On the Aindra School of Sanskrit Grammarians, their Place in the Sanskrit and Subordinate Literatures c5: II

On the Aindra School of Sanskrit Grammarians, their Place in the Sanskrit and Subordinate Literatures c5

Language: English

II

c5.1

The fact that an Indra Grammar was commonly reported in India and elsewhere to have preceded that by Pāṇini, early attracted my attention¹, and for several years I had diligent search made for this important work in all parts of S. India. It is needless to say that I had MSS. described to me with great detail, and more than once; but not even a line was ever produced, and after some years waiting, I almost made up my mind that the Aindra Grammar was one of the fictions so common in India, and gave up the search. I then turned to the grammars of the so-called Dravidian languages, which, as they are often of considerable age and imitations of Sanskrit works would, I hoped, throw some light on the schools of Sanskrit grammar; I soon found that the Tamil and Canarese grammars had the same technical terms as the Prātiçākhyas, Kātantra, and some others; and as it is the oldest Tamil grammar and, therefore, the oldest of the kind in S. India, I turned to the Tolkāppiyam, as it seemed likely to furnish the best information. Like all classical Tamil works, this grammar has a preface by a contemporary of the author, in this case one Paṇambaran, who certifies (as I found to my surprise) that the “aindira-niṟainda-tolkāppiyam”, i.e. “Tolkāppiyam full of (or according to) the Aindra (system)” was read in Pāṇḍiyan’s (i.e. the Madura king’s) assembly, and approved by Aṭaṅkōṭṭāçān². The author, Tolkāppiyan, was a Buddhist or Jain, and is unquestionably one of the oldest Tamil authors. The earliest commentator on this grammar, Naššinārk-kiniyar, was also originally a Buddhist, but became a convert to the Çaiva doctrine. It is thus impossible to put the original text much later than the eighth century; for by the tenth century the whole Pāṇḍiya kingdom had fallen under the orthodox Coḷas. There is nothing to throw doubt on these statements which could have been made for no possible reason if untrue. This discovery at once clears up a difficulty in the Indian accounts of the Sanskrit Schools of Grammar by bringing the hitherto unclassified works (which I have already mentioned) into their place. It also enables one to trace out the chief characteristics of this Aindra School. To do this, I shall now compare the arrangement and technical words of the Tolkāppiyam with those of the Kātantra, Kaccāyana’s Pāli Grammar¹, and the Prātiçakhyas. I shall first show that the general arrangement of all is much the same. This may be termed the natural arrangement as opposed to the artificial arrangement of Pāṇini. In the latest grammars which re-arrange Pāṇini’s matter in much the same way², we see, probably, a reversion to the simpler and older system. The first two sections³ of the Tolkāppiyam only are of interest here, and owing to the limited scope of the Prātiçakhyas⁴ it is only possible to compare some of the technical terms used in them with those of the other more extensive grammars. I shall occasionally refer to the Nannūl also. This is the most commonly used Tamil grammar, and is a professed recast and expansion, in some respects, of the Tolkāppiyam, but with more Sanskrit terms and close reference to the Kātantra. The date of its composition is apparently some centuries after the Tolkāppiyam, and also after the fall of the great Tamil kingdoms in the 14th century A. D.

c5.2

¹ I first found this fact stated in Profr. Weber’s “Indische Literaturgeschichte” p. 167 n.

c5.3

² “Tolkāppiyam”, edited by Maḻālinyaiyar, (Madras, çāl. ç. 1770 4°.) p. 1. My discovery of this clue was announced in the Academy early in 1874. (Vol. V.)

c5.4

¹ The close connection between Kaccāyana’s Pāli Grammar and the Kātantra was noticed first by J. d’Alwis and E. Kuhn (“Kaccāyanappakaraṇae Specimen”, pp. 19-21). cfr. Senart’s edition of the Pāli Grammar, p. 2, and Weber’s “Indische Streifen” ii., p. 324. I do not find that any one noticed the connection between the Kātantra and the Prātiçakhyas etc.

c5.5

² The Prakriyākaumudī and Siddhāntakaumudī.

c5.6

³ The whole comprises three sections: the first contains phonetics and sandhi; the second forms and syntax; the third comprises rhetoric and prosody.

c5.7

⁴ Cfr. Goldstücker (in the “Academy” vol. i., p 270): “The Prātiçakhyas, therefore, are not grammars; for grammars have to deal with the etymon of words and with the whole range of linguistic facts, but they are grammatical works, in the sense which this term is commonly applied to works dealing with grammatical subjects in general, or some grammatical topic in particular, for they must teach the phonetic changes which padas undergo.” See also Prof. Whitney’s remarks (Ath. pr. p. 249).

c5.8

That the arrangement of the Kātantra, Kaccāyana’s Pāli Grammar, and the Tolkāppiyam is really the same will be seen by the following comparative table:

c5.9

c5.10

¹ “Grammaire Palie” (Minayeff) p. 49. “bindu niggahītam”; “Kaccāyana” (by Senart), p. 10.

c5.11

It is obvious that the arrangement of all these grammars is simple and natural. First (A) come phonetics and an elaborate description of the alphabet, a feature of the Prātiçākhyas also. Next come the four parts of speech treated in order (B. C. D. E.) and in a simple manner compared with the elaborate and intricate plan of Pāṇini. The identity of the plans of the Kātantra and Kaccāyana needs no illustration; the Tolkāppiyam varies (as regards E.) owing to the impossibility of arranging the Tamil elements in exactly the same way as the Sanskrit, Prakrit or Pāli, and as the uriśśol words constitute an artificial class.

c5.12

The arrangement of the Pāṇinīya Grammar in eight books is as follows:

c5.13

I. Technical terms; special use of the numbers; ekaçeṣa; rules of interpretation of the sūtras; use of the Ātmanepada and Parasmaipada; explanation of technical terms.

c5.14

II. Samāsa; use of cases; affixes.

c5.15

III., IV., V. Affixes which form verbs and nouns.

c5.16

VI., VII. Augment and reduplication; accent; inflection.

c5.17

VIII. Special rules; rules of euphony¹).

c5.18

¹ For a more detailed account see Böhtlingk's edition of Pāṇini, vol. ii., pp. xxiv-xxxvi.

c5.19

The Grammars which now bear the names of Çakaṭāyana and Jinendra²), though in fewer chapters, follow the same highly artificial plan which is intended to economise space, and reduce the sūtras to the narrowest possible limits.

c5.20

² Dr. Bühler has already pointed out the existence of these two grammars in "Orient und Occident", vol. ii., p. 182. The Jinendra Grammar is among the Leyden MSS. at Madras, and is a Jain MS. Of Çakaṭāyana there are fragments in the same collection, and a complete copy of the text and Uṇādisūtras (in the Malayāḷam character) among the MSS. I presented to the India Office Library in 1870. I have since procured other complete MSS. of the text, commentary etc., which I have used here. All these are Jain MSS. from the Canarese country.

c5.21

Thus the Aindra Grammars are on a simpler and more natural plan which is understood at first sight, while Pāṇini's Grammar is, except to the initiated, in hopeless confusion³).

c5.22

³ See Colebrooke's remarks, "Essays", ii., pp. 5-8. Note especially P. viii., 2, 1.

c5.23

If the arrangements of the matter in the Aindra and Pāṇinīya Grammars differ widely, still more so do the technical terms. In the former these are ordinary words for the most part, though used with a somewhat special meaning. In the latter they are nearly all highly artificial abbreviations or letters used with a particular conventional value assigned to them; they are not, in short, really words. The agreement between the technical terms of the Tolkāppiyam on the one hand and Kātantra and similar works on the other is close, while they have really little in common with those of Pāṇini, though some of their terms are to be found in the latter. The Grammars which I thus class together have certain marked differences with one another in respect of a very few technical terms. These are important as marking stages of development, but I shall reserve discussion of them till I come to that subject, and meanwhile remark on the coincidences only.

c5.24

The first point to be remarked is the fourfold division of words (pada) into: nāman (noun), ākhyāta (verb), upasarga (preposition), and nipāta (particle). This division is found in Yāska¹), and the terms occur in the Kātantra²), Kaccāyana³), and the Prātiçākhyas⁴). In Tamil the four classes of words are called pĕyarššŏl, vinaiššŏl, iḍaiššŏl, and uriššŏl⁵); literally: name-word, act-word, middle-word, peculiar-word. The first is a literal translation of the Sanskrit nāma(-pada), the second is for kriyā; ākhyāta being, apparently, untranslatable in Tamil. The two last differ from the Aindra terms, but for the reason that the Tamil language has nothing corresponding to the prepositions and particles of Sanskrit. Iḍaiššŏl means middle-word, and is the name of affixes and the letters inserted between the root and suffix to express the tense; uriššŏl ‘peculiarword' is the name of adjectives and adverbs. In Tamil there are no prepositions or prefixes. Pada¹) occurs in all these works as the term for a word.

c5.25

¹ ed. Roth. p. 31 (Nir. i., 1). Profr. Weber (“In. Studien” iv., p. 76) has already remarked the general identity of the technical terms used by Yāska and the Kātyāyanīya Prātiçākhya (of the White Yajur Veda).

c5.26

² Nāmacatushtaya and ākhyātaprakaraṇa are the names of the sections on nouns and verbs. Nāma also occurs in ii., 5, 1 etc. The last chapter is on particles. Nipāta occurs in i., 3, 1.

c5.27

³ Nāma, iv., 1. Akhyātakappa is the title of the sixth section of the work. Upasarga—i., 5, 10, and in the same place Nipāta also.

c5.28

⁴ 1. Ṛig.V. Pr. xii., 5-8. Nāmākhyātam upasargo nipātaç catvāry āhuḥ padajātāni çabdāḥ etc. I quote this from Regnier's edition, as unfortunately, I have not got Profr. Max Müller's at hand. It must be remarked that the chapter in which this text occurs seems to be an addition to the original text.

c5.29

⁴ 2. Taitt. Prātiç (ed. Whitney) i., 15; vi., 4; x., 9; xiv., 8 (upasarga). But few technical terms of general grammar occur in this work. See Profr. Whitney's remarks on p. 432.

c5.30

⁴ 3. Atharva Prātiç (ed. Whitney) i., 1. “caturṇām padajātānām nāmākhyātopasarga-nipātānām sandhyapadyau guṇau prātijñam”.

c5.31

⁴ Kātyāyanīya Prātiçākhya of the White Yajur Veda (ed. Weber, in “In. Studien” iv.) a viii., 52. “Tac(padam) caturdhā nāmākhyātopasarganipātāḥ” etc. This is, however, from a chapter which is probably not part of the original work. Nipāta occurs in ii., 16.

c5.32

⁵ For these terms see chapters 5-8 of Tolk. ii. which treat of the four kinds of words in the order given above. cfr. Nannūl (Pĕyariyal) i., 18.

c5.33

¹ Kāṭ. ii., 5, 5; Kacc. iv., 8; Ṛik. pr. ii., 12; Taitt. pr. i., 54; Atharva pr. iii., 95; Kātyāyana pr. i., 98. Pratijñāsūtra, 9. In the Tolkāppiyam, moḻi (=word), being a translation of pada, is alone used, it appears. In the Nannūl, paḍa is preferred (ii., 1, 1); śol with the sense of word is also used.

c5.34

Now in Pāṇini the parts of speech are treated in a more complicated way, and only upasarga and nipāta are there found, though not with quite the same significations as in the Aindra Grammar²).

c5.35

² Goldstücker ("Pāṇini's Place" pp. 224-5) has well shown the development in Pāṇini's view of nipātas. He says: "Pāṇini teaches that the first and general category to which prepositions belong, is that of nipātas or particles: he then continues, that they are upsargas when they are joined to "verbal action" (i. e. to a verb); gatis, if the verbal root to which they are attached become developed into a noun; and that they are karmapravacanīyas if they are detached and govern a noun. Of such a distinction there is no trace in the Nirukta". On p. 222 Goldstücker shows that Pāṇini used the term upsarga without definition, and that, consequently, it was already in use. Yāska, however, defines it.

c5.36

For nāma we find sup and subanta, and for ākhyāta we find tiṅ³); both artificial technical terms, and belonging to a far more advanced stage of analysis. It is sufficient to point out here that for the old simple terms, we find in Pāṇini an elaborate classification of nouns and verbs to suit the grammatical forms and irregularities; the analysis is no longer philosophical, but according to the forms.

c5.37

³ Or in the usual practice tiṅanta. The Chinese form of this word has been strangely misunderstood by St. Julien ("Histoire de la vie de Hiouen-Thsang", pp. 166 and 167), who puts tryanta (!) for the ti-yen-to of the Chinese text.

c5.38

The Tamil Grammar supplies another division of words which we do not find in the Sanskrit and Pāli Grammars, viz: into payupaḍam and payāpaḍam; literally: divisible and indivisible words. These words are nothing more than partial translations of the terms iṅgyapada and aniṅgyapada which occur in all the Prātiçākhyas. The commentary of Uvaṭa on the Ṛgvedaprātiçākhya (i., çl. 25) explains the word iṅgya: "iṅgyaçabdena sāvagraham padam ucyate". Avagraha is a pause which divides the component parts of a compound⁴).

c5.39

⁴ Regnier says: "mobile, séparable; c'est à dire, divisé en deux parties dans le pada." Payu (in Tamil) is to divide or separate; payā is the negative form. These terms appear first in the Nannūl. The Aniṅgyalaxaṇa has: aniṅgyam iti bhāgapadam na tv asamāsapadam.

c5.40

As regards the terms relating to phonetics, the identity is nearly complete. In the Tolkāppiyam a vowel is called uyir⁵), that is, 'breath' or ‘life’. In the Kātantra¹), in the Prātiçākhyas²) and Kaccāyana³), svara or sara (in Pāli) is used for ‘vowel’. This word is obviously the original of ‘uyir’; svara means sound and breath also. A consonant in the Tolkāppiyam⁴) is ‘mēy’, ‘feeling’ (the sense) or ‘body’; that is an evident translation of the Sanskrit sparça which is a name of the consonants k to m⁵). The Kātantra and Kaccāyana use only the general term for all the consonants⁶)—vyañjana—which appears in the Prātiçākhyas with the same sense⁷). European students of the Tamil grammar without exception appear to have been ignorant that it is a mere adaptation from the Sanskrit, and have invented a pretty little allegory about consonants being the body and vowels the life, which thus falls to the ground: for the terms used, in reality, refer to the physiological nature of the sounds, and are scientific not fanciful. Vowels are ‘short’ (kuṟil=hrasva) and ‘long’ (neḍil=dīrgha)⁸). The Tamil Grammar divides the consonants into vali ‘strong’, meli ‘soft’, and iḍai or ‘medial’⁹). The first (k, š, ṭ, t, p) and second (ṅ, ñ, ṇ, n, m) do not correspond to the aghosha and ghoshavat classes of the Sanskrit and Pāli Grammars; the difference in name is owing to the peculiar phonetic system of Tamil which differs altogether from the Sanskrit. The iḍai (or medial) letters (y, r, l, v, ḷ and ḻ) correspond with the Sanskrit antaḥsthāḥ¹⁰) and the Tamil name is an exact translation of the Sanskrit. Letters are said in the Tamil to belong to an iṇam or class (=varga)¹¹). The Sanskrit works have a term for the sibilants (ūshmānaḥ) which is common to them¹²), but the Tamil and Pāli phonetic systems want corresponding classes. The term for the

c5.41

⁵ Tolk. i., 1, 8.

c5.42

1) Kāṭ. i., 1, 2, and 7 etc.
2) Ṛik. pr. i., 1. Taitt. pr. i., 5. Atharva pr. i., 4. Kātyāyanīya pr. i., 39, etc. Pāṇinīyaçixā, çl. 4.
3) Kaccāyana, i., 1, 3.
4) Tolk. i., 1, 9.
5) Ṛik. pr. i. 2. Uvaṭa says: “teṣām vyañjanānām ādyā vargāḥ sparçasañjñā veditavyāḥ | spaṣṭakaraṇāḥ sparçāḥ kādayo māntāḥ.” (Tanjore MS. 2,417.) Taitt. pr. i., 7 etc. Atharva pr. i., 6. Kāty. pr. i., 49. Pāṇinīyaçixā, çl. 4. Maṇḍūkaçixā (quoted by Profr. Weber) 5, 8. and in similar works.
6) Kāṭ. i., 1, 9. Kacc. i., 1, 6.
7) Ṛik. pr. i., 1. Taitt. pr. i., 6. Atharva pr. i., 48. Kāṭ. pr. i., 38.
8) Tolk. i., 1, 3-4.
9) Do. i., 1, 19-21.
10) Kāṭ. i., 1. 14. Ṛik. pr. i., 2; Atharva pr. i., 30; Kāty. pr. iii., 129; Pratijñāsūtra 9, 17. Pāṇinīyaçixā 7.
11) Tolk. ii., 1, 18; Kāṭ. i., 1, 10, etc.; Kacc. i., 1, 7; Ṛik. pr. i., 2; Taitt. pr. i., 10 etc.
12) Atharva pr. ii., 38. Kātyāyanīya pr. i., 64 etc. Pāṇinīyaçixā, çl. 15. Pratijñāsūtra 9.

c5.43

union of one letter with another is in all the Sanskrit works and in Kaccāyana also, sandhi; the same is preserved in the Tamil saṇḍi.

c5.44

As regards the names of letters the Tolkāppiyam affixes -ayaram¹) to consonants, -yaram²) to short vowels and -yāram³) to long. This is obviously an extended application of the use of -kāra which occurs in all the Sanskrit treatises including Pāṇini’s⁴).

c5.45

There are also some terms relative to phonetics, which are common to the Kātantra and to some of the Prātiçākhyas, though they are absent from Kaccāyana’s Grammar and the Tolkāppiyam; for Pāli and Tamil present nothing to which they can be applied. Such is nāmin as a name of the vowels, except a, ā⁵); common to all (except Kaccāyana) is sandhy-axara⁶) = combined letter or diphthong, but such a term would be superfluous in Pāli and Tamil Grammars. Again samāna as a name of the vowels a to lṛi is common to the same⁷).

c5.46

Compared with this system, that of Pāṇini is at once seen to be totally different. In it there is no occasion for a classification of letters as described, for that is effected in a different way by the aid of the Çiva-sūtras. The use of varga to name a class of letters (e.g. ka-varga = k, kh, etc.) is replaced in Pāṇini’s system by the single letter u suffixed; thus ku has the same meaning as kavarga. Thus, of the above words mentioned as occurring in the Aindra treatises, only two (hrasva and dīrgha⁸)) occur in Pāṇini, and then as no part of his system, but merely explanatory.

c5.47

Distinction is made as to the place in the vocal organs by which the letters are pronounced, and which is called iḍam⁹) (place) the literal translation of sthāna which occurs in the Prātiçākhyas¹⁰). In the Nannūl iḍam and tānam (i.e. sthāna) are indiscriminately used¹¹). Iḍam is fourfold— uṛam (breast), kaṇḍam (throat), ušši (head), and mūkku (nose)

c5.48

1) Tolk. i., 1, 1.
2) Do. i., 1, 2.
3) Do. i, 1, 8.
4) See Goldstücker’s “Pāṇini’s Place” pp. 35-42. We find in the Nannūl a further development of this terminology, viz: -kāṇ as the name of the foreign ai and an (Nannūl ii., 43). That this is an innovation appears clearly from Tolk. i., 1, 8.
5) Kāt. i., 1, 7. Ṛik. pr. i., 17, etc. and Atharva pr. ii., 29.
6) Kāt., i., 1, 8. Ṛik. pr. i., 1. Atharva pr. i., 40. Kātyāyanīya pr. i., 45.
7) Kāt. i., 1, 3. Ṛik. pr. i., 1. Taitt. pr. i, 2. Atharva pr. iii., 42.
8) Pāṇini i., 2, 27.
9) Tolk. i., 3, 1.
10) Ṛik. pr. i., 10 and 11. Taitt. pr. ii., 31. Atharva pr. i., 41. Kātyāyanīya pr. i., 43.
11) Nannūl ii., 17 and 20.

c5.49

which obviously correspond with the Sanskrit— uras, kaṇṭha, mūrddhan and nāsa¹). The enumeration of these sthānas differs much in the Sanskrit phonetic treatises. With regard to the pronunciation of letters, muyaṛši²) (exertion) is also distinguished; this is an exact translation of prayatna³). For sthāna Pāṇini has āsya, prayatna he retains⁴).

c5.50

¹ The Nāradaçīxā (i., 7) knows only three (uraḥ kaṇṭha çiraç cai’va sthānāni triṇi vān maye); the Kāty. pr. mentions three (i., 10); the Pāṇinīyaçīxā (13) has eight, like the Maṇḍūkiçīxā.

c5.51

² Cfr. Nannūl ii., 17.

c5.52

³ Ṛik. pr. xiv., 10. Taitt. pr. xvii., 6. Pāṇinīyaçīxā, çl. 12.

c5.53

⁴ Pāṇini, i., 1, 9.

c5.54

The length of utterance of a letter is marked by one or more māttirai⁵), which is the Tamil form of the Sanskrit mātrā⁶). This term does not occur in Pāṇini.

c5.55

⁵ Tolk. i., 1, 7. cfr. Nannūl, ii., 44-5. The Pāṇinīyaçīxā (v. 49) and Ṛik. pr. (xiii., 18) explains the length of sounds of one, two or three mātrās by the cries of certain animals. Here in the Tamil books it is measured by the “winking of the eye” or “snapping the fingers”.

c5.56

⁶ Ṛikpr. i., 6. Atharva pr. i., 38; Kāty. pr. i., 54; Pāṇinīyaçīxā, çl. 16.

c5.57

Coming to the technical words relating to inflection, it is again evident that the Tamil terms are nothing but translations of the Sanskrit. The term for case in the Tolkāppiyam is veṟṟumai=‘distinguishing’⁷); this is the obvious translation of the Sanskrit vibhakti, which is common to all the works I have grouped together⁸). The cases in Tamil are first, second etc.⁹), answering to the Sanskrit prathamā, dvitīyā etc.¹⁰), and the number and use of the cases is made to agree with that of the Sanskrit Grammar, though very unnecessarily. Thus seven cases and the vocative, or eight¹¹) are reckoned. In the Kātantra etc., the vocative is called āmantrita or āmantraṇa¹²); in Tamil it is called viḷi¹³) or ‘calling’ the exact translation of the former.

c5.58

⁷ ii., 2, 1. Beschi (“Clavis” § p. 18) says: “Casus appellant veṟṟumai, quasi differentia nominis”. So the Commentator Durgasimha says (on Kāt. ii., 1, 1, 2): “arthasya vibhañjanād vibhaktaya iti”.

c5.59

⁸ Kāt. ii., 1, 1; Kacc. ii., 1, 8; Atharva. pr. ii., 51; Kāty. pr. v, 13.

c5.60

⁹ Tolk. ii, 2, 10 ffg.

c5.61

¹⁰ 1. prathamā—Kāt. ii., 2, 17. Kacc. iii., 14.—2. dvitīyā—Kāt. ii., 1, 44; Kacc. iii., 27.—3. tritīyā—Kāt. ii., 1, 7; Kacc. iii., 16.—4. caturthī—Kāt. ii., 3, 1; Kacc. iii, 23.—5. pañcamī—Kāt. ii., 4, 20; Kacc. ii., 5, 2.—6. shashṭhī—Kāt. ii., 3, 1; Kacc. iii., 31.—7. saptamī—Kāt. ii., 4, 2; Kacc. ii., 5, 3. It is not worth while collecting the few references in the Prātiçakhyas etc.

c5.62

¹¹ Tolk. ii., 2, 2.

c5.63

¹² Kāt. ii, 1, 5; Ṛik. pr. i., 18; Atharva. pr. i, 81; Kāty. pr. ii., 17. Kacc. ii., 1, 5, hás ālapana.

c5.64

¹³ Tolk. ii., 2, 2.

c5.65

Some of these terms occur in Pāṇini, but they form no real part of the system he uses; by it the names of cases are the case-terminations with indicative letters attached. For the name of the vocative, besides āmantrita we find in Pāṇini the term sambuddhi, which is equivalent to it, and which also occurs in the Kātantra.

c5.66

The technical terms with regard to verbs also show much the same likeness in the Tamil Grammar on the one hand, and the Kātantra and the like on the other.

c5.67

A verb (as already said) is called in Tamil viṇai which corresponds to kriyā. For the agreement to be complete some representative of ākhyāta should be used, but kriyā actually occurs in an explanatory sense¹), and is, therefore, probably the older term. The Tamil verb differs essentially from the Sanskrit, and has only three tenses²) with an imperative. The first are called niyaḷ-pōḻuṣu (now passing time), iṟanda-pōḻuṣu (past time) and ědir-pōḻuṣu (before time)³). The imperative is called eval or command⁴). These are obviously translations of vartamānakāla, paroxakāla (or bhūtakāla) and bhavishyatkāla⁵); the Tamil name for the imperative is from the Sanskrit anumati⁶). Verbs are called in Tamil either taṉviṉai (self-verb)⁷) or piṟaviṉai (outward-verb), these terms are evidently translations of the Sanskrit ātmanepada and parasmaipada, but the distinction they mark in Tamil might be better expressed, as these two classes of verbs correspond rather to intransitives and transitives.

c5.68

¹ Kāt. iii., 1, 9. Ṛik. pr. xii., 8.

c5.69

² Tolk. ii., 6, 2.

c5.70

³ Tolk. ii., 6, 3 and 44. Kāla is actually used for ‘tense’ in the Tolkāppiyam.

c5.71

⁴ Not in the Tolkāppiyam apparently; it occurs in the Nannūl.

c5.72

⁵ Kāt. iii., 1, 11; 13: 15. Kacc. vi., 1, 8; 12; 17. For paroxā see Ath. pr. iv., 84. cfr. Mahābhāshya, f. 7 b. “trayaḥ kālāḥ bhūta-bhavishyad vartamānāḥ”.

c5.73

⁶ Kāt. iii., 1, 18. .

c5.74

⁷ Tolk. ii., 6, 6.

c5.75

Some of these terms also occur in Pāṇini, but, as in the case of those relating to nouns they are mentioned incidentally, and form no part of his system, which has entirely artificial words as names for tenses, composed of l, a vowel, and ṭ or ṇ. That Pāṇini explains these symbols by the simple Aindra terms shows that these last were commonly understood, and are, therefore, the older terms⁸).

c5.76

⁸ e. g. P. iii., 2, 128: vartamāne laṭ; iii., 3, 3. bhavishyati gamyādayaḥ.

c5.77

The Tamil language is so entirely different from the Sanskrit that it is useless to look much further for technical grammatical terms belonging to the Aindra school. For example, the arrangement of the persons in the tenses includes masculine and feminine terminations (for human beings) and also neuter endings of the third person; this necessarily renders impossible an adherence to the Sanskrit model¹. A few more terms may, however, be mentioned: 1. cāriyai² which is the name of letters inserted between a word and an affix; it is from √cār ‘to resort to’ or ‘to come on,’ and is thus the exact equivalent of the Sanskrit āgama³. 2. The term used in the Tolkāppiyam for the loss or elision of a letter is keṭuṭal⁴ from √keṭu ‘to be destroyed or lost’; this is exactly the equivalent of lopa⁵. 3. In the same treatise we find mayakkam⁶ used as the name of a group of consonants occurring together; this word is from √mayakku ‘to confuse or attract’ and it corresponds to the saṃyoga⁷ of the corresponding Sanskrit treatises. Again we find īṟu⁸ which answers to anta as generally used in the Sanskrit-treatises.

c5.78

¹ The name of the personal terminations of verbs is vibhakti (Kacc. vi., 1). The Kātantra does not use this word in a sūtra, but the commentators assume it. The Tolkāppiyam, on the other hand, prohibits vēṟṟumai (vibhakti) to verbs (ii., 6, 1), and restricts this term solely to nouns, because the personal terminations to the verbs are at once recognized as pronouns.

c5.79

³ Kāt. ii., i, 6; Kacc. i., 4, 6; Ṛik. pr. ii., 11; Taitt. pr. i, 28; Atharva pr. iii., 78; Kāty. pr. i., 137.

c5.80

⁴ Tolk. i., 4, 13 and 20; 5, 15 and 18 etc.

c5.81

⁵ Ṛik. pr. iv., 7; Taitt. pr.. i., 56; Atharva pr. i., 67; Kāt. i., 2, 1; Kacc. i., 2, 1.

c5.82

⁶ Tolk. i., 2, 14.

c5.83

⁷ Ṛik. pr. (i., 7). Taitt. pr. xxi., 4. Atharva pr. i., 51.

c5.84

⁸ Tolk. i., 2, 6 and 38 etc.

c5.85

The above comparison of the technical terms of the Tolkāppiyam on the one hand, and the Kātantra etc. on the other, will, I think, establish the general identity of system of all these grammars, as I have already stated⁹. The comparison (to a limited extent) with the terms used by Pāṇini prove that these last are far more artificial and precise and, therefore, more recent than the former. The relation of the two is just the same as that between the mediæval notation of algebraic problems and the modern system. Where, for example, Cardan wrote ‘cosa’ and ‘census’ we now put x and x² ¹⁰. So where the Aindra Grammars have an ordinary word used in a technical sense, Pāṇini mostly has a mere symbol¹¹. If the series of technical terms that I have just discussed be considered, it will clearly be seen that the terms used in the Tolkāppiyam, Kātantra, and Kaccāyana all hang together as parts of one system, and that the resemblance holds good throughout. Thus the similarity in the technical terms regarding phonetics is not varied when we come to inflection, and several terms which can find no place in the Tamil grammar occur in the others¹); for these reasons it is safe to presume that the Prātiçākhyas all belong to the same school, though they do not go beyond phonetics, and so far their evidence is defective.

c5.86

² Tolk. i., 6, 1.

c5.87

⁹ Above pp. 11-12.

c5.88

¹⁰ Morley’s “Jerome Cardan” i., p. 222.

c5.89

¹¹ There are a few anubandhas in the Kātantra etc., but these must be considered further on.

c5.90

¹ e. g. upadhā. Kāṭ. i., 4, 7; Kacc. Liṅga (=Pāṇini's prātipadika); Kāṭ. ii., 1, 1; Kacc. ii., 1, 2. Pravāda is the term in the Ṛik. pr. (ii., 39). Prof. Max Müller noticed (in his A. S. Literature) that Pāṇini was the first to distinguish the genders for which he uses this word. Anushaṅga, Kāṭ. ii., 1, 12. Ṛik. pr. ii., 18; Atharva pr. i., 92. Kāty. pr. i., 35.

c5.91

I shall now collect the conventional (technical) terms discussed above, giving, firstly, the term used in the Tolkāppiyam in its original Sanskrit form, if possible²), and marked *. Variations are included in ( ) following, the source being indicated. Those words which also occur in Pāṇini³) are marked by thick type, and additional words not in the Tolkāppiyam but which occur in all or most of the Grammars that I now have classed together, are in spaced type.

c5.92

² The two that cannot be re-translated are marked * *

c5.93

³ i. e. in the sūtras of Pāṇini only, I do not include the vārttikas etc.

c5.94

c5.95

⁴ I omit tṛitīyā and the other names of cases up to saptamī.

c5.96

nāmin (bhāvin in the Kāty. pr.) nipāta
* pada pararūpa
* parasmaipada paroxakāla (or bhūtakāla) prakṛiti (cfr. Kāt.) pratyaya
* prathamā pradhāna
* prayatna bahuvacana
* bhavishyatkāla
* bhūtakāla
* mātrā liṅga (not in Pāṇini with the same sense; = pravāda in Prātiçākhyas)
* lōpa
* varga

c5.97

varṇa (in Pāṇini, i., 1, 9 in savarṇa only)
* vartamānakāla vikṛiti
* vibhakti visarjanīya or visarga vṛiddhi vyañjana
* saṃyoga
* sandhi sandhyaxara samāna (i.e. varṇa) samāsa savarṇa
* sthāna
* sparça
* svara (originally = vowel or accent. Pāṇini has it in the last sense only)
* hrasva

c5.98

In the above list I have purposely excluded varṇa and axara as these terms, though common to the Sanskrit treatises, are not represented in the Tamil which has eḷuttu in their place, a word that can be best translated by likhita. As I have shown elsewhere¹, there are strong reasons for believing that the Tamil people had an independent system of writing in use before their language was analysed by grammarians from the North. The terms relating to samāsa are older than Pāṇini, but do not occur in the Tamil Grammar.

c5.99

¹ “Elements of S. Indian Palæography”, p. 48.

c5.100

Thus, as far as these terms go, it is clear that if we find almost any one of them in any treatise, we are certain to find the rest in due course; but this is not the case if we take Pāṇini’s grammar. I have already given several instances which show the great development in the system of technical terms as used by the last, compared with the former; I shall now show that Pāṇini’s use of the Aindra terms proves that they belong to an older system, and that they probably belong to the system of the grammarians whom he occasionally quotes as “Prāñcaḥ”.

c5.101

The late Profr. Goldstücker (who first, perhaps, in Europe, mastered the intricate system of Pāṇini’s grammar) pointed out that the rules contained in the sūtras i., 2, 53—57 explain the innovations made by Pāṇini as regards the technical terms used by his predecessors in the science. Goldstücker’s conclusions are¹):

c5.102

¹ “Pāṇini’s Place” (sep. imp.) p. 166.

c5.103

I. “That his (i.e. Pāṇini’s) grammar does not treat of those sañjñās or conventional names which are known and settled otherwise.

c5.104

II. “That this term sañjñā must be understood in our (i.e. Pāṇini’s) rule to concern only such conventional names as have an etymology.

c5.105

III. “That it applies also to grammatical terms which admit of an etymology, but not to those which are merely grammatical symbols.

c5.106

IV. “That such terms as ṭi, ghu and bha were known and settled before Pāṇini’s grammar, but that, nevertheless, they are defined by Pāṇini, because they are not etymological terms”²). Pāṇini himself (i., 2, 56) gives examples, viz. pradhāna and pratyaya which are, therefore, older than his system.

c5.107

² I shall discuss this view in due course, further on, when I shall attempt to determine Pāṇini’s innovations.

c5.108

Now if one examines Pāṇini’s sūtras narrowly, it becomes evident that there are certain terms which he always uses without a definition and which belong to the Aindra school, whereas he gives definitions of certain others which belong to the same school, but which he uses in a modified sense and not as they were originally used.

c5.109

Firstly, as regards Aindra terms which Pāṇini uses without a definition. These are prathamā, dvitīyā, tṛtīyā, caturthī, pañcamī, shashṭhī and saptamī as names of cases³). Why Pāṇini uses these terms is evident; had he restricted himself to his own symbols, his meaning would not have appeared at all⁴) in these particular sūtras, and thus he was compelled to use the older terms or sacrifice his principle of the utmost possible conciseness of expression. The Commentary to the original Calcutta edition, and which is a compilation from earlier similar works, states in more than one place that these names of cases are technical terms of the ‘prāñcaḥ’ grammarians. Thus, on P. ii., 3, 13, in which caturthī occurs, this term is explained by: “caturthī ’ti saṁjñā prācām”. Again on sūtra ii., 3, 46, in which prathamā occurs, the same explanation is given. It is unlikely that this statement is without authority, but what that authority is, I have as yet failed to discover, though I have examined the Kāçikā-vṛtti and other most likely sources, for this statement. It has been accepted by Böhtlingk and Goldstücker, however, but without indication of the authority on which it rests¹); yet considering the nature of the grammatical teaching given in India, and its absolute reliance on, and servile imitation of the authorities, such a statement can hardly have been made without reason, and, therefore, must not be wholly rejected. The other Aindra terms used by Pāṇini without a definition are: anusvāra; anta; ekavacana, dvivacana and bahuvacana (of nouns); upasarga; nipāta; dhātu; pratyaya; pradhāna; prayatna; bhavishyat (-kāla); vartamāna (-kāla). Besides these one must add nearly all the terms relating to samāsa, but I shall not discuss them as they naturally cannot be found in Tamil. Thus it is certain that Pāṇini found these conventional terms already in use, and generally understood.

c5.110

³ See the Index at the end of the second volume of Böhtlingk’s edition of Pāṇini for the places where these terms occur.

c5.111

⁴ For these sūtras refer to the meaning of some expressions, and not to the grammatical form.

c5.112

¹ See Böhtlingk's edition (ii., p. 487, s. v. dvitīyā): “Die Endungen des 2ten Casus bei den östlichen Grammatikern” cfr. also the passage on p. xii. of the same volume: “Es kommen nämlich in seinem Werke für mehrere grammatische Elemente doppelte Kunstausdrücke vor, von denen der eine ihm selbst ist, der andere dagegen, nach dem Zeugnisse seiner Commentatoren, von den östlichen Grammatikern entlehnt ist.” Goldstücker (“Pāṇini's Place” p.167 of the sep. imp.) says: “And the commentators apprise us that these words (i. e. prathamā, etc.) were technical names used by the eastern grammarians which are referred to by Pāṇini in some of his rules”. The sources from which the Commentary in the Calcutta edition was taken are mentioned on the title-page. Prof. Weber has identified the Kātyāyanīya Prātiçākhya with the Prācya School, and Goldstücker (u. s. p. 217) classes the Phiṭ sūtras with the same. The last has only partially the Aindra terms. (See also Kielhorn's edition p. 11.)

c5.113

The Aindra terms of which Pāṇini apparently gives definitions are as follows: anunāsika; ātmanepada; āmantrita; upadhā; guṇa; dīrgha; pada; parasmaipada; vibhakti; vṛddhi; saṁyoga; savarṇa; hrasva. But it by no means necessarily follows that Pāṇini invented or first used these terms, for, (as I shall now proceed to show), he has in many cases improved and made more exact the use of an old term and in other cases his system required a new definition.

c5.114

Anunāsika. Pāṇini defines this term in i., 1, 8—“mukhanāsikāvacano ’nunāsikaḥ.” In the Prātiçākhyas anunāsika is the name of the nasals ṅ, ñ, ṇ, etc. and certain other letters in certain positions; here, in Pāṇini, we find a physiological-explanation which supersedes the enumeration of particular cases in the earlier books.

c5.115

Ātmanepada etc. Pāṇini (i., 4, 99) says: “laḥ parasmaipadam”; in the next sūtra he defines ātmanepada—“taṅānāv ātmanepadam”. In the Kātantra and Kaccāyana, these words are the name of certain terminations¹); here symbols unknown to the earlier works are used, and new definitions are, therefore, necessary.

c5.116

Āmantrita or āmantraṇa. Pāṇini (ii., 3, 48) says: “sā ’mantritam.” This is no real definition, but is merely explanatory.

c5.117

Upadhā. Pāṇini (i., 1, 65) says: “alo ’ntyāt pūrva upadhā.” This definition differs but very little from that in the older system²), but this slight change makes very plain the difference between Pāṇini’s system and that followed by his predecessors; it is the first word alaḥ. The reason for this addition is given in the Mahābhāṣya³) viz. to avoid making it apply to the indicatory suffixes. In the older treatises this precaution was unnecessary, for they did not use such symbols at all, if we may infer decisively from the Prātiśākhyas and Tolkāppiyam, and there are very few such in the Kātantra and in Kaccāyana’s Grammar⁴).

c5.118

Guṇa. In the old treatises guṇa occurs, but a new definition was necessary in Pāṇini’s Grammar, as he uses the Ḉiva-sūtras; he defines it accordingly by a pratyāhāra.

c5.119

Dīrgha and hrasva. The old definition was by mātrās; Pāṇini (i., 2, 27) gives a new conventional value: “ū 3 kālo ’j jhrasvadīrghaplutaḥ”.

c5.120

Pada. This is again defined by Pāṇini (i., 4, 14): “supṭinantam padam”; but the definition is obviously necessary as sup and tiṅ are unknown to the earlier works. The definition in the Kātantra⁵) is: “pūrvaparayor arthopalabhdhau padam”.

c5.121

Lopa. Pāṇini (i., 1, 69) says: “adarśanam lopaḥ”. This is really a new definition, or rather the first; for, elsewhere, the word is simply used in its ordinary sense without explanation. It evidently refers to written symbols, and Pāṇini was probably the first grammarian who wrote his treatise. He also uses some new terms—lu and luk, lup, ḷu.

c5.122

1) Kāt. iii., 1, 1-2. Kacc. p. 221.
2) Kāt. (ii, 1, 11)—“antyāt pūrva upadhā”. Atharva pr. i., 92; Kāty. pr. i., 35.
3) Mahābh. (Ed. Benares, i., fol. 160, b.), “Kim idam algrahaṇam antyaviśeṣaṇam? evam bhavitum arhati | upadhāsañjñāyām algrahaṇam antyanirdeçaç ce ’saṅghātapratiṣedhaḥ | ” etc.
4) It is to be noticed that this definition (in the form “varṇād antyāt pūrva upadhā”) occurs in the Atharva pr. (i., 92) and in the Kātyāyanīya pr. (i., 35). Profr. Whitney remarks that in the Ṛik pr. upadhā has a more general signification (p. 59 of his edition of the Athar-va pr.). The Taitt. pr. (as Profr. Whitney points out) has not this term.
5) Kāt. i., 1, 20. The C. explains “pūrvaparayoḥ” by “prakṛtivibhak tayoḥ.”

c5.123

Vibhakti. Pāṇini (i., 4, 104) defines this term: “vibhaktiç ca”. This sūtra is intended to declare that sup and tiṅ are called vibhakti. In the older books the mere list of terminations was given, here the introduction of the symbols sup and tiṅ renders explanation necessary.

c5.124

Vriddhi. The reason for this fresh definition is the same as in the case of guṇa.

c5.125

Samyoga. Here again the use of the Çiva-sūtras renders a new definition necessary (i., 1, 7)—“halo ’nantarāḥ samyogaḥ”. The old definition (Rik. pr. i., 7) is: “samyogo vyañjanasannipātaḥ which would not suit the new term for consonants.

c5.126

Savarna. This is not defined in the older books, but Pāṇini sums up all their researches on the nature of alphabetic sounds by—“tulyāsyaprayatnam savarṇam” (i., 1, 9)—a definition which completely supersedes the old lists of analogous letters.

c5.127

Thus of the Aindra terms used by Pāṇini, he uses the greater number without definition, and they are, therefore, to be considered as in use before his time, and this result follows from his own rule¹. A somewhat smaller number of Aindra terms he does define, but it is plain that he does not use these terms in their old sense, or else that a new and more precise definition is necessary in consequence of the system of technical symbols used by him, and by which the old idea is expressed in a new way. These last instances thus do not fall under his rule, and it does not, in consequence, follow that he invented these terms.

c5.128

¹ i., 2, 53 ffg.

c5.129

In making this comparison, I have, as already said, noticed only the sūtras of Pāṇini; it is little likely that these can have been tampered with or improved to any serious extent, but the case is different with the subordinate literature such as the Gaṇapāṭha etc. The vārttikas and Patañjali’s commentary, as we have them, contain a large number of Aindra terms (e.g. svara and vyañjana) which do not occur in Pāṇini, and considering the nature of these texts and their object, viz., to respectively correct and rehabilitate Pāṇini, their presence is evidence in favour of the view taken above. If (as has been explained above) the Commentators are right in identifying the Aindra terms for cases as those of the Prāñcaḥ, the opinions of those grammarians as quoted by Pāṇini should correspond with the works which I have shown to belong to the Aindra school. Now Pāṇini quotes these grammarians in eight sūtras².

c5.130

² iii., 4, 18; iv., 1, 17. 48. 160; v., 3, 80. 94. 4, 101; viii., 2, 86.

c5.131

The first of these is: “alaṅkhalvoḥ pratiṣedhayoḥ prācām ktvā”, and this sūtra actually occurs in the Kātantra¹) with the omission of prācām; what is here taught is, therefore, the doctrine of the school to which the Kātantra belongs. The next three sūtras referred to treat of the formation of certain feminine nouns, but I cannot trace any similarity in them, nor in respect of the remaining sūtras. Considering the nature of the books we have for comparison, and that of the complete treatises one is in Pāli and the other in Tamil both of which necessarily allow of only a limited adaptation of the original system, and that rather in form than in matter, this nearly negative result is all that could be expected, and does not really affect the question.

c5.132

¹ vi., 1. It adds, however, vā and makes it optional.

c5.133

Whether the identity of the Aindra School with the Prāñcaḥ that Pāṇini quotes be admitted or not, it seems to me that it is impossible generally to translate this name any longer by “Eastern Grammarians”, and that the only satisfactory rendering is “Former Grammarians”. Pāṇini does occasionally use the ambiguous term prāñc²) in a geographical sense, but only where the words he refers to, are geographical. In the sūtras where he mentions the grammatical doctrine of the prāñcaḥ, the Commentators (e. g. the Kāçikā vṛtti) always explain the word prācām by prācām ācāryāṇām matena, and as we now know that Pāṇini was a native of Çālātura¹), a glance at the map will show that a geographical meaning cannot possibly be given to the word. It must also be taken into consideration that even if Pāṇini could have referred to some of his predecessors as ‘Eastern’, yet that such a term could not possibly be continued (as we find is the case) by his successors (e.g. Patañjali) many of whom lived to the south-east of Pāṇini’s native place; they would rather have mentioned them by name.

c5.134

² Prāño and its derivatives mean both a) ‘former’ or ‘old’, and also b) ‘eastern’ in all periods of Sanskrit Literature. A few examples will make this plain:

c5.135

a “Sarvadarçanasaṅgraha” (p. 122): “Asya praçnasya prativacanam prācyām mīmāṃsāyām prādarçi Jaimininā muninā”. “Paribhāṣhenducekhara”, introduction, p. i. (of Dr. Kielhorn’s admirable edition): “Prācīnavyākaraṇatantre vācanikāny Pāṇinīyatantre jñāpakanyāyasiddhāni bhāṣyavārttikayor nibaddhāni yāni paribhāṣārūpāṇi tāni vyākhyāyante”. Vaidyanātha (in his C. on this text) explains that the grammarians who preceded Pāṇini were Indra and the like. Bhaṭṭoji Dīxita’s “Siddhāntakaumudī (Calcutta edition of 1870, vol. ii., p. 188) “Sarve paxāḥ prācām granthe sthitāḥ”. This refers to the Prakriyākaumudī and the plural ‘prācām’ is honorific; there could not have well been many authors to one book. Elsewhere in the S. K., Bhaṭṭoji refers to the same treatise as ‘Prācīnaprakriyā’. So also in his Prauḍhamanoramā he means the Prakriyākaumudī of Rāmacandra and his followers where he mentions the ‘prāñcaḥ’ or ‘prācīnaprakriyā’ which he always does with censure.

c5.136

b But, on the other hand, even Pāṇini uses the word also with the sense of ‘Eastern’ (cfr. i., 1, 75), and it is not unusual in this sense in grammatical works. So Kīrasvāmin (in his Commentary on the Amarakosha, i., 1, 1, 1) says: “tripishṭapam’ iti prācyāḥ prāyena hy ete pa(b)au çasau ca vyatyasasya paṭhanti”. This clearly refers to the Eastern or Bengali pronunciation, as the actual pronunciation jība (for jīva) and saṇa (for çaṇa) prove. [Profr. Aufrecht has lately described the I. O. MS. of Kīrasvāmin in the Zeitschrift d. d. M-G. xxviii., pp. 103 ffg. I have only a defective MS. (Tanjore, No. 5,580) to refer to, and this differs in many places from Profr. Aufrecht’s quotations; e. g. in i., 1, 1, 80 there is no mention of the

c5.137

¹ Near Attock. See Cunningham’s “Ancient Geography of India” i., pp. 57-8.

c5.138

In an enquiry of this nature small details of corroborative evidence are not to be neglected, and it is, thus, necessary to remark that the grammatical terms which are found in the Vedic works are Aindra terms. There can be no doubt that these words (as used by Grammarians) are older than Pāṇini, for this reason; as, though, no doubt, the chronology of the Vedic literature is beset with difficulties, the matter, at least of the books I am going to quote, can be safely put down as anterior to Pāṇini; such passages²) can hardly have been interpolated for any conceivable reason.

c5.139

² The three first passages have already been noticed by Profr. Max Müller (A. S. Lit. p. 160, 2nd ed.) as containing grammatical terms. In this he follows Profr. Weber (“Indische Studien” iv., p. 76).

c5.140

The first passage occurs in the Taittirīya or first Upanishad of the Taittirīya Āraṇyaka (vii., 1, 2)³); it runs: çikṣām vyākhyāsyāmaḥ | varṇāḥ svaraḥ | mātrā balam | sāma santānaḥ | ity uktaḥ çikṣādhyāyaḥ ||

c5.141

³ Bibl. Indica edition (by Rājendralāl Mitra) p. 725. It is useless to give here the interpretations of the numerous Commentators, for they add really nothing; the sense of the passage is plain enough.

c5.142

We find here merely the bare heads of matter to be treated in a phonetical compendium such as the çikṣās now actually in existence in considerable numbers, but varṇa, svara and mātrā are actually Aindra terms.

c5.143

paçcātyāḥ, but only the prācyāḥ are referred to. Again in iii., 3, 20 only the udīcyāḥ are referred to.] Again in the Bhela Saṃhita (a. xiii., 3) we find this word used in the sense of ‘Eastern people’ or Natives of Bengal (?):
Matsyānnabhojino nityam prācyāḥ syuḥ kaphapittinaḥ |
Çīpadam galagaṇḍam ca prāyaças teshu dṛiçyate ||

c5.144

But it is sufficient to point out the ambiguity of the word and that no general rule can be given as to its rendering. The possible meanings in Pāṇini appear to be a) former (grammarians), b) former (use of the language). To these udac appears as a contrast viz., in the sense of ‘recent’. Pāṇini, in short, recognizes historical development in Sanskrit. To the natural objection—if Pāṇini’s predecessors are called prāñcaḥ collectively by him, why then does he quote individual authors?—the explanation appears to me to be easy and satisfactory, viz., if he refers to a peculiar doctrine in which all his predecessors were agreed, he mentions them collectively as Prāñcaḥ; if however he refers to individual differences, he names his authority.

c5.145

The Chāndogya Upanishad¹) mentions sparça, svara and ūshman which are all Aindra terms also.

c5.146

¹ Dr. Roer's edition (in the Bibl. Indica) p. 135 (p. ii., 22, 3—5).

c5.147

In the Çatapatha Brāhmaṇa²) we find: Ne 'd ekavacanena bahuvacanam vyavāyāme 'ti. We have already seen that ekavacana and bahuvacana are Aindra terms. In the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa axara, axarapaṅkti, caturaxara, varṇa, -kāra and pada³) occur; these belong to the same class of terms. Though few, they imply an advanced analysis of words.

c5.148

² Edited by Dr. A. Weber p. 990. In a note on p. 1018 Profr. Weber shows that at the time this Brāhmaṇa was written, grammar had advanced far enough to identify roots such as √bhū and √as. This is supported by many passages in the Aitareya Br. (ed. Haug)—i., 10; ii., 1; iii., 2 and 29 (√mad), 39 and 47 (sudhā identified with suhita); iv., 6. 29. 32; v., 5 (janūmshi is said to be jāta-vat) etc.

c5.149

³ Ed. Profr. Haug, P. i., 5; ii., 24; v., 3; etc.

c5.150

The most important passage from this stand-point is, however, one in the relatively late Gopatha Brāhmaṇa (i., 24). It runs: "Omkāraṃ pṛcchāmaḥ ko dhātuḥ kim prātipadikam kim nāmā 'khyātam kim liṅgam kim vacanam kā vibhaktiḥ kaḥ pratyayaḥ kaḥ svara upasargo nipātaḥ kim vai vyākaraṇam ko vikāraḥ ko vikārī katimātraḥ kativarṇaḥ katyaxaraḥ katipadaḥ kaḥ saṃyogaḥ kim sthānānupradānakaraṇam çixukāḥ kim uccārayanti kim chandaḥ ko varṇa iti pūrve praçnāḥ"⁴). This short passage contains all the chief Aindra terms, but it is by no means the only one in this Brāhmaṇa in which grammatical terms occur⁵). It is useless to refer to the Tāṇḍya and other Brāhmaṇas of the Sāma Veda as in these many grammatical terms (e. g. vibhakti) are used in a different technical sense and refer to the Sāma chants.

First 150 of 212 passages. Read on

Linked texts (31)

Aṣṭādhyāyī — Pāṇini, Sanskrit
Tolkāppiyam — Tolkāppiyar, Tamil
Taittirīyaprātiśākhya — Sanskrit
Śaunakīyā Caturādhyāyikā — Śaunaka, Sanskrit
Vājasaneyiprātiśākhya — Kātyāyana (Vājasaneyi sūtrakāra), Sanskrit
Nirukta — Yāska, Sanskrit
Mānava Dharmaśāstra — Manu & Bhṛgu, Sanskrit
Aitareyabrāhmaṇa — Mahidāsa Aitareya, Sanskrit
Nāradīyāśikṣā — Nārada, Sanskrit
Śatapathabrāhmaṇa — Yājñavalkya & Śāṇḍilya (Vedic teacher), Sanskrit
Vaiyākaraṇasiddhāntakaumudī — Bhaṭṭoji Dīkṣita 1600, Sanskrit
Kaccāyanavyākaraṇa — Kaccāyana (grammarian), Pāli
Bheḷasaṃhitā — Bheḷa, Sanskrit
Sarvadarśanasaṅgraha — Mādhava, Sanskrit
Ṛgvedaprātiśākhya — Śaunaka, Sanskrit
Chāndogyopaniṣad — Sanskrit
Naṉṉūl — Pavaṇanti, Tamil
Tibetan translation ('Chi med mdzod) — Classical Tibetan
Taittirīyāraṇyaka — Sanskrit
Devatādhyāyabrāhmaṇa — Sanskrit
Pāṇinīyaśikṣā — Pāṇini, Sanskrit
Atharvaprātiśākhya — Sanskrit
Kātantra — Śarvavarman, Sanskrit
Prātiśākhya
Cāndravyākaraṇa — Candragomin, Sanskrit
Ṛgvedasaṃhitā — Sanskrit
Vyākaraṇa
Gopathabrāhmaṇa — Sanskrit
Prakriyākaumudī — Rāmacandra (author of the Prakriyākaumudī), Sanskrit
Kavikalpadruma — Harṣakula, Sanskrit
Padacandrikā — Mukunda Bhaṭṭa, Sanskrit