Wilson Philological Lectures on Sanskrit and the Derived Languages c6.72

c6.72

It thus follows that in the time of Kâtyâyana and Patañjali, such verbal forms had become obsolete, and participles were used in their place. But it must have been far otherwise in the time of Pâṇini. He gives minute rules for constructing the innumerable forms of the Sanskrit verb. Our grammarians proceeded upon a strictly scientific basis. Nothing is more clear from several observations scattered throughout the work of Patañjali, besides those contained in the above passage, than this, that the Indian Grammarians do not give us the inventions of their own brains as they are supposed by some scholars to do. The very perfection of their observation and analysis has rendered them liable to this reproach. But notwithstanding all that, there can be no doubt whatever that they scrupulously adhered to usage. If so, the verbal forms taught by Pâṇini must have been current in the language at some time. We do meet with them in the Brâhmaṇas, but our grammarian does not include these forms among the peculiarities he has given of the Vedic or Chhandas and Brâhmaṇa dialect, and thus does not restrict them to those works. They must therefore be understood as having been in use in the Bhâshâ or current language, the grammar of which he teaches in his Sûtras. And the Bhâshâ that he means must be that which was current in his time. In Pâṇini’s time, therefore, the fluent or verbal style of speech was in use, as I have observed before. But it may be argued that though he refers these forms to the Bhâshâ, the Bhâshâ he means may not be that which prevailed when he lived, but another current before his time and preserved in its literature, on which Pâṇini based his rules. It matters very little even if we make this supposition. The only effect is that the period when the non-Vedic Sanskrit was rich in verbal forms is placed before Pâṇini; but the fact itself that there was such a period is undeniable. The supposition, however, is unreasonable. For it is not at all likely that he should neglect the language prevalent in his time and teach that which was current before him, and speak of it as the Bhâshâ, which word literally signifies the “spoken language” or vernacular. And the occurrence in the Sûtras of words that became obsolete in later Sanskrit confirms this view. The following are such words:—अन्ववसर्ग ‘allowing one his own way,’ निरवसित ‘excommunicated,’ प्रत्यवसान ‘eating’, अभिविधि ‘including’, स्वकरण ‘marrying’, उत्सञ्जन ‘throwing up’, अग्रेष ‘equitableness’. You will have seen that the Vârtika of Kâtyâyana which starts the discussion I have translated, and Patañjali’s comment on it speak of words generally as having ceased to be used though the examples given consist of certain verbal forms only. It is, therefore, to be understood that the observation is applicable to other forms and expressions also taught by Pânini which we do not meet with in the later literature. Among such may be noticed उपाजेक् and अन्वाजेक् ‘to strengthen’, निवचनेक् ‘to be silent,’ कणेहन्, and मनोहन् ‘to fulfil one’s longing’, &c. कणेहन् occurs in Yâska also. Most of the verbal derivatives ending in the technical termination ण्मुल् must also be so considered, such as ब्राह्मणवेदं भोजयति ‘feeds every Brâhmana that he finds’, चेलक्लोपं दृष्ट: ‘rained till the clothes were wet’, स्वपोषं पुष्णाति ‘supports by his own means,’ उर्ध्वशोषं शुष्यति ‘withers standing’, &c. A good many Taddhita forms taught in Pânini’s Sûtras must also, I think, be put in the same category.