This study is devoted to establishing the existence of a hitherto un- known dimension in Papini's treatment of linguistic variation, and to investigating in a preliminary way what it might mean for our understanding of the Sanskrit grammatical tradition and of the history of the Sanskrit language. I will survey the optional rules in the Aptadhyayi from several points of view Each of these will be found to yield some support for the conclusion that Paunimaket a systematic distinction between three degrees of optionality. One method of demonstrating this is by the words which designate rules as optional. The different meanings which the interpretation I propose assigns to them in Panini's metalanguage will be seen to agree well both with their etymology and meaning in ordinary Sanskrit, and with the explicit definition which Panini provides for one of these words in the Astadhyayi itself (Ch. 1). I will also analyse that definition and show that the several apparent anomalies which it presents under the traditional interpretation are firmly motivated if-and, it would appear, only if the words differ in meaning as proposed (Ch. 6) Another line of inquiry is through internal analysis of the optional rules in the system. This also brings many hints of the same distinction of meaning, both in the form of complications which would otherwise be pointless (Ch. 1: rule 7.1.80, Ch. 4: rules 3.1.140, 143) and in the form of whole types of rules which preferentially use just one of the words denoting optionality, for reasons having to do with their meanings (Ch. 4, end). But by far the most productive source of evidence will be the confrontation of Panini's optional rules with the actual preferences attested in Sanskrit usage, as it appears in Papini's own text (Ch. 2), in Vedic works (Ch. 3), and in Sanskrit in general (Ch. 4). This will provide us with confirmation of our hypothesis which is so massive that it would in itself be sufficient to establish the point even if no other evidence could be found.
My investigation, and especially this last "philological," aspect of it, has unavoidably involved me in numerous tangential issues of fact and interpretation. Such tentative conclusions as I have been able to arrive at on these issues, in part on grounds related to my central hypothesis about the threefold distinction in optionality, and in part on quite independent grounds, may be of some interest even apart from the role they play in my argumentation. Since they are largely scattered about in the text among discussions of particular rules of Papini to which they happen to be relevant, it may be useful to identify some of them here:
The system behind the continuation and discontinuation of items from preceding rules (anuvetti and nivetti): Ch. 2 (p. 44-47), Ch. 3 (p. 62), Ch. 4 (p. 151-158), Ch. 5.
Proposals and conjectures concerning the interpretation of problem. atic rules: Ch. 3 (items 3, 4, 7, 16, 17), Ch. 4 (items 1, 21, 28, 29, 32, 38, 75, 86, 97, 113 (p. 156 ff.), 129, 147), Ch. 5 (8.2.74).
The role of ca, api, eva in the system : Ch. 5.
-The systematic status of technical terms and of rules introducing them: Ch 6.
-The linguistic status of Sanskrit in Panini's time and after: Ch. 4 (beginning, end), Ch. 7.
-Methodological issues in Papini studies: Ch. 7.
I must stress here that these ancillary proposals are being offered in a somewhat less assertive mode than the main thesis of my essay. They are intended to be no more than preliminary explorations, and I fully recognize that they need to be followed up by more systematic work. Though, if correct, they generally support my analysis of optionality, they are not essential to it, and I would not be terribly disappointed if they turned out to be mistaken. In fact, I would be pleased if dissatisfaction with them prompted someone to discover better solutions to the problems in question.
This work was written in Poona during 1976-77. For making possible that delightful year of total immersion in Paninian grammar I am grateful to a number of people and institutions. The American Institute of Indian Studies and the National Endowment for the Humanities each provided financial support for a portion of my stay. M. D. Bhandare and D. P. Mehendiratta of the A. I. I. S. gave efficient help in practical matters. A. M. Ghatage allowed me to use the magnificient files of the Sanskrit Dictionary Project at Deccan College. I had the privilege of learning from two extra- ordinary scholars, K. A. Sivaramakrishna Sastri and T. S. Srinivasa Sastri. V. W. Paranjpe, A. R. Kelkar, D. M. Joshi, and many other good friends also helped in various ways. I am indebted to S. D. Laddu of the C.A.S.S., for his assistance in preparing the indices and in reading the proofs of this book.
The greatest debt by far I owe to S. D. Joshi. As Director of the C. A. S. S. of the University of Poona he opened to me the resources of that institution. As my teacher he has guided my work on Papini for many years. As my collaborator in another project on Panini he has patiently tolerated the inroads which this work made on my time, which might per- haps have been better spent on our joint research. As editor of this work he has checked the manuscript, and arranged for the preparation of indices and for printing it in the C. A. S. S. series. On numerous specific points he has suggested substantial improvements, which I have mostly accepted and tried as best I could to work into the text (though the responsibility for any mistakes is mine alone). For all this, and for his warm encouragement I thank him from the bottom of my heart.
Send as free online greeting card
Email a Friend
Manage Wishlist