Wilson Philological Lectures on Sanskrit and the Derived Languages c6.73

c6.73

And there is another circumstance which shows that Pânini’s Sanskrit was more ancient than Kâtyâyana’s. Kâtyâyana’s Vârtikas on Pânini, which I have already spoken to you of, touch on various points concerning grammar and the system of Pânini. The purpose of a great many of them is the proper interpretation of the Sûtras, and there are some which supply the links that are wanting in the system, also a good many which teach forms not taught by Pânini, or give the correct forms, when by the strict application of Pânini’s rules we arrive at such as are incorrect. Now, this strict application of Pânini’s rules is often in the manner of a quibbling logician, and consequently it was probably never meant by Pânini himself. Again, it may also be allowed that some forms existing in the language may have escaped Pânini’s notice. But even after making allowance for all these considerations, a good many forms taught by Kâtyâyana are left which it is impossible to believe Pânini did not observe or know, if they existed in the language in his time. Though not infallible, Pânini was not an indifferent grammarian. He justly deserves the reputation he has all along enjoyed of being the pre-eminent teacher of grammar. He has noticed even stray facts about the language. If so, the only reasonable supposition is that these forms did not exist in the language at the period when he lived. For instance, according to Pânini's rules the vocative singular of neuter nouns ending in अन् such as ब्रह्मन् and नामन् is ब्रह्मन् and नामन्, but Kâtyâyana in a Vârtika on VIII. 2, 8 tells us it is ब्रह्मन् or ब्रह्म and नामन् or नाम. Pânini teaches that the forms of the dative, ablative, genitive, and locative singular of the feminine of द्वितीय and तृतीय are optionally like those of the corresponding pronouns, i.e. we have either द्वितीयायै or द्वितीयस्यै, द्वितीयायाः or द्वितीयस्याः &c., but Kâtyâyana in a Vârtika on I. 1, 36 extends this option to the masculine also, and according to him we have द्वितीयाय or द्वितीयस्मै, द्वितीयात् or द्वितीयस्मात् &c., while Pânini gives us only the first. Pânini's rule IV. 1, 49 allows of मातुलानी only as the feminine of मातुल, but Kâtyâyana gives मातुली also; उपाध्यायानी is not noticed by Pânini while Kâtyâyana lays down that as well as उपाध्यायी in the sense of ‘wife of the उपाध्याय’. So also आर्या and क्षत्रिया are according to Pânini, ‘a female Ârya’ and ‘a female Kshatriya’, but Kâtyâyana gives आर्याणी and क्षत्रियाणी as well as आर्या and क्षत्रिया. A good many more instances of a similar nature may be given from other parts of Sanskrit Grammar. Are we then to suppose that the forms ब्रह्म, नाम, कर्मं &c. of the vocative singular, द्वितीयस्मै of the dative of द्वितीय &c. मातुली उपाध्यायानी, आर्याणी, क्षत्रियाणी and many more such, escaped the observation of such a grammarian as Pânini, or that he did not know them? Is the supposition that they did not exist in the language in his time not more reasonable? It therefore appears clear to me that the language in Pânini's time was in a different condition from that in which it was in Kâtyâyana's. The chief differences, to point out which has been the object of this discussion, may be thus stated:—In Pânini's time a good many words and expressions were current which afterwards became obsolete; verbal forms were commonly used which ceased to be used in Kâtyâyana's time, and some grammatical forms were developed in the time of the latter which did not exist in Pânini's.