A History of Sanskrit Literature c7.s2.13

c7.s2.13

Confirmatory evidence can also be adduced from the references of Yāska,³ Pāṇini, and Kātyāyana to particular usages of the northerners and the eastern peoples; Kātyāyana also recognizes as a matter of notoriety the existence of local variations, which Patañjali illustrates by reference to the practice of the Kambojas, Surāṣṭras, Prācyamadhyas, &c. Here too may be mentioned the references of Kātyāyana and Patañjali to changes in usage after Pāṇini’s time, as when the former⁴ finds fault with Pāṇini for not giving *nāma* as well as *nāman* as the vocative, for not mentioning that pronominal forms are permitted in the masculine as well as in the feminine singular of *dvitīya* and *tṛtīya*, and for allowing only the feminines *upādhyāyī*, *āryā*, *kṣatriyā*, and *mātulānī*. Patañjali shows us that in his time participial phrases had superseded the second person perfects such as *tera*, *ūṣa*, *peca*, a fact specially characteristic of a genuine living speech.⁵