Wilson Philological Lectures on Sanskrit and the Derived Languages c12.35

c12.35

Now it is clear from all this that correct words, *i. e.* Sanskrit, was spoken in those days by all, but that incorrect words had got mixed up with it, and the object of grammar was to teach how to avoid incorrect words or corruptions, though there were men who could speak correctly without knowing grammar. And this is the state in which more or less all languages are at all times; and even at the present day the purpose of grammar is considered to be to teach how to speak correctly. By the way, it will be seen how Sanskrit grammarians distinctly declare that they teach nothing that does not exist, they do not create words, but separate the correct ones from such as are incorrect. But what did Patañjali consider to be the standard of correct Sanskrit, who was it that spoke the language correctly, and in whose speech were corruptions observable? This is clear from another passage at the beginning of the third pâda of the first chapter of the Mahâbhâshya. Patañjali interprets the sûtra भूवादयो धातव: (I, iii, 1.) in a manner to yield such a connotative definition of a dhâtu or root as this, that a dhâtu is that which denotes action or being. Then a question is raised, if this is the way to distinguish a root why should a list of roots be given; in other words, if we have got a connotative definition, a definition by enumeration is not wanted. In this case there is a difference of opinion between Kâtyâyana and Patañjali.