The Orion, or Researches into the Antiquity of the Vedas c8.33.2

c8.33.2

There is strong ground to hold that he could not have understood it to mean the month of Mârgashîrsha. For if we suppose that in Pânini's times there were two forms of the word in this sense—Agrahâyana and Agrahâyanika—he would have rather mentioned Agrahâyanî in iv. 2. 23,† along with Chaitrî, &c., which gives the double forms Chaitra and Chaitrika and not with Ashvatta in iv. 2. 22† as he has now done. We may, therefore, infer that Agrahâyanika was the only sanctioned form of the word to denote the month of Mârgashîrsha in Pânini's time. This means that Pânini did not know of the theory which makes the year commence with the Mârgashîrshî full-moon night or the month of Mârgashîrsha (*Agrahâyaṇa*). If so, he could not have derived the word *Agrahâyaṇî* for the full-moon night directly by taking it to be a Bahuvrîhi compound.* The only other alternative is to derive it as we derive *Chaitrî* and other similar words, and I think this is what Pânini meant. For if he had been aware of any such difficulty in the formation of *Agrahâyaṇî*,—a word thrice used by him,—and especially in in obtaining the initial long vowel as Bhattoji and others have felt by taking it to be a Bahuvrîhi compound, he would have naturally noticed it himself. I therefore conclude that Pânini derived *Agrahâyaṇî* from *Agrahâyaṇa*, as the name of a Nakshatra. In this case we can derive *Agrahâyaṇî* in a simple and easy manner. For by Pânini iv. 2.