona, Ashok Ak-lujkar, and Hideyo Ogawa. New Delhi: D. K. Printworld, 319-350. Scheftelowitz, I. 1906. Die Apokryphen des Ṛgveda. Breslau: Verlag von M & H Marcus. Reprint, Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1966. Sontakke, N. S. and C. G. Kashikar. 1946. Ṛgveda-Saṁhitā with the Commentary of Sāyaṇācārya. Vol. IV, Maṇḍalas IX-X. Poona: Vaidika Saṁśodhana Maṇḍala. Trivedi, K. P. 1925-1931. The Prakriyâkaumudî of Râmachandra with the Commentary Prasâda of Viṭṭhala and with a Critical Notice of Manuscripts and an Exhaustive and Critical Introduction. 2 vols. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Insti-tute. Vedavrata. 1962-1963. Śrībhagavat-patañjali-viracitam Vyākaraṇa-Mahābhāṣyam (Śrī-kaiyaṭakṛta-pradīpena nāgojībhaṭṭa-kṛtena-bhāṣyapradīpoddyotena ca vi-bhūṣitam). 5 vols. Gurukul Jhajjar (Rohtak): Hairyāṇā Sāhitya Saṃsthāna.


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