Sanskrit Syntax Selected Papers Presented at the Seminar on Sanskrit Syntax and Discourse Structures, 13-15 June 2013, Université Paris Diderot

Home , Genitive absolute, Rudolf von Roth

Sanskrit syntax Selected papers presented at the seminar on Sanskrit syntax and discourse structures, 13-15 June 2013, Université Paris Diderot,

with an updated and revised bibliography by HANS HENRICH HOCK

edited by PETER M.SCHARF

16 February 2015 ii

Scharf, Peter M., ed. Sanskrit syntax: Selected papers presented at the seminar on Sanskrit syntax and discourse structures, 13-15 June 2013, Université Paris Diderot, with an updated and revised bibliography by Hans Henrich Hock. Providence: The Sanskrit Library; New Delhi: D. K. Printworld, 2015.

All rights reserved. Reproduction in any medium is restricted. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted, except brief quotations, in any form or by any means, electronic or me- chanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior written permission of the copyright holder, indicated above, and the publishers.

Published electronically by: The Sanskrit Library Regd. Ofﬁce: 89 Cole Avenue Providence, RI 02906 USA Web: sanskritlibrary.org

Published in print by: D.K. Printworld (P) Ltd. Regd. Ofﬁce: Vedasr´ ¯ı, F-395, Sudarshan Park (Metro Station: Ramesh Nagar) New Delhi - 110 015 India Phones: (011) 2545 3975; 2546 6019 Fax: (011) 2546 5926 e-mail: [email protected] Web: www.dkprintworld.com Preface

A strong tradition of linguistics developed in India in the first millenium BCE naturally associated with the heightened aware- ness of language engendered by the assiduous preservation of oral Vedic texts. The curiousity as well as the need to understand the language of these compositions already several hundred years old instigated the development of systematic linguistic analysis which flourished throughout the two and a half millennia since Pan¯ .ini composed his comprehensive linguistic description of the Sanskrit language by the fourth century BCE. His unprecedented analysis of the language into basic units and reconstitution of utterances in accordance with precise rules laid the foundation for the development of highly sophisticated discussions concerned with the structure of verbal cognition and its relation to speech units rang- ing from roots and affixes to words, phrases, and sentences. The study of syntax in India is intimately associated with semantics, and the analysis of the semantic content provides the foundation for the generation of linguistic expressions. Relational structures in the domain of consciousness are projected onto speech forms whose arrangement in the string of speech is subordinate. Modern linguistics developed in Europe beginning in the late eighteenth century as a direct result of the fascination European scholars had with the resemblances of Sanskrit to classical Greek and Latin. Their excitement to discover the relationship among these and a gradually expanding number of languages in what came to be known as the Indo-European family led them to readapt the precise phonetic rules of Indian linguists to historical sound change in the science of historical and comparative linguistics. The great figures of the history of modern linguistics — Jones, Bopp, de Saussure, Bloomfield, and many others — all studied

iii iv PREFACE

Sanskrit, and some worked directly on Sanskrit grammatical texts or with learned Sanskrit scholars (pan. d. ita) intimately familiar with such texts. Even Chomsky’s generative analysis of English was inspired by Pan¯ .inian methods. Formal and computational linguistics, engendered in the U.S., was dominated by English at its inception and developed in subsequent decades primarily in the environment of European languages. More recently there has been a concerted effort to undertake formal linguistic analysis of a wide variety of languages, with particular interest in those with dramatically different features, and to enrich syntactic theory to account for linguistic variety. Over the past couple of decades there has been a growing interest among a diverse group including Sanskrit scholars and computer scientists who collaborated together to form the Sanskrit Computational Lin- guistics Consortium. The Consortium has sponsored several symposia in Europe, the U.S. and India since 2007. Against this background, I was inspired to undertake research to develop universally adequate linguistic theory by formalizing the sophisticated linguistic theories, structures and procedures developed in the Indian linguistic tradition. To do so, for the year 2012–2013, I was awarded a Chaire Internationale de Recherche Blaise Pascal, financed by the State of France and the Région d’Ile-de-France and managed by the Fondation de l’École Nor- male Supérieure. The project investigated ways in which Indian linguistics could contribute useful insights to contemporary formal linguistics, and designed ways in which Indian linguistic theories could be formalized and implemented computationally. The project focused on Indian semantic and syntactic theory and the semantics-syntax interface where computational linguistic work is flourishing. In the midst of the project I was invited as a Visit- ing Professor to the Indian Institute of Technology Bombay. The invitation facilitated collaboration sponsored by the Blaise Pascal Chair with several junior Indian scholars. The project culminated SANSKRIT SYNTAX v in the organization of the Seminar on Sanskrit syntax and discourse structures held at the Université Paris Diderot, 13–15 June 2013 the program of which is posted on the Sanskrit Library Website (www.sanskritlibrary.org) under Events. The theme of the seminar was the exposition of current theoretical knowledge concerning Sanskrit syntax and the application of state of the art methods of computational linguistics to Sanskrit. This book is the publication of selected revised papers presented at that seminar. The book includes twelve papers by seventeen contributors from divergent backgrounds in European and American linguistics, Pan¯ .inian grammar, and computer science that converge in dealing with contemporary issues in Sanskrit syntax. Hans Hen- rich Hock provides a general survey of research on Sanskrit syntax since the publication of the collection on Sanskrit syntax he edited in 1991 (Hock 1991). He brings to our attention challenging formal issues concerning word order, oblique subject agreement, clause coordination, and ditransitivity as well as contrasting discourse structures in different genres. Along with his presentation, he provided a bibliography of research done in the twenty- five years since the publication of his and Madhav Deshpande’s combined bibliographies on Sanskrit syntax (Deshpande and Hock 1991). With the gracious consent of the authors and Motilal Banar- sidass I have revised and integrated their earlier bibliography with Hock’s update in a seventy-two page comprehensive bibliography of Sanskrit syntax containing nearly a thousand entries. Supple- mented by the author and title indices at the back of this volume, Hock’s survey of research should provide useful and convenient access to research on Sanskrit syntax generally. George Cardona contributes two papers to the volume. In the first, he deals with how expectancy, ellipsis and suppletion present in ordinary language use of Sanskrit are formalized in interpretive principles (paribhas¯. a¯s) in the metalanguage of Pan¯ .ini’s As..tadhy¯ a-¯ y¯ı. Here he also reiterates the semantic foundation of Pan¯ .inian vi PREFACE derivational procedure. In the second, he deals with the syntax of the extension and removal of properties, and comparison with respect to shared actions or properties. In that connection, he discusses the two rules that account for the use of the affix vat and provides a categorization of which sutras¯ of the As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı conform to the syntactic pattern described by which rule. The next paper, by Scharf, Goyal, Ajotikar and Ajotikar, describes a computational implementation of Pan¯ .ini’s rules that determine the use of Atmanepada¯ and Parasmaipada verbal terminations under specific semantic and cooccurrence conditions. The paper necessarily touches upon the different categorization of conditions for voice in the Pan¯ .inian and European traditions. Aussant examines the presuppositions of European and Indian approaches to word classification generally. She traces contemporary schemes of tagging parts of speech in computational linguistics back to categories described by Dionysius Thrax, and compares them with Indian classification schemes traced back to Pan¯ .ini and Yaska.¯ Joshi compares the concepts of concord and government in Eu- ropean grammar with the concepts of coreferrentiality (sam¯ an¯ a-¯ dhikaran. ya) and unexpressed karaka¯ roles (anabhihitatva) in Pa-¯ n.inian grammar. Several papers deal with the topic of word order and how free it is. Scharf’s paper, "Interrogatives," shows that interrogatives locate in positions of focus and topic rather than moving from a position designated by a predetermined principle of word- ordering. Gillon examines various types of ellipsis and their relation to constituent units and the argument structure of lexical items. Amba Kulkarni, Shukla, Satuluri, and Shukl examine proximity constraints on sentences analyzed in dependency structures to precisely determine the degree of freedom in Sanskrit word order. They find that dislocations in prose are limited to cases of unilateral expectancy while in verse dislocations involving mutual expectancy also occur. Scharf, Ajotikar, Savardekar, and Goyal SANSKRIT SYNTAX vii further examine differences between prose and poetic syntax computationally with significant results. Melnad, Goyal, and Scharf describe software they developed to identify metrical patterns. Fi- nally, Katira and Malhar Kulkarni, examine syntactic violations in sentences identified as erroneous by Charudeva Shastri and present parse trees for them. As the research in the area of Sanskrit syntax continues to flourish, we plan to furnish bibliographic updates regularly. We therefore invite scholars in the field to inform us of current publications as well as items missing from the bibliography supplied in this volume. Please send complete citations to Hans Henrich Hock and to me at our email addresses provided in the list of contributors. Let me close by mentioning two practical points for readers. (1) While the reference lists for most contributions cover citations in that contribution completely, since most of the citations in Hock’s survey of research are to references in the Sanskrit syntax bibliography, only references not included there are contained in the reference list at the end of his contribution. (2) Generally accents in Vedic passages in Devanagar¯ ¯ı are shown using marks proper to the particular Vedic school while accents in Romaniza- tion mark the underlying udatta¯ with an acute accent mark (á) and independent svarita with a grave accent mark (à). Cardona marks accents in the Romanization of words in derivation likewise but in finished forms borrows the marks used in Indic scripts for the common system of accentuation described in the Rkprati¯ sákhya¯ . Hock similarly borrows marks used in Indic scripts˚ to mark accents in the Romanization of Satapathabr´ ahman¯ . a passages in accordance with their description in the Bhas¯. ikasutras¯ .

Peter M. Scharf 16 February 2015 viii PREFACE Contributors

ANUJA AJOTIKAR Laboratoire d’Histoire des Théories Linguistiques, Université Paris Diderot, and Indian Institute of Technology Bombay [email protected]

TANUJA AJOTIKAR Laboratoire d’Histoire des Théories Linguistiques, Université Paris Diderot, and Indian Institute of Technology Bombay [email protected]

ÉMILIE AUSSANT CNRS, Laboratoire d’Histoire des Théories Linguistiques, Univer- sité Paris Diderot, Sorbonne Paris Cité, France [email protected]

GEORGE CARDONA Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadel- phia [email protected]

BRENDAN S.GILLON Department of Linguistics, McGill University, Montreal [email protected]

PAWAN GOYAL Department of Computer Science, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur [email protected]

ix x CONTRIBUTORS

HANS HENRICH HOCK University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign [email protected]

PRASAD P. JOSHI Deccan College, Pune [email protected]

DIPESH KATIRA Indian Institute of Technology Bombay [email protected]

AMBA KULKARNI Department of Sanskrit Studies, University of Hyderabad, India [email protected]

MALHAR KULKARNI Indian Institute of Technology Bombay [email protected]

KESHAV S.MELNAD Indian Institute of Technology Bombay [email protected]

PAVANKUMAR SATULURI Department of Sanskrit Studies, University of Hyderabad, India [email protected]

SAMPADA SAVARDEKAR Indian Institute of Technology Bombay [email protected] SANSKRIT SYNTAX xi

PETER M.SCHARF The Sanskrit Library, Laboratoire d’Histoire des Théories Linguis- tiques, Université Paris Diderot, and the Indian Institute of Tech- nology Bombay [email protected]

DEVANAND SHUKL Maharshi Sandipani Rashtriya Vedavidya Pratishthan, Ujjain, In- dia [email protected]

PREETI SHUKLA Department of Sanskrit Studies, University of Hyderabad, India [email protected] xii CONTRIBUTORS Table of contents

Preface iii

Contributors ix

Some issues in Sanskrit syntax HANS HENRICH HOCK 1

Derivation and interpretation in Pan¯ . ini’s system GEORGE CARDONA 53

Extension rules and the syntax of As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı sutras¯ with -vati GEORGE CARDONA 109

Voice, preverb, and transitivity restrictions in Sanskrit verb use PETER SCHARF,PAWAN GOYAL, ANUJA AJOTIKAR, and TANUJA AJOTIKAR 157

Interrogatives and word-order in Sanskrit PETER M.SCHARF 203

To classify words: European and Indian grammatical approaches ÉMILIE AUSSANT 219

Constituency and cotextual dependence in Classical Sanskrit BRENDAN S.GILLON 237

xiii xiv SANSKRIT SYNTAX

How free is ‘free’ word order in Sanskrit? AMBA KULKARNI,PREETI SHUKLA,PAVANKUMAR SATULURI and DEVANAND SHUKL 269

Distinctive features of poetic syntax: preliminary results PETER SCHARF,ANUJA AJOTIKAR, SAMPADA SAVARDEKAR, and PAWAN GOYAL 305

Meter identiﬁcation of Sanskrit verse KESHAV MELNAD,PAWAN GOYAL and PETER SCHARF 325

On concord and government relations in Sanskrit PRASAD P. JOSHI 347

Parse trees for erroneous sentences DIPESH KATIRA and MALHAR KULKARNI 361

A bibliography of Sanskrit syntax 399

As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı sutra¯ index 471 Author index 477

Title index 487 Detailed table of contents

Preface iii

Contributors ix Table of contents ...... xiii Detailed table of contents ...... xv List of tables ...... xxv List of ﬁgures ...... xxvii

Some issues in Sanskrit syntax HANS HENRICH HOCK 1 1 Introduction ...... 2 2 A brief survey of recent publications ...... 2 3 Formal issues ...... 4 3.1 Free Word Order and related issues . . . .4 3.2 Relative-correlatives ...... 9 3.3 Some issues of agreement ...... 13 3.4 Converbs, reﬂexives, oblique subjects, and syntactic bracketing ...... 19 3.5 Double Direct Object constructions and Causatives ...... 26 3.6 Asamartha compounding ...... 32 4 Functional issues that should be of interest to computational approaches ...... 35 4.1 Fronting ...... 36 4.1.1 Initial strings in Vedic ...... 36 4.1.2 Predicate-Subject order . . . . . 37 4.1.3 Narrative linkage and related issues ...... 40

xv xvi SANSKRIT SYNTAX

4.2 Extraposition ...... 43 4.2.1 Gonda’s ‘ampliﬁed sentences’ . . 43 4.2.2 Purpose datives in Vedic prose . 44 4.2.3 Kartr backing and extraposition, and˚ politeness ...... 45 5 Conclusions and implications for further research . 46 References ...... 49

Derivation and interpretation in Pan¯ . ini’s system GEORGE CARDONA 53 1 Speakers and listeners ...... 53 2 Derivation and a speaker’s perspective ...... 56 2.1 Katy¯ ayana¯ on speech being prompted by meaning ...... 56 2.2 Patañjali on speech being caused by meaning 57 2.2.1 Number distinction ...... 57 2.2.2 Residual relations ...... 61 2.2.3 Gender distinction ...... 67 2.3 Meaning conditions and derivation . . . . . 69 3 Afﬁxation meaning conditions ...... 71 4 A different approach suggested ...... 73 5 Interpreting Pan¯ .inian sutras¯ ...... 88 5.1 Introduction ...... 88 5.2 Contexts requiring metarules ...... 89 5.2.1 :Sa;+a .~Ta;a;nea;ya;ea;ga;a (A. 1.1.49) . . . . 91 5.2.2 ta;/////////a;sma; a;a; a;ta ; a;na; a;dR;e :pUa;vRa;~ya Á ta;sma;a- ; a;d;tyua:a:=+~ya (A. 1.1.66–67) . . . . 94 5.2.2.1 Purpose of the rules. . . 94 5.2.2.2 Scope of 1.1.66. . . . . 96 5.2.2.3 Scope of 1.1.67. . . . . 99 6 Summary ...... 100 References ...... 103 TABLEOFCONTENTS xvii

Extension rules and the syntax of As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı sutras¯ with -vati GEORGE CARDONA 109 1 Introduction ...... 109 2 Varieties of extension ...... 111 2.1 Kary¯ atide¯ sa´ ...... 111 2.2 S´astr¯ atide¯ sa´ ...... 113 2.3 Rup¯ atide¯ sa´ ...... 117 2.4 Tad¯ atmy¯ atide¯ sa´ ...... 117 2.5 Nimittatide¯ sa´ ...... 119 2.6 Vyapades´atide¯ sa´ ...... 120 2.7 Arthatide¯ sa´ ...... 122 3 Extensions of the type ‘X is Y’ ...... 123 4 Syntactic structures ...... 127 4.1 Predication without comparison ...... 127 4.2 Comparisons ...... 127 4.2.1 Comparison involving a common action ...... 128 4.2.2 Other comparisons ...... 131 4.3 Summary of syntactic structures ...... 133 5 Semantic and pragmatic considerations ...... 136 6 Summary ...... 140 7 As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı sutras¯ in which terms with -vati are used 142 7.1 List indicating extension type ...... 142 7.2 Syntax of sutras¯ with terms in -vati .... 146 7.2.1 Schema I (§4.3) ...... 146 7.2.2 Schema II ...... 148 References ...... 151

Voice, preverb, and transitivity restrictions in Sanskrit verb use xviii SANSKRIT SYNTAX

PETER SCHARF,PAWAN GOYAL, ANUJA AJOTIKAR, and TANUJA AJOTIKAR 157 1 Introduction ...... 158 1.1 Root markers ...... 161 1.2 Prayoga ...... 161 1.3 Other semantic conditions ...... 162 1.4 Preverbs ...... 162 1.5 Other co-occurrence conditions ...... 163 1.6 Tabulation of voice conditions ...... 163 2 Related Work ...... 165 3 Preparing inputs for the implementation ...... 171 3.1 XML Dhatup¯ at¯.ha database ...... 171 3.2 Preverb cooccurences attested by Pan¯ .ini . . 175 4 Implementation details ...... 177 4.1 Data Structure ...... 177 4.2 Rule formulation ...... 178 4.2.1 Phonetic conditions ...... 178 4.2.2 Attribute conditions ...... 178 4.2.3 Semantic conditions ...... 179 4.2.4 Optionality ...... 179 4.2.5 Action ...... 179 4.3 Control structure ...... 179 5 Results and related discussions ...... 181 5.1 Notations in the derivation tree ...... 181 5.2 Handling meaning conditions ...... 184 5.3 Handling rule interaction ...... 185 5.4 Handling praptavibh¯ as¯.a¯ ...... 188 6 Conclusions and Future Work ...... 189 References ...... 195

Interrogatives and word-order in Sanskrit PETER M.SCHARF 203 1 The problem ...... 203 TABLEOFCONTENTS xix

2 The evidence ...... 208 3 Parallels with other pronouns ...... 212 4 The solution ...... 214 References ...... 216

To classify words: European and Indian grammatical approaches ÉMILIE AUSSANT 219 1 Introduction ...... 219 2 The European approach ...... 220 2.1 Parts of speech in computational linguistics 220 2.2 Parts of speech in Graeco-Latin grammatical tradition ...... 221 3 The Indian approach (Sanskrit Vyakaran¯ .a) . . . . . 224 3.1 The naman-¯ akhy¯ ata-upasarga-nip¯ ata¯ classification ...... 224 3.2 The Pan¯ .inian classification of padas . . . . 227 3.3 Some remarks on a few other classifications 230 4 Concluding remarks ...... 232 References ...... 233

Constituency and cotextual dependence in Classical Sanskrit BRENDAN S.GILLON 237 1 Introduction ...... 237 2 Parts of speech ...... 239 3 Clausal constituents ...... 240 4 Supra-lexical and sub-clausal constituents . . . . . 240 4.1 Context Dependence ...... 241 4.2 Proforms ...... 246 4.3 Ellipsis ...... 247 4.3.1 Interrogative ellipsis (sluicing) . 248 xx SANSKRIT SYNTAX

4.3.2 Appended coordination (stripping) ...... 249 4.3.3 Gapping ...... 250 4.3.4 Verb phrase ellipsis ...... 252 4.3.5 Copular complement ellipsis . . 252 4.3.6 Nominal ellipsis ...... 253 5 Further evidence for Phrases ...... 255 6 Conclusion ...... 263 References ...... 264

How free is ‘free’ word order in Sanskrit? AMBA KULKARNI,PREETI SHUKLA,PAVANKUMAR SATULURI and DEVANAND SHUKL 269 1 Introduction ...... 269 2 Word order in Sanskrit ...... 273 3 Indian theories of expectancy and proximity . . . . 274 3.1 Ak¯ a¯nks˙ .a¯ (expectancy) ...... 275 3.2 Sannidhi (proximity) ...... 277 4 Dependency parsing and word order ...... 278 4.1 Tree traversal and possible word orders . . 279 4.1.1 Generalising tree traversal . . . . 280 4.2 Projectivity principle ...... 282 4.3 Weak non-projectivity (planarity) . . . . . 285 5 Empirical evaluation ...... 288 5.1 Cases of sannidhi violation from Gillon’s data ...... 288 5.1.1 Dislocation of a genitive . . . . . 289 5.1.2 Dislocation of a vises´ .an.a . . . . 291 5.1.3 Other relations ...... 291 5.2 Sannidhi violation in the Bhagavadg¯ıta¯ .. 292 5.2.1 Sannidhi violation involving kartr and karman ...... ˚ . 293 TABLEOFCONTENTS xxi

5.2.2 Sannidhi violation involving two kartr relations ...... 298 5.2.3 Sannidhi˚ violation involving karman and kriyavi¯ ses´ .an.a ...... 299 5.2.4 Sannidhi violation involving karman and apad¯ ana¯ ...... 299 6 Conclusion ...... 300 References ...... 302

Distinctive features of poetic syntax: preliminary results PETER SCHARF,ANUJA AJOTIKAR, SAMPADA SAVARDEKAR, and PAWAN GOYAL 305 1 Motivation ...... 306 2 Expectations ...... 307 3 Methodology ...... 310 3.1 Corpus preparation ...... 310 3.2 An Indian cognitive linguistics dependency relations tagset ...... 311 3.3 Queries ...... 313 4 Results ...... 314 4.1 Agent after verb ...... 314 4.2 Object after verb ...... 315 4.3 Instrument after verb ...... 315 4.4 Adverb after verb ...... 315 4.5 Qualiﬁer after qualiﬁed ...... 315 4.6 Genitive after what it limits ...... 318 4.7 Object after absolutive ...... 318 4.8 Agent after object ...... 319 4.9 Summary ...... 319 References ...... 322 xxii SANSKRIT SYNTAX

Meter identiﬁcation of Sanskrit verse KESHAV MELNAD,PAWAN GOYAL and PETER SCHARF 325 1 Introduction ...... 325 2 Sources describing Sanskrit meters ...... 327 3 Sanskrit prosody ...... 328 3.1 Syllable weight ...... 329 3.2 The basic unit of varn.avrtta meter: gan.a . . 330 3.3 The basic unit of matr¯ avr¯˚ tta meter: caturmatrika¯ ...... ˚ ...... 331 3.4 Types of meters ...... 331 4 Meter Identifying Tool (MIT) ...... 333 4.1 Meter database ...... 333 4.2 Input and output ...... 334 4.3 Algorithm ...... 335 5 Results ...... 338 5.1 A samavrtta verse in Vasantatilaka¯ meter . 338 5.2 An ardhasamavr¯ ˚ tta verse in Vegavat¯ı meter 339 ˚ 5.3 A vis.amavrtta verse in Lalita meter . . . . 340 5.4 A matr¯ avr¯ tta˚ verse in Ary¯ a¯ meter ...... 341 5.5 Performance˚ ...... 342 6 Conclusions and future work ...... 343 References ...... 345

On concord and government relations in Sanskrit PRASAD P. JOSHI 347 1 Introduction ...... 348 2 The importance of concord and government . . . . 348 3 Concord ...... 349 3.1 Concord of substantive and adjective . . . 349 3.1.1 Adjectives with taddhita-deletion 352 3.1.2 Nouns in apposition ...... 354 3.2 Concord of a predicate verb and noun (of agent and object) ...... 355 TABLEOFCONTENTS xxiii

4 Government ...... 357 4.1 Government of a verb and a noun . . . . . 357 4.2 Government of an indeclinable and a noun 358 5 Conclusions ...... 359 References ...... 360

Parse trees for erroneous sentences DIPESH KATIRA and MALHAR KULKARNI 361 1 Introduction ...... 361 2 Modern Sanskrit ...... 363 3 Error analysis ...... 363 4 The standard of correct Sanskrit ...... 364 5 Discussion of erroneous sentences ...... 367 5.1 Sentence 1 ...... 367 5.1.1 Shastri’s comments ...... 367 5.1.2 Discussion ...... 368 5.1.3 Directive rules ...... 373 5.2 Sentence 2 ...... 374 5.2.1 Shastri’s comments ...... 375 5.2.2 Discussion ...... 376 5.2.3 Directive rule ...... 378 5.3 Sentence 3 ...... 378 5.3.1 Shastri’s comments ...... 378 5.3.2 Discussion ...... 379 5.3.3 Directive rule ...... 380 5.4 Sentence 4 ...... 380 5.4.1 Shastri’s comments ...... 380 5.4.2 Discussion ...... 381 5.4.3 Directive rule ...... 381 5.5 Sentence 5 ...... 382 5.5.1 Shastri’s comments ...... 382 5.5.2 Discussion ...... 383 5.5.3 Directive rule ...... 385 xxiv SANSKRIT SYNTAX

5.6 Sentence 6 ...... 386 5.6.1 Shastri’s comments ...... 386 5.6.2 Discussion ...... 387 5.6.3 Directive rule ...... 387 5.7 Sentence 7 ...... 387 5.7.1 Shastri’s comments ...... 388 5.7.2 Discussion ...... 388 5.7.3 Directive rule ...... 389 5.8 Sentence 8 ...... 390 5.8.1 Shastri’s comments ...... 390 5.8.2 Discussion ...... 390 5.8.3 Directive rule ...... 392 5.9 Sentence 9 ...... 392 5.9.1 Shastri’s comments ...... 392 5.9.2 Discussion ...... 392 5.9.3 Directive rule ...... 395 5.10 Sentence 10 ...... 395 5.10.1 Shastri’s comments ...... 395 5.10.2 Directive rule ...... 396 6 Conclusion ...... 397 References ...... 397

A bibliography of Sanskrit syntax 399

As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı sutra¯ index 471 Author index 477

Title index 487 List of tables

Some issues in Sanskrit syntax 1 1 Hock’s (1989a) account for example (8) ...... 13 2 Locative absolute with ‘normal’ and ‘upside- down’ agreement ...... 18 3 Non-head relational nominal governing an external head ...... 34 4 Node erasure, movement, and compounding in (35c) 34

Derivation and interpretation in Pan¯ . ini’s system 53 1 Abbreviations ...... 102

Extension rules and the syntax of . . . -vati 109 1 Derivation of non-feminine forms of the interrogative pronoun kim and noun vrks. a ...... 112 2 Derivation of (14a) .tea;na tua;yMa˚ va;tRa;tea and (14b) ta;dõ;dõ;tRa;tea 130 3 Sutras¯ with terms in -vati ...... 142 4 Ia. Sutras¯ in which a nominative form is explicit . . 146 5 Ib. Sutras¯ in which a nominative form is understood 147 6 IIa. B-vat = B6 iva ...... 148 7 IIb. B-vat = B7 iva ...... 150 8 Abbreviations ...... 150

Voice, preverb, and transitivity restrictions 157 1 Correspondence of voice with prayoga and pada . . 160

To classify words: European and Indian . . . approaches 219 1 Sub-categories of noun in the Brown Corpus . . . . 222 2 Abbreviations ...... 233

xxv xxvi SANSKRIT SYNTAX

Constituency and cotextual dependence 237 1 English optional complementation ...... 258 2 Abbreviations ...... 264

How free is ‘free’ word order in Sanskrit? 269 1 Abbreviations ...... 301

Distinctive features of poetic syntax 305 1 Probability of x occurring before y in a relation pair (x,y): comparing poetic sentences with prose . 321

Meter identiﬁcation of Sanskrit verse 325 1 Gan.a patterns ...... 331 2 Matr¯ a¯ patterns ...... 332 3 Prototypes of each of the four types of meters and the number of meters of each type in our database . 334

Parse trees for erroneous sentences 361 1 Word sense in Sanskrit versus in modern Indian languages ...... 393 List of ﬁgures

Voice, preverb, and transitivity restrictions 157 1 The control structure for the implementation. This process is applied recursively until no rules are triggered...... 180 2 Derivation tree for the root bhu¯ ...... 183 3 Derivation tree for the root da¯ ...... 190 4 Derivation tree for the root gam ...... 191 5 Derivation tree for the root ks. ip ...... 192 6 Derivation tree for the root kr¯ı ...... 193 7 Derivation tree for the root ram ...... 194

To classify words: European and Indian . . . approaches 219 1 The main classes of speech forms distinguished by Pan¯ .ini ...... 229

How free is ‘free’ word order in Sanskrit? 269 1 Traversals for sentence (1) with and without transposition ...... 281 2 Dependency graph for sentence 3 ...... 282 3 Dependency structure with projections for sentences 1.1 to 1.6 ...... 283 4 Projections for sentences 2.1 to 2.6 ...... 284 5 Projection for sentence (4) ...... 284 6 Projection with Rearrangement of nodes ...... 285 7 Planar dependency graph for sentences (2.2) and (2.5) ...... 286 8 Planar dependency graph for sentence (4) . . . . . 287 9 Dislocation without sannidhi violation ...... 287

xxvii xxviii SANSKRIT SYNTAX

10 Dislocation of a genitive ...... 290 11 Dislocation of a genitive ...... 290 12 Dislocation of a vises´ .an.a...... 291 13 Dislocation of an argument ...... 292 14 Analysis of BhG. 6.34 ...... 294 15 Analysis of BhG. 8.25 ...... 295 16 Analysis of BhG. 10.16 ...... 296 17 Analysis of BhG. 9.3 ...... 296 18 Analysis of BhG. 1.27 ...... 297 19 Modiﬁed Analysis of BhG. 1.27 ...... 298 20 Analysis of BhG. 8.19 ...... 299 21 Analysis of BhG. 1.37 ...... 300 22 Analysis of BhG. 18.75 ...... 301

Distinctive features of poetic syntax 305 1 Relative position of an agent with respect the verb that governs it: comparison of prose and poetry syntax ...... 316 2 Relative position of a direct object with respect to the verb that governs it: comparison of prose and poetry syntax ...... 316 3 Relative position of an instrument with respect to the verb that governs it: comparison of prose and poetry syntax ...... 317 4 Relative position of an adverb with respect to the verb that governs it: comparison of prose and poetry syntax ...... 317 5 Relative position of a qualiﬁer with respect to what it qualiﬁes in a sentence: comparison of prose and poetry syntax ...... 318 6 Relative position of a genitive with respect to what it limits in a sentence: comparison of prose and poetry syntax ...... 320 LIST OF FIGURES xxix

7 Relative position of a direct object with respect to an absolutive that governs it: comparison of prose and poetry syntax ...... 320 8 Relative position of a direct object with respect to an agent of the same action governing them: comparison of prose and poetry syntax ...... 321

Parse trees for erroneous sentences 361 1 Sentence 1 ...... 373 2 Sentence 2 ...... 377 3 Sentence 3 ...... 379 4 Sentence 4 ...... 382 5 Sentence 5 ...... 386 6 Sentence 6 ...... 388 7 Sentence 7 ...... 389 8 Sentence 8 ...... 391 9 Sentence 9 ...... 395 10 Sentence 10 ...... 396 xxx SANSKRIT SYNTAX Some issues in Sanskrit syntax

HANS HENRICH HOCK

Abstract: The purpose of this presentation is to provide a brief general survey of major recent developments in Sanskrit syntactic studies since Deshpande and Hock 1991, followed by more in-depth discussion of formal and functional issues that should be of interest to scholars working on computational approaches to Sanskrit syntax. For- mal syntactic topics are free word order, challenging syntactic aspects of relative-correlative constructions, issues of agreement, ‘oblique subjects’ and related issues, the syntax of double-direct-object constructions (including causatives), and the issue of ‘asamartha’ compounding. The functional part focuses on the use of different syntactic alternatives in discourse and in different genres — a topic that, to my knowledge, has not received systematic discussion. Two major phenomena are examined in some detail — fronting and extraposition to the right, including their different functions in a variety of genres. Functional analytical approaches may yield interesting insights and challenges to formal syntactic approaches, although they clearly cannot be a substitute for formal analysis. I conclude that there is ample room for more research on Sanskrit syntax, especially in the post-Vedic language with its richer variety of different genres.

Keywords: Sanskrit, syntax, formal approaches, functional approaches

1 2 H. H. HOCK

1 Introduction

My presentation has three goals. One is to provide a survey of publications in Sanskrit syntax since Deshpande and Hock’s (1991) Sanskrit syntax bibliography. A second one is to focus in greater detail on a number of formal issues that, I believe, would be of interest both to linguists pursuing computational approaches to San- skrit syntax and to those working in linguistic theory. The third goal is to discuss a selection of functional factors that inﬂuence the use of particular syntactic structures in particular text types, an issue which I believe would also be interesting to those engaged in computational work.

2 A brief survey of recent publications

The Sanskrit syntax bibliography provided at the end of this book consolidates Deshpande and Hock’s (1991) A bibliography of writings on Sanskrit syntax published in Hock 1991b and the bibliography of works on Sanskrit syntax published since then compiled for presentation at the Seminar on Sanskrit Syntax and Discourse Structures held in Paris, 13–15 June 2013. The combined bibliography will also be published at the Sanskrit Library website with regular upadates. We look forward to receiving additional references so as to make the bibliography more comprehensive. At this point, let me briefly survey the distribution of recent publications in terms of chronology and general categories of subject matter. Recent research concerning Sanskrit syntax includes over 200 works, including article collections and bibliographies — quite impressive for a period of less than 25 years, especially if compared to the 474 entries in Deshpande and Hock 1991, which covers publications from Burnouf (1824) to Brereton and Jamison ‘To Ap- pear’ (published 1991). It is impressive, too, because, as in the past, syntax receives much less scholarly attention than other as- SOMEISSUESIN SANSKRIT SYNTAX 3 pects of Sanskrit linguistics. The following statistics are based on a smaller set of 186 entries that I had collected by 24 May 2013. As in the past (see Deshpande and Hock 1991, as well as Hock 1989b), the bulk of publications (147 out of 186) deals with the Vedic period, especially the Rgveda, and commonly from a historical, Indo-Europeanist perspective.˚ The post-Vedic or classical period is covered only in 45 publications, some of which address both Vedic and post-Vedic issues. A common topic for the Vedic period is the issue of tense, aspect, voice, and modality, which is dealt with in 29 publications. Another 23 publications address word and phrase order, including the issue of clitics and Wackernagel’s Law. Case syntax is covered in 18 publications, especially by Hettrich (six publications, including the important 2007: Materialien zu einer Kasussyntax des Rgveda, which includes a rich bibliography). Issues of subordination,˚ both finite and non-finite (infinitives, converbs, locative absolute constructions, etc.) are dealt with in some 18 publications. Most of the 27 publications that approach Sanskrit syntax from a modern theoretical or typological approach are focused on the post-Vedic language, and so are all of the 23 publications that deal with, or refer to, the insights of the Indian grammatical tradition, especially Pan¯ .ini. As a personal note, let me add that this relatively limited reference to the Indian tradition is regrettable. In principle, all research on Sanskrit syntax — and Sanskrit linguistics in general — should treat the work of Pan¯ .ini and the entire early grammatical and phonetic tradition as earlier scholarship, just as it does the work of linguists like Delbrück, Wackernagel, and Whitney; see Hock 2009b and Hock Forthcoming(b). Finally, 65 publications treat of issues of function and discourse, in both the Vedic and the post-Vedic period. This category is heavily dominated by Jared Klein’s publications, most of which (16 out of 22) focus on the issue of stylistic repetition of differ- 4 H. H. HOCK

ent grammatical structures and categories in the language of the Rgveda. ˚ 3 Formal issues

In the following section of my paper I address formal issues that may be of interest to scholars pursuing computational approaches to Sanskrit syntax as well those working on typology and syntactic theory. I draw to a large extent on my own research, both published and unpublished, but also include references to other recent research. A recurrent theme is that we need to consider both Pan¯ .i- ni’s generative approach and modern approaches, whether generative or traditional-philological, and that, likewise, we need to keep in mind both the empirical information conveyed by Pan¯ .i- ni’s speaker-knowledge based grammar and the empirical data un- earthed by western philological approaches. The latter issue is especially relevant, since as Deshpande (1983) suggested, Pan¯ .ini’s location on the northwestern periphery of the Sanskrit-speaking world of his time may account for certain differences between the syntactic structures predicted by his grammar and those found in the tradition of Madhyadesa;´ see also Hock 1981, 2012b.

3.1 Free Word Order and related issues It is well known that Sanskrit (like other early Indo-European languages) exhibits a remarkable degree of free word order — not just free phrase order. In this section I discuss two major formal approaches to this phenomenon. Schäufele (1990, 1991a,b) follows the major tradition of modern western scholarship (e.g. Delbrück 1878, 1888; Speijer 1886, 1896; Lahiri 1933) in assuming a basic word and phrase order of the SOV type, with various movement processes accounting for ‘marked’ orderings. The work of Gillon SOMEISSUESIN SANSKRIT SYNTAX 5

(1996) and Gillon and Shaer (2005) adopts and modifies Staal’s (1967) notion of ‘wild trees’, i.e. trees without phrase-internal linear ordering. Neither approach adopts the possible alternative of assuming complete non-configurationality along the lines suggested for other languages by Farmer (1980), and Ken Hale (1975, 1983). Schäufele’s most important findings are the following (1990: 61–63, 84):

• In the majority of cases, phrases are continuous and exhibit all the features normally associated with hierarchical structure. This is something that children learning the language would have to account for in their grammar, and it would discourage them from positing a completely ﬂat structure.

• Similarly, in the majority of cases, phrases are head-final, although for PPs head-finality is only a statistical tendency in Vedic. While Schäufele does not pursue this issue explicitly, the dominant head-finality too can be argued to be something that children learning the language would have to account for in their grammar.

• In PPs the adposition normally remains next to at least part of its complement if there is movement. This, again, supports the assumption of hierarchical, rather than ﬂat phrase structure. Schäufele (1990: 85) cites the examples in (1). Further examples can be found in the classical language; (2). Interestingly, Bolkestein (2001) and Snijders (2012) note the same phenomenon in Latin.

• Movement of individual words or combinations of words, as in (3),1 is made possible through a process of ‘liberation’ or ‘node erasure’ (see Pullum 1982, Ross 1967: 50–54 (1986)). 1These examples come from my collections. 6 H. H. HOCK

(1) a. .~ta;vEa :pu!a:=+a :pa;a;ya;R!a; a;d;ndÒ!+ma;îåH stavai´ pura¯´ pary¯´ ad¯ ´ındram ahnah´ . (RV. 3.32.14b) ‘I shall praise Indra before the fateful˚ day.’ b. O;;ta;Ea va;a º!:(õ;Ma ma; a;h;ma;!a;na;a;va;a;B!a;taH .s!a;}ba;BUa;va;tua:=, etau va¯ asva´ m˙ mahima¯nav¯ abhitah sambabhuvatur¯ (SB.´ ¯ ¯ . ¯ 10.6.4.1) ¯ ‘These two jars appeared around = on both sides of the horse.’ (S’s translation; my transcription)

(2) º;a .sa;mua;dÒ +a:ua ;vEa :pUa;va;Ra;d;a .sa;mua;dÒ +a:ua :pa; a;(ãa;ma;a;t,aÉ Á ta;ya;ea;=e+va;a;nta:=M ; a;ga;ya;eRa:=+a;ya;Ra;va;t a ; a;va;du;bRua;Da;aH Á Á

a¯ samudrat¯ tu vai purv¯ ad¯ a¯ samudrat¯ tu pascim´ at.¯ tayor eva + antaram˙ giryor ary¯ avarta¯ m˙ vidur budhah¯ . .. (Ma- nu 2.22) ‘Wise people know (that) Ary¯ avarta¯ (extends) from the eastern sea to the western sea, (and) between these two mountains (the himalayas and the vindhyas).’

(3) a. O;;ta;!a;}vea;vE!a;S!a O;;t!a;smEa ; a;v!a;S¾ua;yRa;¼a;ea ; a;v!a;kÒ+:a;////a;ntMa; a;v!a;kÒ+:ma;tea eta¯m v eva + esa etasmai visnur yajño vikranti¯ m˙ vikra- i ¯ . j ¯ ¯ . . j ¯ i ¯ mate¯ (SB.´ 1.1.2.13)¯ ‘This Vis.n.u, the sacriﬁce, steps this (world-conquering three-fold) stepping for him (the sacriﬁcer).’

b. .tea;Sa;Mai Ba;a;ma;ea ma;h;a;ba;a;hu H :pa;a; a;TRa;va;a;na;Mai ma;h;a;tma;na;a;m,a Á ya;Ta;a;h º;k+.=+ea;tpUa:ja;Ma ... tes. a¯m˙ i bh¯ımo mahab¯ ahuh¯ . parthiv¯ an¯ a¯m˙ i mahatman¯ am.¯ yatharha¯ m˙ akarot puj¯ a¯m˙ . . . (Nala 2.11; MBh. 3.51.10 *215) ‘Strong-armed Bh¯ıma honored these noble rulers appropriately . . . ’ SOMEISSUESIN SANSKRIT SYNTAX 7

Schäufele’s approach contrasts with that of Staal and Gillon. Staal starts with the claim that the Indian grammatical tradition, being silent on the issue, assumed that there are no rules for word order (360) and he goes on to argue for a (modern) generative account operating with ‘wild trees’, i.e. trees without phrase-internal linear ordering. Gillon (1996) adopts and modifies Staal’s (1967) notion of wild trees, providing empirical support from two corpora — the prose examples in Apte 1885 and 1,500 sentences from Dharma- k¯ırti’s autocommentary on the Praman¯ . avarttika¯ . See also Gillon and Shaer 2005. The following discussion is based on the latter publication. Like Staal, as well as Schäufele, Gillon and Shaer accept the need for phrases, rather than a completely flat structure. Unlike Schäufele, they assume that there is no linear order within phrases. Moreover, they argue against a VP, instead postulating the flat clause structure in (4), without linear order. Further, they (2005: 468) claim that ‘. . . the strategy of deriving less common word orders with specialized information packaging functions from more basic syntactic structures . . . seems to us less plausible than ones consistent with the “wild tree” claim.’ The paper (2005: 480–85) concludes with a section on ‘Some remaining puzzles’. (4)S → V, NPS, NPO In support for the assumption of flat phrase-internal structures, such as (4), they claim that their corpora exhibit both left- and right-headed phrases and that therefore there is no evidence for phrasal headedness (2005: 470). In addition, they accept movement processes that extract elements out of phrases and place them in left- or right-peripheral position within the clause (2005: 475– 80). Certain features are shared between Schäufele’s and Gillon’s approaches — the acceptance of phrases, rather than completely 8 H. H. HOCK

flat structures, and the fact that movement processes can extract and move elements out of phrases. For the purposes of computational text analysis, therefore, there may be no significant difference. From the perspective of linguistic theory, however, the two approaches differ considerably, and it is Schäufele’s approach that provides the better insights. His account of Sanskrit is completely compatible with the linguistic typology of SOV languages, with head-finality at all phrasal levels. In fact, Sanskrit also conforms to SOV typology in its complex syntax, by making extensive use of non-finite subordination as well as of relative-correlative constructions; Hock 1989a, 2005, 2014. Under the Staal-Gillon approach these typological characteristics would be epiphenomenal at best. Now, it is true that Pan¯ .ini has no rules comparable to western generalizations about word or phrase order. But Pan¯ .ini also has no rules comparable to western generalizations about phrases, such as NP, VP, PP. True, there are rules regarding karakas¯ and their realizations, but these do not address issues such as complex NPs with genitive modifiers. There is also the notion saman¯ adhikara-¯ n. a, but this presumably holds not only for agreement within NPs but also relates surface subject NPs to their verbs (A. 1.4.104–107) and must be assumed to hold also for agreement between subjects (kartrs) and predicate nouns or adjectives (see 3.3 below for dis- ˚ cussion). Even the notion ‘sentence’ is a murky issue in the Pan¯ .i- nian tradition; see e.g. Cardona 1976: 223–24, Deshpande 1991, as well as Hock Forthcoming(b): §6. In all of these respects, and not only as regards word order, the Indian grammatical tradition and modern generative approaches are orthogonal. It is also true that Sanskrit offers frequent examples with non- final heads. But there are considerable differences between different texts. Consider major constituent order. As noted in Hock 1984, while in mantra Vedic and Kalid¯ asa’s¯ dramatic dialogue verb-final structures amount to only about 65%, in Vedic prose SOMEISSUESIN SANSKRIT SYNTAX 9 they are about 97% (see also Hock 1997). A similarly high ratio of verb-final structures is found in Patañjali’s Mahabh¯ as¯. ya; see the statistics in (5). Claims about headedness — and any other aspects of syntax — must therefore be based on a large variety of different genres, not just on the two corpora examined by Gillon. And as the evidence just cited shows, genres that do not make any claims to stylistic or literary elegance are characterized by heavy predom- inance of head-final constituent order; in fact, even in other genres verb-finality runs to about 65%. The ‘wild tree’ assumption that phrases, including the sentence (S), have no internal order fails to capture these facts.

(5) Word order in Patañjali’s Mahabh¯ as¯. ya a. Paspasá¯ (Kielhorn-Abhyankar 1.1.1–1.3.5)2 V-final: 35 V-initial: Not found in the sample V + O in the formula . . . adhyeyam˙ vyakaran¯ . am: 73 sak´ + (O) + infinitive: 2 b. Sivas´ utra¯ s (Kielhorn-Abhyankar 1.15.2–1.16.18) V-final: 40 V-initial (including after linker, such as tena): 5 V + O/Pred: 3 V + Other: 3 V + [ ] iti: 8

3.2 Relative-correlatives

As in the case of word order, Pan¯ .ini has remarkably little to say about the syntax of Sanskrit relativization. The closest he comes

2Vedic and other traditional citations are ignored. Gerundives and ta- participles used as main verbs are included. 3Contrast the formulaic use of the gerundive with the ordinary one in laghva- rtham˙ cadhyeya¯ m˙ vyakaran¯ . am. brahman¯ . enava¯ sya´ m˙ sabd´ a¯ jñeya¯ iti. 10 H. H. HOCK is in three sutras¯ (A. 3.3.139–140 and 3.3.156) that address the issue of modality in conditional structures which, as is well known, involve an adverbial form of the relative pronoun (yadi) or the particle ced. At least from the time of Speijer (1886, 1896) and Delbrück (1888), western scholarship has recognized that Sanskrit relative structures consist of a relative clause, containing a relative pronoun, and a main clause, containing a correlative pronoun and that the relative clause is not inserted into the main clause.4 Speijer (1886: 349, 1896: 349) refers to the relationship as one between a protasis and an apodosis. Minard (1936) introduces the term ‘diptych’ for the construction which in typological and theoretical literature is now commonly referred to as ‘relative-correlative’. The syntactic account of Sanskrit and other, similar relative- correlative constructions is further reﬁned in the 1970s and 1980s by arguments that the relative clause is base-generated as AD- JOINED to the main or correlative clause; see e.g. Andrews 1975 (1985), Ken K. Hale 1975, Dasgupta 1980, Keenan 1985, Lehmann 1984, Srivastav 1988. Based on a broad range of evidence, Hock (1989a) goes one step further and argues that relative clauses are syntactically CON- JOINED to their correlative clauses. While some of that evidence appears to be restricted to Vedic, other evidence is also found in post-Vedic. The nature of that evidence is, I believe, such that both those working in formal syntax and those working on computational analyses will ﬁnd it interesting and challenging. First, in some cases there is no clear relationship between the relative pronoun (or phrase) of the relative clause and the correlative pronoun (or phrase) of the main clause; see (6), where an

4Speijer (1886: 349) hedges on this issue by stating that preposing of the relative clause before the main clause is ‘much more used than inserting the relative sentence in the main one’. SOMEISSUESIN SANSKRIT SYNTAX 11 example similar to (6a) was brought to my attention in 1989 by Kiparsky 1995, and (6c) by James Fitzgerald (March 2006). Struc- tures of this sort are typically best rendered as conditionals.

(6) a. ya I +.ndÒ! ya;ta;ya;~tva;!a Ba;gx a;va;e!a yea ..ca tua;u! ;vuaH Á ma;m!a I+.du ;g{a (rua;Da;!a h;va;m,a ya´ indra yatayas´ tva¯ bhr´gavo ye´ ca tus..tuvuh´ . . mama´ ´ıd u- gra srudh´ ¯ı havam´ (RV.˚8.6.18) ‘Which Yatis, O Indra,˚ (have praised) you, and which Bhr- gus have praised you, powerful Indra, nevertheless hear˚ MY call.’ ≈ ‘Even if the Yatis and Bhrgus have praised you, powerful Indra, nevertheless hear˚ MY call.’ b. ya;a;sa;Ma na;a;d;d;tea Zua;kM ¼a;a;ta;ya;ea na .sa ; a;va;kÒ+:yaH yas¯ a¯m˙ nadadate¯ sulka´ m˙ jñatayo¯ na sa vikrayah. (Manu 3.45) ‘Of which (women) the relatives do not appropriate the (bride) price, that is not a sale.’ ≈ ‘If the relatives do not appropriate . . . ’ c. ya;(ãa;na;ea;+:eaÉ ; a;h ; a;na;deR;ZaH ;///a;~:a;ya;a mEa;Tua;na;txa;a;yea Á ta;~ya;a;sma;a:=+ya;ta;ea v.ya;+:ma;Da;ma;eRa na;a:a .sMa;Za;yaH Á Á yas´ canokto hi nirdesah´ . striya¯ maithunatrptaye; ˚ tasyasm¯ arayato¯ vyaktam adharmo natra¯ sam˙ sayah´ . - . (MBh. 12.258.38) ‘Which instruction to gratify one’s wife sexually is not heard, of him who does not remember (this) it is clearly, no doubt, a breach of duty.’ ‘Though there is no requirement to satisfy one’s wife sexually, if a man does not remember this it is clearly a seri- ous infraction.’

Secondly, there are some examples in which the relative clause exhibits properties normally only associated with independent main clauses, namely interrogation and imperative modality (7). 12 H. H. HOCK

(7) a. Z!a;ya;Ra;ta;ea h va;!a IR+»a;M!a;.ca;kÒe ya;//a;tk+:m!a;k+.=M t!a;sma;a; a;d;d;ma;!a;pa;d;!a; a;ta sa´ ryato¯ ha va¯ ¯ıksa¯mcakre˙ [yat kim akaram˙ ]RC [tasmad¯ i- ¯ ¯ .¯ ¯ ¯ dam a¯padi]CC + iti (SB.´ 4.1.5.4) ¯ ¯ ‘Sary´ ata¯ thought, “Because I have done what?, therefore I have gotten into this.”’ ≈ ‘. . . “What have I done to get into this?”’ (Thus also SB.´ 1.7.3.19; a similar structure with kva ‘where’ at SB.´ 5.1.3.13) b. tya:jea :pra;a;¾a;a;Ea;va d;dùÅ;a;Ma k+:pa;ea;tMa .sa;Ea;}ya;ea hùÅ:a;yMa ; a;kM na .ja;a;na;a;a;sa ... Á ëÐÅ ya;Ta;a :ì*:e+:ZMaÉ ma;a ku+.+:Svea;h ... na;a;hM k+:pa;ea;ta;ma;pRa; a;ya;Syea k+:TMa; a;.ca;t,a tyaje pran¯ . an¯ naiva dadya¯m˙ kapotam˙ saumyo hy ayam˙ kim˙ na jan¯ asi¯ . . . . [yatha¯ klesa´ m˙ ma¯ kurus. va + iha . . . ]RC [naha¯ m˙ kapotam arpayis. ye kathamcit˙ ]CC (MBh. 3, App. 21/5.82) ‘I abandon my life, but I may not at all give the dove; for he is gentle, don’t you know. . . ? So that “don’t you make” trouble here ! . . . , I will not hand over the dove in any way.’ ≈ ‘. . . so that you don’t make trouble here . . . ’

Most important, example (8) shows clearly that the relative clause must be CONJOINED to the two main clauses. It is simply impossible for the same clause to be simultaneously ADJOINED to two different clauses; and deriving the relative clause from an underlying center-embedded postnominal position would be pre- posterous — how can a single clause be simultaneously embedded under two different NPs, in two different clauses? In Hock 1989a I therefore propose to conceive of the relation between the relative clause and the two correlative clauses as in Table 1. The formalism is, of course, antiquated, but the syntactic relation must be something along these lines. (Davison 2009 proposes CP adjunction for SOMEISSUESIN SANSKRIT SYNTAX 13

S S

0 S S S

CP CC RP RC CP CC Table 1 Hock’s (1989a) account for example (8) structures in which the relative clause precedes, in contrast to IP adjunction, which stands for the traditional adjunct analysis.)

(8) .sa;a ;vEa ;dE! ;va;a va;a;gy!a;ya;a y!a;dùÅ;a;de;va v!a;d; a;ta t!a:a;;ÂåÅ+va; a;ta [sa¯ vai daiv¯ı vag¯ ]CC i ¯ [yaya¯i yad yad j eva vadati]RC ¯ ¯ ¯ [tat tad j bhavati]CC (BAU. 1.3.27) ¯ ‘Thati is divine Speech by whichi whatever j one speaks, that j comes about.’ ≈ ‘Whatever one speaks by means of divine Speech comes about.’

3.3 Some issues of agreement

Pan¯ .ini addresses some issues of agreement, in two places. One is the ekases´ .a sutras¯ which address the issue of gender resolution under the speciﬁc circumstance of one word taking the place of two conjoined ones (A. 1.2.64–73); the other are the sutras¯ governing person agreement between surface subjects (kartrs or karmans) and the la-kara¯ of the verb (1.4.104–107). But many˚ aspects of agreement are not covered, except perhaps implicitly under the notion of saman¯ adhikaran¯ .a ‘coreference’. 14 H. H. HOCK

In this section I map out some issues of Sanskrit agreement that I believe should be of interest, especially to linguists working on computational analyses of Sanskrit syntax. A fairly straightforward issue is the question of gender agreement with mixed-gender conjunct antecedents, where two different strategies can be observed. One is agreement with the nearest conjunct, as in (9); the other is gender resolution as in (10).

(9) k+:a;////a;nta;ma;ta;a.=+a:$ya;a;ma;dM ma;ma ..ca .ja;a; a;va;ta;ma;pya;dùÅ;a;pra;Ba; a;tax tva;d;Da;a;na;m,a kantimat¯ ¯ı rajyam¯ idam˙ mama ca j¯ıvitam apy adyaprabhrti tvadadh¯ınam (Das.´ 135) ˚ ‘Kantimat¯ ¯ı [f.sg.], and this kingdom [n.sg.], and also my life [n.sg.] [is] from today under your control [n.sg.].’ (10) a. .sa;e!a Y;a:(õ;!a;na;Ea ..ca .s!a:=+~va;ta;Ma ..ca;e!a;pa;!a;Da;!a;va;.cCe+.pa;!a;na;e!a Y;/////////a;sman!a;mua;.ca;yea ...(I+.t,aI).. .tea Y;b.rua;va;n,a ... so ’svi´ nau ca sarasvat¯ım˙ copa¯dha¯vac chepa¯no ’smi namu- ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ caye . . . (iti).. te ’bruvan . . . (SB.´ 12.7.3.1–2) ‘He (Indra) went to the Asvins´ [m.du.] and Sarasva- t¯ı [f.sg.], (saying) “I have sworn to Namuci . . . ” They [m.pl.] said . . . ’ b. ma;dMx ga;Ma ;dE;va;tMa ; a;va;prMa ;Ga;tMax ma;Dua ..ca;tua;Spa;Ta;m,a Á :pra;d; a:»a;¾a;a; a;na ku+:va;Ra;ta mrdam˙ ga¯m˙ daivatam˙ vipram˙ ghrtam˙ madhu catus. patha- ˚ ˚ m. pradaks. in. ani¯ kurv¯ıta (Manu 4.39) ‘He should keep on his right a lump of earth, a cow, an idol, a brahmin, ghee, honey, and a crossroads [n.pl.].’

As I show in Hock 2012a, Speijer’s analysis for post-Vedic Sanskrit gender resolution (1886: 19–20), going back to Borooah (1879), best accounts for the Vedic evidence: In the case of mixed- gender antecedents that are entirely human (or animate), gender resolution is in favor of the masculine; in all other cases, including cases like (10b), where non-human/inanimate and human antecedents are mixed, the result is neuter, except that in Vedic texts SOMEISSUESIN SANSKRIT SYNTAX 15 some inanimate, but sacred antecedents such as the sun, the earth, or the sky may be treated as animate/human. In the case of nearest-conjunct agreement, there is the a priori possibility that a modiﬁer to the left may show agreement with the left conjunct, and one to the right with the right conjunct; see Arnold, Sadler, and Villavicencio 2007 for Portuguese and John- son 2008 for Latin. As it turns out, an example of this ‘mirror- image’ agreement can also be found in Sanskrit (11). It remains to be seen whether this kind of agreement occurs more frequently, and whether it does so in post-Vedic.

(11) v.ya;a;m!a;ma;a:a;Ea :p!a:»a;Ea ..ca :pua;CM ..ca Ba;va; a;ta vyamam¯ atrau¯´ paks. au´ ca pucha´ m˙ ca bhavati (TS. 5.2.5.1) ‘the two wings [m.du.] and the tail [n.sg.] are (lit. is [sg.3]) measuring-a-fathom [m.du.].’

While with the exception of the ‘mirror-image’ agreement, the phenomena discussed so far are rather mundane, another type of agreement presents greater challenges. This is what may be called ‘upside-down’ agreement. The best-known variety of this agreement is widespread in Vedic prose, as in (12), but is also found in the later language. This is the fact that pronoun subjects normally adopt the agreement features of their predicates, rather than the other way around. As far as I can tell, this usage was ﬁrst introduced into the discussion of Sanskrit syntax by Speijer (1886: 18). The feminine singular marking on sa¯ in example (12) shows that at least in Vedic prose this pattern of agreement is clause-bound, and that structures of this kind do not exhibit cross-clausal anaphoric gender agreement (which would have required nominative masculine te).

(12) yea tua;Sa;aH .sa;a tva;g,a ye tus. ah¯ . sa¯ tvag (AB. 1.22.14) 16 H. H. HOCK

‘What (masc.) are the shells (masc.) that (fem.) is the skin (fem.).’

As it turns out, ‘upside-down’ agreement must also be pos- tulated for locative (and genitive) absolute constructions, such as (13); see Hock 2009a.

(13) a. va;teax tua .nEa;Sa;Dea BEa;}ya;a l+.ea;k+:pa;a;l+.a ... na;l+.a;ya;a;;Ea va:=+a;nd;duH vrte tu nais. adhe bhaimya¯ lokapal¯ a¯ . . . nalay¯ as¯..tau varan¯ ˚ daduh. (Nala 5.33; MBh. 3.54.28) ‘The Nis.adhan having been chosen by Bhaim¯ı, the world rulers gave Nala eight boons.’ b. .tea;Sua ga;.cC+.tsua va;yMa .~Ta;a;~ya;a;maH tes. u gacchatsu vayam˙ sthasy¯ amah¯ . ‘With them having gone, we will stay.’ c. ga;nta;v.yea na ; a;.ca:=M .~Ta;a;tua;a;ma;h Za;k+.a;m,a gantavye na ciram˙ sthatum¯ iha sakyam´ (MBh. 1.150.4, Speijer 1886: 286)5 ‘As/since we have to go, it is not possible to stay here for long.’ Lit. ‘(It) having to be gone, it is not possible to stay here for long.’ d. ga;ntMua ; a;na; a;(ãa;ta;.cea;ta;a;saÉ ; a;pra;ya;ta;mea .sa;veRa .sa;mMa :pra;//////a;~Ta;ta;a ga;nta;v.yea .sa; a;ta .ja;a; a;va;ta; a;pra;ya;sua;&+.tsa;a;TRaH ; a;k+:mua tya:$ya;tea Á gantum˙ niscitacetasi´ priyatame sarve samam˙ prasthita¯ gantavye sati j¯ıvitapriyasuhrt sarthah¯ . kim u tyajyate. ˚ (Subhas¯. itaratnakos. a 1151) ‘Together all set out to go to the determined-minded dearest one. (It) having to be gone, how is the dear friend of one’s life, having the same goal, getting left behind?’

5The Critical Edition instead has gantavyam˙ na ciram˙ sthatum¯ iha sakyam´ (MBh. 1.142.21) SOMEISSUESIN SANSKRIT SYNTAX 17

The nearest analogue for analyzing such constructions would be that of nominalization, which embeds a subordinate proposition into a matrix clause by means of a nominal form of the verb, whose case marking signals the status of that proposition within the matrix clause. See Yoon 1996 for an analysis of such structures. The major difference between ‘ordinary’ nominalizations and structures of the type (13) is that the latter involve an adjectival form, rather than a purely nominal one, a form which therefore must be supplied with gender and number features, in addition to the locative that signals the function of the construction within the matrix clause. Note that in the synchronic grammar of Sanskrit the locative case has to be assigned to the participle, not to its underlying subject, because of the fact that locative participial case marking is not restricted to structures in which the participle has a subject to agree with such as (13ab), but is also found in impersonal, subject-less structures like (13cd). Note further that under this analysis, the subject of the participle, if any, is not in a position governed by a verb that could assign case to it; the only features that the syntax can assign to it are gender and number. A possible way to account for the fact that the participle nevertheless gets gender and number features agreeing with its underlying subject, and that the subject, in turn, receives case, lies in adopting the approach of the post-syntactic ‘distributed morphology’ of Halle and Marantz 1993. As illustrated in Table 2, in this analysis the syntactic output only has the abstract features plural masculine for the underlying subject of the locative absolute, and locative for the participle. The rest of the features need to be ﬁlled in by the Morphology. The gender and number features of the participle are ﬁlled in by ‘normal’ agreement control, but the case feature of the subject is supplied by ‘upside-down’ agreement from the participle. (In impersonal structures like (13cd), the participle receives the usual neuter singular default features.) 18 H. H. HOCK

Syntactic Output tad gacchat vayam˙ sthasy¯ amah¯ . [pl.m.] [loc.]

Morphology: Input tad-Ø gacchat-Ø vayam˙ sthasy¯ amah¯ . [pl.m.] [loc.]

Coreference tad-Ø gacchat-su vayam˙ sthasy¯ amah¯ . [pl.m.] [loc.pl.m.< ] Upside-down te-s. u gacchat-su vayam˙ sthasy¯ amah¯ . [loc.] pl.m.] [loc.pl.m.]

Table 2 Locative absolute with ‘normal’ and ‘upside-down’ agreement

This analysis is similar in spirit to that of Pan¯ .ini’s account for the locative absolute, which assigns locative case to the form expressing the subordinate verbal action (bhava¯ ), rather than to a nominal constituent (14). However, Pan¯ .ini’s focus, if I understand it correctly, is on the (implicit) subject of the participial structure. The fact that structures such as (13cd), without subject, also have locative, expressed only on the verb and with the usual default neuter singular agreement, shows that case assignment has to be on the participle ﬁrst and then percolates from the participle to the subject, if any. (Although Pan¯ .ini does not provide an explicit account for the locative case marking on the agent of a locative absolute construction, we can infer that he would do so in the same manner as for any other cases of agreement, namely under coreference (saman¯ adhikaran¯ . atva).)

(14) ya;~ya ..ca Ba;a;vea;na Ba;a;va;l+»a;¾a;m,a yasya ca bhavena¯ bhavalaks¯ . an. am (A. 3.2.37) ‘the locative ending (is) also introduced (after an element) on SOMEISSUESIN SANSKRIT SYNTAX 19

account of whose action (there is) qualiﬁcation of (another) action.’6

3.4 Converbs, reflexives, oblique subjects, and syntactic bracketing In discussions of modern South Asian syntax, converbs (variously referred to as absolutives, conjunctive participles, gerunds, and the like), combined with reflexivization and word order, play a significant role as criteria that determine whether non-nominative constituents can be considered to be subjects or not. See for instance the various contributions to Verma and Mohanan 1990. Of the three features converbs, reflexivization and word order, only the syntax of converbs is addressed in the Pan¯ .inian tradition. The discussion in Speijer’s Syntax, however, suggests that reflexives exhibit a similar syntactic behavior to converbs (1886: 200 and 297–298). More comprehensive discussions, which include not only converbs and reflexives, but also word order, are Hock 1986, 1990, 1991a (with references). This section surveys the major issues and findings. Pan¯ .ini’s account for the syntax of the converb (ktva¯)7 is well known (15), and its provision that ktva¯ requires identity of kartrs, i.e. underlying subjects, is well motivated. The dominant pat-˚ tern, at least for post-mantra-Vedic,8 is that this provision holds

6A priori yasya could refer to the agent of the action bhava¯ , or to the word expressing the action. The latter is the usual interpretation and is made explicit in the Ka¯sik´ a¯ Vrtti: yasya ca kriyaya¯ kriyantara¯ m˙ laks. yate tato bhavavatah¯ . saptam¯ı vibhaktir˚ bhavati ‘locative case is also (used) after a word characterizing an action (bhavavat¯ ) by whose action another action is characterized’. Joshi and Roodbergen (1980: 87–88) interpret bhava¯ as ‘state’, distinguishing it from kriya¯ ‘action’. However, Cardona (1976: 197) (w. ref.) notes that both terms are used to refer to actions. 7Here as elsewhere ktva¯ also stands for its replacement lyap. 8For the mantras, Hock (1982b, 1986, 1987, 1990, 1991a) ﬁnds some (limited) evidence for surface subject, rather than underlying subject (kartr) control ˚ 20 H. H. HOCK not only for active structures, where underlying and surface subject are identical, but also for passive or passive-like structures, where they are not. See Hock 1986 for discussion.

(15) .sa;ma;a;na;k+:tRxa;k+:ya;eaH :pUa;vRa;k+:a;le samanakartr¯ kayoh. purvak¯ ale¯ (A. 3.4.21) ‘(ktva¯) is introduced˚ under the condition of identity of kartrs in reference to prior time’ ˚

The syntax of reflexives is not covered in the Pan¯ .inian tradition, and most western discussions focus on Vedic and/or its Indo- European origins; see Vine 1997; Hock 2006; Kulikov 2007 for recent discussions. In his coverage of reflexives, Speijer (1886: 200) notes similar conditions for the use of reflexives as for that of converbs (1886: 297–98), without however trying to link the two phenomena. In a series of papers (Hock 1982b, 1986, 1987, 1990, 1991a), I have shown that, just like converbs, reflexives are controlled by kartrs, i.e. underlying, rather than surface subjects. Moreover, in the same˚ publications I have shown that word order, too, is sensitive to the notion kartr, rather than surface subject. Examples for kartr control˚ of converbs and reflexivization abound; see e.g. (16), (17),˚ and (18) which focus on instrumental- marked kartrs. Note especially (18), which has both converb and reflexive control.˚

(16) ta;ta;~ta;ma;a;ya;a;ntMa dx;õÅ ;a :pa; a:»a;Za;a;va;kE+.=, ... k+:ea;l+.a;h;lH kx +:taH tatas tam ay¯ anta¯ m˙ drs..tva¯ paks. isávakair¯ . . . kolahalah¯ . krtah. (Hit. 1.4) ˚ ˚ ‘Then, upon seeing him coming, the young birds made a racket.’ of converbs in passives and passive-like structures, and somewhat more robust evidence as regards word order and reflexive control. Zakharyin (1998) questions this finding, but his discussion only focuses on converbs and does not address the broader evidence of word order and reflexivization. SOMEISSUESIN SANSKRIT SYNTAX 21

(17) .~vea;Sua .~Ta;a;nea;Sva;va; a;h;tEa;BRa; a;va;ta;v.yMa Ba;va; a;;ÂåÅH sves. u sthanes¯ . v avahitair bhavitavyam˙ bhavadbhih. (Vikram. 1, p. 2; Speijer 1886: 199) ‘Your lordships must be attentive on your own seats.’

(18) º;Ta .tea;na tMa Za:Mua ma;tva;a;tma;a;nMa ta;~ya;ea;pa;a:= :pra; a:»a;pya :pra;a;¾a;aH :pa;a:=+tya;+:aH atha tena tam˙ satru´ m˙ matva¯ + atm¯ ana¯ m˙ tasyopari praks. i- pya pran¯ . ah¯ . parityaktah¯ . (Pañc. 70;Speijer 1886: 297) ‘Then he1, considering him2 an enemy, threw himself1 on top of him2 and gave up his1 ghost.’

Although converb and reﬂexive control by the kartr (whether nominative or instrumental) is the most common pattern˚ in San- skrit, there are examples where other constituents — or no constituents in the same clause — seem to exert control. See the examples in (19)–(25) which focus on converb control, with the exception of (24c) which shows that genitive-marked NPs also can control reﬂexives.

(19) a. º;lM ; a;va;Sa;a;de;na ; a;ba;lM :pra; a;va;Zya Á va;sa;a;ma .sa;veRa ya; a;d .=+ea;.ca;tea vaH alam˙ vis. adena¯ bilam˙ pravi´sya (.) vasama¯ sarve yadi rocate vah. (Ram.¯ 4.52.31) ‘Enough of entering the cave in despondency. All of us are staying if it pleases you.’ b. º;pra;a;pya na;d;Ma :pa;vRa;taH ;//////a;~Ta;taH aprapya¯ nad¯ım˙ parvatah. sthitah. (Ka¯s.´ on A. 3.4.20) ‘Not having reached the river (i.e. on this side of the river) stands the mountain.’

(20) º;ea! ;Sa;Da;a:jRa;gDva;!a;p!aH :pa;a;tva;a t!a;ta O;;Sa .=!+saH .sM!a;Ba;va; a;ta osadh¯ır jagdhva¯ + apah p¯ıtva¯ tata esa rasah sambhavati˙ ¯ . ¯ . ¯ . ¯ . ¯ (SB.´ 1.3.1.24) ¯ 22 H. H. HOCK

‘(The animals/somebody) having eaten the plants, having drunk the waters, from that arises this essence.’

(21) a. º;a; a;ta;Tye!a;na ;vE!a :de;va;!a I+.õÅ ;!a ta;!a;ntsa;m!a;d; a;va;nd;t,a atithye¯ na vai deva¯ istva¯ ta¯n t-samad avindat (SB.´ 3.4.2.1) ¯ ¯ ¯ .. ¯ ¯ ‘The Gods having sacriﬁced¯ with the guest-offering — discord befell them.’ b. tM!a ;hE;nMa dx;õÅ ;a Ba;!a; a;vRa;vea;d tam˙ hainam˙ drstva¯ bh¯ır viveda (SB.´ 11.6.1.7) ¯ .. ¯ ‘Having seen˚ him (i.e. someone else), fear befell him.’

(22) a. (rua;tva;a ;//a;tva;d;mua;pa;a;K.ya;a;na;m,a ... º;nya;a .=+ea;.ca;tea [ta;smEa] ´srutva¯ tv idam upakhy¯ anam¯ . . . anyan na rocate [tasmai] (MBh. 1.2.236) ‘(He) having heard this story, another (story) does not please him/he does not like another (story).’ b. ; a;dõ:ja ;a;sa;pra;a;na;d;Ma ga;tva;a tua;Bya;ma;hM ma:n:Ma d;a;~ya;a;a;ma dvija sipranad¯ ¯ım˙ gatva¯ tubhyam aham˙ mantram˙ dasy¯ ami¯ (Vetalapañcavim˙ sati´ , ed. Emeneau 92.20–21) ‘O brahmin, I will give a mantra to you, (you) having gone to the river Sipranad¯ ¯ı.’

(23) :pa;(ãa;a;dÉ õE! :pa:=+!a;tya v!a;Sa;ax ya;e!a;Sa;a;m!a; a;Da;dÒ +va; a;ta :pa;(ãa;É !a;de;vE!a;na;a;mea;t!a;tpa:=+!a;tya v!a;S¾a;ax ...(º!); a;Da;dÒ +a;va;ya; a;ta pasc´ ad¯ vai par¯ıtya vrs. a¯ yos. am¯ adhidravati ¯ ¯ ˚ ¯ ¯ pasc´ a¯d evainam¯ eta¯t par¯ıtya vrsna¯ . . . (a)dhidravayati¯ (SB.´ ¯ ¯ ¯ . . ¯ 1.9.2.24) ¯ ˚¯ ‘The bull mates with the female approaching her from behind. He makes the bull mate with her, (the bull) having approached her from behind.’

(24) a. h;tva;a va:Max ; a;va;a:ja;tya yua;Sma;a;a;Ba;meRa Y;yMa .sa;h .sa;ea;ma;pa;a;TaH (h)atva¯ vrtram˙ vijitya yus. mabhir¯ me ’yam˙ saha somap¯ı- ˚ SOMEISSUESIN SANSKRIT SYNTAX 23

tha(h. ) (KB. 15.2) ‘Having slain Vrtra, having conquered, this soma- drinking with you˚ is mine.’ ëÐÅ b. .sua;=+:ïîåéa;a;tMa :pua:+:SMa dx;õÅ ;a .~:a;a;¾a;Ma ; a;ì*:+:dÉ ùÅ;a;////a;ntaya;ea;na;yaH susnata¯ m˙ purus. am˙ drs..tva¯ str¯ın. a¯m˙ klidyanti yonayah. (Vetalapañcavi¯ m˙ satik´ ˚a¯, ed. Uhle 15.37–38) ‘Having seen a well-bathed/graduated man, women’s vaginas get wet.’ c. .sa;a ; a;h .~va;a .=+a:ja;Da;a;na;a sa¯ hi sva¯ rajadh¯ an¯ ¯ı (Kathas.¯ 39.163) ‘for this is my (= the speaker’s) royal city’

(25) I+.tyea;va k+:a;le Zyea;nea;na;a;na;a;ya Ka;a;dùÅ;a;ma;a;na;~ya .sa;pRa;~ya ga:=+lM ta;"+v.yea ; a;na;pa- ; a;ta;ta;m,a ity eva kale¯ syenena´ + an¯ ¯ıya khadyam¯ anasya¯ sarpasya garalam˙ taddravye nipatitam (Vetalapañcavi¯ m˙ sati´ , ed. Emeneau 76.11–13) ‘At that very time, the venom of a snake being eaten by a hawk, (the hawk) having carried it off, fell into his food.’

Faced with such a variety of different structures, some scholars may opt for claiming that there is no purely syntactic criterion for control and that any element that is somehow salient may serve as controller. This is close to what Zakharyin (1998) proposes. A heuristically and theoretically more interesting position is to try to determine whether some or all of these ‘exceptional’ structures can be accounted for by additional generalizations. This is, of course, what Pan¯ .ini has done — for structures like (19a) by means of A. 3.4.18 (see also A. 3.4.19) and for (19b) by A. 3.4.20 — with A. 3.4.21 taking care of ‘elsewhere’. In both cases we are probably dealing with some kind of grammaticaliza- tion. The one in (19b) could be compared to later grammaticaliza- tions such as adhikrtya ‘about’, ad¯ aya¯ ‘with’, arabhya¯ ‘(starting) ˚ 24 H. H. HOCK from’ which likewise do not seem to be sensitive to control by any particular constituent. As far as (20) and (21a) are concerned, these seem to be peculiarities of Vedic prose; see Delbrück 1888: 408. Hock (1987) accounts for them under the notion ‘reduced-clause’ structures, a phenomenon not limited to converbs but also found with participles. Example (21a), however, could also be analyzed as comparable to (21b) which, together with (22a), could be — and has been — taken as equivalent to Modern Indo-Aryan oblique-experiencer- subject constructions; see Hook 1976, 1984 for (22a), and Za- kharyin 1998 more generally. Structures of this sort, however, are extremely rare and, in the aggregate, no more frequent than structures like (22b) in which a non-experiencer indirect object controls the converb, or (23) where the converb’s dependence on the causee of adhidravayati¯ may be dittological from the preceding non-causative construction with a- dhidravati. At any rate, all of these structures are quite rare and can be dismissed as occasional examples of ‘loose’ (or ‘sloppy’) control.9 The examples in (24), by contrast, exemplify a much more common pattern: control by genitive-marked possessor NPs. The fact that examples of control by non-kartrs (in Pan¯ .ini’s sense) are especially common with genitive-marked˚ NPs was already noted by Speijer (1886: 298) who considered these NPs to be exemplars of his ‘dative-like genitive’ category. Focusing on converb and re- ﬂexive control, as well as word order, I have argued (Hock 1990, 1991a) that Possessor NPs must be recognized as a highly produc-

9Interestingly, if structures like (21b) and (22a) were to be analyzed as oblique-experiencer-subject constructions — or as forerunners of such constructions — accusative-marked experiencers would seem to occur more frequently than dative-marked ones. In Modern Indo-Aryan, it is dative-marking which pre- vails. On the syntax of ruc see also Cardona 1990; Deshpande 1990. SOMEISSUESIN SANSKRIT SYNTAX 25 tive alternative to kartr control. (In his very different approach to the syntax of Rgvedic˚ reﬂexive sva, Vine (1997) similarly ﬁnds that genitive-marked˚ NPs are the most common alternative to subject NP controllers.) Finally, example (25) shows the need for being sensitive to syntactic bracketing. The converb an¯ ¯ıya is controlled by the kartr (syena´ ) of the participial structure headed by khadyam¯ ana¯ , not by˚ the kartr (garala) of the matrix-clause verb nipatitam. See the bracketing˚ in (26). For further discussion see Hock 1986, 1987.10

(26) I+.tyea;va k+:a;le Zyea;nea;na;a;na;a;ya Ka;a;dùÅ;a;ma;a;na;~ya .sa;pRa;~ya ga:=+lM ta;"+v.yea ; a;na;pa; a;ta;ta;m,a [ity eva kale¯ [syenena´ + an¯ ¯ıya khadyam¯ anasya¯ ] sarpasya garalam taddravye nipatitam] (Vetalapañcavi¯ m˙ sati´ , ed. Emeneau 76.11–13) ‘At that very time, the venom of a snake being eaten by a hawk, (the hawk) having carried it off, fell into his food.’

While this phenomenon is not overtly addressed in the Pan¯ .i- nian tradition, there is nothing in that tradition that would prevent it. Given that their sufﬁxes replace la-karas¯ (A. 3.2.124, 3.4.70– 71), participles are allowed to have their own kartrs, and these kartrs can control converbs (and reﬂexives) in their own˚ domain. ˚ Complications do however arise because participial structures are normally integrated into their matrix clauses without being set off by clear boundaries. As a consequence, in very similar structures, such as (27ab), both involving the participle form gacchan,

10Speijer (1886: 297–98) comes close to realizing the need for some kind of bracketing by noting that [apparent] control by locative NPs is common in locative absolute constructions. Vine (1997) similarly weighs the possibility that some instances of apparent non-subject control of reﬂexives may be accounted for by something like bracketing. 26 H. H. HOCK it may be either the kartr of the entire sentence or that of the participial structure that controls˚ the converb. In fact, as (27c) shows, it is possible for one converb to be controlled by one kartr, another by the other. ˚

(27) a. .sa ya;¼a;a;TeRa ... C+.a;ga;mua;pa;kÒ +:a;ya ... ga;.cC+.n,a ;DUa;tRa:a;yea;¾a;a;va;l+.ea; a;k+:taH [sa yajñarthe¯ ...[chagam¯ upakr¯ıya . . . gacchan] dhurtatrayen¯ . a + avalokitah. ] (Hitopadesa´ 43.5–6) ‘He, having bought a goat for the purpose of sacriﬁce . . . , (as he was) going was noticed by a trio of rogues.’ ú b. tMa :pua:Ma d;ZRa; a;ya;tva;a;nea;na ga;.cC+ê*+;f;a;Da:=HÁ .sa;ma;a;na;a;taH [tam˙ putram˙ dar´sayitva¯ + anena gacchañ jat.adharah¯ . saman¯ ¯ıtah. ] (Vetalapañcavi¯ m˙ sati´ , ed. Emeneau 28. 5–6) ‘Having showed that boy to him he brought (back) the mendicant (as he was) going.’ c. ta;a;///a;nva;a:ja;tya ya;Ta;a;l+.ea;k+:ma;a;sa;a;na;a; a;na;ndÒ O;;tya;a;b.ra;va;a;t,a [[tan¯ vijitya yathalokam¯ as¯ ¯ınan¯ ] indra etya + abrav¯ıt](JB 1.156) ‘Indra, having come up, said to them, (who were) sitting according to their own worlds, having won.’

3.5 Double Direct Object constructions and Causatives

In Pan¯ .ini’s sutras¯ deﬁning karman (28), A. 1.4.51 has met with considerable problems of interpretation. The commentatorial tradition agrees that it is intended to cover double-direct-object constructions such as (29), but how it does so does not seem to have received a satisfactory explanation; see Deshpande 1987. The evidence of the textual tradition makes it clear that either of the two complements in these structures behaves like a true direct object, SOMEISSUESIN SANSKRIT SYNTAX 27 being promotable to surface subject — if it occurs by itself (30). However, if both complements are present, only the more agentive one can be promoted; (31). See Hock 1985, 2012c for further discussion; see also Ostler 1979; Van de Walle 1992.

(28) a. k+:tRua:=+a;/////a;psa;ta;ta;mMak+:mRa Á ta;Ta;a;yua;M ..ca;a;na;a;/////a;psa;ta;m,a kartur ¯ıpsitatamam karma. tathayukta¯ m˙ can¯ ¯ıpsitam (A. 1.4.49–50) ‘That which is most desired by the agent is karman, and also that which is not desired (but) linked (to the action) in the same way;’ b. º;k+: a;Ta;tMa ..ca akathitam˙ ca (A. 1.4.51) ‘also what (is linked in the same way and) has not been as yet speciﬁed;’ (?) c. ga; a;ta;bua; a:;dÄâ ;pra;tya;va;sa;a;na;a;TRa;Za;b.d;k+:ma;Ra;k+:mRa;k+:a;¾a;a;ma; a;¾a;k+:ta;Ra .sa .¾a;Ea Á &+.kÒ+:ea:=+nya;ta:=+~yaº;m,a gatibuddhipratyavasan¯ artha¯ sabdakarm´ akarmak¯ an¯ . am¯ a- n. ikarta¯ sa n. au. hrkror anyatarasyam¯ (A. 1.4.52–53) ‘also the non-causative˚ agent in the causative of roots meaning ‘go’, ‘understand’, ‘consume’, ‘communicate’, (and) intransitives, and (optionally) of hr and kr.’ ˚ ˚ (29) a. k+:du b.ra;vaH... na;n,aX kad´ u bravah. . . . nr¯´n (RV. 10.10.6) (SPEAK) ‘What will you say˚ to˚ the men?’ b. ta:va;a ya;a;a;ma ... tat´ tva¯ yami¯ . . . (RV. 1.24.11a) (ASK/ENTREAT) ‘. . . that I request˚ from you.’ c. du;du;hò !e :pa;yaH ... ³; a;Sa;m,a duduhre payah´ . ... r´s. im (RV. 9.54.1) (MILK) ‘They milked the milk˚ (from)˚ the sage.’ 28 H. H. HOCK

d. :de! ;va;a;na;sua-.=+aH y!a;¼a;ma-.ja;ya>+.s,a devan¯´ asur´ ah¯ . yajñam´ ajayams˙ (MS. 1.9.8) (WIN) ‘The asuras won the sacriﬁce (from) the gods.’ e. ya;d;mua;S¾a;a;ta ... :p!a; a;¾Ma ga;aH yad´ amus´ . n. ¯ıta . . . pan. ´ım˙ gah¯´ . (RV. 1.93.4) (ROB) ‘. . . when you robbed the cows˚ (from) the miser.’ f. ta;a;nsa;h;~å:Maò d;¾q+.yea;t,a tan¯ sahasram˙ dan. d. ayet (Manu 9.234) (PUNISH) ‘. . . he should ﬁne/punish them (with) a thousand.’

(30) a.( º).~ya va;a;gua; a;d;ta;a Ba;va; a;ta (a)sya vag¯ udita¯ bhavati (AB. 1.6.12) (SPEAK) ‘His speech is spoken.’ .sa :he!;ndÒe +¾a;ea;! º;a;sa sa ha + indrena + ukta asa¯ (SB.´ 14.1.1.19) ¯ . ¯ ‘He was addressed by Indra.’ b. .=!+ a;ya; a;vRa;BUa; a;ta:=+a;ya;tea ... ray´ır v´ıbhutir¯ ¯ıyate . . . (RV. 6.21.1) (ASK/ENTREAT) ‘Great wealth is implored.’˚ .=+a:ja;a me!a;Da;a;a;Ba:=, IR+.ya;tea raj¯´ a¯ medhabhir¯´ ¯ıyate (RV. 9.65.16) ‘The king is implored˚ with insight.’ c.... ; a;pa;ba;tua du! ;gDa;mM!a;Zua;m,a . . . pibatu dugdham´ am˙ s´um´ (RV. 5.36.1) (MILK) ‘May he drink the milked (=˚ expressed) soma.’11 du! ;hùÅ:a;ntea ... ;De!a;na;va;ea

11Hettrich (1994) cites dugdho´ am˙ s´uh´ . (RV 3.36.6d), glossed as ‘der ausge- molkene Stengel’, as an example of the source, rather than the substance NP becoming the passive subject. However, the present example suggests that am˙ s´u´ has become simply an epithet of soma, the ingestible substance produced in the ritual. SOMEISSUESIN SANSKRIT SYNTAX 29

duhyante´ . . . dhenavo´ (AV. 7.73.2) ‘The cows are being milked.’ d. .~va;mR!a:+:tva;ta;a ;a:j!a;ta;m,a svar` marutvat´ a¯ jitam´ (RV. 8.76.4) (WIN) ‘The sun has been conquered˚ by (Indra) accompanied by the Maruts.’ º;a;su!a:=+a yu!a;Da;a ;a:j!a;ta;a asur¯ ¯´ı yudha¯´ jita¯´ (AV. 1.24.1) ‘The asura woman, defeated in battle.’ çÉ e. ne!a;dõe ;v!a na;+;aîå ! I+.va mua; a;Sa;t!a I+.va Z!a;ya;a;ta;a I! +.ty,a... ned v eva nagna iva musita iva sa´ yat¯ a¯ ity . . . (ROB) ¯ ¯ ¯ . ¯ ¯ ¯ (SB.´ 1.2.2.16) ‘. . . lest he lie naked as it were, robbed as it were.’

(31) a. ; a;va:ja;ya;mua;+:~tEaH vijayam uktas taih. (Kathas.¯ 18.247) (SPEAK) ‘. . . (was) told (about) the victory by them.’ b. v!a;Za;a;a;ma;ndÒe +¾a ya;a; a;.c!a;taH vas´am¯´ ´ındren. a yacit¯ ah´ . (AV. 12.4.50) (ASK/ENTREAT) ‘. . . asked by Indra for (his) cow’ c.... na;Ba;ea du;hùÅ:a;tea ;G!a;tMax :pa;yaH . . . nabho´ duhyate ghrta´m˙ paya(h´ . ) (RV. 9.74.4) (MILK) ‘The cloud is milked˚ for ghee, milk.’˚12 d.... .sa;vRa:$ya;a; a;nMa va;a .ja;a;ya;tea . . . sarvajyani¯ m˙ va¯ j¯ıyate (KS. 29.6) (WIN) ‘. . . or he is defeated a complete defeat.’

12Hettrich notes that the example is formally ambiguous, since both nabhah´ . and ghrta´m˙ payah´ . can be both nominative and accusative. The singular on the ˚ verb and the initial placement of nabhah´ . favor an interpretation that nabhah´ . is the subject; but agreement with the nearest ‘antecedent’ of the conjoined elements ghrtam´ and payah´ . is a possible alternative. Geldner takes ghrtam´ and payah´ . to be˚ the subject. ˚ 30 H. H. HOCK

e. ; a;h!;mea;va :p!a;¾a;Ra mua; a;S!a;ta;a va;na;a; a;na himeva´ parn. a¯´ mus. ita¯´ van´ ani¯ (RV. 10.68.10) (ROB) ‘. . . like trees robbed of their leaves˚ by winter’13

While this much is known, questions remain. First, it is not clear why only certain verbs that are subcategorized for two complements have double-direct-object constructions. Even more puz- zling is why some verbs belonging to the semantic sets SPEAK, ASK/ENTREAT, MILD, WIN, ROB fail to enter into double-direct- object constructions. Consider kath which to my knowledge only takes the addressee in the dative, or hr ‘take away’ which takes the ablative for the source person. Presumably,˚ the verbs participating in the double-direct-object construction must be speciﬁcally listed in the lexicon (together with alternative case markings, if any; see Hock 1985. But this does not explain why many of the verb classes exhibit similar behavior in other Indo-European languages; see Hock 2012c. Problems of a different sort arise regarding A. 1.4.52–53 which classiﬁes the causees of certain verb classes as karman (optionally for hr and kr) and leaves others as kartrs which, being anabhihita,˚ surface˚ in the instrumental. As Speijer˚ (1886: 36–37 with reference) notes, a very different situation obtains in the classical language, irrespective of verb class:

If one wants to say ‘he causes me to do something, it is by his impulse I act’, there is room for the [accusative causee], but if it be meant ‘he gets something done by

13As noted by Hettrich, formally this passage is ambiguous. However, the context favors the interpretation given here: himeva´ parn. a¯´ mus. ita¯´ van´ ani¯ br´- ˚ haspatin´ akr¯ payad valo´ gah¯´ . ‘Like the trees robbed of their leaves by winter, Vala mourned for˚ the cows (taken from him) by Brhaspati.’ (Geldner: ‘Wie die Bäume ihre vom Frost geraubten Blätter so vermißte˚ Vala die von Brhaspati (geraubten) Kühe.’) ˚ SOMEISSUESIN SANSKRIT SYNTAX 31

me, I am only the agent or instrument through which he acts’, the instrumental is in its place . . .

As shown in Hock 1981, this pragmatically sensitive marking convention is already found in the early Vedic prose texts; see (32) and (33), where the verb in (32) belongs to the categories of verbs that by A. 1.4.52 should take a karman, and the verb in (33) does not. The phenomenon can therefore not be attributed to post-Pa-¯ n.inian innovation. Rather, the difference between Pan¯ .ini and the textual tradition of Madhyadesa´ most likely reﬂects a difference in regional dialect. See Hock 1981, 2012b,c, as well as Deshpande (1983)’s pioneering paper, “Pan¯ .ini as a frontier grammarian.”

(32) a. dùÅ;a;a;va;pa; a;Tx !a;va;a Bua;va;nea;Su!a º; a;pRa;tea dyavapr¯´ thiv¯´ı bhuvanes´ . u arpite´ (TS. 4.7.13.2) ‘Heaven˚ and earth have been made to reach the worlds.’ b. º! ;mMua .te!a Zua;k, Á ³ ;C+.tua... ya;me!a;va :dõe ; a;! ta;ma;~ya »u!a;Da;a ..ca Zu!a;.ca;a ..caº;pRa;ya; a;ta amu´m˙ te s´uk.´ rchatu . . . yam´ eva´ dves´..ti tam´ asya ks. udha¯´ ca suc´ a¯´ ca + arpayati˚ (TS. 5.4.4.1–2; similarly passim) ‘Your pain should go to him; whom indeed he hates, to him he makes his hunger and pain go.’ Or: ‘. . . him he afﬂicts with his hunger and pain.’

(33) a. º;ea;Sa;Da;a;=e+va :P+.lM g{a;a;h;ya; a;ta os. adh¯ır eva phalam˙ grahayati¯ (KS. 26.5) ‘He causes the plants to take fruit.’

b. va: +:¾ea;nEa;v!a Bra;a;txa;v.yMa g{a;a;h; a;y!a;tva;a b.ra; ;¾a;a .~txa;¾ua;tea varun´ . enaiva bhratr¯´ vyam˙ grahayitv¯ a¯´ brahman´ . a¯ strn. ute (TS. 2.1.8.2, similarly˚ KS. 13.4) ˚ ‘Having caused Varun.a to seize the enemy, he lays him low with the sacriﬁcial formula.’ 32 H. H. HOCK

3.6 Asamartha compounding The syntax of constructions such as (34), called ‘asamartha compounds’ by Gillon (1993), was ﬁrst addressed in Patañjali’s commentary on A. 2.1.1 (Kielhorn-Abhyankar edition 1.359.21– 361.24). The fact that in the reading of (34), devadattasya does not modify the head (kula) of gurukulam, but the non-head (guru), leads to a lengthy discussion, with one side arguing that the interpretation is acceptable and another one that it is not, since only heads can have external modiﬁcation. The issue is in effect left unresolved. By contrast, Bhartrhari (Vakyapad¯ ¯ıya 3.14.47) accepts the grammaticality of such˚ structures if the non-head is a relational noun, such as ‘father’, ‘son’, ‘teacher’, ‘student’.

(34) :de;va;d:a;~ya gua: - ku+:l+.m,a devadattasya guru-kulam ‘Devadatta’s teacher’s family’

That this issue is not just an idle invention of the grammarians is shown by the fact that structures of this sort do in fact occur, such as (35a); and as shown by (35bc) other structures that would not be amenable to Bhartrhari’s account are also found. As far as I can tell, Whitney (1889:˚ 515) was the ﬁrst western scholar to note the existence of such structures.

(35) a. d;nta;a;Ga;a;ta;~ya ... du; a;h;tuaH :pa;íåÅ+a;a;va;tya;a ;Da;a:a;a;~va;sa;a;h;m,a dantagh¯ atasya¯ . . . duhituh. padmavaty¯ a¯ dhatr¯ ¯ısvasaham¯ (Vetalapañcavi¯ m˙ sati´ , Emeneau edition, 16.16–17) ‘I am the sister of the nurse of Padmavat¯ ¯ı, the daughter of Dantagh¯ ata¯ . . . ’ b. ta;~ya;Ma :/a;=+:ïîåéa;gDa;dx;a;a .sUa; a;.ca;ta;a;a;Ba;l+.a;SaH tasya¯m˙ snigdhadrs..tya¯ sucit¯ abhil¯ as¯. ah. (Sakuntal´ a¯ 3.9.16) ‘. . . whose affection˚ was indicated by his gaze ﬁxed on her.’ SOMEISSUESIN SANSKRIT SYNTAX 33

c. ; a;.ca:a-:pra;ma;a; a;Ta;na;a ba;a;l+.a :de;va;a;na;a;ma; a;pa .sua;nd:=+a citta-pramathin¯ ¯ı bal¯ a¯ devan¯ am¯ api sundar¯ı (Nala 1.18; MBh. 3.50.13) ‘A beautiful girl disturbing the minds even of the Gods.’

In a recent paper, Kiparsky (2009: 48) argues that structures like (34) can be interpreted as ‘apparent syntax/morphology mis- matches [that] should be treated’ in terms of a semantic inheritance mechanism whereby ‘properties of individuals become properties of groups to which individuals belong’, as in a laughing group of children which really means ‘a group of laughing children’ rather than merely ‘a laughing group consisting of children’. A more comprehensive analysis is that of Gillon (1993, 1995). Adopting Bhartrhari’s notion of ‘relational noun’, he concludes that non-heads that˚ are associated with a karaka¯ or ‘whose meaning presupposes some kind of relation’ are permitted to take external heads. This allows him to account not only for the type (34)/(35a) but also for (35b), under the assumption that unlike languages such as English, Sanskrit allows transmission of unsaturated argument positions not only for heads but also for non-heads; see Table 3.14 Molina Muñoz (2014) notes that while Gillon’s account works for (35a) and (35b), it does not for the type (35c), where citta is not a ‘relational noun’ and where devan¯ am¯ is not an argument of citta, but syntactically merely an adjunct. She therefore argues that a different explanation is required which, in principle, works for all subtypes under (35). Starting out with Schäufele’s notion of ‘liberation’ or ‘node erasure’ and Pan¯ .ini’s account for compounds as combining full words (saha supa¯, A. 2.1.4), she proposes to derive (productive) compounds in a post-syntactic component along the lines of Halle and Marantz’s (1993) distributed morphology. Com- pounding, under this account, can take place between two neigh- boring semantically compatible words in the output of the syntax

14This is Molina Muñoz’s (2014) rendition of Gillon’s diagram. 34 H. H. HOCK

NPINSTR < >

NPLOC NINSTR

NLOC A NINSTR tasyam¯ ‘on her’ snigdha ‘ﬁxed’ drs..tya¯ ‘gaze’ ˚ Table 3 Non-head relational nominal governing an external head and after liberation, which erases syntactic nodes and potentially, but not necessarily moves words or phrases to other positions in the clause. Example (35c) serves as an excellent example, since in this case the movement of devan¯ am¯ and bal¯ a¯ out of their original complex NP provides positive evidence for node erasure; see Table 4. (Note that api moves along with devan¯ am¯ because of its quasi-clitic nature.) Structures such as (35a) and (35b), then, would also be analyzed as involving node erasure, but without any

[NP [AP [NP [NP [N devan¯ am¯ ][PCL api]] [N cittam]] [A pramathin¯ ¯ı]] [A sundar¯ı][N bal¯ a¯]] Node erasure devan¯ am=api¯ cittam pramathin¯ ¯ı sundar¯ı bal¯ a¯ . + Movement t1 cittam pramathin¯ ¯ı t2 bal¯ a¯ devan¯ am=api¯ 1 sundar¯ı2 Compounding [cittam-pramathin¯ ¯ı] Sufﬁx erasure cittapramathin¯ ¯ı Final output cittapramathin¯ ¯ı bal¯ a¯ devan¯ am¯ api sundar¯ı Table 4 Node erasure, movement, and compounding in (35c) SOMEISSUESIN SANSKRIT SYNTAX 35 overt movement.

4 Functional issues that should be of interest to computational approaches

In this section I address several functional or usage aspects of particular grammatical phenomena, including genre-based usages, that should be of interest to those engaged in computational analysis of Sanskrit texts. In fact, attention to genre differences and their influence on the choice of syntactic processes can also pay off for formal analyses. Consider the interaction between genre and word order discussed in §3.1 and the more comprehensive discussion in Hock 1997, 2000. Conversely, as we will see, discourse phenomena can raise interesting questions for formal analyses. One difficulty with functional investigations is that they tend to be highly specific. For instance, Gonda (1942) observes that although, using recent terminology, Sanskrit is a ‘pro-drop’ language, personal pronouns are common in dialogues. Jamison (1991b,a) similarly focuses on dialogues in Vedic prose which, as she notes, exhibit interesting differences from the technical discourse that surrounds them, including a much greater use of de- ictics such as idam, adas, rather than demonstratives such as tad, etad. As regards the Vedic-prose difference between tad and etad, Hock (1982a) finds that etad is preferred in cataphoric contexts, while tad is anaphoric or unmarked. My impression is that this difference holds also for classical Sanskrit. M. R. Hale (1991) comes to different conclusions for the Taittir¯ıya Samhit˙ a¯. This is an issue that deserves fuller study. Still in the area of pronoun usage, Van de Walle (1991, 1993: 119–20) notes that, while plural may be used for politeness (as in bhavantah. for bhavan¯ ), second plural pronouns are rarely used with singular reference. Normally either the second singular pronoun or a form of bhavat is used 36 H. H. HOCK

— sometimes even within the same (complex) sentence. (Van de Walle’s work, however, is not limited to pronoun use but addresses the broader issue of linguistic politeness — and distancing — in classical Sanskrit.) Tsiang-Starcevic’s (1997) study is a broad investigation of the use of finite (i.e. relative clause) vs. non-finite (participle, converb) subordination in Sanskrit narratives. See also Tsiang and Watanabe 1987, which focuses on the rhetoric of fable narratives. An important finding is that non-finite structures dominate in narrative portions and that finite relative clauses tend to be restricted to dialogues embedded in the narratives. In his monumental study of relative-clause syntax, Hettrich (1988: 745–57) claims that appositive or non-restrictive relative clauses were a feature of Proto-Indo-European poetic language, surviving in mantra Vedic, but becoming rare in Vedic prose and disappearing in post-Vedic. Hock (1993) argues that the difference between mantra and prose can be explained in terms of genre and that non-restrictive relative clauses continue to be used in the classical language. It would be interesting to investigate whether different classical genres exhibit differences similar to those between mantra and prose Vedic. In the following I take a more detailed look at fronting and extraposition, two general movement processes, both of which have interesting discourse, genre, and grammatical characteristics.

4.1 Fronting Fronting processes play a signiﬁcant role in a number of different genres, both in Vedic and in the classical language.

4.1.1 Initial strings in Vedic Vedic-prose texts are characterized by complex initial strings, such as (36a), consisting of topicalized elements (commonly nominal or SOMEISSUESIN SANSKRIT SYNTAX 37 pronominal), demonstrative and other pronouns, as well as particles. Similar, but generally less complex and shorter strings are also found in the mantra language. M. R. Hale (1987, 1996) proposes syntactic movement accounts, with some prosodic readjust- ment, for strings of this sort; see also Keydana 2011. By contrast, Hock (1982a, 1996, 1997) proposes a fully prosodic account, both in terms of a template defining their linear order and in terms of their domain of occurrence. Especially relevant in this regard is the evidence of the mantra language, where initial strings may occur line-initially (36b) or even post-caesura (36c) in run-on lines, i.e. in prosodically defined domains, rather than the syntactically defined domain of clause-initiality.

(36) a. O;;ta;!a;}vea;vE!a;S!a O;;t!a;smEa ; a;v!a;S¾ua;yRa;¼a;ea ; a;v!a;kÒ+:a;////a;ntMa; a;v!a;kÒ+:ma;tea eta¯m v eva + esa etasmai visnur yajño vikranti¯ m˙ vikra- i . j ¯ . . j ¯ i ¯ mate¯ (SB.´ ¯1.1.2.13)¯ ¯ ‘This Vis.n.u, the sacriﬁce, steps this (world-conquering three-fold) stepping for him (the sacriﬁcer).’ b. h;ea;ta;a:=M ; a;v!a:(õ;a;vea;d;sM!a ( )Á .sMa ; a;h tva;!a ; a;va;Za I! +.nDa;t,aO; hot´ ara¯ m˙ visv´ avedasa´ m˙ (.) sa´m˙ h´ı tva¯ v´ısa´ indhate´ (RV. 1.44.7ab) ˚ ‘For the clans light you as the all-knowing hotr.’ ˚ c. ; a;va;pr!aH :prea;!H: .sa hùÅ:ae ;Sa;Ma ba;BUa;va v´ıprah. pres´..thah. : sa´ hy es`. a¯m˙ babhuva¯ (RV. 10.61.23c) ‘For he was of/for them the dearest singer.’˚

To my knowledge, strings of this sort do not survive in the post-Vedic language; but see §4.1.3 for ‘linkage strings’.

4.1.2 Predicate-Subject order The fact that predicates frequently precede their subjects, as in (37), has attracted western scholars’ attention from an early period. 38 H. H. HOCK

Speijer (1886: 10) considers this the normal order in Sanskrit, but notes that ‘Pronouns, it seems, may be put indiscriminately before or behind their noun-predicate’ (1886: 10); and in his 1896 monograph, he adds the further restriction that subject pronouns normally precede their predicates. Delbrück (1878: 27), by contrast, while acknowledging the pervasive presence of predicate- subject order in Vedic prose, considers it marked: ‘Der Grund für diese Stellung liegt auf der Hand. Das Subject is nämlich bekannt, das Praedikatsnomen aber bringt etwas Neues hinzu, und tritt also nach dem allgemeinen Gesetz der occasionellen Wortstellung vor.’ [‘The reason for this position is obvious. The subject is known, but the predicate nominal adds something new and hence moves to the front according to the general law of occasional word order.’]

(37) a. .tea:ja;ea ;vEa b.ra; ga;a;ya:a;a TEJO vai BRAHMA gayatr¯ ¯ı (KS. 25.5)15 ‘The gayatr¯ ¯ı is brilliance, brahman.’ b. ma;na;ea ;vEa ba;h;d,x va;a;g,a .=+Ta;nta:=+m,a ... MANO vai brhad VAG¯ rathantaram ... (JB. 1.128) ‘The brhat is˚ mind, the rathantaram is speech . . . ’ ˚ For the post-Vedic language, Lahiri (1933) ﬁnds that contrary to Speijer, the normal order is subject-predicate; see also Hock 2013. Even for Vedic prose it is possible to show that predicate-initial order is marked. First, there are many examples like (38) in which only part of the predicate appears in initial, pre-subject position, while the rest remains stranded ‘downstairs’. Second, in longer series of equational structures, the order predicate-subject tends to break down, reverting to subject-predicate order; (39). Finally, as noted in Hock 2013, predicate-initial order is regular only in a

15Here as elsewhere in this discussion, subjects are marked by bold, predicates by SMALLCAPS. SOMEISSUESIN SANSKRIT SYNTAX 39 sub-genre of Vedic prose, namely passages that equate instruments of the sacriﬁce (such as the meters, or body parts of the sacriﬁcial animal) with more abstract or ‘supramundane’ phenomena or qualities such as the Year (writ large), the Mind (again, writ large), or the World and its components.

(38) a. mu!a;K.ya;Ea va;!a º;a;va;M!a ya;¼!a;~ya .~va;ea MUKHYAU va¯ av¯ a¯m˙ YAJÑASYA svo (SB.´ 4.1.5.16) ¯ ¯ ¯ ‘We two are the chiefs¯ of the sacriﬁce.’ b. BUa;ya;a;n,a ;vEa b.ra;a;;¾aH »a; a:a;ya;a;d, BHUY¯ AN¯ vai brahman¯ . ah. KS. ATRIYAD¯ (AB. 7.15.8) ‘A brahmin is better than a ks.atriya.’ (39) o+.Sa;a va;a º:(õ;a;~ya mea;Dya;~ya ; a;Za:=H .sUa;yRa;(ãa:»ua:=,É va;a;taH :pra;a;¾a;ea v.ya;a:a;ma; a;+;a;vERa:(îåçÉ õ;a;a;na:=H .sMa;va;tsa:= º;a;tma;a +:va;DyMa ;a;sa;k+:ta;aH ;a;sa;nDa;va;ea gua;d;aH ya;kx +:a ì*:+:ea;ma;a;na;(ëÐÉÅ ãaÉ :pa;vRa;ta;aH US. A¯ va¯ a´svasyamedhyasya ´sirah. SURYA¯ S´ caks. ur VATAH¯ . pran¯ . o vyattam¯ AGNIR VAISV´ ANARAH¯ . SAMVATSARA˙ atm¯ a¯ uvadhya¯ m˙ SIKATAH¯ . SINDHAVO gudah¯ . yakrc ca klomana´sca¯ PARVATAH¯ . (BAUM.¯ 1.1.1) ‘The˚ head of the sacriﬁcial horse is the dawn; the eye, the sun; the breath, the wind; the open mouth, Agni Vaisv´ anara;¯ the body, the year . . . ; the food in the stomach, the sand; the blood vessels, the rivers; the liver and lungs, the mountains.’ 40 H. H. HOCK

Predicate-initiality, thus, is not basic, but results from (partial) fronting and, moreover, is a feature sensitive to genre and discourse. Moreover, as in the case of major constituent order, sensitivity to genre differences makes it possible to argue in favor of one formal analysis in preference to another. (See also §5 below.)

4.1.3 Narrative linkage and related issues The use of converbs as narrative linkers at or near the beginning of the clause, as in (40a,d) is often considered a feature reﬂecting Dravidian contact; see e.g. Bloch 1930; Emeneau 1971. Under the name ‘tail-head linkage’, the phenomenon of nonﬁnite reca- pitulation has been shown to be more widespread in (folk) narratives, irrespective of syntactic typology (Thompson and Longacre 1985: 209–13); and under the term ‘catena’ it has been shown to occur also in Ancient Greek (Migron 1993). In Sanskrit, the use of converbs alternates with that of ta-participles (40b) and locative absolutes (40c) in a system of ‘switch reference’ (Haiman and Munro 1983)), where converbs indicate kartr continuity, transitive ta-participles a switch to the karman of the˚ preceding action, and locative absolutes a switch to some other actant. (See Hock Forth- coming(a).)

(40) a. na;a:=+d;~ya tua ta;dõ;a;k+.aM (rua;tva;a va;a;k+.a; a;va;Za;a:=+dH Á :pUa:ja;ya;a;ma;a;sa ;Da;ma;Ra;tma;a .sa;h; a;Za;Sya;ea ma;h;a;mua; a;naH Á Á naradasya¯ tu tad vakya¯ m˙ ´srutva¯ vakyavi¯ s´aradah¯ . . pujay¯ am¯ asa¯ dharmatm¯ a¯ sahasis´ . yo mahamunih¯ . .. b. ya;Ta;a;va;tpUa;a:ja;ta;~tea;na :de;va; a;SRa;na;Ra:=+d;~ta;d;a Á º;a;pa;x õÅE ;va;a;Bya;nua;¼a;a;taH .sa .ja;ga;a;ma ; a;va;h;a;ya;sa;m,a Á Á yathavat¯ pujitas¯ tena devars. ir naradas¯ tada.¯ apr¯ s..tvaivabhyanujñ¯ atah¯ . sa jagama¯ vihayasam..¯ ˚ SOMEISSUESIN SANSKRIT SYNTAX 41

c. .sa mua;hU ;t a ga;tea ta;/////////a;sma;nde;va;l+.ea;kM mua; a;na;~ta;d;a Á .ja;ga;a;ma ta;ma;sa;a;ta;a:=M .ja;a;îå+:v.ya;a;~tva; a;va;dU:=+taH Á Á sa muhurta¯ m˙ gate tasmin devalokam˙ munis tada.¯ jagama¯ tamasat¯ ¯ıram˙ jahnavy¯ as¯ tv aviduratah¯ . .. d. .sa tua ta;a:=M .sa;ma;a;sa;a;dùÅ;a ta;ma;sa;a;ya;a ma;h;a;pa; a;taH Á ; a;Za;Sya;ma;a;h ;//////a;~Ta;tMa:pa;a:(õ;eRa dx;õÅ ;a ta;a;TRa;ma;k+:dR;ma;m,a Á Á sa tu t¯ıram˙ samas¯ adya¯ tamasay¯ a¯ mah¯ıpatih. . sis´ . yam aha¯ sthitam˙ par¯ sve´ drs..tva¯ t¯ırtham akardamam.. ˚ (Ram¯ ayan¯ . a 1.2.1–4) ‘When the eloquent one (Valmiki)¯ had heard this speech of Narada,¯ the righteous great sage (Valmiki)¯ and his disciples honored him. When the divine seer Narada¯ had been duly honored by him at that time, he went to heaven, having asked for permission to leave and received it. When he (= Narada)¯ had gone to the heavenly world, the sage (Valmiki)¯ at that time went after a while to the bank of the Tamasa,¯ not far from the Jahnav¯ ¯ı (= the Gang˙ a).¯ But when he reached the bank of the Tamasa,¯ the ruler of the earth, seeing a bathing spot free from mud, spoke to his pupil who was standing next to him.’

As shown in Hock 1994a,b, narrative discourse linkage is accomplished by a variety of other fronting processes, including the fronting of demonstratives, finite verbs, conjunctions, or conjunction-like adverbs; see for instance (41). Moreover, verbs, whether finite or non-finite, may be accompanied by complements and other ‘satellites’; and all the fronting processes may apply together, yielding ‘linkage strings’ that can become quite complex, as in (42).

(41) a. ta;TEa;va;a;sa;a; a;dõ;d;BeRa;Sua Ba;a;ma;ea Ba;a;ma;pa:=+a;kÒ+:maH Á ... ÁÁ .sa :pra:ja;a;TeRa :pa:=M ya;a;ma;k+.=+ea;t,a ... Á 42 H. H. HOCK

ta;m,a º;Bya;ga;.cC+.dõâ â" ;; a;SRa;dR;ma;na;ea na;a;ma ... ÁÁ tMa .sa Ba;a;maH ... ta;ea;Sa;ya;a;ma;a;sa ;Da;mRa; a;va;t,a Á tathaivas¯ ¯ıd vidarbhes. u bh¯ımo bh¯ımaparakramah¯ ...... sa prajarthe¯ param˙ yatnam akarot . . . . tam abhyagacchad brahmars. ir damano nama¯ . . . .. tam˙ sa bh¯ımah. . . . tos. ayam¯ asa¯ dharmavit. (MBh. 3.50.5–7) ‘Likewise there was among the Vidarbhans Bh¯ıma of terrible prowess . . . He made the utmost effort for the sake of progeny . . . To him came a brahmin sage, named Damana . . . Him that Bh¯ıma gladdened, knowing dharma.’ b. º;b.ra;va;a;d, ³;tua;pa;¾Ra;~ta;m,a ... abrav¯ıd rtuparn. as tam . . . (MBh. 3.70.16) ˚ ‘(Then) Rtuparn.a said to him . . . ’ ˚ c. ta;ta;ea Y;nta;a:=;»a;ga;ea va;a;.cMa v.ya;a:ja;h;a:= ... tato ’ntariks. ago vaca¯ m˙ vyajah¯ ara¯ . . . (MBh. 3.50.19) ‘Then the bird said a speech . . . ’

(42) a. ta;ta;~ta;a .nEa;Sa;DMa dx;õÅ ;a ... tatas ta¯ nais. adham drs..tva¯ ... (MBh. 3.52.14) ˚ adv. + tad + SAT + conv.16 ‘Then they, having see the Nis.adhan . . . ’ b. .tea tua hM;sa;aH .sa;mua;tpa;tya ... te tu hams˙ ah¯ . samutpatya ... (MBh. 3.50.21) tad + conj. + SAT + conv. ‘But those swans, having ﬂown up . . . ’ c. :pra; a;va;Za;nta;Ma tua ta;Ma dx;õÅ ;a ... pravi´sant¯ım˙ tu ta¯m˙ drs..tva¯ ... (MBh. 3.62.20) ˚ 16Abbreviations: adv. = conjunction-like adverb, conj. = conjunction, conv. = converb, pres. pple. = present participle, SAT = ‘satellite’, tad = demonstrative pronoun SOMEISSUESIN SANSKRIT SYNTAX 43

pres.pple + conj. + tad + conv. ‘But having seen her entering . . . ’

As noted in Hock Forthcoming(a), linkage strings are the strongest indicators of narrativity, especially in the epics. But even in fable literature, which adopts a more concise narrative style (Tsiang and Watanabe 1987), linkage strings are more clearly linked with narrative than the use of individual linkers by themselves.

4.2 Extraposition The functions of extraposition to post-verbal position are an issue that deserves further study. I am aware of three studies that treat certain aspects of the phenomenon.

4.2.1 Gonda’s ‘amplified sentences’ The earliest is Gonda 1959, with its principle of ‘amplification’ — a common phenomenon both in mantra Vedic and in the epics, see e.g. (43). As Gonda puts it, the structure before and including the verb (in this case agn´ım ¯ıl.e) forms a complete sentence or proposition in itself; what follows is additional information that elaborates on what precedes (in this case on the object agn´ım). In both mantra Vedic and the epics, extraposition serves to expound on the good and desirable qualities of the deity or the hero or heroine. çÉ (43) a. º! ; a;+;a;ma;îå a;Le [:pu!a:=+ea; a;h ;tMa y!a;¼a;~ya :de! ;va;m!a;//a;tva:jx a;m,a Á h;ea;ta;a:=M .=+!a;Da;a;ta;ma;m,a] agn´ım ¯ıl.e [purohita´ m˙ yajñasya´ devam´ rtv´ıjam. hot´ ara¯ m˙ ratnadhatamam]¯´ (RV. 1.1.1) ˚ ‘I invoke Agni, the˚ foremost God of the sacrifice, the priest, the hotr, most bestowing treasure.’ ˚ b. ta:a .sma Bra;a:ja;tea BEa;ma;a [.sa;va;Ra;Ba:=+¾a;BUa; a;Sa;ta;a Á ñÍ .sa;Ka;a;ma;Dyea Y;na;va;dùÅ;a;a;ç*:+.aÅ ; a;va;dùuÅ;a;tsa;Ea;d;a;ma;na;a ya;Ta;a Á 44 H. H. HOCK

... ; a;.ca:a;pra;ma;a; a;Ta;na;a ba;a;l+.a :de;va;a;na;a;ma; a;pa .sua;nd:=+a Á] Á tatra sma bhrajate¯ bhaim¯ı [sarvabharan¯ . abhus¯. ita.¯ sakh¯ımadhye ’navadya¯ng˙ ¯ı vidyut saudaman¯ ¯ı yatha.¯ ... cittapramathin¯ ¯ı bal¯ a¯ devan¯ am¯ api sundar¯ı..] (Nala 1.12–14; MBh. 3.50.12–13) ‘There Bhaim¯ı radiated, adorned with all ornaments, sur- rounded by her friends, having entirely praiseworthy limbs, like monsoon lightning . . . the girl robbing the minds even of the Gods, beautiful.’

4.2.2 Purpose datives in Vedic prose A peculiarity of Vedic prose, which generally is heavily — and some might say, unimaginatively — verb-final, is the frequent extraposition of dative purpose phrases, as in (44). Delbrück (1888: 25) considers such structures a Satzanhang (clause appendix). More specifically, Hock (2014) argues for a genre-based use of extraposition, indicating a benefit that extends beyond the simple sacrificial action. The relation between the preceding structure and the extraposed dative phrase can thus ‘be interpreted as an iconic reflex of the contrast between ritual-internal action and ritual-external benefit.’

(44) a. ta;a;nya;a;hu ;na;Ra;na;ea;pea;tya;a; a;na Á na;a;nea;va va;a I+.mea l+.ea;k+:aH Á O;;Sa;Ma l+.ea;k+:a;na;Ma ; a;va;Da;tya;ax I+. a;ta tany¯ ahur¯ nanopety¯ ani.¯ naneva¯ va¯ ime lokah¯ . . es. a¯m˙ loka-¯ na¯m˙ vidhrtya¯ iti (JB. 2.218) ‘They say˚ these (samans?)¯ are to be undertaken variously — these worlds are various, as it were — for keeping apart these worlds.’ SOMEISSUESIN SANSKRIT SYNTAX 45

çÉ b. t!a;a;ma;ndÒ +a;+;a;îå !a º;nua;s!a;ma;ta;nua;ta;a;m,a Á :pra:ja;!a;na;a;}å.pr!a:ja;a;tyEa tam indragn¯ ¯ı anusamatanutam.¯ praja¯nam¯ prajatyai¯ (SB.´ ¯ ¯ ¯ 4.3.1.2) ¯ ¯ ‘Indra and Agni preserved him (Soma); for the procre- ation of creatures.’ c. ; a;d;gva;;ÂåÅ+va; a;ta Bra;a;txa;v.ya;~ya;a;pa;nua:yEa digvad bhavati bhratr¯ vyasyapanut[t]yai¯ (PB. 12.4.10) ‘It contains the word˚ “direction”, for repelling the enemy.’

4.2.3 Kartr backing and extraposition, and politeness ˚ Wallace (1984) ﬁnds that backing of kartrs to post-karman position in passives, gerundives, and ta-participle˚ constructions, as in (45a), is a common feature of dialogues in the Vetalapañcavi¯ m˙ sati´ , while narrative portions typically have the kartr in the unmarked initial position. Based on the contextual evidence,˚ he argues that this reordering serves purposes of politeness, indicating either modesty on the part of the speaker or deference to an addressee. As it turns out, the phenomenon is not limited to passive-like structures but also occurs in actives; see e.g. (45b). Moreover, similar considerations probably account for the frequent extraposition of addressees or speakers, as in (46),17 and both reordering and extraposition are a widespread feature of dialogues. What seems to be shared by both processes is that they downgrade the addressee or speaker, thereby avoiding the threatening of ‘face’ (see Van de Walle 1991, 1993 on this latter issue).

(45) a. ta;va :pa;ea;Sa;¾a;ma;a;va;a;Bya;Ma k+:tRa;v.ya;m,a tava pos. an. am av¯ abhy¯ a¯m˙ kartavyam (Vetalapañcavi¯ m˙ sati´ , Emeneau edition) ‘We will take care of you.’

17Some of these, such as (46a), are included in Wallace’s data. 46 H. H. HOCK

b. ta;sma;a;n}å.a;Ma Ba;va;Ma;~tya:ja;tua tasman¯ ma¯m˙ bhava¯ms˙ tyajatu (Vetalapañcavi¯ m˙ sati´ , Eme- neau edition, 70.3–4) ‘Therefore may your lordship release me.’

(46) a. ku+.a ga;tva;a ;//////a;~Ta;tMaBa;va;ta;a kutra gatva¯ sthitam˙ bhavata¯ (Vetalapañcavi¯ m˙ sati´ , Eme- neau edition, 44.26) ‘Where did your lordship go and stay (so long)?’ b. ya;d;a; a;d;Za; a;ta :de;vaH yad adi¯ sati´ deva(h. ) (Vetalapañcavi¯ m˙ sati´ , Emeneau edition, 8.2) ‘As the lord commands.’ c. yua;va;ya;ea:=, ... º;a;Ka;l+.mea;vak+: a;Ta;tMa ma;ya;a yuvayor . . . akhilam eva kathitam˙ maya¯ (Vetalapañcavi¯ m˙ sati´ , Emeneau edition 16.20–21) ‘I have told everything to the two of you.’ d. va;.ca;sa;a ma;na;sa;a ..cEa;va ya;Ta;a na;a;a;Ba;.ca:=+a;}ya;h;m,a Á .tea;na .sa;tyea;na ; a;va;bua;Da;a;~ta;mea;va :pra; a;d;Za;ntua mea Á Á vacasa¯ manasa¯ caiva yatha¯ nabhicar¯ amy¯ aham . tena satyena vibudhas¯ tam eva pradisantu´ me.. (Nala 5.18) ‘As I do not transgress by speech or mind, by that truth let the very wise ones (the Gods) point him (Nala) out to me.’

5 Conclusions and implications for further research

What is remarkable is that extraposition seems to have at least two very different purposes. In the context of politeness it serves to down-grade the addressee or the speaker, in Gonda’s ‘amplification’ as well as the more restricted phenomenon of Vedic-prose SOMEISSUESIN SANSKRIT SYNTAX 47 purpose-dative extraposition it serves to provide additional and important information. Presumably there would be a prosodic difference, with politeness extraposition being realized with low or reduced pitch, while there would be no such prosodic reduction in amplifications and, perhaps, even a raised pitch for Vedic-prose purpose-datives. Nevertheless, there seems to be no clear syntactic difference between the different types of extraposition. Following the reasoning in Hock 1993 (for different pragmatic uses of non-restrictive relative clauses), it is possible to account for this situation by assuming that extraposition is one syntactic process, which leads to syntactically marked structures. Such marked structures, in turn, make it possible for the speaker to invite the hearer to assume that there is a special reason for using them, along the lines of Grice’s (1975) notion of ‘implicature’ or ‘invited inference’, with the precise pragmatic inference being determined by discourse and genre. If this line of reasoning is correct, we must conclude that functional accounts, however interesting and important for textual interpretation they may be, cannot substitute for formal syntactic accounts, and that the latter must be formulated irrespective of the uses to which different possibilities permitted by the grammar can be put. At the same time, as already noted, functional accounts can be helpful in assessing conflicting formal accounts such as the issue of major constituent order (§3.1), the question of subject-predicate vs. predicate-subject ordering (§4.1.2), or the phenomenon of marked kartr backing (§4.2.3). In fact, the idea of kartr backing makes it possible˚ to account for a large number of structures˚ with predicate-subject order, beyond the Vedic-prose equational structures discussed in §4.1.2. See e.g. the examples in (47), where kartr or subject backing can be attributed to the same politeness concerns˚ as in §4.2.3: modesty on the part of the speaker or deference to an addressee. 48 H. H. HOCK

(47) a. .sa;a;Dva;a Ba;va;ta;a sadhv¯ ¯ı bhavat¯ı (Vetalapañcavi¯ m˙ sati´ , Emeneau edition, 68.13) ‘Your ladyship is good.’ ≈ ‘You (polite) are a good woman.’ b.... :pra;ma;a;¾Ma tua Ba;va;nta;///a;~:a;d;Zea:(õ;a:=+aH . . . praman¯ . am˙ tu bhavantas tridase´ svar´ ah¯ . (Nala 4.31; MBh. 3.53.21) ‘. . . but your lordships, rulers of the thirty(-three Gods), are the authority.’ c. »a;a;////a;nta;Za;a;l+.ea na;a;ma k+:a;pa;a; a;l+.k+:ea Y;hM ma;h;a;ya;ea;ga;a ks. anti¯ s´¯ılo nama¯ kap¯ aliko¯ ’ham˙ mahayog¯ ¯ı (Vetalapañcavi¯ m˙ sati´ , Emeneau edition, 8.14) ‘I (am) a mendicant, Ks.anti¯ s´¯ıla by name, a great yogi.’ d. .=+a:ja;pua:a;a;va;a;va;Ma :pa;yRa;f;na;Za;a;l+.a;va:a;a;ya;a;ta;Ea rajaputr¯ av¯ av¯ a¯m˙ paryat.anas´¯ılav¯ atray¯ atau¯ (Vetalapañcavi¯ m˙ sati´ , Emeneau edition, 16.14) ‘We are princes, in the habit of wandering come here.’

There may even be cases where functional evidence may create interesting challenges for formal syntactic accounts. Let us take another look at (43b), speciﬁcally its passage cittapramathin¯ ¯ı bal¯ a¯ devan¯ am¯ api sundar¯ı, which in Table 4 was analyzed as involving movement of denan¯ am¯ api and sundar¯ı out of their matrix NP. That the structure involves movement is suggested by the particle api which indicates special emphasis on the preceding devan¯ am¯ ‘even of the Gods’; and sundar¯ı can be considered an elaboration — à la Gonda — of cittapramathin¯ ¯ı bal¯ a¯, which would be a complete structure in its own right. From the functional, pragmatic perspective such an account is, I believe, entirely reasonable. From the formal perspective, however, the account presents a challenge, since it operates with the SOMEISSUESIN SANSKRIT SYNTAX 49 idea of extraposition within a phrase, rather than a sentence. More than that, the phrase itself has been extraposed within the larger matrix sentence. Put differently, we would have to assume an extraposition within an extraposed structure. Clearly, such an account is highly unorthodox, and its lack of orthodoxy might be taken to favor the Staal/Gillon ‘wild-tree’ account which does not stipulate linear order within phrases. How- ever, under a ‘wild-tree’ account the functional difference between (48a) and (48b) would merely be epiphenomal. The advantage of operating with base-generated linear order and accounting for all deviations through movement, whether within the phrase or beyond, is that it invites attempts to account for such differences; and that, I believe, is a methodological strong point.

(48) a. ; a;.ca:a;pra;ma;a; a;Ta;na;a ba;a;l+.a :de;va;a;na;a;ma; a;pa .sua;nd:=+a cittapramathin¯ ¯ı bal¯ a¯ devan¯ am¯ api sundar¯ı b. :de;va;a;na;a;ma; a;pa ; a;.ca:a;pra;ma;a; a;Ta;na;a .sua;nd:=+a ba;a;l+.a devan¯ am¯ api cittapramathin¯ ¯ı sundar¯ı bal¯ a¯

Still, I would hope that advocates of the ‘wild-tree’ approach will continue pushing their account, testing its predictive power and comparing it to theories that operate with base-generated linear order. Whatever the outcome, we are bound to gain additional insights into Sanskrit syntax. There is, moreover, ample room for further research, especially on the syntax of classical Sanskrit which offers a much broader range of texts and genres than the Vedic tradition and which, in part because of that, has received much less coverage. Areas of further research that I would personally ﬁnd interesting are relative-correlatives as well as non-ﬁnite subordination, agreement (especially in complex-numeral constructions), and the extent to which post-syntactic distributed-morphology accounts may provide insights. 50 H. H. HOCK

References

The following reference list includes only references that are not included in the Sanskrit syntax bibliography; for references to publications dealing with Sanskrit syntax see the Sanskrit syntax bibliography (p. 399).

Andrews Avery Delano, III. 1975. “Studies in the syntax of relative and comparative clauses.” Ph.D. diss. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT. [Revised as Andrews 1985.] —. 1985. Studies in the syntax of relative and comparative clauses. Outstanding dissertations in linguistics. New York; London: Garland Pub. [Lightly retouched version of Andrews 1975.] Arnold, Doug, Louisa Sadler, and Aline Villavicencio. 2007. “Por- tuguese: Corpora, coordination and agreement.” Roots: Lin- guistics in search of its evidential base, ed. by Sam Feather- ston and Wolfgang Sternefeld, pp. 9–28. Studies in Genera- tive Grammar 96. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter. URL: http : / / privatewww . essex . ac . uk / ~louisa / newpapers/. Bloch, Jules. 1930. “Some problems of Indo-Aryan philology.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies 5: 719–56. Bolkestein, A. Machteld. 2001. “Random scrambling? Constraints on discontinuity in Latin noun phrases.” De lingua Latina novae quaestiones, ed. by C. Moussy, pp. 245–58. Louvain: Peeters. Cardona, George. 1976. Pan¯ . ini: A survey of research. The Hague; Paris: Mouton. Dasgupta, Probal. 1980. “Questions and relative and complement clauses in a Bangla grammar.” Ph.D. diss. New York: New York University. REFERENCES 51

Farmer, Anne. 1980. “On the interaction of morphology and syntax.” Ph.D. diss. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT. Grice, H. P. 1975. “Logic and conversation.” Syntax and semantics, 3: Speech acts, ed. by P. Cole and J. Morgan, pp. 41–58. New York: Academic Press. Haiman, John and Pamela Munro, eds. 1983. Switch reference and universal grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hale, Kenneth. 1975. “Gaps in grammar and culture.” Linguis- tics and anthropology: In honor of C. F. Voegelin, ed. by M. D. Kinkade et al., pp. 295–315. Lisse: de Ridder. —. 1983. “Warlpiri and the grammar of non-configurational languages.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3: 5–47. Halle, Morris and Alec Marantz. 1993. “Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection.” The view from Building 20, ed. by Kenneth Hale and S. Jay Keyser, pp. 111–76. Cambridge: MIT Press. Johnson, Cynthia. 2008. “Mixed-gender antecedent agreement in Latin.” B.A. thesis. Urbana: University of Illinois. Joshi, S. D. and J. A. F. Roodbergen. 1980. Patañjali’s Vyakaran¯ .a- Mahabh¯ as¯.ya: Vibhaktyahnik¯ a¯ (P. 2.3.18–2.3.45). Pune: Uni- versity of Poona, Centre for Advanced Study in Sanskrit. Keenan, Edward L. 1985. “Relative clauses.” Language typology and syntactic description, ed. by T. Shopen, vol. 2, pp. 141–70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pullum, Geoffrey K. 1982. “Free word order and phrase structure rules.” Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society, ed. by James Pustejovsky and Pe- ter Sells, pp. 209–20. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Graduate Linguistics Student Association. Ross, John Robert. 1967. “Constraints on variables in syntax.” Ph.D. diss. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT. [Revised as Ross 1986.] —. 1986. Infinite syntax! Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex. [Slightly updated reprint of Ross 1967.] 52 H. H. HOCK

Snijders, Liselotte. 2012. “Issues concerning constraints on discontinuous NPs in Latin.” Proceedings of the LFG12 Confer- ence, ed. by Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King, pp. 565– 81. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Informa- tion, Stanford University. Srivastav, Veneeta. 1988. “Relative clauses in Hindi and learnability.” Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics 8: 133–60. Thompson, Sandra A. and Robert E. Longacre. 1985. “Adverbial clauses.” Language typology and syntactic description, ed. by Timothy Shopen, vol. 1, pp. 171–234. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Yoon, James Hye Suk. 1996. “A syntactic approach to category- changing phrasal morphology: Nominalizations in Korean and English.” Morphosyntax in generative grammar, ed. by Hee- don Ahn, M. Y. Kang, Y. S. Kim, and S. Lee, pp. 63–86. Seoul: Hankuk Publishing Company. Derivation and interpretation in Pan¯ .ini’s system

GEORGE CARDONA

Abstract: Pan¯ .in¯ıyas are aware from the outset that there are two aspects to communication: speakers (prayoktr) form utterances, which they utter to communicate what˚ they wish to convey, and listeners (srotr´ ) interpret what they hear. In his derivation system accounting˚ for Sanskrit usage, Pan¯ .ini operates from the standpoint of a speaker: meanings to be conveyed are made the causes for the formation of utterances (vakya¯ ) and their constituent words (pada). The As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı, moreover, is a set of rules for such derivations which presuppose native speakers as their interpreters, so that Pan¯ .ini formulates certain metarules in accordance with conventions known to such speakers. I shall discuss evidence relating to these two aspects, emphasizing that Pan¯ .ini’s derivations do indeed start from meaning and taking up illustrative points concerning how rules are interpreted.

Keywords: Pan¯ .ini, grammar, syntax, semantics, metalanguage

1 Speakers and listeners

Pan¯ .in¯ıyas recognize the interaction between a speaker (prayoktr) and a listener (srotr´ ) in communication. In the vrtti on his Vakya-¯ ˚ ˚ ˚

53 54 G. CARDONA pad¯ıya, Bhartrhari describes such an interaction.1 In his commen- ˚ tary on VP. 2.19, he puts it as follows. Speech units (sabd´ ah¯ . ) inex- tricably bound with the capacity to convey meanings (samsr˙ s..tasa-´ ˚ ktayah. ) occur in the internal organ called buddhi of speakers (prayoktr¯n. am¯ ) who are possessed of speech (samavis¯ ..tavac¯ am¯ ). They occur˚ there first in a state such that there is no sequence of sounds (kramasamh˙ aren¯ . a). Through a speaker’s effort (prayatnena) in setting the flow of air and articulators in motion, however, these speech units reach a state of occurring in sequence (kramavrtti- ˚ tam¯ ) in the airflow (pran¯ . e) and articulators (karan. es. u). Once they have gone through (anubhuya¯ ‘after experiencing’) this state — that is, have been articulated as sounds — they reach a state where they enter into hearers also (pratipattrs. v api) with their sequence done away with (kramapratyastamayenaiva˚ ).2 Commenting on VP. 1.44, Bhartrhari cites a verse saying that a unitary (avibha- ˚ ktah. ‘undivided’) speech unit which signifies a meaning (artha- sya vacakah¯ . ) arises from divided entities (vibhaktebhyah. ), that is, from perceived sounds.3 Preceding this verse, Bhartrhari presents two viewpoints, that of a speaker and that of a listener.˚ Due to the activity (vyap¯ ar¯ at¯ ) of speech organs, a speech unit acquires modification (pratilabdhavikriyavises´ . ah. ) — that is, is manifested as articulated sounds — and becomes an object of the auditory sense (srotr´ anup¯ at¯ ¯ı); it thus is employed (prayujyate) for mean-

1Repeated attempts have been made to discredit the traditionally held view that the vrtti is an autocommentary, but, in my opinion, these have not succeeded. See most˚ recently Cardona 2012. 2.sMa;sxa;;Za;+:ya;(ãaÉ kÒ+:ma;sMa;h;a:=e+¾a .sa;ma;a; a;va;;va;a;.ca;Ma :pra;ya;ea;X +:¾a;Ma Za;b.d;a bua:;dÄâ ;Ea :pra;ya;ea;na :pra;a;¾ea k+.=+¾ea;Sua ..ca kÒ+:ma;va; a:a;ta;a;ma;nua;BUa;yax :pra; a;ta;pa:xa;Sva; a;pa kÒ+:ma;pra;tya;~ta;ma;yea;nEa;va .sa;ma;a;vea;ZMa :pra; a;ta;pa;dùÅ;a;ntea Á (VPVr. 2.19 [201.10–12]). 3O;;vMa˚ hùÅ:a;a;h º; a;va;Ba;+:ea ; a;va;Ba;e+:Bya;ea .ja;a;ya;tea Y;TRa;~ya va;a;.ca;kH Á Za;b.d;~ta:a;a;TRa:+.pa;a;tma;a .sa- ;}Bea;d;mua;pa;ga;,ah; a;ta Á Á (VPVr. 1.44 [102.5–7]). The second half of the verse says with regard to the speech unit˚ that arises from the divided sounds that here a speech unit is identical with a meaning, in that it now achieves a non-differentiation between speech unit and meaning in the buddhi of the hearer. DERIVATION AND INTERPRETATION 55 ings (arthes. u) which are to be signified, in the guise of what brings meaning to light (praka¯sakabh´ avena¯ ), always subordinate to what is to be signified (pratyayyaparatantrah¯ . ). The speech unit which is devoid of sequence (labdhanusa¯ mh˙ arah¯ . ) is thus the cause (nimittam) of a unit that has acquired sequence (upajanitakramah. ), and the latter functions as a signifier (pratyayakah¯ . ). The speech unit, moreover, is said to have the property of making a meaning understood (pratyayakatvam¯ ) in that it enters into cognitions (pratipatti- s. u praptasam¯ ave¯ sasya´ ) in a form that has lost any sequence (kra- marupapratyastamayena¯ ). From the point of view of the listener, then, what has sequence (kramavan¯ ) is the cause of that which has no sequence (akramanimittam).4 The process from a speaker’s stand is reiterated later in the Vakyapad¯ ¯ıya proper, where Bha- rtrhari draws a parallel with the light (jyotih. ) inherent in a stick ˚ one rubs to make fire (aran. isthah. ): as this is a cause of another, outward, light (praka¯sántarak¯ aran¯ . am), similarly is a speech unit (sabdah´ . ) in the buddhi (buddhisthah. ) separately a cause of sounds (srut´ ¯ınam¯ ).5 A speaker’s perspective is portrayed in the Pan¯ . in¯ıyasiks´ . a¯, 4v.ya;a;pa;a:=+a:ua :pra; a;ta;l+.b.Da; a;va; a;kÒ+:ya; a;va;Zea;SaH (ra;ea:a;a;nua;pa;a;ta;a :pra;k+:a;Za;k+:Ba;a;vea;na ; a;na;tyMa :pra;tya;a;yya- ;pa:=+ta:n:a;ea Y;TeRa;Sua :pra;yua:$ya;tea Á l+.b.Da;a;nua;sMa;h;a:=+ea ; a;na;a;ma:a;mua;pa:ja; a;na;ta;kÒ+:ma;~tua :pra;tya;a;ya;k I+.tyea;ke Á ta;~ya;a; a;pa kÒ+:ma:+.pa;pra;tya;~ta;ma;yea;nEa;va :pra; a;ta;pa; a:a;Sua :pra;a;a;sa;ma;a;vea;Za;~ya :pra;tya;a;ya;k+:tva;ma;a;.ca:»a;tea Á º;pa:= º;a;h kÒ+:ma;va;a;na;kÒ+:ma; a;na;a;ma:a;m,a Á (VPVr. 1.44 [102.1–4]). Although eke ‘some’ and ˚ aparah. ‘another’ are used, different viewpoints (paks. a) are represented from the perspective of a speaker and listener. This is brought out by Sr´ ¯ıvrs.abha (VPP. ˚ 102.21–22): kÒ+:ma;BUa;ta;a;na;Ma ..ca va;¾a;Ra;na;Ma bua; a:;dÄâ ;~Ta;ea ; a;na;a;ma:Ma na ..ca .tea va;a;.ca;k+:a I+. a;ta :pa- :»a;a;nta:=+ma;a;h Á (ra;ea:a;pea:»a;yEa;ta;de;va ; a;va;pa:=+ata;m,a Á Bhartrhari portrays the procedures again ˚ in his commentary on the Mahabh¯ as¯. ya (D¯ıpika¯ 3.13–14); I do not enter here into this passage. Nor does my exposition require considering here Bhartrha- ri’s conception of word and meaning as mutually cause and effect, depending˚ on the perspective in question, that of a listener or a speaker, as well as Buddhist discussions of the same topic. 5º:=+ a;¾a;~TMa ya;Ta;a .$ya;ea; a;taH :pra;k+:a;Za;a;nta:=+k+:a:=+¾a;m,a Á ta;dõ;.cC+.b.d;ea Y; a;pa bua; a:;dÄâ ;~TaH (rua;ta;a;na;Ma k+:a:=+¾Ma :pa;Ta;k,x Á Á (VP. 1.47/46). 56 G. CARDONA where it is said that the atman¯ first apprehends meanings (arthan¯ ) through the buddhi and, having done so (sametya), it associates/activates the manas with the desire to speak (vivaks. aya¯); the manas then strikes the bodily fire, and this sets the breath (maru-¯ tam) in motion (prerayati).6 A speaker’s perspective is also taken in prati¯ sákhyas,¯ which deal with speech production but not speech perception. For example, the Rgvedaprati¯ sákhya¯ says the upward ˚ moving breath (vayuh¯ . ) called pran¯ . a reaches a state (apadyate¯ ) of being sv´ asa¯ (sv´ asat¯ am¯ ) or nada¯ (nadat¯ a¯m˙ va¯) — that is, unmod- ulated or modulated air flow — depending on whether the glottal aperture (kan. .thasya khe) is open (vivrte) or close (samvr˙ te), when there is an effort on the part of a speaker˚ (vaktr¯ıhay¯ am¯ ).˚7

2 Derivation and a speaker’s perspective

2.1K aty¯ ayana¯ on speech being prompted by meaning In consonance with viewing language from a speaker’s perspective, Katy¯ ayana¯ states in his very ﬁrst varttika¯ that the grammar (s´astren¯ . a) serves as a means to establish a restriction for the sake of merit (dharmaniyamah. ) — that is, to establish that only the use of correct speech forms leads to merit — given that correct speech forms, their meanings, and the relation (sabd´ arthasambandhe¯ ) between the two are established (siddhe) and also that the use of such speech forms (sabdaprayoge´ ) is prompted by meaning (arthapra- yukte), as is known from the world of communication (lokatah. ).8 That is, as Nage¯ sa´ points out, a speaker’s use of a speech form has å ñÍ çÉ 6º;a;tma;a bua:;dÄùÅ;a;a .sa;mea;tya;a;Ta;Ra;n}.a;na;ea yua;ô*:eïåÅ Ù ; a;va;va:»a;ya;a Á ma;naH k+:a;ya;a; a;+;a;ma;a;h;////a;nta.saîå :prea:=+ya; a;ta ma;a:+:ta;m,a Á Á (PS.´ 3). 7va;a;yuaH :pra;a;¾aH k+:ea;.a;ma;nua;pra;d;a;nMa k+:¾F+.~ya Kea ; a;va;va;teax .sMa;va;teax va;a Á º;a;pa;dùÅ;a;tea (õ;a;a;sa;ta;Ma na;a;d;ta;Ma va;a va;" +:a;h;a;ya;a;m,a Á Á (RPr. 13.1). 8;a;sa:;dÄâe Za;b.d;a;TRa;sa;}ba;nDea˚ l+.ea;k+:ta;ea Y;TRa;pra;yua;e Za;b.d;pra;ya;ea;gea Za;a;~:ea;¾a ;Da;mRa; a;na;ya;ma;ea ya;Ta;a l+.Ea- ; a;k+:k+:vEa; a;d;ke+:Sua Á Patañjali divides the varttika¯ into sections for discussion. DERIVATION AND INTERPRETATION 57 as its purpose that another person understand a particular meaning the speaker wishes to convey, so that the usage is due to this purpose.9

2.2 Patañjali on speech being caused by meaning On several occasions, Patañjali presents arguments which contrast two stands concerning meanings and speech units.

2.2.1 Number distinction

For example, the Mahabh¯ as¯. ya on A. 2.1.1 (.sa;ma;TRaH :pa;d; a;va; a;DaH) takes up the particular features (vises´ . ah¯ . ) due to meaning uniﬁca- tion (ekarth¯ ¯ıbhavakr¯ tah¯ . ) in forming derived units such as compounds.10 One of these˚ particular features concerns number distinctions. In strings such as

(1) a. rajñah¯ . purus. ah. ‘a servant of a king’ b. rajñoh¯ . purus. ah. ‘a servant of two kings’ c. rajñ¯ a¯m˙ purus. ah. ‘a servant of several kings’ there is a formal distinction of numbers: singular rajñah¯ . , dual ra-¯ jñoh. , and plural rajñ¯ am¯ . The compound

(2) rajapurus¯ . ah. on the other hand, shows no such distinction: the constituent rajan-¯ can correspond to any of the forms noted. The argument concerning number distinction proceeds as follows:

9Ba;a;Syea º;TRa;pra;yua; I+. a;ta Á º;TRa;¼a;a;na;pra;ya;ea:ja;nea;na kx +:ta I+.tya;TRaH Á :pa:=+~ya ; a;va; a;Za;;a;TRa;ba;ea;Da;ea Ba;va- ;//a;tva; a;ta Za;b.dH :pra;yua:$ya;tea :pra;ya;ea;gea;¾a;a; a;va;BRUa;ta;Za;b.d;¼a;a;nea;na;a;TRa;¼a;a;na;a; a;d; a;ta Ba;a;vaH Á Á (Ud. I.33). ñÍ 10I+.mea ta;hùÅ:aeR;k+:a;Ta;Ra;Ba;a;va;kx +:ta;a ; a;va;Zea;Sa;aH .sa;*ËÉ +;a;a; a;va;Zea;Sa;eaùÁ v.ya;+:a;a;Ba;Da;a;na;mua;pa;sa:jRa;na; a;va;Zea;Sa;¾Ma ..ca- ;ya;ea;gaH I+. a;ta Á (Bh. I.362.12–14). 58 G. CARDONA

I. In a string (vakye¯ ), there is a number distinction (sankhy˙ a-¯ vises´ . ah. ), as in (1a), (1b), (1c), and this distinction does not occur in a compound.11

II. There is a reason why this is so. What is the reason? Be- cause the unit signifying the difference is not present. Just you utter such a unit and that distinction will be understood.12

III. Response:13 This should not be thus. It should not be (bhavitavyam) that a meaning (arthena) is caused by a speech unit (sabdakr´ tena ‘produced by a speech unit’). It should be that a speech˚ unit is caused by a meaning. One should thus view this in the following manner: it is due to a meaning aspect that in the present instance — (2) as opposed to (1a)–(1c) — the distinction is not understood. Moreover, one must necessarily recognize this to be so. For, if one considers that the distinction is not understood here because the speech unit signifying the distinction is not present, then conversely one would have to accept that the distinction should be understood in the following examples: ñÍ 11.sa;*ËÉ +;a;a; a;va;Zea;Sa;eaùÁ Ba;va; a;ta va;a;k+.ae .=+a;¼aH :pua:+:SaH .=+a;¼a;eaH :pua:+:SaH .=+a;¼a;Ma :pua:+:Sa I+. a;ta Á .sa;ma;a;sea na Ba;va; a;ta .=+a:ja;pua:+:Sa I+. a;ta Á (Bh. I.362.14–15). 12º;/////a;~tak+:a:=+¾Ma yea;nEa;ta;de;vMa Ba;va; a;ta Á ; a;kM k+:a:=+¾a;m,a Á ya;ea Y;sa;Ea ; a;va;Zea;Sa;va;a;.ca;a Za;b.d;~ta;d;sa;a- ñÍ ; a;a;Dya;a;t,a Á º;ç*:Å ; a;h Ba;va;Ma;~ta;mua;a;a:=+ya;tua gMa;~ya;tea .sa ; a;va;Zea;SaH Á (Bh. I.362.15–17). The respective endings n˙as, os, and am¯ of rajñah¯ . , rajñoh¯ . , and rajñ¯ am¯ belong to the subsets of nominal endings called ekavacana, dvivacana, and bahuvacana; these occur when one, two, or several entities are signiﬁed: ba;hu ;Sua ba;hu ;va;.ca;na;m,a Á dõùÅ;ae;k+:ya;ea; a;dõR- ;va;.ca;nEa;k+:va;.ca;nea Á (A. 1.4.21–22, see PWT.: 157 ¶241). 13na;nua ..ca .nEa;tea;nEa;vMa Ba; a;va;ta;v.ya;m,a Á na ; a;h Za;b.d;kx +:tea;na na;a;ma;a;TeRa;na Ba; a;va;ta;v.ya;m,a Á º;TRa;kx +:tea;na na;a;ma Za;b.de;na Ba; a;va;ta;v.ya;m,a Á ta;de;ta;de;vMa dx;Zya;ta;a;ma;TRa:+.pa;mea;vEa;ta;de;va:ê*+;a;ta;a;ya;kMúÁ yea;na;a:a ; a;va;Zea;Sa;ea na ga;}ya;ta I+. a;ta Á º;va;ZyMa ..cEa;ta;de;vMa ; a;va;¼ea;ya;m,a Á ya;ea ; a;h ma;nya;tea ya;ea Y;sa;Ea ; a;va;Zea;Sa;va;a;.ca;a Za;b.d;~ta;d;sa;a; a;a;Dya;a;d:a ; a;va;Zea;Sa;ea na ga;}ya;ta I+.ta;a;h ta;~ya ; a;va;Zea;Sa;ea ga;}yea;ta Á º;psua;.ca:=H ga;ea;Sua;.ca:=H va;Sa;Ra;sua:ja I+. a;ta Á (Bh. I.362.17–21). DERIVATION AND INTERPRETATION 59

(3) a. apsucarah. (‘ﬁsh’) b. gos. ucarah. (‘rooster’) c. vars. asuja¯ (the insect called indragopa).14 The arguments presented reﬂect contrasting positions with respect to what Pan¯ .ini provides for. Pan¯ .ini accounts derivationally for the contrast and relation between (1a)-(1c) on the one hand and (2) on the other hand by providing that a pada which terminates in a sixth-triplet ending optionally combines with a semantically and syntactically related pada to form a unit to which the class name samasa¯ (‘compound’) is assigned:15

0 (1)a .( rajan-¯ n˙as purus. a-su)samasa¯ 0 b .( rajan-os¯ purus. a-su)samasa¯ 0 c .( rajan-¯ am¯ purus. a-su)samasa¯ A compound is a derived nominal base (pratipadika¯ ), an ending contained in which is generally deleted:16 (rajan-¯ n˙as purus. a-su) → (rajan-¯ purus. a-), (rajan-os¯ purus. a-su) → (rajan-¯ purus. a-), (ra-¯ jan-am¯ purus. a-su) → (rajan-¯ purus. a-). Although rajan-¯ in such constructs lacks a nominal ending, by convention an operation which is conditioned by the presence of an afﬁx still takes effect even if the afﬁx is deleted.17 Accordingly, rajan-Ø¯ resulting from the deletion of n˙as, os, or am¯ still bears the class name pada, which depends on a nominal base having a nominal ending after

14I have glossed in accordance with commentators, e.g., Pr.. II.510: ga;ea;Sua;.ca:=H ëÐÅ ku+:ëÐ*:Áu +:f o+..cya;tea ... va;Sa;Ra;sua:ja I+.ta;a;ndÒ +ga;ea;paH Á RaPr. V.22: º;psua;.ca:= I+. a;ta Á ma;t~ya;a;d;Ea .+.Q+ea ëÐÅ Y;ya;m,a Á ga;ea;Sua;.ca:= I+. a;ta Á ku+:ëÐ*:Áu +:fe .+.Q+ea Y;ya;m,a Á va;Sa;Ra;sua:ja I+. a;ta Á I+.ndÒ +ga;ea;pea .+.Q+ea Y;ya;m,a Á ëÐÅ 15:Sa;+a Á .sa;ma;TRaH :pa;d; a;va; a;DaH Á :pra;a;ëÐ*:+:q+.a:=+a;tsa;ma;a;saHÁ Á (A. 2.2.8, 2.1.1, 2.1.3); see PWT.: 140–141 ¶221, 205–206 ¶301. 16A. 1.2.46: kx +.a; a:;dÄâ ;ta;sa;ma;a;sa;a;(ãaÉ (:pra;a; a;ta;pa; a;d;k+:m,a 45), A2.4.71: .sua;pa;ea ;Da;a;tua;pra;a; a;ta; a;d;k- +:ya;eaH (lu+.k, 58); see PWT.: 22 ¶48, 186 ¶278. 17:pra;tya;ya;l+.ea;pea :pra;tya;ya;l+»a;¾a;m,a (A. 1.1.62); see PWT.: 63–64 ¶103. 60 G. CARDONA it; thereby, the -n of rajan-¯ is dropped by virtue of being treated as a pada-final segment.18 There are also compounds where endings of first constituents are not absent; (3a, b, c) are instances of such compounds. In (3a) and (3b), the second constituent contains the derived nominal base cara-, formed with the krt suffix .ta after the verbal base car (‘go about’); in (3c) the second˚ constituent con- 19 tains ja- from the base jan (‘be born’) with the suffix d. a. Pro- vision is made that in a tatpurus.a compound whose second constituent is a derivate with a krt suffix the ending of a preceding first constituent is variously retained.˚ 20 This accounts for the presence of the locative plural ending su in the first constituents of (3a, b, c). The claim made under II assumes that the zero-replacement (luk) which Pan¯ .ini provides for (see note 16) actually serves to eliminate an ending which would otherwise occur because the number distinction associated with it (see note 12) is actually present to begin with in the compound and that the elimination of the ending results in this distinction not being understood.21 The response in III, on the other hand, reverts to the point made in I, namely that the absence of a number distinction in the first constituent of (2) is due to meaning unification: there is a separate meaningful unit, the compound rajapurus¯ . a, in which no number distinction is made for the constituent raja-¯ . Moreover, if the phys-

18.sua; a;a;z+.ntMa :pa;d;m,a Á na;l+.ea;paH :pra;a; a;ta;pa; a;d;k+:a;nta;~ya (A. 1.4.14, 8.2.7; see PWT.: 23 ¶49, 347 ¶539). 19A. 3.2.16: ..ca:=e+H (º; a;Da;k+.=+¾ea 15), A. 3.2.97: .sa;a;}ya;Ma .ja;nea;qRH. The sufﬁxes belongs to the class called krt and are introduced on condition that the base be used ˚ with a co-occurring term: .ta if this term denotes a locus (adhikaran. e) in which the agent in question goes about, d. a if the term is a word terminating in a seventh- triplet ending referring to something where an agent is born. The derivates in -.ta and -d. a obligatorily form a compound with these terms; see PWT.: 219 ¶315. 20A. 6.3.14: ta;tpua:+:Sea kx +: a;ta ba;hu ;l+.m,a (º;lu+.gua:a:=+pa;de 1). 21ta;d;sa;a; a;a;Dya;a; a;d; a;ta Á lu+.k+:a ; a;va;Ba;e+: a;nRa;va; a;tRa;ta;tva;a; a;d;tya;TRaH (Pr. II.510), lu+.#Za;a;~:a;pa;ya;Ra- ;l+.ea;.ca;na;ya;a;TRa;sa:va;ma;nua;ma;a;ya;ta I+. a;ta Ba;a;vaH (Ud. II.510). DERIVATION AND INTERPRETATION 61 ical presence of singular, dual, or plural endings were the decisive factor in the distinction between strings like (1a, b, c) and a compound like (2), then one would have to accept that the presence of the plural ending su in apsu, gos. u, and vars. asu¯ of (3a, b, c) would determine one’s understanding of plurality, so that apsucara and gos. ucara would be understood to refer to things which go about in many bodies of water and among many head of cattle; vars. asuja¯ would correspondingly be understood to refer to something born at many seasons. But this is not true. In sum, Pan¯ .ini recognizes a relation between strings such as (1a, b, c) and derived nominal bases such as rajapurus¯ . a in (2), and he accounts for these relations by introducing nominal endings to form theoretical strings such as (1a0, b0, c0), then allowing two possibilities: derive (1a, b, c) or optionally combine the constituent padas to form a new nominal base, within which endings are dropped. This derivational procedure, however, merely serves to account for the relations. It does not require that there be a meaning distinction — among three numbers — that is elim- inated. It recognizes instead that the distinction in question does not obtain in such derived nominals.

2.2.2 Residual relations

A related discussion in the Mahabh¯ as¯. ya concerns (1a) as an example of a genitive ending accounted for by A. 2.3.50: :Sa;+a Zea;Sea (º;na;a;Ba; a;h;tea 1). This sutra¯ states that a nominal ending of the sixth triplet (s. as..th¯ı) follows a nominal on condition that a residual (ses´ . e ‘remainder’) relation is to be expressed, provided it is not already expressed (anabhihite). A residual relation is a relation that does not hold between an action and a participant which plays a role in bringing this action to accomplishment22 The relation between a king and his servant spoken of in (1a) is a possessor-possessed

22 On ses´ .a relations, see Cardona 2008, 2013. 62 G. CARDONA relation (svasvamibh¯ avasambandha¯ ): the property of being a possessor (svamin¯ ) resides in the king, that of being a possession (sva) in the man whom the king in effect owns by virtue of paying and maintaining him. In addition, the king is here viewed as a qualifier (vises´ . an. a) with respect to the servant, who is the qualificand (vises´ . ya), qualified as belonging to the king. Accordingly, the servant is said to be the principal (pradhana¯ ) entity referred to and the king is considered a subordinate (gun. a) in the qualifier-qualificand status. Since the possessor-possessed relation as formulated comprises two relational properties, it is considered to reside in both (dvis..tha) of the related entities, although it is expressed as something additional (vyatiricyate) in the king, which now has a subordinate status, being intended to qualify a qualificand.23 The Bhas¯. ya’s discussion centers on the syntax of (1a): why rajan-¯ takes a sixth-triplet ending (rajñah¯ . ) but purus. a- is followed by an ending of the first triplet (purus. ah. ).24 In his third varttika,¯ Katy¯ ayana¯ brings up the issue: if one states A. 2.3.50, then it is necessary also to prohibit (pratis. edhah. ‘negation, prohibition’) a sixth-triplet ending for the term denoting a qualificand, and one must provide for a first-triplet ending.25 Patañjali clarifies, as fol-

23; a;dõ;+ea Y;pya;sa;Ea :pa:=+a;TRa;tva;a;çuÅ+¾ea;Sua v.ya; a;ta;a:=+.cya;tea Á ta:a;a;a;Ba;Da;a;ya;ma;a;na;(ãaÉ :pra;Da;a;nea Y;pyua;pa;yua:$ya- ;tea Á Á (VP. 3.7.157). The second half of the verse says that the relation thus overtly expressed as occurring in the subordinate also is associated (upayujyate ‘is used’) as occurring in the principal entity. This reflects the Bhas¯. ya discussion. Kai- yat.a cites the karik¯ a¯ (Pr. II.823) with upayujyate in the fourth pada,¯ and this is the reading in Rau’s edition, without variants. In his commentary, Helar¯ aja¯ (VPH. 3.7.157 [358.2]) says upabhuktam, which he glosses spas..tam evabhihitam¯ (‘clearly expressed’), and Subramania Iyer’s and Raghunatha¯ Sarm´ a’s¯ editions read upabhujyate. 24Such an ending is introduced when there is to be signified nothing more than ñÍ a base meaning and a gender, a measure, or a number: :pra;a; a;ta;pa; a;d;k+:a;TRa; a;l+.ç*:+.pa;a:=+ma;a;¾a-Å ;va;.ca;na;ma;a:ea :pra;Ta;ma;a (A. 2.3.46); see PWT.: 156 ¶240. 25:Sa;+a Zea;Sa I+. a;ta ..cea; a;dõ;Zea;Sa;~ya :pra; a;ta;Sea;DaH Á ta:a :pra;Ta;ma;a; a;va; a;DaH Á (2.3.50 vt. 3–4). Kaiya- t.a explains (Pr. II.821) that the problem arises under Pan¯ .ini’s formulation. In DERIVATION AND INTERPRETATION 63 lows. Under the Pan¯ .inian statement, a prohibition has to be stated. In (1a), the king is a qualifier, the servant a qualificand. With respect to the latter, the meaning of the nominal base (pratipadik¯ a-¯ rthah. ) is added to (vyatiriktah. ): purus. a- here refers to a man as a qualificand. Hence, an ending of the first triplet, used if the base meaning alone is denoted (see note 24) does not obtain, so that a sixth-triplet ending by A. 2.3.50 would occur, given that more than the base meaning is involved and the man in question does not play the role of a participant in an action.26 One must state a negation of such an ending, and an ending of the first triplet must be provided (vidheya¯).27 Katy¯ ayana¯ responds to this by alluding to what had been in the second varttika¯ on A. 2.3.46: what is addition to the base meaning of purus. a- in (1a) is a meaning attributable to the string (vaky¯ arthah¯ . ), so that the base meaning remains without addition, thus allowing a first-triplet ending.28 This response gives rise to the question: for what reason is the additional meaning in the servant of (1a) said to be attributable to the string? Why should not the additional meaning in the king be such?29 At this point, Patañjali enters into a discussion which in part is parallel to the discussion shown in §2.2.1, as follows: another grammar, the rule is worded gua;¾ea :Sa;+a, specifying that the ending occurs with respect to a subordinate (gun. e): :Sa;+a Zea;Sa I+. a;ta ..cea; a;d; a;ta Á º;/////////a;sma;nsUa:a;nya;a;sead;ea;SaH .sa;}ba;nDa;~ya ; a;dõ;+tva;a;tpra;Da;a;na;a;d; a;pa :Sa;+a;pra;sa;ç*:HñÅÍ Á v.ya;a;k+.=+¾a;a;nta:=e tua gua;¾ea :Sa;+a; a;ta va;.ca;na;a;a;a;/////a;~taÁ 26Ba;a;Syea :Sa;+a .~ya;a; a;d; a;ta Á k+:a:=+k+:pra;a; a;ta;pa; a;d;k+:a;TRa;v.ya; a;ta;a:=++:tva;a;tSa;.ae;va .~ya;a; a;d;tya;TRaH Á (Ud. II.821). I do not take up a possible complication, namely that a form of a verb meaning ‘be’ — such as asti ‘is’ — can be understood in (1a), signifying an act in which the referent of purus. a- functions as a karaka.¯ 27:Sa;+a Zea;Sa I+. a;ta ..cea; a;dõ;Zea;Sya;~ya :pra; a;ta;Sea;Da;ea va;+:v.yaH Á .=+a;¼aH :pua:+:Sa I+.tya:a .=+a:ja;a ; a;va;Zea;Sa;¾Ma :pua:+:Sa;ea ; a;va;Zea;SyaH Á ta:a :pra;a; a;ta;pa; a;d;k+:a;Ta;eRa v.ya; a;ta;a:=+ I+. a;ta kx +:tva;a :pra;Ta;ma;a na :pra;a;pîÅa;ea; a;ta Á ta:a :Sa;+a .~ya;a;t,a Á ta;~ya;aH :pra; a;ta;Sea;Da;ea va;+:v.yaH Á (Bh. I.464.3–5), ta:a :Sa;+Ma :pra; a;ta; a;Sa;Dya :pra;Ta;ma;a ; a;va;Dea;ya;a .=+a;¼aH :pua:+:Sa I+. a;ta Á (Bh. I.464.8). 28o+.M :pUa;veRa;¾a Á (2.3.50 vt. 5). ; a;k+:mua;+:m,a Á na va;a va;a;k+.a;a;TRa;tva;a; a;d; a;ta Á ya;d:a;a; a;Da;k+.aM va;a;k+.a;a;TRaH .saH Á (Bh. I.464.10). 29ku+:ta;ea nua Ka;vea;ta;tpua:+:Sea ya;d;a; a;Da;k+.aM .sa va;a;k+.a;a;TRa I+. a;ta na :pua;na;a .=+a:ja; a;na ya;d;a; a;Da;k+.aM .sa va;a;k+.a;a;TRaH .~ya;a;t,a Á (Bh. I.464.10–12). 64 G. CARDONA

I. The additional meaning in question is understood to apply for the king even without the use of the term purus. a, but this does not apply to the servant without the use of the term rajan¯ .30

II. There is a reason why this is so. What is the reason? You utter a sixth-triplet ending after the term rajan¯ . Just you utter a sixth-triplet ending after the term purus. a and that meaning will be understood.31

III. This should not be thus. It should not be that a meaning is caused by a speech unit. It should be that a speech unit is caused by a meaning. One should thus view this in the following manner: it is due to a meaning aspect that this additional meaning is understood to apply for the king even without the use of the term purus. a. And what is that? Be- ing one who possesses (svamitvam¯ ). And what is this due to (kinkr˙ tam ‘produced by what?’)? To what he possesses (sva- krtam˚). This has an analog. Distinctions in the meanings of ˚ nominal bases are brought about by actions (kriyakr¯ tah¯ . ), and ˚ particular names produced thereby (tatkrta¯s´ cakhy¯ ah¯ . ) come to the fore (pradur¯ bhavanti ‘appear’):˚karman (‘object’), karan. a (‘instrument’), apad¯ ana¯ , sampradana¯ , adhikaran. a (‘locus’). Further, these names sometimes serve (upad¯ ¯ıyante ‘are taken, expressed’) as causes (nimittatvena) for triplets of nominal endings (vibhakt¯ınam¯ ) coming into play, sometimes not. They do so when they deviate from the meaning of a base. When they do not, they remain solely names.32

30º;nta:=e+¾a;a; a;pa :pua:+:Sa;Za;b.d;pra;ya;ea;gMa .=+a:ja; a;na .sa;ea Y;Ta;eRa ga;}ya;tea na :pua;na:=+nta:=e+¾a .=+a:ja;Za;b.d;pra;ya;ea;gMa :pua:+:Sea .sa;ea Y;Ta;eRa ga;}ya;tea Á (Bh. I.464.12–13). 31º;/////a;~tak+:a:=+¾Ma yea;nEa;ta;de;vMa Ba;va; a;ta Á ; a;kM k+:a:=+¾a;m,a Á .=+a:ja;Za;b.d;a; a:;dÄâ Ba;va;a;nSa;+a;mua;a;a:=+ya; a;ta Á º;ç*:ñÅÍ ; a;h Ba;va;a;npua:+:Sa;Za;b.d;a;d;pyua;a;a:=+ya;tua gMa;~ya;tea .sa;ea Y;TRaH Á (Bh. I.464.13–15). 32na;nua ..ca .nEa;tea;nEa;vMa Ba; a;va;ta;v.ya;m,a Á na ; a;h Za;b.d;kx +:tea;na na;a;ma;a;TeRa;na Ba; a;va;ta;v.ya;m,a Á º;TRa;kx +:tea;na na;a;ma Za;b.de;na Ba; a;va;ta;v.ya;m,a Á ta;de;ta;de;vMa dx;Zya;ta;a;m,a Á º;TRa:+.pa;mea;vEa;ta;de;va:ê*+;a;ta;a;ya;kMúÁ yea;na;a:a;a;nta:=e+¾a;a; a;pa DERIVATION AND INTERPRETATION 65

IV. For the king of (1a), his being a possessor is due to a possession, and a sixth-triplet ending occurs with rajan-¯ . In the same way, for the king’s servant, his being a possession is due to a possessor, so that a sixth-triplet ending obtains also for purus. a-.33 V. That meaning is expressed by the sixth-triplet ending that comes in after the term rajan-¯ ; hence, there will not be a sixth-triplet ending after the term purus. a-.34 VI. Then is there not a string

(4) purus. asya raj¯ a¯ ‘the man’s king’? There is, but then a ﬁrst-triplet ending follows the term rajan-¯ .35 Then is there not a string

(5) rajñah¯ . purus. asya ‘the king’s man’s’? There is such as string, but only if another (bahyam¯ ‘external’) meaning is considered (abhisam¯ıks. ya).36 Under III, the point is made that rajñah¯ . of (1a) has a sixth- triplet ending conditioned by a meaning: the king in question bears ñÍ :pua:+:Sa;Za;b.d;pra;ya;ea;gMa .=+a:ja; a;na .sa;ea Y;Ta;eRa ga;}ya;tea Á ; a;kM :pua;na;~ta;t,a Á .~va;a;a;ma;tva;m,a Á ; a;k+:öÐÅ*:xÅ +.tMa :pua;na;~ta;t,a Á .~va;kx +:ta;m,a Á ta;dùÅ;a;Ta;a :pra;a; a;ta;pa; a;d;k+:a;Ta;Ra;na;Ma ; a;kÒ+:ya;a;kx +:ta;a ; a;va;Zea;Sa;a o+.pa:ja;a;ya;ntea Á ta;tkx +:ta;a;(ãa;a;K.ya;aHÉ :pra;a;du;BRa;va;////a;ntak+:mRa k+.=+¾a;ma;pa;a;d;a;nMa .sa;}å.pra;d;a;na;ma; a;Da;k+.=+¾a;a;ma; a;ta Á ta;a;(ãaÉ :pua;na; a;vRa;Ba; +:a;na;a;mua;tpa:a;Ea k+:d;a; a;.ca; a;a;a;ma:a;tvea;na;ea;pa;a;d;a;ya;ntea k+:d;a; a;.ca;a Á k+:d;a ..ca ; a;va;Ba; +:a;na;a;mua;tpa:a;Ea ; a;na;a;ma:a;tvea;na;ea;pa;a;d;a- ;ya;ntea Á ya;d;a v.ya;a;Ba;.ca:=+////a;nta:pra;a; a;ta;pa; a;d;k+:a;TRa;m,a Á ya;d;a ; a;h na v.ya;a;Ba;.ca:=+ntya;a;K.ya;a;BUa;ta;a O;;va ta;d;a Ba;va;////a;ntak+:mRa k+.=+¾a;ma;pa;a;d;a;nMa .sa;}å.pra;d;a;na;ma; a;Da;k+.=+¾a;a;ma; a;ta Á (Bh. I.464.15–23). 33ya;TEa;va ta; a;hR .=+a:ja; a;na .~va;kx +:tMa .~va;a;a;ma;tvMa ta:a :Sa;.ae;vMa :pua:+:Sea Y; a;pa .~va;a;a;ma;kx +:tMa .~va;tvMa ta:a :Sa;+a :pra;a;pîÅa;ea; a;ta Á (Bh. I.464.23–24). 34.=+a:ja;Za;b.d;a;du;tpa;dùÅ;a;ma;a;na;ya;a :Sa;.a;a;a;Ba; a;h;taH .sa;ea Y;TRa I+. a;ta kx +:tva;a :pua:+:Sa;Za;b.d;a;tSa;+a na Ba; a;va- ;Sya; a;ta Á (Bh. I.464.24–25). 35rajan-s¯ u → rajan-Ø¯ → raj¯ an¯ → raj¯ a¯; see PWT.: 347 ¶539. 36na ta;h;Ra;d;a;na;a;a;ma;dM Ba;va; a;ta :pua:+:Sa;~ya .=+a:jea; a;ta Á Ba;va; a;ta Á .=+a:ja;Za;b.d;a:ua ta;d;a :pra;Ta;ma;a Á na ta;h;Ra- ;d;a;na;a;a;ma;dM Ba;va; a;ta .=+a;¼aH :pua:+:Sa;~yea; a;ta Á Ba;va; a;ta ba;a;hùÅ:a;ma;TRa;////////a;}Ba;sa;ma;a:»ya Á (Bh. I.464.25–27). 66 G. CARDONA a relation — of possession — to another entity. Since the other thing is necessary for the relation to obtain, the king’s property of being a possessor is said to be caused by it. A parallel is drawn to relations between karakas¯ and the acts in which they participate to bring them to accomplishment. These acts are said to bring about distinctions in the meaning of nominal bases such that the things denoted are given particular class names such as karman and karan. a. Thus, a sickle may serve as the means for cutting (lunati¯ ‘cuts’), so that it is given the karaka¯ class name karan. a.37 The denotation of a karan.a, moreover, can serve as a condition for introducing a third-triplet ending after a nominal,38 as in datren¯ . a (← datra-¯ .ta¯) of

(6) datren¯ . a lunati¯ ‘. . . is cutting . . . with a sickle.’ Here, the base meaning of datra¯ has added to it the property of being a means. One may, however, speak merely of a sickle itself and say that it is a means, as in

(7) datra¯ m˙ karan. am. Now the base meaning of datra¯ has not been added to, so that the base takes a ﬁrst-triplet ending (datram¯ ← datra-s¯ u). Under IV, the point is made that the argument advanced for rajñah¯ . of (1a) having a sixth-triplet ending can equally well be made for purus. a- having the same ending. This is conceded, but the possible fault is avoided, under V, by noting that introduction of such an ending after purus. a- is ruled out because the relation is signiﬁed by the ending which follows rajan-¯ ; in accordance with A. 2.3.1, the ending is not introduced once more to denote the same relation. Finally, under VI, the question is posed whether one does not then have an expression (5) with the same ending after both the

37.sa;a;Da;k+:ta;mMa k+.=+¾a;m,a Á (A. 1.4.42); see PWT.: 137–138 ¶214. 38k+:tRxa;k+.=+¾a;ya;ea;~txa;ta;a;ya;a Á (A. 2.3.18); see PWT.: 155–156 ¶240. DERIVATION AND INTERPRETATION 67 bases in question. This is countered by noting that, although (5) is possible, it is not a complete expression: the ending of rajñah¯ . designates a relation between the king and his man, but the ending of purus. asya now signiﬁes a relation external to this, one which requires a third relatum.

2.2.3 Gender distinction

The Bhas¯. ya on A. 7.1.33: .sa;a;ma º;a;k+:m,a (yua;Sma;d;sma;;dÂåùÅ;a;a;m,a 27) once more brings up the same issue. The context in which the issue is raised concerns whether an alternative formulation of A. 7.1.33, with amah¯ . instead of samah¯ . would wrongly allow the initial augment sut. to be added to the genitive plural ending am¯ , by A. 7.1.52: º;a;a;ma .sa;vRa;na;a;}îå:aH .sua;f, (º;a;t,a 50), which serves to introduce the augment to am¯ if this follows a pronominal stem ending with an a- vowel. The conditions occur when the -d of yus. mad and asmad is deleted before am¯ .39 In his third, fourth and fifth varttikas¯ on this sutra,¯ Katy¯ ayana¯ presents the following argument.40 In deriving yus. makam¯ and asmakam¯ from yus. mad-am¯ and asmad-am¯ , one must disallow the introduction of the initial augment sut. to the ending. For, deleting the final sound of these pronouns by A. 7.2.90 (see note 39) is acknowledged to apply before an ending that has replaced another. If, then, akam¯ is allowed to replace am¯ , one will allow, undesiredly, a final form with this augment (*yu- s. masam¯ , asmasam¯ ).41 This problem is avoided by suggesting an alternative formulation for A. 7.2.90: instead of letting this delete the final sound of the stems, the rule is now stated so as to delete

39Zea;Sea l+.ea;paH Á (A. 7.2.90); see PWT.: 324 ¶498, 315 ¶478. æ 40.sua;*ðÒÅÉ+. a;ta;Sea;Da;~tva;a;de;Zea l+.ea;pa; a;va;¼a;a;na;a;t,a Á na va;a ; a;f;l+.ea;pa;va;.ca;na;a;d;a;de;Zea f;a;ppra; a;ta;Sea;d;a;TRa;m,a Á na va;a ñÍ æ ; a;l+.ç*:+.a;Ba;a;va;a; a;Å æ*+:l+.ea;pa;va;.ca;na;a;na;TRa;k+.a;m,a Á (7.1.33 vt. 3–5). æ 41.sua;*ðÒÅÉ+. a;ta;Sea;Da;~tua va;+:v.yaH Á ; a;kM k+:a:=+¾a;m,a Á º;a;de;Zea l+.ea;pa; a;va;¼a;a;na;a;t,a Á yaH .sa Zea;Sea l+.ea;pa º;a;de;Zea ; a;va;¼a;a;ya;tea Á (Bh. III.253.2–3). 68 G. CARDONA the segment which begins with its last vowel (.tilopavacanat¯ ):42 yus. mad-am¯ → yus. m-am¯ , asmad-am¯ → asm-am¯ . Moreover, the claim is made, this reformulation is necessary in order to avoid allowing the feminine sufﬁx .ta¯p, by A. 4.1.4: º:ja;a;dùÅ;a;ta;;a;p,a (;///a;~:a;ya;a;m,a 3) after yus. ma- and asma-.43 This alternative is rejected, however, as serving no purpose, because these pronouns have no gender. Nor does one have to state this fact. It is known without being explicitly stated. At this point, arguments come up that parallel those presented earlier (§2.2.1–2.2.2).

I. For there is no distinction in yus. mad and asmad used in the feminine, masculine, or neuter.44

II. There is a reason why this is so. What is the reason? Be- cause the unit conveying the difference is not present. Just you utter such a unit and that distinction will be understood.45

III. This should not be thus. It should not be that a meaning has a speech unit as its cause (sabdanimittakena´ ). On the contrary, it should be that a speech unit has a meaning as its æ 42na va;a .sua;*ðÒÅÉ+. a;ta;Sea;Da;ea va;+:v.yaH Á ; a;kM k+:a:=+¾a;m,a Á ; a;f;l+.ea;pa;va;.ca;na;a;t,a Á º;a;de;Zea yaH .sa Zea;Sea l+.ea;pa; a;- ;l+.ea;paH .sa va;+:v.yaH Á (Bh. III.253.5–6). º;.ca;ea Y;ntya;a; a;d ; a;f (A. 1.1.64); see PWT.: 18 ¶41. 43; a;kM :pra;ya;ea:ja;na;m,a Á f;a;ppra; a;ta;Sea;Da;a;TRa;m,a Á f;a;b.ma;a BUa; a;d; a;ta Á (Bh. III.253.6–7). ñÍ 44.sa ta; a;hR ; a;f;l+.ea;pa;ea va;+:v.yaH Á (Bh. III.253.7). na va;a va;+:v.ya;m,a Á ; a;kM k+:a:=+¾a;m,a Á ; a;l+.ç*:+.a-Å ;Ba;a;va;a;t,a Á º; a;l+.ç*:eñÅÍ yua;Sma;d;sma;d;a Á ; a;kM va;+:v.ya;mea;ta;t,a Á na ; a;h Á k+:Ta;ma;nua;.cya;ma;a;nMa gMa;~ya;tea Á na hùÅ:a;/////a;~ta ; a;va;Zea;Sa;ea yua;Sma;d;sma;d;eaH ;///a;~:a;ya;Ma:pMua;a;sa na;pMua;sa;ke va;a Á (Bh. III.253.9–11). 45º;/////a;~tak+:a:=+¾Ma yea;nEa;ta;de;vMa Ba;va; a;ta Á ; a;kM k+:a:=+¾a;m,a Á ya;ea Y;sa;Ea ; a;va;Zea;Sa;va;a;.ca;a Za;b.d;~ta;d;sa;a; a;a- ñÍ ;Dya;a;t,a Á º;ç*:Å ; a;h Ba;va;Ma;~ta;mua;a;a:=+ya;tua gMa;~ya;tea .sa ; a;va;Zea;SaH Á (Bh. III.253.11–13). I have used ‘the unit conveying the difference’ to render vises´ . avac¯ ¯ı sabdah´ . , with ‘conveying’ instead of ‘signifying’, because feminine suffixes are considered to be not signi- fiers (vacaka¯ ) but cosignifiers (dyotaka) of femininity, a meaning attributed to a nominal base with which an affix is used; see note 47 and §2.3. DERIVATION AND INTERPRETATION 69

cause (arthanimittakena). One should thus view this in the following manner: it is due to a meaning aspect that in the present instance the distinction is not understood. Moreover, one must necessarily recognize this to be so. For, if one considers that the distinction is not understood here because the speech unit conveying the distinction is not present, then one would have to accept that the distinction should not be understood in the following examples as well: drs. ad (‘stone’ [fem.]), samidh (‘kindling wood’ [fem.]).46 ˚

That is, one cannot argue that a form such as tvam (‘you’ [nom. sg.] ← yus. mad-su) or aham (‘I’ ← asmad-su) fails to make understood a feminine gender distinction because it lacks a feminine sufﬁx. Such reasoning would require that a term such as drs. ad, which does make a feminine gender understood, should be accom-˚ panied by a feminine sufﬁx; but it is not.47

2.3 Meaning conditions and derivation A. 3.1.26: :he;tua;ma; a;ta ..ca (; a;¾a;.c,a 25, ;Da;a;ta;eaH 7, :pra;tya;yaH 1, :pa:=+(ãaÉ 2) introduces the unit n. ic, to which is assigned the class name pratyaya (‘afﬁx’), after (parah. ) a verbal base (dhatoh¯ . ). The sutra¯ contains the locative singular hetumati, referring to an action which has a causal agent (hetu), that is, causation. This locative is subject to two possible interpretations: (a) it is a locative absolute, with the seventh-triplet ending introduced on condition that an action

46na;nua ..ca .nEa;tea;nEa;vMa Ba; a;va;ta;v.ya;m,a Á na ; a;h Za;b.d; a;na;a;ma:a;ke+:na;a;TeRa;na Ba; a;va;ta;v.ya;m,a Á ; a;kM ta; a;hR Á º;TRa; a;na- ;a;ma:a;ke+:na na;a;ma Za;b.de;na Ba; a;va;ta;v.ya;m,a Á ta;de;ta;de;vMa dx;Zya;ta;a;m,a Á º;TRa:+.pa;mea;vEa;ta;de;va:ê*+;a;ta;a;ya;kMúÁ yea;na;a:a ; a;va;Zea;Sa;ea na ga;}ya;ta I+. a;ta Á º;va;ZyMa ..cEa;ta;de;vMa ; a;va;¼ea;ya;m,a Á ya;ea ; a;h ma;nya;tea ya;ea Y;sa;Ea ; a;va;Zea;Sa;va;a;.ca;a Za;b.d;~ta;d;sa;a; a;a;Dya;a;d:a ; a;va;Zea;Sa;ea na ga;}yea;ta I+.ta;a;h;a; a;pa ta;~ya ; a;va;Zea;Sa;ea na ga;}yea;ta dx;Sa;tsa;a;ma; a;d; a;ta Á (Bh. III.253.13–17). 47 It is on account of such usages that feminine suffixes such as .ta¯p in terms like aja¯ (‘she goat’ ← aja-a¯) are treated as cosignifying a feminine, a meaning attributed to the accompanying base; see PWT.: 441 ¶685. 70 G. CARDONA serves to characterize another action;48 (b) it has a seventh-triplet ending signifying a locus (adhikaran. a) in which an act occurs.49 Under (a), A. 3.1.26 provides that the affix n. ic is introduced (bhavati ‘comes into being, is’) after a verbal base if an action with a causal agent is to be signified (abhidheye sati). Under (b), on the other hand, the sutra¯ provides that the affix is introduced following a base which occurs in this meaning (hetumati vartaman¯ at¯ ).50 Comparably, A. 4.1.3: ;///a;~:a;ya;a;m,a (za;a;ppra;a; a;ta;pa; a;d;k+:a;t,a 1, :pra;tya;yaH É 3.1.1, :pa:=+(ãa 2) can be a heading whereby: (a) the affixes .ta¯p and so on are introduced by subsequent rules if the meaning ‘feminine’ is to be signified (striyam¯ abhidheyay¯ a¯m˙ satyam¯ ); (b) the affixes are introduced after a nominal base (pratipadik¯ at¯ ) which occurs in this meaning (striya¯m˙ vartaman¯ at¯ pratipadik¯ at¯ ), so that they are allowed to occur in a meaning attributed to the base (svarthe¯ ).51 The positions which Pan¯ .in¯ıyas finally accept for these sutras¯ 48A. 2.3.37: ya;~ya ..ca Ba;a;vea;na Ba;a;va;l+»a;¾a;m,a (.sa;a;ma;a 36); see PWT.: 173–174 ¶265. 49.sa;a;}ya; a;Da;k+.=+¾ea ..ca (A. 2.3.36); see PWT.: 155–156 ¶240. 50k+:Ta;a;ma;dM ; a;va;¼a;a;ya;tea :he;tua;ma;tya;a;Ba;Dea;yea ; a;¾a:$Ba;va;ta;a; a;ta Á º;a;h;ea;////a;~va:;dÄâe ;tua;ma; a;ta ya;ea ;Da;a;tua;vRa;tRa;ta I+. a;ta Á (Bh. II.31.7–8). k+:Ta;a;ma;dM ; a;va;¼a;a;ya;tea :he;tua;ma;tya;a;Ba;Dea;yea ; a;¾a:$Ba;va; a;ta Á º;a;h;ea;////a;~va:;dÄâe ;tua- ;ma; a;ta ya;ea ;Da;a;tua;vRa;tRa;tea (:he;tua;ma; a;ta) va;ma;Ra;na;a; a;d; a;ta Á (VPVr. 1.26 [73.1–2]). :he;tuaH .~va;ta:n:a;~ya ˚ k+:tRuaH :pra;ya;ea:ja;kH Á ta;d;a;ya;ea;v.ya;a;pa;a:=+ea :he;tua;ma;a;n,a Á ta;/////////a;sma;a;a;Ba;Dea;yea ;Da;a;ta;ea; a;¾Ra;.cpra;tya;ya;ea Ba;va; a;ta Á (Ka¯s.´ 3.1.26). Bhartrhari alludes to the Bhas¯. ya passage I have cited in the context of saying that all˚ such optional procedures depend on the considerations of persons who abstract putative constituent meanings from full utterances, which are in fact unanalyzable wholes from the point of view of communication. 51k+:TMa :pua;na;a:=+dM ; a;va;¼a;a;ya;tea ;///a;~:a;ya;a;ma;a;Ba;Dea;ya;a;ya;Ma f;a;ba;a;d;ya;ea Ba;va;nta;a; a;ta Á º;a;h;ea;////a;~va;t~:a;a;sa;ma;a- ;na;a; a;Da;k+.=+¾a;a;tpra;a; a;ta;pa; a;d;k+:a; a;d; a;ta Á (Bh. II.198.20–21). ;a;sa:;dÄâM tua ;///a;~:a;ya;aH :pra;a; a;ta;pa; a;d;k+: a;va;Zea- ;Sa;¾a;tva;a;t~va;a;TeRa f;a;ba;a;d;yaH Á (4.1.3 vt. 5). ;a;sa:;dÄâ ;mea;ta;t,a Á k+:Ta;m,a Á :pra;a; a;ta;pa; a;d;k+: a;va;Zea;Sa;¾a;tva;a;t,a Á :pra;a; a;ta;pa; a;d;k+: a;va;Zea;Sa;¾Ma .~:a;a;g{a;h;¾Ma .~va;a; a;TRa;k+:a;;a;ba;a;d;yaH Á .nEa;vMa ; a;va;¼a;a;ya;tea ;///a;~:a;ya;a;ma;a;Ba;Dea;ya;a;ya;a;a;ma- ; a;ta na;a; a;pa .~:a;a;sa;ma;a;na;a; a;Da;k+.=+¾a;a; a;d; a;ta Á k+:TMa ta; a;hR Á ;///a;~:a;ya;Maya;tpra;a;pa; a;d;kM va;tRa;tea ta;sma;a;æ*+:a;ba;a;d;ya;eaæ Ba;va;////a;ntaÁ k+://///////a;sma;a;TeRaÁ .~va;a;TeRa Á (Bh. II.199.19–22). ta;Ta;a ;///a;~:a;ya;a;a;ma; a;ta Á ; a;kM .~:ya;a;Ba;Da;a;nea f;a;ba;a- ;d;yaH .~:ya;TRa;va:eaHx :pra;a; a;ta;pa; a;d;k+:a;t~va;a;TeRa :vea; a;ta Á (VPVr. 1.26 [73.2–4]). As shown, a third position is considered: affixes are introduced˚ after a base that is coreferential with one used in the feminine. The finally accepted view is (b). See Cardona 1983: 44–49. DERIVATION AND INTERPRETATION 71 are (a) for A. 3.1.26, (b) for A. 4.1.3. Under the accepted interpretation of the former, then, this sutra¯ introduces an affix under a meaning condition: if meaning M is to be denoted, the affix A is introduced after base B.

3 Afﬁxation meaning conditions

It is demonstrable that Pan¯ .ini himself, not just later students of his work, operated in the above manner, allowing affixes to occur on condition that stated meaning conditions are met. Three sutras¯ are particularly interesting on this point: A. ñÍ 3.3.156: :he;tua;he;tua;ma;ta;ea; a;lR+.z, (;Da;a;ta;eaH 3.1.91), A. 3.3.139–140: ; a;l+. a;îå*:+.a;ma:eaÅ ñÍ lx+. a;öÐÅ*:"Å +.ya;a; a;ta;pa:a;Ea (Ba; a;va;Sya; a;ta 136, ;Da;a;ta;eaH 3.1.91), BUa;tea ..ca. According to the first sutra,¯ the l-affix lin˙ follows a verbal base to signify an agent on condition that the action this denotes is related to another act as cause and effect (hetuhetumatoh. ). A. 3.3.139–140 introduce lrn˙ under a condition that determines that lin˙ is introduced (linnimitte˙ ˚ ) — that is, if related verbs denote acts related as cause and effect — when the acts in question are referred to the future (bhavis. yati) and also to the past (bhute¯ ), provided that these fail to take place (kriyatipattau¯ ). The first rule serves to account for conditional sentences with optative forms, such as

(8) krs. n. am˙ namec cet sukham˙ yay¯ at¯ ‘If one venerates Krs.n.a, one attains˚ happiness.’ ˚ The next rules account for the use of conditional forms in con- trafactual conditions, for example

(9) yadi vrs..tir abhavis. yat subhiks. am abhavis. yat ‘If there were to be good˚ rains (but there won’t be), there would be plenty of food.’/ ‘If there had been good rains, there would have been plenty of food.’52

52See PWT.: 168–169 ¶257–258. 72 G. CARDONA

Now, linimitte˙ in A. 3.3.139 can be interpreted properly only 53 as a s.as.t.h¯ıtatpurus.a form (linnimittam˙ = lino˙ nimittam). Other interpretations are ruled out on various grounds. To begin with, consider the possibility that linnimitte˙ is a tatpurus.a of the sub- class called karmadharaya¯ , in which both terms are coreferential. This compound, equivalent to liny˙ eva nimitte (‘a condition that is lin˙’) would refer to the l-affix lin˙ as a unit serving to condition something. Since this is a speech element, the locative is to be interpreted as referring to a right context for an operation on a preceding element.54 However, the only element that could be said to precede is a verbal base (dhatu¯ ), given that A. 3.3.139 comes under the heading of A. 3.1.91. Further, since A. 3.3.139 is part of a set of rules headed by A. 3.1.1, the only reasonable operation is the introduction of an affix (pratyaya) after a verbal base. At best, then, A. 3.3.139 under the supposed interpretation, would let a verbal base receive an affix on condition that lin˙ followed. But the affix is now not specified. Consequently, interpreting linnimitte˙ as a karmadharaya¯ leads to nonsense in terms of Pan¯ .ini’s grammar. There are also no contextual grounds for interpreting linnimitte˙ as a bahuvr¯ıhi (lin˙ nimittam˙ yasya tasmin). The only thing lin˙ serves to condition — by way of the affixes that replace it — is the introduction of affixes. Thus, for example, in deriving namet of (8), the ending that replaces lin˙ conditions the introduction of the stem suffix ´sap after the base.55 Only if lin˙ of linnimitte˙ refers to an affix, is it possible for A. 3.3.139 to provide for an affix. But then the affix can hardly be lin˙ itself. Consequently, the only reasonable interpretation of linnimitte˙ in this sutra¯ is the one adopted by

53For example, Ka¯s.´ 3.3.139: :he;tua;he;tua;ma;ta;ea; a;lR+. a;z+.tyea;va;ma;a; a;d;kM ; a;l+.z+.ea ; a;na;a;ma:a;m,a Á ta:a ñÍ ñÍ ; a;l+. a;îå*:+.a;ma:eaÅ Ba; a;va;Sya; a;ta k+:a;le lx+*:ðÒÅÉ +.tya;ya;ea Ba;va; a;ta ; a;kÒ+:ya;a; a;ta;pa:a;Ea .sa;tya;a;m,a Á 54ta;/////////a;sma; a;a; a;ta; a;na; a;dR;e :pUa;vRa;~ya (A. 1.1.66); see PWT.: 53 ¶90. 55nam-l → nam-ti → nam-t → nam-yast¯ → nam-a-yast¯ → nam-a-yat¯ → nam- a-iyt → nam-a-it → namet; see PWT.: 152 ¶235, 157 ¶243, 168 ¶257. DERIVATION AND INTERPRETATION 73

Pan¯ .in¯ıyas, so that the condition in question is the relation between actions stated in A. 3.3.156. One must, then, accept that in Pan¯ .ini’s derivational system a meaning can serve as a condition (nimitta) for the occurrence of an affix. This does not mean, nevertheless, that one must reject the possibility that speech units are themselves causes. On the contrary, both meanings and speech units indeed serve as causes. From a speaker’s point of view, a meaning to be made understood to a listener is a cause of his using a speech unit in order to have that listener understand what he wishes to convey. From a listener’s point of view, the sounds a speaker utters serve as conditions for his understanding what the latter means to say, by converting those sounds to the systematic units both speaker and listener share in a common language. From a listener’s viewpoint also, utterances used by speakers are subject to analysis leading to abstracted constituents. In a derivational system like Pan¯ .ini’s, such abstracted units are then synthesized to account for strings which speakers of the language would use.56 This derivational system proceeds by introducing affixes after bases under stated conditions, and among these are meaning conditions: an affix is allowed to occur if a given meaning is to be signified.

4 A different approach suggested

Recently,57 Jan E. M. Houben has argued on several occasions that Pan¯ .ini’s grammar did not proceed in this manner. Instead,

56 Pan¯ .ini operates with rules of such synthesis and presupposes the analysis that leads to the abstraction of units; see PWT.: 428–449. 57 This section replicates, with modiﬁcations, section 7 of ‘Pan¯ .ini and his predecessors: tradition and innovation’, the Professor N. N. Choudhury memorial lecture presented at Delhi University on January 29, 2012, which is to appear in a planned volume of the lecture series. 74 G. CARDONA he maintains, the derivational system operates with respect to an actual linguistic string, characterized as a ‘provisional statement’. Houben (1999: 45) also recognizes, in accordance with some other modern linguists, discrete “levels” in Pan¯ .ini’s derivational system and speaks of what he calls ‘level 1’, which he labels ‘not as “semantics” but as “semantics, pragmatics, intentionality.”’ Houben (1999: 45) says of this level:

It is the interface between the user and the grammar. Statements in the grammar belonging to this level ask the user to make decisions and judgements regarding different aspects of his provisional statement: semantic aspects or aspects concerning the referents (artha) of his statement, pragmatic aspects or aspects concerning the context (prakaran. a) of his statement, and intentional aspects or aspects of his intention (vivaks. a¯). The same author (Houben 2009a: 523–24) expresses some won- der at what other scholars of Pan¯ .ini seem to have missed: ‘Can it be that a simple point has been overlooked by most scholars of Pan¯ .ini’s As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı, namely that there too the starting point and the ﬁnal aim of the user of grammar has always been the sentence and never a word in isolation, that the starting point is a preliminary sentence that needs to be checked or that needs some little extra reﬁnement?’ In addition, he says (Houben 2009b: 14) the following of Pan¯ .ini’s system:

The system of Pan¯ .ini’s grammar “clearly requires a user who wants to check and possibly improve a preliminary statement” (Houben 2003: 161). The system implies the presence of a knowledgeable user, a preliminary statement and the application of ﬁrst analytic and next synthetic procedures to the words in it, DERIVATION AND INTERPRETATION 75

with the user keeping in mind the preliminary statement and its purport, and aiming at the best possible, sam-skr˙ ta form of his preliminary statement. ˚ Immediately preceding this, Houben notes what he calls ‘a vital point’, namely that, ‘Pan¯ .ini was deﬁnitely aware of various “substandard” forms of the language, forms which from a modern perspective we would assign to an altogether different language such as Prakrit.’ After the extended statement cited above, he also goes on to emphasize that, ‘The concrete starting point for a derivation in the synthetic phase of the consultation cycle of a user of grammar in Pan¯ .ini’s time will then never be “pure” meaning or an autonomous level of semantic representation . . . .’ It is, instead, the selection of a root such as bhu¯ or a nominal stem. He continues, saying (Houben 2009b: 14):

In the sociolinguistic context of Pan¯ .ini’s time we can suppose that the preliminary statement of the user of the grammar contained not necessarily only “perfectly formed” words but also substandard ones, for instance honti or bhonti instead of bhavanti. The knowledge of the user of grammar in Pan¯ .ini’s time concerns not only the basic outlines of the grammar and knowledge of the language aimed at but also substandard forms current in his time and area.

The expression ‘we can suppose’ in Houben’s statement is telling. For in all of this discussion, as also in his earlier paper of 2003, he does not offer concrete evidence from the As..tadhy¯ a-¯ y¯ı itself demonstrating the impossibility of starting with semantics associated with grammatical contrasts that can serve as conditions, along with co-occurrence conditions, for introducing afﬁxes to bases. He repeatedly speaks simply of ‘semantics’ in the ﬁrst 76 G. CARDONA level of those scholars with whose views he disagrees,58 and comments on the ‘semantic level’ accepted by two of these scholars, remarking (Houben 1999: 26–27):

One wonders how the semantic level can be placed as the basis and, as far as derivations are concerned, at the beginning of the sophisticated grammar of Pan¯ .ini, while it is admitted at the same time that this semantic level is very sketchy, and that Pan¯ .ini makes no attempt to characterise the possible semantic representations by any rules.

Houben does not, however, note that the semantics selected are precisely those that are linked with grammatical and phonological rules, not some vague ‘pure’ semantics. He also speaks of a user’s intentional aspects or aspects of his intention (vivaks. a¯), neglecting to note that Patañjali makes a pertinent distinction between an individual user’s desire to speak (pra-¯ yoktr¯ı vivaks. a¯) in a particular manner — in effect to use Prakrit if he wishes — as opposed to the communal vivaks.a¯ (laukik¯ı vivaks. a¯), that is the generally accepted usage in a community of speakers who serve as a model for the grammar.59

58Houben nevertheless remains comfortable with the view that there are discrete levels in Pan¯ .ini’s system. He assumes (1999: 46) four levels, though these differ in detail from those posited by earlier modern scholars. I think I have demonstrated, however (Cardona 2009), that Pan¯ .ini’s system proceeds from meaning to initial strings subject to operations that result in ﬁnal utterances, with a set of karaka¯ classiﬁcation rules that mediate between semantics and expressions, and that one proceeds in a continuum, with possible appeal to meaning conditions at later stages of a derivation. Scharf (2009) also speaks against the anachronistic notion that Pan¯ .ini operated with four discrete levels. 59; a;va;va:»a;a ..ca dõ;ya;a Á º;~tyea;va :pra;a;ya;ea;" +:a ; a;va;va:»a;a Á º;/////a;~tal+.Ea; a;k+:k +:a Á :pra;a;ya;ea;" +:a ; a;va;va:»a;a Á :pra- ïé Å ïé Å ñÍ ;ya;ea;+:a ; a;h ma;dx õùÅ;a;a :/a;=+:îåa;gDa;ya;a (ì;;»¾a;ya;aÉ ;a:ja;ë+:ya;a ma;dU;/////////a;n=+:x îåa;gDa;a;V(ì;;»¾a;a;VZa;b.d;a;npra;yua;É ô*:eïåÅ Ù Á l+.Ea; a;k+:k +:a ; a;va;va:»a;a ya:a :pra;a;ya;~ya .sa;}å.pra;tya;yaH Á :pra;a;ya I+. a;ta l+.ea;k+:ea v.ya;pa; a;d;Zya;tea Á (Bh. II.342.26–343.3). The Bhas¯. ya on A 6.3.109 (:pa;Sa;ea;d:=+a; a;d;na;ax ya;Ta;ea;pa; a;d;;m,a) takes up the issue of who DERIVATION AND INTERPRETATION 77

In connection with vivaks.a,¯ Pan¯ .in¯ıyas bring up examples such as

(10) dhanus. a¯ vidhyati ‘. . . pierces . . . with a bow’ (11) dhanur vidhyati ‘The bow pierces . . . .’

(10) calls for assigning a bow to the karaka¯ category named karan. a by virtue of its serving, more than any other participant in the act of piercing (vyadh), as the means of bringing this act to accomplishment (sadhakatamam¯ ); such a karaka¯ is denoted by a third-triplet ending. (11) calls for the bow to have the category name kartr by virtue of being spoken of as an independent (svatantra) partic-˚ ipant in the act of piercing. The bow getting the category name kartr is accounted for by stating the karaka¯ classification rules in question˚ in a particular order: A. 1.4.42: .sa;a;Da;k+:ta;mMa k+.=+¾a;m,a 1.4.54: .~va;ta:n:aH k+:ta;Ra. In addition, these rules come under the heading of A. 1.4.1–2 (º;a k+:q+.a:=+a;de;k+:a .sa;V¼a;a Á ; a;va;pra; a;ta;Sea;Dea :pa:=M k+:a;yRa;m,a), so that, of the class names provided for, only one is allowed to apply to an entity at once and, if two rules come into conflict, what is provided for by the later rule takes precedence. Concerning (10)–(11) — his examples (1)–(2) — Houben says (1999: 28) he accepts the position that vivaks.a¯ ‘continues to play a role in the choice of ka-¯ raka-designations, especially if it is clear that a certain number of alternative ontological-logical classifications are possible (the bow as instrument in (1) and agent in (2)).’ In accepting the role of vivaks.a¯ with respect to karaka¯ classifications, he is accepting what Pan¯ .in¯ıyas have always maintained; there is nothing new here. On those called sis´ ..ta are and where they live. See, for example, PWT.: 550–554 ¶834. The Bhas¯. ya also considers upadis..ta of yathopadis..tam to mean ‘uttered’ (Bh. III.104.174.2: º;Ta ; a;k+:a;ma;d;mua;pa; a;d;;a; a;na Á o+.a;a:=+ta;a; a;na Á), which assumes the use of the words in question by native speakers. This position is in harmony with Pan¯ .ini’s formulating sutras¯ of the type º;nyea;Bya;ea Y; a;pa dx;Zya;tea, providing that certain operations apply in unspecified domains, which require observing native speakers to see where the operations actually apply; see Cardona 2004. 78 G. CARDONA the other hand, Houben glosses over an important detail. The Bha-¯ s. ya to 1.4.1 vt. 30 does not deal with (10) and (11) opposed to each other.60 The bow’s classifications as karan.a and kartr in each instance is opposed to its classification as apad¯ ana¯ (A. 1.4.24:˚ ;Drua- ;va;ma;pa;a;yea Y;pa;a;d;a;na;m,a). For a bow to be spoken of as an instrument in piercing something, it has simultaneously to be spoken of as a point of departure for arrows which are released from it and serve as means of piercing: (12) dhanus. o nirgatair ban¯ . air vidhyati. For a bow to be spoken of as an agent of piercing, the same must also hold: the bow must also simultaneously be spoken of as a point of departure. In brief, (10) and (11) are acceptable utterances which Pan¯ .ini accounts for. Pan¯ .ini also knows that the semantics associated with these utterances involve another, conflicting, classification, reflected in (12). That is, he accounts for acceptable utterances and their semantics. Houben also accepts that what he calls a ‘provisional statement’ subject to modification may include Middle Indic forms like honti. In considering this, let us start with a possible strong position under which the question arises: would such forms be allowed in preliminary strings of a Pan¯ .inian derivation? For this to be possible, one would require either that Pan¯ .ini’s grammar have some rules providing for sound shifts of the type bh- → h- or include in the set of verb bases not only items such as bhu¯ but others such as ho found in forms like Middle Indic hoti, honti. There is no evidence for either. Houben’s assertion could be maintained also under the view that a speaker who considers a preliminary statement and is familiar with Middle Indic in addition to Sanskrit could conceive of such a string with some Middle Indic elements. This, however, runs contrary to the very conception of what sabd´ anu¯ sá-¯ sana and vyakaran¯ . a mean to Pan¯ .in¯ıyas: a work by which correct 60See Cardona 1974b: 235–237, 283–284 note 16. DERIVATION AND INTERPRETATION 79 usage is explained once this has been segregated from incorrect usage.61 Thus conceived, Pan¯ .ini’s grammar deals only with correct usage. This is noted at the beginning of the Mahabh¯ as¯. ya, where Patañjali considers three alternatives of how the sábd¯ anu¯ sá-¯ sana should proceed: should it serve to teach correct speech forms (sabdopade´ sa´ ), incorrect speech forms (apasabdopade´ sa´ ) or both (ubhayopadesa´ )?62 The third option is set aside as redundant. Ex- plaining correct forms would establish a restriction whereby incorrect forms are ruled out, and teaching that incorrect forms are not to be allowed would result in limiting the grammar to correct usage. The decision to explain only correct speech forms is made on the grounds of brevity (laghutvat¯ ). For any single correct speech form such as gauh. there are several incorrect forms (apabhram˙ sáh¯ . ‘corruptions’) such as gav¯ ¯ı, gon. ¯ı, gopotalika¯. Consequently, Pan¯ .i- ni’s sabd´ anu¯ sásana¯ is a grammatical treatise whereby are explained speech forms that are desired and accepted.63 Moreover, Patañja- li remarks that augments, replacements, affixes, verbal bases, and nominal bases recited in the As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı are all given therein with- 61See PWT.: 564–572 ¶845–848. This accepted view is not weakened by the fact that according to varttika¯ twelve on A. 1.3.1: BUa;va;a;d;ya;ea ;Da;a;ta;vaH (BUa;va;a; a;d;pa;a;FH :pra;a; a;ta;pa; a;d;k+:a;¾a;pa;ya;tya;a; a;d; a;na;va:ya;TRaHx ) one reason for listing bhu¯ and so on in the dha-¯ tupat¯.ha is to exclude Middle Indic forms like an¯ . apayati. This statement occurs in the context of suggestions that a term assigned the name dhatu¯ be defined as one which signifies an action as denoted by the term kriya¯ (kriyavacana¯ : Bh. I.254.13: ya; a;d :pua;naH ; a;kÒ+:ya;a;va;.ca;na;ea ;Da;a;tua;a:=+tyea;ta;+.»a;¾Ma ; a;kÒ+:yea;ta) Á or the term bhava¯ (Bh. I.256.18: ya; a;d :pua;na;Ba;Ra;va;va;.ca;na;ea ;Da;a;tua;a:=+tyea;ta;+.»a;¾Ma ; a;kÒ+:yea;ta Á): a list of bases assigned the name dhatu¯ would still be required in order to exclude such items as an¯ . apayati. But Pan¯ .ini himself does not define dhatu¯ in either of the ways suggested; he operates with a set of bases divided into subsets. 62Za;b.d;a;nua;Za;a;sa;na;a;ma;d;a;na;Ma k+:tRa;v.ya;m,a Á ta;tk+:TMa k+:tRa;v.ya;m,a Á ; a;kM Za;b.d;ea;pa;de;ZaH k+:tRa;v.ya º;a;h;ea- ;////a;~va;d;pa;Za;b.d;ea;pa;de;Za º;a;h;ea;////a;~va;du;Ba;ya;ea;pa;de;Za I+. a;ta Á (Bh. I.5.12–14). 63l+.Gua;tva;a;.cC+.b.d;ea;pa;de;ZaH Á l+.Ga;a;ya;a;VZa;b.d;ea;pa;de;ZaH Á ga:=+a;ya;a;na;pa;Za;b.d;ea;pa;de;ZaH Á O;;kE+:k+:~ya Za;b.d- ;~ya ba;h;va;ea Y;pa;BrMa;Za;aH Á ta;dùÅ;a;Ta;a ga;Ea;a:=+tya;~ya ga;a;va;a;ga;ea;¾a;a;ga;ea;pa;ea;ta; a;l+.k+:a;d;ya;ea Y;pa;BrMa;Za;aH Á I+.;a;nva;a- ;K.ya;a;nMa Ka;va; a;pa Ba;va; a;ta Á (Bh. I.5.20–22). 80 G. CARDONA out any fault of pronunciation.64 At least from the time of Pata- ñjali, then, the As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı and its ancillary texts were transmitted without faults of pronunciation. Accordingly, unless one wishes completely to divorce Pan¯ .ini from his later tradition with respect to this issue, one can rule out of court the possibility of unassimi- lated Middle Indicisms in the As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı and its ancillaries. Under Houben’s thesis, a weaker claim is made: Pan¯ .ini’s derivational rules enter into play after a preliminary string has been formed and serve to polish such a string. Even this position, however, fails to find concrete support in rules of the As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı. If, for example, a preliminary string could contain forms such as hoti, which required being corrected to bhavati, one should expect a rule substituting bh- for initial h-. No such rule is to be found in the As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı. At most, one would have to say that a speaker was made aware in some way that bhavati is the accepted form corresponding to hoti. In Houben’s words, the first level of Pa-¯ n.ini’s derivational system serves a consultative purpose: ‘State- ments in the grammar belonging to this level ask the user to make decisions and judgements regarding different aspects of his provisional statement (1999: 45).’ Houben does not, however, demonstrate with evidence from the As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı precisely how Pan¯ .ini’s derivational system would interact with any provisional statement. Moreover, the fact remains that Pan¯ .ini’s very words show he considered meanings to be conditions (nimitta, see §3) for introducing affixes. Consequently, it is difficult to see how Pan¯ .ini’s grammar would allow and interact with preliminary sentences that Houben envi- sions, containing possible Middle Indic forms, which would require the intervention of the grammar to bring them to acceptable ëÐÅ 64º;Ta;vea;dM ta;a;va;d;yMa :pra;;v.yaH Á :ë*:e+:meaÁ .sMa;va;ta;a;d;yaHx (rUa;yea:=+ a;a; a;ta Á º;a;ga;mea;Sua Á º;a;ga;ma;aH Zua:;dÄâ ;aH :pa- ;F:a;ntea Á ; a;va;k+:a:=e+Sua ta; a;hR Á ; a;va;k+:a:=+aH Zua:;dÄâ ;aH :pa;F:a;ntea Á :pra;tya;yea;Sua ta; a;hR Á :pra;tya;ya;aH Zua:;dÄâ ;aH :pa;F:a;ntea Á ;Da;a;tua;Sua ta; a;hR Á ;Da;a;ta;va;ea Y; a;pa Zua:;dÄâ ;aH :pa;F:a;ntea Á :pra;a; a;ta;pa; a;d;ke+:Sua ta; a;hR Á :pra;a; a;ta;pa; a;d;k+:a;nya; a;pa Zua:;dÄâ ;a; a;na :pa;F:a;ntea Á (Bh. I.14.15–18). DERIVATION AND INTERPRETATION 81 status. Such utterances would have to be creations of some speakers who possibly intended to utter something in accordance with accepted norms reflected in the grammar but somehow slipped. Al- though Pan¯ .in¯ıyas accept that Pan¯ .ini’s grammar serves to contrast accepted and unacceptable usages, there is no evidence of their conceiving of the As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı as a set of rules serving to touch up unacceptable ‘preliminary statements’. There is thus no evidence from Pan¯ .ini’s work or the statements of Pan¯ .in¯ıyas to support the major claim Houben makes. Nor does Houben himself offer much concrete evidence to back up his asser- tions. I find one repeated claim that is based on actual statements in the As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı, and this concerns Vedic rules. Houben remarks (1999: 48):

It is further to be noted that if Pan¯ .ini’s grammar were to go basically from meaning to form, there would be no good justification for the presence of rules dealing with finished utterances in transmitted Vedic literature. But if the starting point is not meaning but a ‘provisional statement’ the grammar may not only serve to fine-tune (sam-skr˙ ) our own statements ˚ (mainly bhas¯. a¯, in the case of uha¯ possibly also chandas), but also to check a given expression (chandas, but also bhas¯. a¯) and contribute where necessary to its proper understanding and codification.65

65At this point, Houben adds a note (1999: 48 note 31): ‘Cf. Patañjali’s statement that the padakaras¯ (apparently the authors of a padapat¯.ha) are to follow the grammar rather than the other way around . . . .’ The Mahabh¯ as¯. ya discussions to which Houben then alludes concern the presence or absence of an avagraha and the segmentation º!:»!a;¾,aY;va;a;n,a, º!:»!a;¾,aY;va;ntaH, found in the Rgvedapadapat¯.ha, ˚ instead of º! :»aY;¾va;a;n,a, º! :»aY;¾va;ntaH. Houben’s ‘apparently’ is therefore inappropriate; ‘obviously’ would have been better. 82 G. CARDONA

In the same vein, Houben says (2003: 161), ‘If the system is only synthetic, why would so much attention have been paid to the finished utterances of Vedic texts with all their grammatical exception?’ More recently (2012: 166–67), the same author asks If placing “semantics” as the starting point is in conflict with the presence of a considerable number of rules, namely the specifically Vedic ones (and moreover with the majority of the explicit aims mentioned in the Paspasáhnika:¯ raks. a¯ “preservation of the Veda,” uha¯ “ritual modification” etc.), how can it be that this view has become so widespread among Pan¯ .ini spe- cialists (cf. Houben 1999: 23–26)? It is noteworthy that Houben leaves padapat¯.has out of consideration except to refer to padakaras¯ in passing (see note 65). Now, Pan¯ .inian rules which provide for usages that apply only in the domain of Vedic are fully compatible with his derivational system. Pan¯ .inian rules which provide for Vedic usage, whether as a general domain (chandasi) or in particular subdomains such as mantras or verses (rc), should be considered to operate on the basis of the- ˚ oretically posited strings, as in padapat¯.has. Consequently, Pan¯ .ini can state the same sort of rules for Vedic usage as he does for the language current in his time and area, differing from these only by applying in specific limited domains. For example, in Vedic there occur first person plural active forms of the type smas`ı (e.g., RV. ˚ 1.29.1b) instead of smah. and nominative plural forms of the type devas¯ ah` instead of devah¯ (e.g., RV. 1.19.6b). In the Rgvedapada- ¯ . ¯ . pat¯ ha, Sákalya¯ gives devas¯ ah` , smas˚ `ı. To account for˚ these, Pan¯ i- . ¯ . . ni provides that in Vedic (chandasi) alone, masi — with final -i added to mas — occurs and the nominal ending jas receives the final augment asuk if it follows a stem ending with an a-vowel.66 A

66A. 7.1.46: I+.d;nta;ea ma;a;sa (C+.nd;a;sa 38), 7.1.50: º;a:êÁ*.a;sea:=+sua;k,ê (C+.nd;a;sa 38). The Ka-¯ sik´ a¯ on each of these sutras¯ refers to what is designated by chandasi as a domain DERIVATION AND INTERPRETATION 83 slightly more complex example of variation concerns third person plural middle verb forms such as as¯ ate` , duhrate, and duhre. The ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ first represents the norm in Sanskrit, with the atmanepada¯ ending -ate. The second has the ending -ate, but with an initial r-, and the last example lacks -t- (-e ← -ae). Pan¯ .ini accounts for these starting with a base followed by the ending jha, which replaces the l-affix lat.. The -a of this ending is replaced by -e, since it derives from an l-affix marked with .t. In atmanepada¯ endings following a stem that does not end in -a, jh of this ending is replaced by at. Further, in Vedic usage (chandasi), the ending can receive the initial augment 67 rut. and also have its t deleted. Stating that such forms occur in a particular domain, Vedic usage, is comparable to saying that in the dialect of Sákat¯ .ayana¯ speakers use third plural imperfect forms with the ending us instead of ant (→ an) after verbal bases in -a¯ as well as after dvis. : ayuh. , advis. uh. instead of ayan¯ , advis. an.68 More- over, this system has a background in the procedures of padapat¯.ha authors like Sákalya,¯ who posit structures to account for samhit˙ a¯ texts.69 Houben also brings into play the sociolinguistic situation at the time of Pan¯ .ini and early Pan¯ .in¯ıyas and claims that the grammar will serve not only to eliminate imperfections such as possible Middle Indic forms but also to ‘fine-tune’ and check expressions. Now, Patañjali does indeed consider the coexistence of nonstandard and accepted standard usage. He also makes the important ñÍ (vis. aya): C+.nd;a;sa ; a;va;Sa;yea ma;a;sa;tya;yMa Za;b.d I+.k+:a:=+a;nta;ea Ba;va; a;ta Á º;va;¾a;Ra;nta;a;d;ç*:+.a;du:a:=+~yaÅ .ja;sea:=+sua;ga;a;ga;ma;ea Ba;va; a;ta C+.nd;a;sa ; a;va;Sa;yea Á 67; a;f;ta º;a;tmea;pa;d;a;na;Ma .fe:=e Á (A. 3.4.79); A. 7.1.5, 8: º;a;tma;nea;pa;de;Sva;na;taH (½H 3, º;t,a 4), A. 7.1.8: ba;hu ;lM C+.nd;a;sa (.+:f, 6); A. 7.1.41: l+.ea;pa;~ta º;a;tma;nea;pa;de;Sua (C+.nd;a;sa 38). By A. 6.1.97: º;ta;ea gua;¾ea (º;pa;d;a;nta;a;t,a 96, :pa:=;+.pa;m,a 94, O;;kH :pUa;vRa;pa:=+ya;eaH 84), -e is the single replacement for -ae (← ate) once -t- has been dropped. 68A. 3.4.111, 112: l+.zH Za;#f;a;ya;na;~ya (º;a;taH 110, ½e+jRua;s,a 108), ; a;dõ;Sa;(ãaÉ Á 69 I have mentioned Sákalya¯ in particular, since it is certain that Pan¯ .ini knew his padapat¯.ha. 84 G. CARDONA point that eminent standard speakers could use nonstandard forms with impunity, so long as this was not done in a ritual.70 In addition, Katy¯ ayana¯ and Patañjali lay stress on the question whether the knowledge or use of correct speech leads to merit (dharma) and felicity (abhyudaya). After an extended discussion, the conclusion is reached that both the knowledge and use of correct speech forms should be involved: the use of correct speech forms preceded by a 71 knowledge of the grammar results in felicity. As Kaiyat.a notes, when Katy¯ ayana¯ says sástrap¯ urvake¯ prayoge, he means the use of correct speech forms preceded by a knowledge of the grammar, in the sense that one who uses such speech forms knows them to be correct as described in Pan¯ .ini’s sabd´ anu¯ sásana¯ in terms of bases and other constituents involved in derivation.72 That is, although a native speaker of the accepted speech also knows vernacular speech and could use either to express what he wishes to say, it is not sufficient that he be able to use correct speech. This is mer- itorious if one also knows that the speech in question is granted its status by virtue of being described as it is in Pan¯ .ini’s grammar. That speakers of Pan¯ .ini’s time and place knew not only the accepted correct speech but also vernacular forms dubbed ‘incorrect’ (asadhu¯ sabda´ , apasabda´ ) nevertheless does not require concluding that they made use of the As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı to correct preliminary utterances. Such a claim, made without conclusive evidence from the As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı itself, is mere speculation. It simply assumes that because Pan¯ .ini doubtless lived in a multi-lingual environment, his grammar must serve to touch up utterances of one speech to yield utterances of another. Patañjali also names the preservation of the Veda as the first of the compelling reasons for studying grammar.73 To be sure,

70See PWT.: 550 ¶833. 71See PWT.: 547–548 ¶831. 72... Za;b.d;a;na;Ma :pra;kx +:tya;a; a;d; a;va;Ba;a;ga;¼a;a;na;pUa;vRa;kH :pra;ya;ea;ga I+.tya;TRaH Á (Pr. I.40). 73See PWT.: 544–545 ¶828. DERIVATION AND INTERPRETATION 85 preservation of the Veda does involve checking Vedic expressions. Consider again forms of the type duhrate, duhre. Someone who is ¯ ¯ ¯ a native speaker of the accepted correct speech, where forms with -ate are the norm, could possibly consider such forms deviant, but one who knows grammar does not commit this error. As Kaiya- t.a notes, such a person knows that Pan¯ .ini’s grammar accounts for such Vedic forms.74 This does not imply that Pan¯ .ini’s grammar must be a system that begins with preliminary utterances which can be checked for correctness. It means simply that a grammarian conversant with Pan¯ .ini’s derivational system knows that it accounts for such Vedic forms in a particular manner. In the same vein, the fact that Patañjali also invokes the modiﬁcation (uha¯ ) of mantras in particular contexts does not require that Pan¯ .ini’s system conform to what Houben claims. For example, if a mantra contains the dative form agnaye` in one context and another context calls for ¯ a corresponding form of the stem surya-¯´ , any native speaker knows that the form in question is sury¯ aya¯` .75 One who also knows Pan¯ .i- ni’s grammar is capable of modifying a mantra with a knowledge of how the grammar accounts for the forms. Both forms involve nominal stems followed by the ending n˙e. After a stem in -a, this ending is replaced by ya, which then conditions the substitution of a long vowel -a¯ in the stem,76 but an ending marked with n˙ conditions replacement by a gun.a vowel for the ﬁnal -i of a stem that belongs to the ghi class:77 surya-e¯ → surya-ya¯ → sury¯ aya¯ , agni-e

74l+.ea;ke l+.ea;pa;a;dùÅ;a;dx;M :vea;de dx;õÅ ;a Bra;a;}yea;d;vEa;ya;a;k+.=+¾aH Á ;vEa;ya;a;k+.=+¾a;~tua na Bra;ma; a;ta :vea;d;a;T a ..ca;a- ;Dya;va;~ya; a;ta Á (Pr. I.8). Kaiyat.a illustrates with aduhra, the imperfect corresponding to duhre, and cites the pertinent rules. In his Mahabh¯ as¯. yad¯ıpika¯, Bhartrhari illustrates with several examples; it is not necessary to discuss these forms˚ here. 75 Kaiyat.a (Pr. I.9) cites the two forms and Vedic texts in which they are used. Bhartrhari goes into much more detail concerning uha.¯ Again, it is not necessary to consider˚ all the details in the present discussion. ñÍ 76A 7.1.13: :ze+.yRaH (º;taH 9, º;ç*:+.~yaÅ 6.4.1); 7.3.102: .sua; a;pa ..ca (º;ta;ea d;a;Ga;eRa ya;a;Va 101). 77A 7.3.111: ;Gea; a;zR+. a;ta (gua;¾aH 108). 86 G. CARDONA

→ agne-e → agnaye.78 Let me ﬁnally revert to the central issue of Pan¯ .inian derivations beginning with meaning conditions. Concerning modern scholars who accept this basic point, although they differ in other respects, Houben remarks (1999: 31),

However, if the models are taken seriously, it can hardly be imagined that anyone was ever able to make effective use of Pan¯ .ini’s grammar: How can a potential speaker start with mere meanings or with semantic elements, or with an abstract semantic level, and next ask his grammar to provide him with the proper utterance to express it?

This remark betrays, I think, a misunderstanding of what Pan¯ .ini’s work is meant to be. As Pan¯ .in¯ıyas from earliest times recognize, this work is an anus´asanam,¯ a means of explaining, through derivation, correct speech units as they occur in utterances of model speakers (sis´ ..ta). Pan¯ .in¯ıyas do not conceive of the As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı as something that should provide a speaker ‘with the proper utterance to express’ what he wishes to convey. It is viewed as a means of accounting for what speakers utter when they communicate with each other. To be sure, Bhartrhari remarks that a speaker selects (upadatte¯ ) an appropriate (yogya˚ m˙ ) speech unit (sabdam´ ) with respect to meanings to be conveyed (abhidheyes. u) that have been brought to mind (-prapitasannidh¯ anes¯ . u ‘made to be present’) by his wish to express (vivaks. a-¯ ), just as one applies the appropriate organ of perception with respect to objects when one wishes to perceive something; and he speaks of this vivaks.a¯ as dependent on appropriate speech units (yogyasabdanibandhanay´ a¯),79 that is,

78A 6.1.78: O;;.ca;ea Y;ya;va;a;ya;a;vaH (º; a;.ca 77). 79ya;ea;gyMa ; a;h Za;b.dM :pra;ya;ea;+:a ; a;va;va:»a;a;pra;a; a;pa;ta;sa; a;a;Da;a;nea;Sva;a;Ba;Dea;yea;Sua :pra;tya;TRa;mua;pa;a;d:ea Á ta;dùÅ;a;Ta;ea- ;pa; a;l+.psa;ma;a;naH :pra; a;ta; a;va;Sa;yMa ya;ea;gya;mea;vea;///a;ndÒ +ya;mua;pa;l+.b.Da;Ea :pra; a;¾a;Da:ea Á (VPVr. 1.13 [44.4–5]); ˚ DERIVATION AND INTERPRETATION 87 on speech units which have the capacity to express the meanings one wishes to convey. But the same author has no illusions of Pan¯ .ini’s or anyone else’s grammar being a true model of what is in a speaker’s mind or instructing speakers on how they may produce utterances. On the contrary, he explicitly denies this. For example, he says that affix meanings (pratyayarth¯ ah¯ . ) which are stated (nirdis..tah¯ . ) as a condition (nibandhanam) for the introduction of affixes in a given grammatical tradition (anvakhy¯ anasmr¯ tau ˚ ‘an explanatory smrti’) are said (udahr¯ tah¯ . ) to be, in another grammatical tradition (smr˚ tyantare), meanings˚ attributed to bases (pra- ˚ krtyarthah¯ . ).80 In his auto-commentary on the karik¯ a¯ in question, Bhartr˚ hari remarks that the division of meanings that is adopted by ˚ different grammarians (paurus. eyah. pravibhagah¯ . ‘division made by men’) depends solely on what these grammarians wish to accept: in the grammars of some grammarians, all affixes are explained as redundant, serving to cosignify meanings attributed to their bases.81 Neither Bhartrhari nor his predecessor or successor ˚ Pan¯ .in¯ıyas conceive of the grammar as somehow directly playing a role in a speaker’s producing an utterance, serving ‘to provide’ a ‘potential speaker’ ‘with the proper utterance’ to express meanings. Pan¯ .in¯ıyas consider Pan¯ .ini’s sabd´ anu¯ sásana¯ a description, a cf. Za;b.d O;;va;ea;pa;de;;a Á ta;tsa;a;ma;TyRa;mea;va;a;nua;ga;.cC+.nta;ea va;+:a:=+ea ya;ea;gya;Za;b.d; a;na;ba;nDa;na;yEa;va ; a;va;va:»a;ya;a :pra;va;tRa;ntea Á (VPVr. 1.129 [209.1–2]). 80º;nva;a;K.ya;a;na;sm˚ a;ta;Eax yea ..ca :pra;tya;ya;a;Ta;Ra ; a;na;ba;nDa;na;m,a Á ; a;na; a;dR;;a;~tea :pra;kx +:tya;Ta;RaH .sma;tya;nta:=x o+.d;a;&+.ta;aH Á Á (VP. 2.231). 81.~vea;.cC+.a; a;na;ba;nDa;na O;;va;a;yMa :pa;Ea:+:Sea;yaH :pra; a;va;Ba;a;ga;ea Y;Ta;Ra;na;Ma ba;hu ;Da;a;(ra;a;ya;tea Á ta;Ta;a ; a;h :ke+:Sa;a- ; a:ã*.a;tsma;tRXa;¾a;MaúÁ .sma; a;ta;Za;a;~:ea;Suax .sa;vRa O;;va :pra;tya;ya;aH .~va;a; a;TRa;k+:aH :pra;kx +:tya;Ta;Ra;nua;va;a; a;d;na I+.tya;nva;a- ;K.ya;a;ya;ntea Á (VPVr. 2.231 [248]). Different views are in fact considered in the Ma- ˚ habh¯ as¯. ya and subsequent works concerning meanings to be attributed to bases such as asva´ (‘horse’). Some scholars attribute five meanings to the base: the generic property (jati¯ ) of being a horse, individual (vyakti) horses, gender (li- nga˙ ), number (sankhy˙ a¯), and the possible role a referent plays in accomplishing an action (karaka¯ ); others say the first three are base meanings, the last two affix meanings. It is not necessary to discuss the issues here. See Deshpande 1992. 88 G. CARDONA means of accounting for how a community of speakers expresses itself, intended for an audience of native speakers of the language described. In sum, Houben has not presented cogent evidence supporting his claims. What he adduces in support of these claims is equally well explained by understanding Pan¯ .ini’s system in the way that Pan¯ .in¯ıyas have understood it from the times of earliest commentators onwards. His appeal to the sociolinguistic situation of Pan¯ .ini’s time does not suffice to counter the incontrovertible evidence that Pan¯ .ini’s rules treat meanings as conditions for the introduction of affixes. Nor does it demonstrate that speakers used the As..tadhy¯ a-¯ y¯ı to modify preliminary utterances which could include Middle Indic forms. It is proper to reject Houben’s attempt to demonstrate that Pa-¯ n.ini’s system does not operate in the manner accepted by Pan¯ .in¯ıyas and most modern scholars. It is appropriate to accept instead that Pan¯ .ini’s is a derivational system which starts with meanings to be expressed by utterances that are accounted for by combining bases and affixes under stated conditions.82

5 Interpreting Pan¯ . inian sutras¯ 5.1 Introduction

The As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı is composed in Sanskrit to account for utterances in this language by native speakers of Pan¯ .ini’s time as well as 82Scharf 2011 also argues against Houben’s thesis. I have limited myself to considering Houben’s claims because he presents some arguments. S. D. Joshi (2009: 2) merely asserts, ‘Contrary to some Western misconceptions the starting point of Pan¯ .ini’s analysis is not meaning or the intention of the speaker, but word form elements as shown in the initial stages of the prakriya.¯ Here morphemic elements obtained from analysis are put side by side in an order of purva¯ and para from left to right.’ DERIVATION AND INTERPRETATION 89 for archaic usage in Vedic texts. Accordingly, Pan¯ .ini can expect that students of his grammar, who are themselves native speakers, knew conventions of usage common to him and all other native speakers of the language he describes. For example, when he says .~va:=+a; a;d; a;na;pa;a;ta;ma;v.ya;ya;m,a (A. 1.1.37),83 he can assume of his audience that they will understand a verb form asti or bhavati.84 In addition, he can assume his audience to understand an utterance like A. 1.1.37 in the same manner one understands

(13) ayam˙ gauh. (asti) ‘This (is) a bull’ in response to the question

(14) ko ’yam ‘What is this?’

Someone who sees a bull for the ﬁrst time and asks (14) receives (13) as an answer informing him that the animal present is one called by the word go (nom. sg. gauh. ). Similarly, A. 1.1.37 states that items of the set beginning with svar (‘heaven’) and those called nipata¯ are named avyaya. The native command of a user of the As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı does not, however, sufﬁce to interpret certain forms in certain contexts. Pan¯ .ini supplies metarules to allow unambiguous interpretations in such instances.

5.2 Contexts requiring metarules In his ﬁrst three varttikas¯ on :Sa;+a .~Ta;a;nea;ya;ea;ga;a (A. 1.1.49), Katy¯ ayana¯ considers the purpose of this sutra¯ and under what conditions the rule comes into play.85 First, he remarks that the sutra¯ is stated

83See PWT.: 5 ¶11, 27 ¶54. 84Katy¯ ayana¯ formulates this convention in varttika¯ 11 on º;na;a;Ba; a;h;tea (A. 2.3.1). See PWT.: 6–7 ¶13. 85On the issues considered in this section see Cardona 1974a for a fuller discussion. 90 G. CARDONA in order to establish a restriction (niyamartham¯ ).86 That is, this metarule establishes that of all the possible relations which can condition the use of a sixth-triplet ending, only the relation ‘in place of’ is to be understood in grammatical statements. The second varttika¯ notes that this allows for an overly broad application (atiprasangah˙ . ) in that the restriction thus established would apply also where a sixth-triplet ending should be understood to designate other relations, such as part-whole.87 Lastly, Katy¯ ayana¯ notes that the restriction does not obtain (apraptih¯ . ) for relations such as part- whole, because the relation (yogasya) in question is not doubted (asandigdhatvat¯ ).88 As Patañjali explains, a restriction is formulated for instances where there is doubt, and in the case of terms with sixth-triplet endings signifying relations such as part-whole, there is no doubt. Further, one does not have to say this explicitly, since it is known from common usage. For example, a person A going to another village may inquire of a person B, saying, ‘I’m going to another village. Please tell me the way.’ B then says to A, ‘At that spot, you should take the right-hand path, at that spot the left one.’ The direct diagonal path is not explained, because there is no doubt about it. Similarly, in the grammar, the restriction applies in case of doubt, and there is no doubt where a relation such as part-whole is understood.89

86:Sa;.a;aH .~Ta;a;nea;ya;ea;ga;va;.ca;nMa ; a;na;ya;ma;a;TRa;m,a Á (1.1.49 vt. 1). ñÍ 87º;va;ya;va;Sa;.a;a; a;d;Sva; a;ta;pra;sa;ç*:HÅ Za;a;sa;ea ga;ea;h I+. a;ta Á (1.1.49 vt. 2). I deal here only with the ﬁrst rule alluded to, A. 6.4.34 (see §5.2.1). 88º;va;ya;va;Sa;.a;a;d;a;na;Ma ..ca;a;pra;a; a;a;ya;eRa;ga;~ya;a;sa;///a;nd;gDa;tva;a;t,aÁ (1.1.49 vt. 3). 89º;va;ya;va;Sa;.a;a;d;a;na;Ma ..ca ; a;na;ya;ma;~ya;a;pra;a; a;aH Á ; a;kM k+:a:=+¾a;m,a Á ya;ea;ga;~ya;a;sa;///a;nd;gDa;tva;a;t,aÁ .sa;nde;he ; a;na;ya;ma;ea na ..ca;a;va;ya;va;Sa;.a;a; a;d;Sua .sa;nde;hH Á ; a;kM va;+:v.ya;mea;ta;t,a Á na ; a;h Á k+:Ta;ma;nua;.cya;ma;a;nMa gMa;~ya;tea Á l+.Ea; a;k+:k+:ea Y;yMa dx;;a;ntaH Á ta;dùÅ;a;Ta;a Á l+.ea;ke k+: a:ã*.a;tk+: a;(úÁ ãa;tpÉ a;.cC+. a;tax g{a;a;ma;a;nta:=M ga;a;ma;Sya;a;a;ma :pa;nTa;a- ;nMa mea Ba;va;a;nua;pa; a;d;Za;//a;tva; a;taÁ .sa ta;sma;a º;a;.ca;e º;mua;/////a;Sma;a;va;k+:a;Zeah;~ta;d; a:»a;¾a;ea g{a;h;a;ta;v.ya;ea Y;mua;/////a;Sma;a;va;k+:a;Zea h;~ta;va;a;ma I+. a;ta Á ya;~ta:a ; a;ta;yRa;#pa;Ta;ea Ba;va; a;ta na ta;/////////a;sma;nsa;nde;h I+. a;ta kx - +:tva;a na;a;sa;a;vua;pa; a;d;Zya;tea Á O;;va;a;ma;h;a; a;pa .sa;nde;he ; a;na;ya;ma;ea na ..ca;a;va;ya;va;Sa;F:a;a; a;d;Sua .sa;nde;hH Á (Bh. I.118.19–25). DERIVATION AND INTERPRETATION 91

In brief, A. 1.1.49 is invoked only where the context of a sutra¯ does not sufﬁce to show that a particular relation is concerned.

5.2.1 :Sa;+a .~Ta;a;nea;ya;ea;ga;a (A. 1.1.49)

Recall (see §2.2.2) that Patañjali says (5) rajñah¯ . purus. asya is in effect an incomplete string which creates an expectancy for something else. If, for example, one supplies bhary¯ a¯ (‘wife’), the result is

(15) rajñah¯ . purus. asya bhary¯ a¯ saying that a woman is the wife of the servant of the king. Here, the genitive purus. asya is left without any expectancy for something related to the man. Each of the genitives rajñah¯ . and purus. asya is now bound to another term. A parallel to (5) and (15) in the As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı is A. 6.4.34: Za;a- ñÍ ëÐÅ ;sa I+.d:*:+.l+.eaHè (o+.pa;Da;a;ya;aH ; a;ñÍ*;+. a;ta 24).90 The genitive sásah¯ . (‘of sás¯ ’) is linked to upadhay¯ ah¯ . , and the relation between the two entities referred to is known: sás¯ is a base and upadha¯ signifies a penultimate sound. In addition, upadhay¯ ah¯ . can be linked to it, which denotes a short vowel i, but the meanings of these terms cannot make known the particular relation that holds between a penultimate sound and i, so that the relation signified by the sixth-triplet ending (A. 2.3.50, see §2.2.2) in upadhay¯ ah¯ . remains unspecified. The metarule A. 1.1.49 therefore comes into play: a genitive not susceptible of a single interpretation in a given sutra¯ is understood to denote one relation: ‘in place of’ (sthane¯ ). Accordingly, stha-¯ ne is understood and linked with upadhay¯ ah¯ . in A. 6.4.34, which thus provides that i (it) occurs in place of the penultimate sound (upadhay¯ ah¯ . ) of sás¯ (‘command, instruct’) before the suffix an˙ or the initial consonant of a suffix marked with k or n˙; e.g., asis´ . at 90See Cardona 1974a: 308–10. 92 G. CARDONA

(3sg. aor.), sis´ ..ta- (past participle).91 A. 1.1.49 does not serve to interpret the sásah¯ . , however, because this is already linked to upadhay¯ ah¯ . , so that the relation involved — that of a part and a whole (avayavavayavibh¯ avasambandhah¯ . ) — is contextually known. In a similar vein, consider A. 7.1.85–88:92 :pa; a;Ta;ma;Tya;Bua:»a;a;ma;a;t,ax ñÍ (.sa;Ea 82, º;ç*:+.~yaÅ 6.4.1), I+.ta;ea Y;tsa;vRa;na;a;ma;~Ta;a;nea Á Ta;ea Y;nTaH Á Ba;~ya .fe;l+.eRa;paH, which state operations for the stems pathin- (‘path, way’), mathin- (‘churning utensil’), and rbhuks. in- (Rbhuks.in). Before endings of ˚ ˚ the set called sarvanamasth¯ ana¯ (su, au, jas, am, au.t), -a- substitutes for -i- of these stems, and -this replaced by -nth-; before the first-triplet ending su in particular, the final sound -n of these stems is replaced by a¯; before vowel-initial endings, however, that part of the stem that begins with its last vowel — that is, -in- — is replaced by zero; e.g., panthah¯ . (nom. sg. ← pathin-su), panthanau¯ (nom-acc. du. ← pathin-au/au.t), patha¯ (instr. sg. ← pathin-.ta¯). The genitive plural pathimathyrbhuks. am¯ in A. 7.1.85 cannot be unambiguously interpreted, so that˚ A. 1.1.49 serves to interpret this as signifying the relation ‘in place of’. The same genitive is understood to recur in A. 7.1.86–87, which also contains the genitive forms itah. and thah. . Here, pathimathyrbhuks. am¯ is immediately ˚ linked to itah. and thah. , so that contextually one understands the first genitive to refer to the stems of which the vowel i and the consonant th are parts. Accordingly, here A. 1.1.49 serves to interpret itah. and thah. , not pathimathyrbhuks. am¯ . Similarly, in A. 7.1.88 this genitive as well as bhasya˚are understood to be linked directly with .teh. : they refer to the stems in question when they occur before vowel-initial endings, so that they bear the label bha. On the other hand, .teh. is not bound. Hence, A. 1.1.49 comes into play: that part of the stem which is called .ti is deleted. 91See PWT.: 298 ¶447. 92See PWT.: 312 ¶472. DERIVATION AND INTERPRETATION 93

The part-whole relation holds also between an item and a segment that is added to it as an augment. For example, A. 6.4.71– ñÍ ñÍ ñÍ ñÍ 72: lu+.ìÉ*:+.ìÉ*:x +Ø*+:+.qu+.d;a:aHöÅ (º;ç*:+.~yaÅ 1), º;a;q+ja;a;d;a;na;a;m,a introduce a.t and a¯.t to stems which occur before verb endings that derive from the l- 93 affixes lun˙, lan˙, and lrn˙; a¯.t for vowel-initial stems, a.t for others. ˚ Now, a.t and a¯.t bear the marker .t, and the sutra¯ º;a;dùÅ;a;nta;Ea f; a;k+:ta;Ea (A. 1.1.46) provides that entities marked with .t and k respectively are the initial (adi¯ ) and final (anta) parts of the items to which they are introduced. Accordingly, the genitive ending of ang˙ an¯ am¯ understood in A. 6.4.71–72 is interpreted contextually as signifying the part-whole relation, so that A. 1.1.49 does not come into play.94 There are also sutras¯ with genitive forms naming various grammarians whose observations Pan¯ .ini mentions. For example, A. 8.3.18, 19, 22: v.ya;ea;lR+.Gua;pra;ya;a;ta:=H Za;a;k+:f;a;ya;na;~ya Á l+.ea;paH Za;a;k+:ya;~ya Á h; a;l .sa;veRa;Sa;a;m,a (º; a;Za 17) concern different ways in which pada-final -v and -y preceded by an a-vowel as well as bho, bhago, and agho are treated before voiced segments: according to Sákat¯ .ayana,¯ they are produced with very slight effort, as light glides; according to Sákalya,¯ they are deleted; but all agree that they are deleted before a consonant.95 Clearly, sákat¯ .ayanasya¯ , sákalyasya¯ , and sarves. am¯ , used with reference to persons, do not refer to entities subject to replacement. They refer to scholars who have described different substitutions for -v and -y, so that the relation in question is that of one by whom something has been stated and the one who has

93E.g. akars¯ .¯ıt (3sg. aor. ← kr-lun˙), akarot (3sg. impf. ← kr-lan˙), akaris. yat ˚ ˚ (3sg. cond. ← kr-lrn˙); aiks. is..ta (3sg. aor. ← ¯ıks. -lun˙), aiks. ata (3sg. impf. ← ˚ ˚ ¯ıks. -lan˙), aiks. is. yata (3sg. cond. ← ¯ıks. -lrn˙) from the bases kr (‘do, make’) and ¯ıks. (‘look’). ˚ ˚ 94The singular angasya˙ of the major heading is contextually modiﬁed to the plural ang˙ an¯ am¯ as required by the plural lunla˙ nlr˙ nks˙ . u, and this is coreferential with ajad¯ ¯ınam¯ . ˚ 95See PWT.: 356–358 ¶557–558. 94 G. CARDONA stated this (proktapravacakabh¯ avasambandha¯ ).96 Here again, A. 1.1.49 does not enter into play. Consider now the sutra¯ .sa:+.pa;a;¾a;a;mea;k+:Zea;Sa O;;k+: a;va;Ba;+:Ea (A. 1.2.64). This rule provides for one (eka-) of a group of homophonous terms (sarup¯ an¯ . am¯ ) to remain (-ses´ . ah. ‘which is left over’) when a single ending is used.97 Here again, there is a bound genitive: sarup¯ a-¯ n. am¯ is linked with eka-, which is coreferential with -ses´ . a in the compound ekases´ . ah. . The relation in question can be considered that of part and whole: one of a group remains. In addition, however, the construction can be of the type vadata¯m˙ varah. ‘best of speakers’, where a sixth-triplet ending follows a nominal denoting a group from which (yatah. ) a member (or members) is singled out (nirdharan¯ . am).98 Accordingly, A. 1.1.49 is not required for interpreting A. 1.2.64, so that it is not brought into play here. The rule does not provide for substitution by a single unit.99

5.2.2 ta;/////////a;sma; a;a; a;ta ; a;na; a;dR;e :pUa;vRa;~ya Á ta;sma;a; a;d;tyua:a:=+~ya (A. 1.1.66–67) 5.2.2.1 Purpose of the rules. These sutras¯ apply to interpret locative and ablative forms in contexts where a native speaker could not otherwise interpret such terms unambiguously.100 The

96Accordingly, some commentators supply matena (‘according to the opinion of . . . ’), e.g., Ka¯s.´ 8.3.18: va;k+:a:=+ya;k+:a:=+ya;ea;Ba;eRa;Ba;ga;eaº;Ga;eaº;va;¾Ra;pUa;vRa;ya;eaH :pa;d;a;nta;ya;ea;lR+.Gua;pra;ya- ;a;ta:= º;a;de;Za;ea Ba;va;tya; a;Za :pa:=+taH Za;a;k+:f;a;ya;na;~ya;a;.ca;ayRa;~ya ma;tea;na Á 97See PWT.: 11–12 ¶13, 260–261 ¶374. 98A. 2.3.41: ya;ta;(ãaÉ ; a;na;Da;Ra:=+¾a;m,a (.sa;a;ma;a 36, :Sa;+a ..ca 38). Cf., e.g., N. 1.2.64 (I.372- 374): .sa:+.pa;a;¾a;Ma Za;b.d;a;na;a;a;ma; a;ta Á ; a;na;Da;Ra:=+¾ea :Sa;+a Á .tea;na .~va:+.pa;a;¾a;Ma ma;Dyea .sa;ma;a;na:ja;a;ta;a;ya;ea yaH .sa:+.paH .sa O;;k O;;va ; a;Za;Sya;tea na ; a;va:+.paH Á .sa;ma;a;na:ja;a;ta;a;ya;~yEa;va ; a;h ; a;na;Da;Ra:=+¾Ma Ba;va; a;ta Á na ; a;va- :ja;a;ta;a;ya;~ya Á º;Ta;va;a .sa;mua;d;a;ya;l+»a;¾Ea;Sa;a :Sa;+a Á .sa:+.pa;sa;mua;d;a;ya;a;ntaHpa;a;ta;a ..ca .sa:+.pa O;;va Ba;va; a;ta Á na ; a;va:+.paH Á .tea;na .sa:+.pa O;;va ; a;Za;Sya;tea Á 99Pontillo (2013: 118–24) attempts to show that the rule does provide for substitution, but does not consider the syntax of the genitive sarup¯ an¯ . am¯ . 100See Cardona 1974a: 312–26, PWT.: 53 ¶90. DERIVATION AND INTERPRETATION 95 rules apply, as does A. 1.1.49,101 to restrict (niyamartham¯ ) what one is to understand.102 For example,

(16) grame¯ devadattah. ‘Devadatta is in the vicinity of the village’ has the locative grame¯ referring to a place near where Devadatta is situated. One does not know from this sentence whether this man is at a place before or after the village. Similarly, if one says

(17) gram¯ ad¯ devadattah. the ablative gram¯ at¯ could ambiguously be connected with different direction words:103 purvah¯ . (‘before, east of’), parah. (‘beyond’). Supplying terms such as purvah¯ . in such instances eliminates the ambiguity. Similarly, in rules such as A. 6.1.77 and 8.1.28 (see below), where locative and ablative forms occur which a native speaker cannot unambiguously interpret in context, A. 1.1.66–67 enter into play.104 Patañjali remarks that a substrate, to which the karaka¯ class name adhikaran. a is assigned, is of three kinds:105 an enveloping (vyapaka¯ ) locus, such as sesame seeds in which (tiles. u [loc. pl.]) oil (tailam) occurs; a locus of contiguity (aupasles´ . ika); and a locus of domain (vais. ayika), which involves neither enveloping nor 101See §5.2 with notes 85–89. 102ta;/////////a;smMa;~ta;sma;a; a;d; a;ta:pUa;va;eRa:a:=+ya;ea;ya;eRa;ga;ya;ea:=+ a;va;Zea;Sa;a; a;a;ya;ma;a;T a va;.ca;nMa d;Dyua;d;kM :pa;.ca;tya;ea;d;na;m,a Á (1.1.66–67 vt. 2). 103It is assumed that (17) does not refer to the village as a karaka¯ and is instead to be construed with a direction word to be supplied; A. 2.3.29: º;nya;a:=+a; a;d- ú ú ;ta:=+teRa; a;d;#Za;b.d;a:ã*.aUÁ :a:=+pa;d;a:ja;a; a;h;yua;e (:pa:ã*.a;ma;aÁ 28) accounts for ﬁfth-triplet endings after nominals linked with direction words; see PWT.: 165 ¶250. 104ta;/////////a;smMa;~ta;sma;a; a;d; a;ta:pUa;va;eRa:a:=+ya;ea;ya;eRa;ga;ya;ea:=+ a;va;Zea;Sa;a; a;a;ya;ma;a;Ta;eRa Y;ya;ma;a:=+}BaH Á g{a;a;mea :de;va;d:aH Á :pUa;vRaH :pa:= I+. a;ta .sa;nde;hH Á g{a;a;ma;a;e+va;d:aH Á :pUa;vRaH :pa:= I+. a;ta .sa;nde;hH Á O;;va;a;ma;h;a;pa;a;k+:ea ya;¾a; a;.ca Á d- ;Dyua;d;kM :pa;.ca;tya;ea;d;na;m,a Á o+.Ba;a; a;va;k+:a;vua;Ba;a;va;.ca;Ea Á º; a;.ca :pUa;vRa;~ya;a; a;.ca :pa:=+~yea; a;ta .sa;nde;hH Á ; a;ta;ñÍ*:+. a;ta;zñÍ I+.tya; a;ta;zH :pa:=+~yea; a;ta .sa;nde;hH Á I+.Sya;tea ..ca;a:a;a; a;.ca :pUa;vRa;~ya .~ya;a;d; a;ta;zH :pa:=+~yea; a;ta Á ta;a;a;nta:=e+¾a ya;Ma na ;a;sa;Dya;ta;a; a;ta ; a;na;ya;ma;a;T a va;.ca;na;m,a Á (Bh. I.172.22–26). Å 105º; a;Da;k+.=+¾Ma na;a;ma ; a:a;pra;k+:a:=M v.ya;a;pa;k+:ma;Ea;pa:(ì;e+ a;Sa;kMÉ ;vEa;Sa; a;ya;k+:a;ma; a;ta Á (Bh. III.51.8–9). 96 G. CARDONA contiguity, for example, the ultimate happiness referred to as sva- rga (loc. sg. svarge) as the domain of one’s wish (iccha¯). He also notes that a speech unit cannot have any relation with another speech unit which is a locus except contiguity.106 For example, the -i of dadhi- (‘yogurt’) and -u of madhu (‘honey’) are replaced respectively by -y and -v before a vowel such as the a- of atra (‘here’): dadhy atra, madhv atra. The rule which states this substitution, A. 6.1.77 (I+.k+:ea ya;¾a; a;.ca), consists of three singular terms: a genitive ikah. , a nominative yan. , and a locative aci. The ﬁrst two terms are linked through the intervention of A. 1.1.49 (§5.2–5.2.1): semivowels y v r l, denoted by yan. , occur in place of vowels i u r l, denoted by ik. The locative aci, however, cannot be interpreted˚ unambiguously˚ in the sutra¯ as it stands. To be sure, since aci is a locative and ac denotes vowels, so that the rule concerns the replacement of vowels by semivowels, one understands a relation of contiguity. Nevertheless, the vowels to be replaced could be understood to occur before or after other vowels. A. 1.1.66 comes into play to specify that aci refers to vowels that serve as contexts for an operation on what precedes (purvasya¯ ). Analogously, A. 1.1.67 serves to interpret ablative forms such ñÍ as atinah˙ . in A. 8.1.28: ; a;ta;ñÍ*:+. a;ta;zH (º;nua;d;a:Ma .sa;vRa;ma;pa;a;d;a;d;Ea 18). The sutra¯ provides that a pada which terminates with a verb ending has all low-pitched vowels if it follows a pada with an ending other than a verb ending (atinah˙ . ).107

5.2.2.2 Scope of 1.1.66. That A. 1.1.66–67 establish restrictions such that locative and ablative forms are subject to speciﬁed interpretations does not mean that they apply everywhere that a sutra¯ contains such a form. Å 106Za;b.d;~ya ..ca Za;b.de;na k+:ea Y;nya;a;a;Ba;sa;}ba;nDa;ea Ba; a;va;tua;ma;hR;tya;nya;d;ta o+.pa:(ì;e+Sa;a;t,aÉ Á (Bh. III.51.9–10). This is said by way of rejecting the need for A. 6.1.72 (.sMa; a;h;ta;a;ya;a;m,a), an issue that does not concern the present discussion. 107See PWT.: 393 ¶615. DERIVATION AND INTERPRETATION 97

ñÍ Consider, for example, A. 7.2.1: ;a;sa; a;.ca va; a:;dÄâx H :pa:=+smEa;pa;de;Sua (º;ç*:-Å +.~ya 6.4.1), where the genitive angasya˙ is understood from a major heading and two locatives occur: sici, parasmaipades. u. Since vrddhi is used, replacement applies with respect to sounds denoted ˚ by the abbreviation ik: the genitive ikah. is understood to occur here.108 In addition, ikah. is also understood to qualify angasya˙ , so that the operation in question applies to an anga˙ that ends in a vowel denoted by ik:109 a vrddhi vowel (a¯, ai, au) substitutes for the ﬁnal sound of a stem which˚ ends with a short or long vowel i, u, r.110 The locative sici, interpreted by A. 1.1.67, designates the ˚ right context for this operation on a preceding stem. Now, Pan¯ .i- n¯ıyas generally consider not only sici but also parasmaipades. u to be what is called a parasaptam¯ı. Thus, the Ka¯sik´ a¯’s paraphrase of ñÍ A. 7.2.1 is :pa:=+smEa;pa;d;pa:=e ;a;sa; a;.ca :pa:=+ta I+.ga;nta;a;ç*:+.~yaÅ va; a:;dÄâx ;BRa;va; a;ta. Further, Jinendrabuddhi and Haradatta explicitly remark that sici and parasmaipades. u are both parasaptam¯ı, that sic is a following element with respect to a stem while a parasmaipada ending is a following element with respect to sic.111 The locative sici can indeed rightly be considered a parasaptam¯ı, as interpreted by A. 1.1.67, in the sense of a locative designating a following item relative to an immediately preceding item to which a stated operation applies. On the other hand, parasmaipades. u cannot be interpreted appropriately by the same rule. For then A. 7.2.1 would be considered to provide for vrddhi replacement for a stem that immediately precedes parasmaipada˚ endings.112 In the present instance, the stem

108I+.k+:ea gua;¾a;va:;dÄâx ;a (A. 1.1.3); see PWT.: 56 ¶97. 109yea;na ; a;va; a;Da;~ta;d;nta;~ya (A. 1.1.72); see PWT.: 14 ¶30. 110º;l+.ea Y;ntya;~ya (A. 1.1.52); see PWT.: 55 ¶95. 111;a;sa;.ca;a; a;ta :pa:=+smEa;pa;de;/a;Sva; a;ta..ca :dõe º;pyea;tea :pa:=+sa;a;}ya;Ea Á ta:a ;a;sa;.ca;ea Y;ç*:+.a;pea:»MañÅÍ :pa:=+tvMa :pa:=+smEa- ;pa;d;a;na;Ma tua ;a;sa:ja;pea:»a;m,a Á (N. V.650). º:a ;a;sa;.ca;a; a;ta :pa:=+smEa;pa;de;/a;Sva; a;ta..ca :dõe º; a;pa :pa:=+sa;a;}ya;Ea Á ñÍ ta:a ;a;sa;.ca;ea Y;ç*:+.a;pea:»MaÅ :pa:=+tvMa :pa:=+smEa;pa;d;a;na;Ma ;a;sa:ja;pea:»a;m,a Á (PM. V.650). 112Where an operation may apply to an element separated (vyavahita) from the conditioning context, Pan¯ .ini specifies this; thus A. 8.4.1: .=+Sa;a;Bya;Ma na;ea .¾aH .sa;ma;a;na;pa;de 98 G. CARDONA that immediately precedes parasmaipada endings ends in sic; e.g., aji-s-am (→ ajais. am ‘I was, have been victorious’), asru-s-am´ (→ asraus´ . am ‘I [have] heard’), akr-s-am (→ akars¯ . am ‘I [have] made’). The operation would now˚ be comparable to the substitution of the vrddhi vowel a¯ for the -r- of the stem mrj- (mrj-mi → marjmi¯ ‘I wipe’)˚ as provided for by˚ A. 7.2.114: ma:jea;vRx ˚ a; a:;dÄâx H˚In both instances, the replacement affects a penultimate vowel of a stem before an ending. However, if this were the case, one would expect A. 7.2.1 to have a genitive sicah. instead of the locative sici, just as A. 7.2.114 has a genitive mrjeh. . Moreover, it is clear from ˚ what Pan¯ .ini says elsewhere that the element which conditions replacement is sic, not the ending that follows this affix. Thus, in order to preclude gun.a replacement for the penultimate vowel of a base such as bhid ‘split’ before sic in deriving abhitsi (1sg. aor. mid.), he provides that this affix is marked with k if it is not augmented with initial i.t, precedes atmanepada¯ affixes, and follows a base that ends in a consonant preceded by a vowel i, u, r or l.113 ˚ ˚ In accordance with Pan¯ .ini’s procedure, then, parasmaipades. u in A. 7.2.1 is more appropriately to be understood as a locative absolute (A. 2.3.37, note 48): vrddhi replacement applies to a base before sic when parasmaipada˚ affixes occur. Since these affixes are substitutes for l-affixes, which are introduced after bases to begin with, they do indeed occur after sic, which substitutes for cli after verbal bases when these occur with suffixes that replace lun˙.114 Pan¯ .ini describes not only the accepted usage of his time and area but also properties of speech in Vedic usage, referred to in æ ñÍ lets n. replace n following r or s. in the same pada, and A. 8.4.2: º:öÐÅ*:uÅ +.pva;a;îå*:uÅ +.}v.ya;va;a- ;yea Y; a;pa states that this replacement applies even if n is separated from r or s. by particular elements; see PWT.: 366–367 ¶570. 113 ñÍ ; a;l+. a;óéÅ*;+..ca;a;va;a;tma;nea;pa;de;SuaÉ (A. 1.2.11); see PWT.: 335 ¶515. Gun.a would apply by A. 7.3.86: :pua;ga;nta;l+.gUa;pa;Da;~ya ..ca; see PWT.: 79 ¶127. 114See also Cardona 1970: 65–66 note 5. DERIVATION AND INTERPRETATION 99 general by the locative chandasi. As the Ka¯sik´ a¯ notes,115 this refers to a domain (vis. aya) of usage: the locative refers to a locus (adhikaran. a) of a particular kind, such that A. 1.1.66 does not enter into play. The following three sutras¯ contain the locatives yus. madi, asmadi, and ses´ . e: yua;Sma;dùuÅ;a;pa;pa;de .sa;ma;na;a; a;Da;k+.=+¾ea .~Ta;a; a;na;nya; a;pa ma;Dya;maH Á º;sma;dùuÅ;a:a;maH Á Zea;Sea :pra;Ta;maH (A. 1.4.105, 107, 108). These rules provide for the distribution of sets of verb endings which replace l-affixes and to which are assigned the class names madhyama, uttama, and prathama.116 Endings of the madhyama and uttama sets, respectively, are selected if the l-affix which has been replaced is coreferential respectively with a potentially used second and first person pronoun yus. mad and asmad. Endings of the prathama group are selected if neither of these conditions is met (ses´ . e ‘remainder’). The term upapade (‘co-occuring term’), stated in A. 1.4.105 and understood in the next two rules mentioned, states a co-occurrence condition. Accordingly, the locatives upapade, saman¯ adhikaran¯ . e, and sthanini¯ are not to be interpreted by A. 1.1.66. On the contrary, these are locative absolutes, accounted for by A. 2.3.37.117 The same use of locative forms applies for rules in which meaning conditions are stated for operations; see §2.3.

5.2.2.3 Scope of 1.1.67. The contexts in which ablative forms are to be interpreted by A. 1.1.67 are comparably circumscribed. Consider, for example, A. 3.1.97: º;.ca;ea ya;t,a (;Da;a;ta;eaH 91, :pra;tya;yaH 1, :pa:=+(ãaÉ 2) and A. 4.1.4: º:ja;a;dùÅ;a;ta;;a;p,a (za;a;ppra;a; a;ta;pa; a;d;k+:a;t,a 1, ;///a;~:a;ya;a;m,a 3, :pra;tya;yaH 3.1.1, :pa:=+(ãaÉ 3.1.2). Both come under the major headings A. 3.1.1–2, whereby an item introduced by a subsequent rule is called pratyaya, and is said to occur following (parah. ) items to 115See §4 with note 66. 116See PWT.: 150–151 ¶234. 117See §2.3 with note 48. 100 G. CARDONA be specified. A. 3.1.97 is stated under the subheading A. 3.1.91, so that the affix in question is introduced after an item which bears the class label dhatu¯ : the sutra¯ introduces yat following a verbal base (dhatoh¯ . ) that ends in a vowel (acah. ).118 A. 4.1.4 comes under the subheading A. 4.1.1: it provides for the suffix .ta¯p in derivates of the set beginning with aja¯ (‘goat’) as well as after nominal bases that end with short a (at).119 The ablative forms in these sutras¯ are thus unambiguously construed with the direction word parah. and there is no question of A. 1.1.67 playing a role in their interpretation. Similarly, there are many sutras¯ which state the distribution of atmanepada¯ and parasmaipada suffixes and in which Pan¯ .ini refers to verbal bases preceded by preverbs.120 For example, :pa;a:=+v.ya;vea;ByaH ; a;kÒ+:yaH (A. 1.3.18) provides for such affixes after kr¯ı preceded by pari, vi or ava, as in pari kr¯ın. ati¯ ‘buys, hires, buys back’. The ablative parivyavebhyah. is not to be interpreted by A. 1.1.67: the sutra¯ does not state an operation on kr¯ı immediately following pari, vi or ava. On the other hand, A. 1.4.80 (.tea :pra;a;gDa;a;ta;eaH) provides that elements with the class names upasarga and gati occur before a verbal base; pari, vi or ava construed with kr¯ı are members of the upasarga set. Accordingly, ji follows these items, so that parivyavebhyah. of A. 1.3.18 is understood to be construed with a direction word such as uttara (abl. sg. uttarasmat¯ ) ‘following’.121

6 Summary

Pan¯ .in¯ıyas not only recognize the interaction between a speaker (prayoktr) and a listener (srotr´ ) in communication (§1) but also ˚ ˚ emphasize that Pan¯ .ini’s derivational system operates from a 118See PWT.: 76 ¶122. 119See §2.3 with note 51. 120See PWT.: 89–90 ¶141. 121Cf. Ka¯s.´ 1.3.18: :pa;a:=+v.ya;vea;Bya o+a:=+sma;a;tkÒ +:a;¾a;a;tea:=+a;tma;nea;pa;dM Ba;va; a;ta Á DERIVATION AND INTERPRETATION 101 speaker’s perspective (§2). There is, moreover, incontrovertible evidence that Pan¯ .ini himself adopts this position: a derivation accounting for speech units in an utterance starts from meanings to be expressed, and these meanings serve — as does also the co- occurrence of other items — as conditions (nimitta) for the introduction of afﬁxes to bases (§3). A claim to the contrary has not been justiﬁed (§4).122 In addition, Pan¯ .ini takes a listener’s perspective in connection with the interpretation of sutras¯ in the As..ta-¯ dhyay¯ ¯ı. Those who are expected to understand these statements are native speakers of the language described, of whom Pan¯ .ini can and does expect a knowledge of conventions and syntactic constructions known to any native speaker (§5). In accordance with this, he formulates particular metarules to allow interpreting rules where — for reasons of economy and generalization — he leaves out certain terms necessary for the unambiguous interpretation of given genitive, locative, and ablative forms. The As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı is thus not simply a set of rules which are to apply mechanically in deriving utterances. The sutras¯ of Pan¯ .ini’s grammar account through derivation for utterances which native speakers of the language described use, and these sutras¯ require for their interpretation and application the active intervention of a native speaker of this language.

122After I presented this paper, J. E. M. Houben spoke at some length, attempt- ing to defend his thesis. In an email message of June 21st, he once more attempted to justify this thesis. I have proﬁted from his discussions, though I still consider his claims to be speculative and not based on probative evidence. 102 G. CARDONA

Table 1 Abbreviations

A. As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı. Bh. Mahabh¯ as¯. ya. See Kielhorn 1962–1972; Vedavrata 1962–1963. D¯ıpika¯ Bhartrhari’s Mahabh¯ as¯. yad¯ıpika¯. See Bronkhorst 1987.˚ Ka¯s.´ Ka¯sik´ avr¯ tti. See Vijayapala¯ 1997. N. Nyasa¯ on˚ the Ka¯sik´ avr¯ tti. See Dwarika Das Shastri and Kalika Prasad Shukla˚ 1965–1967. PM. Padamañjar¯ı on the Ka¯sik´ avr¯ tti. See Dwarika Das Shastri and Kalika Prasad Shukla˚ 1965–1967. Pr. Prad¯ıpa on the Mahabh¯ as¯. ya. See Vedavrata 1962– 1963. PS.´ Pan¯ . in¯ıyasiks´ . a¯. See Ghosh 1938. PWT. See Cardona 1997. RaPr. Ratnapraka¯sa´ of Sr´ ¯ısivar´ amendrasarasvat¯ ¯ı. See Narasimhacharya 1978. RV. Rgveda. See Sonatakke and Kashikar 1933–1951. ˚RPr.˚ Rgvedaprati¯ s´akhya¯ . See Mangal Deva Shastri 1931. ˚ ˚ Ud. Uddyota on the Mahabh¯ as¯. ya. See Vedavrata 1962– 1963. VP. Vakyapad¯ ¯ıya. See Rau 1977. VPH. Helar¯ aja’s¯ Prak¯ırn. apraka¯sa´ on the Vakyapad¯ ¯ıya. See Raghunatha¯ Sarm´ a¯ 1979, Subramania Iyer 1963. VPP. Sr´ ¯ıvrs.abha’s paddhati, the Sphut.aks¯ . ara, on the Vakya-¯ pad¯˚ıya. See Subramania Iyer 1966. VPVr. Vrtti on the Vakyapad¯ ¯ıya. See Subramania Iyer 1966, ˚ Subramania˚ Iyer 1983. REFERENCES 103

References

Bronkhorst, Johannes, ed. and trans. 1987. Mahabh¯ as¯. ya-D¯ıpika¯ of Bhartr. hari: fascicule IV, ahnika¯ I. Bhandarkar Oriental Re- search Institute Post-graduate and Research Department Series 28. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. Cardona, George. 1970. “Some principles of Pan¯ .ini’s grammar.” Journal of Indian Philosophy 1: 40–74. —. 1974a. “On Pan¯ .ini’s metalinguistic use of cases.” Charudeva Shastri Felicitation Volume: presented to Prof. Charudeva Shastri on the occasion of his seventy-fifth anniversary by friends and admirers, ed. by Charudeva Shastri felicitation volume editorial committee, pp. 305–26. Delhi: Charudeva Shas- tri Felicitation Committee. —. 1974b. “Pan¯ .ini’s karakas¯ : agency, animation and identity.” Journal of Indian Philosophy 2: 231–306. —. 1983. Linguistic analysis and some Indian traditions. The Pan- dit Shripad Sastri Deodhar Memorial Lectures, first series. Pune: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. —. 1997. Pan¯ . ini: his work and its traditions; vol. 1, Background and Introduction. Second edition, revised and enlarged. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. —. 2004. “Pan¯ .inian sutras¯ of the type anyebhyo ’pi drsyate´ .” Ja- mbujyoti:¯ Munivara Jambuvijaya¯ Festschrift, ed.˚ by M. A. Dhaky and J. B. Shah, pp. 91–107. Ahmedabad: Shreshthi Kasturbhai Lalbhai Smarak Nidhi, Shardaben Chimanbhai Ed- ucational Research Centre. —. 2008. Pan¯ . ini and Pan¯ . in¯ıyas on ses´ . a relations: first Kun- junni Raja memorial lecture. Aluva, Kerala: Kunjunni Raja Academy of Indological Research. [Revised as Cardona 2013.] —. 2009. “On the structure of Pan¯ .ini’s system.” Sanskrit computational linguistics: first and second international symposia, Rocquencourt, France, October 2007; Providence, RI, USA, 104 G. CARDONA

May 2008; Revised selected and invited papers, ed. by Gérard Huet, Amba Kulkarni, and Peter M. Scharf, pp. 1–32. Lecture Notes in Artiﬁcial Intelligence 5402. —. 2012. “A note on Vakyapad¯ ¯ıya 1.45/46: atmabhedas¯ tayoh. kecid ...” Samskr˙ tasadhut¯ a¯ Goodness of Sanskrit: studies in honour of Professor˚ A. N. Aklujkar, ed. by Chikafumi Watan- abe, Michele Desmarais, and Yoshichika Honda, pp. 100–9. Delhi: D. K. Printworld. —. 2013. “Pan¯ .ini and Pan¯ .in¯ıyas on ses´ .a relations.” Indological research: different standpoints, ed. by P. C. Muraleemadhavan, pp. 99–146. Revised edition. New Delhi: New Bharatiya Book Corporation. [Revision of Cardona 2008.] Deshpande, Madhav Murlidhar. 1992. The meaning of nouns: semantic theory in classical and medieval India — Nam¯ artha-¯ nirn.aya of Kaun. d. abhat..ta translated and annotated. Studies of Classical India 13. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Dwarika Das Shastri and Kalika Prasad Shukla, eds. 1965–1967. Nyasa¯ or Pañcika¯ of Ac¯ arya¯ Jinendrabuddhipada¯ and Pa- damañjar¯ı of Haradatta Misra´ on the Ka¯sik´ avr¯ . tti [Com- mentary on the As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı of Pan¯ . ini] of Vamana-Jay¯ aditya:¯ Bodhisattvades´¯ıyac¯ aryajinendrabuddhip¯ adaviracitay¯ a¯ Nyas¯ a-¯ paraparyayak¯ a¯sik´ avr¯ . ttipañcikaya¯ vidvadvaraharadattamisra-´ viracitaya¯ Padamañjar¯ıvyakhyay¯ a¯ ca sahita¯ Ka¯sik´ avr¯ . ttih. Pa-¯ n. in¯ıyas¯..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ıvyakhy¯ a¯. 6 vols. Prachya Bharati Series 2–7. Varanasi: Prachya Bharati Prakashan. Ghosh, Manomohan, ed. and trans. 1938. Pan¯ . in¯ıya Siks´ . a¯ or the Si-´ ks. a¯ Veda¯nga˙ ascribed to Pan¯ . ini (being the most ancient work on Indo-Aryan phonetics): critically edited in all its ﬁve re- censions with an introduction, translation and notes together with its two commentaries. Calcutta: University of Calcutta. [Reprint: Delhi: Asian Humanities Press, 1986.] REFERENCES 105

Houben, Jan E. M. 1999. “‘Meaning statements’ in Pan¯ .ini’s grammar: on the purpose and context of the As.t.adhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı.” Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik 22: 23–54. —. 2003. “Three myths in modern Pan¯ .inian studies.” Asiatische Studien/Études Asiatiques 57: 121–74. —. 2009a. “Bhartr.hari as a ‘cognitive linguist’.” Bhartr. hari: language, thought and reality: proceedings of the international seminar, Delhi, December 12–14, 2003, ed. by Mithilesh Chaturvedi, pp. 523–43. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. —. 2009b. “Pan¯ .ini’s grammar and its computerization: a construction grammar.” Sanskrit computational linguistics: third international symposium, Hyderabad, India, January 2009, proceedings, ed. by Gérard Huet and Amba Kulkarni, pp. 6–25. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 5406. —. 2012. “Studies in India’s Vedic grammarians, 1: Nar¯ ayan¯ .a Bhat.t.a’s Prakriya-sarvasva¯ and Pan¯ .ini’s Se´ .” Studies in San- skrit Grammars: proceedings of the Vyakaran¯ . a Section of the 14th World Sanskrit Conference, ed. by George Cardona, Ashok Aklujkar, and Hideyo Ogawa, pp. 163–94. Delhi: D.K. Printworld. Huet, Gérard and Amba Kulkarni, eds. 2009. Sanskrit computational linguistics: third international symposium, Hyderabad, India, January 2009, proceedings. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 5406. Berlin; Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. Joshi, S. D. 2009. “Background of the As.t.adhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı.” Sanskrit computational linguistics: third international symposium, Hyder- abad, India, January 2009, proceedings, ed. by Gérard Huet and Amba Kulkarni, pp. 1–5. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intel- ligence 5406. Kielhorn, Lorenz Franz, ed. 1962–1972. The Vyakaran¯ . a = Ma- habh¯ as¯. ya of Patañjali: revised and furnished with additional readings, references, and select critical notes, rev. by Vasudev Kashinath Abhyankar. 3rd ed. 3 vols. Poona: Bhandarkar Ori- 106 G. CARDONA

ental Research Institute. [A reissue labelled ‘fourth edition’ was published in 1985 and 1996.] Mangal Deva Shastri, ed. and trans. 1931. The R. gveda-Prati¯ s´a-¯ khya with the Commentary of Uvat.a: edited from original manuscripts, with introduction, critical and additional notes, English translation of the text, and several appendices; vol. 2, Text in Sutra-form¯ . Allahabad: The India Press Limited. Narasimhacharya, M. S., ed. 1978. Commentaires sur le Maha-¯ bhas¯. ya de Patañjali et le Prad¯ıpa de Kaiyat.a: Mahabh¯ as¯. ya Prad¯ıpa Vyakhy¯ an¯ ani¯ ; vol. 5, Adhyaya¯ 2 Pada¯ 1–4. Publica- tions de l’Institut Français d’Indologie 51.5. Pondichéry: In- stitut Français d’Indologie. Pontillo, Tiziana. 2013. “Where the sense is intended although the corresponding speech unit is not employed: the ekases´ .a case.” Proceedings of the 15th World Sanskrit Conference; vol. 2, Vyakaran¯ . a Across the Ages: proceedings of the vyakaran¯ . a section of the 15th World Sanskrit Conference, ed. by George Cardona, pp. 97–132. Raghunatha¯ Sarm´ a,¯ ed. and comm. 1979. Vakyapad¯ ¯ıyam [Part III, Vol. II] [Bhuyodravya-Gun¯ . a-Dik-Sadhana-Kriy¯ a-K¯ ala-Puru-¯ s. a-Sankhya-Upagraha¯ and Lingasamudde˙ sa]:´ with the commentary ‘Praka¯sa’´ by Helar¯ aja¯ and ‘Ambakartr¯ ¯ı’ by Pt. Raghunatha¯ Sarm´ a:¯ Vakyapad¯ ¯ıyam [trt¯ıyam˙ kan¯ . d. am, dvi- ˚ t¯ıyo bhagah¯ . ] (Bhuyodravya-gun¯ . a-dik-sadhana-kriy¯ a-k¯ ala-pu-¯ rus. a-sankhy˙ a-upagraha-li¯ ngasamudde˙ s´atmakam)¯ Helar¯ ajavi-¯ racitaya¯ praka¯savy´ akhyay¯ a¯ Pa. Raghunatha¯ sarman´ . a¯ viracitaya¯ Ambakartr¯ ¯ıvyakhyay¯ a¯ samalankr˙ tam. Sarasvat¯ı Bhava- na Granthamal¯ a¯ 91. Varanasi: Sampurnanand˚ Sanskrit Vish- vavidyalaya. Rau, Wilhelm, ed. 1977. Bhartr. haris Vakyapad¯ ¯ıya: die Mulak¯ a-¯ rikas¯ nach den Handschriften herausgegeben und mit einem Pada-Index¯ versehen. Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Mor- genlandes Band XLII, 4. Wiesbaden: Steiner. REFERENCES 107

Scharf, Peter M. 2009. “Levels in Pan¯ .ini’s As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı.” Sanskrit computational linguistics: third international symposium, Hy- derabad, India, January 2009, proceedings, ed. by Gérard Huet and Amba Kulkarni. Lecture Notes in Artiﬁcial Intelli- gence 5406. —. 2011. “On the semantic foundation of Pan¯ .inian derivational procedure: the derivation of kumbhakara¯ .” Journal of the American Oriental Society 131: 39–72. Sonatakke, N. S. and C. G. Kashikar, eds. 1933–1951. R. gveda- Samhit˙ a:¯ with the commentary of Sayan¯ . ac¯ arya¯ . 5 vols. Poona: Vaidic Samshodhan Mandal. Subramania Iyer, K. A., ed. 1963. Vakyapad¯ ¯ıya of Bhartr. hari with the Commentary of Helar¯ aja:¯ Kan¯ . d. a III, Part 1: critically edited . . . . Deccan College Monograph Series 21. Poona: Dec- can College. —. ed. 1966. Vakyapad¯ ¯ıya of Bhartr. hari with the Vr. tti and the Pa- ddhati of Vr. s. abhadeva: Kan¯ . d. a I: critically edited . . . Deccan College Monograph Series 32. Poona: Deccan College. —. ed. 1983. Vakyapad¯ ¯ıya of Bhartr. hari (An ancient Treatise on the Philosophy of Sanskrit Grammar) Containing the T. ¯ıka¯ of Pun. yaraja¯ and the Ancient Vr. tti: edited ... with a Foreword by Ashok Aklujkar, Kan¯ . d. a II. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Vedavrata, ed. 1962–1963. Sr´ ¯ıbhagavatpatañjaliviracitam˙ Vyaka-¯ ran. a-mahabh¯ as¯. yam: Sr´ ¯ıkaiyyat.akrtaprad¯ıpena Nagoj¯ ¯ıbhat..ta- ˚ krtena Bhas¯. yaprad¯ıpoddyotena ca vibhus¯. itam. 5 vols. Gurukul ˚ Jhajjar (Rohtak): Harayan¯ .a-S¯ ahitya-Sa¯ msth˙ anam.¯ Vijayapala,¯ ed. 1997. Sr´ ¯ıvamanajay¯ adityaviracit¯ a¯ Pan¯ . in¯ıyas¯..ta-¯ dhyay¯ ¯ısutravr¯ ttih. Ka¯sik´ a¯. Son¯ıpat (Haryan¯ .a):¯ Ram Lal Kapoor Trust. ˚ 108 G. CARDONA Extension rules and the syntax of As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı sutras¯ with -vati

GEORGE CARDONA

Abstract: Pan¯ .ini’s As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı includes sutras¯ of a type called atidesas´ utra¯ (‘extension rules’), which provide for extending to elements properties which are not theirs to begin with or to deny them properties which they would otherwise have. The rules in question are of two general kinds: (a) those which merely predicate of units that they have properties extended to them; and (b) those which provide that particular operations, rules, and so on apply to given items as they would elsewhere. The latter involve the use of terms with the sufﬁx vati; the former do not. In turn, rules of type (b) involve two distinct syntactic patterns. I shall take up extension rules with particular emphasis on their syntax and consider also pragmatics associated with them.

Keywords: Pan¯ .ini, grammatical rule syntax, operation extension

1 Introduction

Pan¯ .ini’s As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı includes extension rules (atidesas´ utra¯ ). Saba-´ ra characterizes an atidesa´ in general as letting properties which are provided for a given entity X go beyond X and have an additional locus Y.1 For example, one may provide that Devadatta should be

1JMSS.´ 7.1.1.12 (V: 386–387): º; a;ta;de;Za;ea na;a;ma yea :pa:=;a ; a;va; a;h;ta;a ;Da;ma;Ra;~ta;ma;ta;a- ;tya;a;nya:a .tea;Sa;Ma :de;ZaH Á ya;Ta;a :de;va;d:a;~ya Ba;ea:ja;na; a;va; a;DMa kx +:tva;a Za;a; a;l+.sUa;pa;ma;Ma;sa;a;pUa;pEa;deR;va;d:a;ea Ba;ea-

109 110 G. CARDONA fed rice, curry, meat, and apupa¯ cakes, then also provide that Ya- jñadatta should be fed similarly:

(1) Za;a; a;l+.sUa;pa;ma;Ma;sa;a;pUa;pEa;deR;va;d:a;ea Ba;ea:ja; a;ya;ta;v.yaH ‘Devadatta should be fed . . . ’

(2) :de;va;d:a;va;dùÅ;a;¼a;d:a;ea Ba;ea:ja; a;ya;ta;v.yaH ‘Yajñadatta should be fed similarly to Devadatta.’

Pan¯ .in¯ıyas recognize several kinds of extension rules according to the type of property of a given item that is extended to another. There are, to begin with, four major types: those which serve to extend operations (karya¯ ‘to be done’), rules (s´astra¯ ), physical shape (rupa¯ ), and identity (tad¯ atmya¯ ). Three minor types in addition to these are also noted: extension of conditions (nimitta), a name (vyapadesa´ ), and a meaning (artha).2

:ja; a;ya;ta;v.ya I+. a;ta ta;mea;va ; a;va; a;DMa ya;¼a;d:ea Y; a;ta; a;d;Za; a;ta :de;va;d:a;va;dùÅ;a;¼a;d:a;ea Ba;ea:ja; a;ya;ta;v.ya I+. a;ta Á (ì;+ea;k+:ma;pyua;d;a;h:=+////a;ntaÉÅ :pra;kx +:ta;a;tk+:mRa;¾a;ea ya;sma;a:a;tsa;ma;a;nea;Sua k+:mRa;sua Á ;Da;mRa;pra;de;Za;ea yea;na .~ya;a;tsa;ea Y; a;ta;de;Za I+. a;ta ;//////a;~Ta; a;taHÁ Á I+. a;ta Á .sa ..ca na;a;}îå:a;a va;.ca;nea;na va;a Á ta:a na;a;ma ; a:a; a;va;Da;ma;a; a;ta;de;Za;kM k+:mRa;na;a;ma .sMa;~k+:a:=+na;a;ma ya;Ea; a;ga- ;k+:a;ma; a;ta Á va;.ca;nMa :pua;na; a;dõR ; a;va;DMa :pra;tya:»a;(rua;ta;ma;a;nua;ma;a; a;na;kM ..ca Á Pun.yaraja¯ (VPPu. 2.77 [37.9]) succinctly deﬁnes atidesa´ as making a property proper to one entity obtain for another: º;nya:a;a;nya;Da;mRa;pa;a:=+pra;a;pa;¾a;ma; a;ta;de;ZaH Á 2 Vasudeva¯ D¯ıks.ita (SKB. 274 [= 7.1.95, I.277]) quotes a verse naming seven types: k+:a;yRa:+.pa; a;na;a;ma:a;a;TRa;Za;a;~:a;ta;a;d;a;t}ya;Za;//a;b.d;ta;aHÁ v.ya;pa;de;Za;(ãaÉ .sa;Ea;ta;a;na; a;ta;de;Za;a;npra;.ca:»a;tea- ÁÁ Punyaraja,¯ Haradatta, Bhattoji D¯ıksita and Jñanendrasarasvat¯ ¯ı recognize six . .. ñ . types: Za;a;~:ea .+.pa;a; a;ta;de;Za;a; a;d;a;BaH :Sa; a:ÂÅ*.HåÅ :pra;k+:a;=E+ a;vRa;Zea;Sa;a; a;ta;de;ZaH :pa;a:=+dx;Zya;tea Á (VPPu. 2.77 [37.24–25), :Sa;ea;Q+a; a;ta;de;Za;ea ; a;na;a;ma:a;a; a;ta;de;Za;ea v.ya;pa;de;Za;a; a;ta;de;ZaH Za;a;~:a;a; a;ta;de;Za;ea .+.pa;a; a;ta;de;Za- ;~ta;a;d;a;t}ya;a; a;ta;de;ZaH k+:a;ya;Ra; a;ta;de;Za I+. a;ta Á (PM. 1.1.56 [I.184]), ; a;na;a;ma:a;v.ya;pa;de;Za;ta;a;d;a;t}ya- ;Za;a;~:a;k+:a;yRa:+.pa; a;va;Sa;ya;k+:tvea;na;a; a;ta;de;Za;~ya :Sa; a;qõÅÉ+:Da;tvea Y; a;pa :pra;a;Da;a;nya;a; a;d;h .+.pa;mea;va;a; a;ta; a;d;Zya.tea Á (SKP. 274 [406–407]), ; a;na;a;ma:a;v.ya;pa;de;Za;ta;a;d;a;t}ya;Za;a;~:a;k+:a;yRa:+.pa; a;va;Sa;ya;tvea;na;a; a;ta;de;Za;~ya;a;nea- ;k+: a;va;Da;tvea Y; a;pa :pra;a;Da;a;nya;a; a;d;h .+.pa;mea;va;a; a;ta;de;Zya;tea Á (SKT. 274 [I.277]). Jinendrabuddhi mentions ﬁve: º; a;ta;de;Za;ea Y;nea;k+:pra;k+:a:=H ; a;na;a;ma:a;a; a;ta;de;Za;ea v.ya;pa;de;Za;a; a;ta;de;ZaH Za;a;~:a;a; a;ta;de;Za;ea .+.pa;a; a;ta;de;ZaH k+:a;ya;Ra; a;ta;de;Za;(ãea; a;taÉ Á (N. 1.1.56 [I.182–183]). I omit comparable statements by commentators on non-Pan¯ .inian grammars. EXTENSIONRULES 111

There are extension rules in which terms with the sufﬁx vat (vati, with the marker i), such as sthanivat¯ ‘like a sthanin’¯ are used, and others in which such terms are not used. In addition, sutras¯ with terms in -vati are subject to different syntactic analyses.

2 Varieties of extension

2.1K ary¯ atide¯ sa´ A major example of a sutra¯ providing for the extension of operations is

• A. 1.1.56 .~Ta;a; a;na;va;d;a;de;Za;ea Y;na;//////a;va;Da;Ea

According to A. 1.1.56, a replacement Y for an item X is like X, that is, behaves in the same way as does X, with respect to operations, except with respect to an operation that would thus apply as determined by an original sound X. For example, consider the derivations of the non-feminine forms kena (instr. sg.), kabhy¯ am¯ (instr.-dat.-abl. du.), kais, (instr. pl.), kasmai (dat. sg.), and vrks. a-¯ ˚ ya (dat. sg.) of the interrogative pronoun kim and the noun vrks. a (‘tree’) shown in Table 1.3 ˚ As shown, the sutras¯ which provide for replacing kim- by ka-, ta¯ with ina, and n˙e with ya come under the heading of A. 6.4.1: . ñÍ º;ç*:+.~yaÅ , so that the operations in question apply relative to an item bearing the class name anga˙ . According to ñÍ • A. 1.4.13 ya;sma;a;tpra;tya;ya; a;va; a;Da;~ta;d;a; a;d :pra;tya;yea Y;ç*:+.m,aÅ this name is assigned to an item Y which begins with an item X after which an afﬁx A is introduced, if X or Y is followed by A. In the

3 The rules whereby Pan¯ .ini accounts for kaih. , which occurs before pause or voiceless velar and labial stops, do not concern the present discussion. I also omit rules that introduce the nominal endings .ta¯ and so on in the ﬁrst place. 112 G. CARDONA

Table 1 Derivation of non-feminine forms of the interrogative pronoun kim and noun vrks.a ˚ kim-ta¯ . ñÍ ka-a¯ A. 7.2.103: ; a;k+:maH kH (º;ç*:+.~yaÅ 6.4.1) ñÍ ka-ina A. 7.1.12: f;a;z+.a;sa;z+.sa;a;a;ma;na;a;t~ya;aH (º;taH 9, ºç*:+.~yaÅ 6.4.1) kena A. 6.1.87: º;a;çuÅ+¾aH (º; a;.ca 77, O;;kH :pUa;vRa;pa:=+ya;eaH 84) kim-bhyam¯ ñÍ ka-bhyam¯ A. 7.2.103: ; a;k+:maH kH (º;ç*:+.~yaÅ 6.4.1) ñÍ kabhy¯ am¯ A. 7.3.102: .sua; a;pa ..ca (º;ta;ea d;a;Ga;eRa ya;a;Va 101, º;ç*:+.~yaÅ 6.4.1) kim-bhis ñÍ ka-bhis 7.2.103: ; a;k+:maH kH (º;ç*:+.~yaÅ 6.4.1) ñÍ ka-ais A. 7.1.9: º;ta;ea ;a;Ba;sa Oe;;s,a (º;ç*:+.~yaÅ 6.4.1) kais A. 6.1.88: va; a:;dÄâx ;=e+ a;.ca (º;a;t,a 87, O;;kH :pUa;vRa;pa:=+ya;eaH 84) kim-n˙e ñÍ ka-e A. 7.2.103: ; a;k+:maH kH (º;ç*:+.~yaÅ 6.4.1) ñÍ kasmai A. 7.1.14: .sa;vRa;na;a;}îå:aH .smEa (:ze 13, º;taH 9, º;ç*:+.~yaÅ 6.4.1) vrks. a-n˙e ˚ ñÍ vrks. a-ya A. 7.1.13: :ze+.yRaH (º;taH 9, º;ç*:+.~yaÅ 6.4.1) ˚ ñÍ vrks. aya¯ A. 7.3.102: .sua; a;pa ..ca (º;ta;ea d;a;Ga;eRa ya;a;Va 101, º;ç*:+.~yaÅ ˚ 6.4.1) EXTENSIONRULES 113 present examples, kim of kim-a¯, kim-bhyam¯ , kim-bhis and kim-n˙e is an anga˙ relative to the endings .ta¯, bhyam¯ , bhis, and n˙e, which have been introduced after the base kim. Once kim has been replaced by ka, however, the conditions for membership in the anga˙ set cease to apply, since the endings in question were introduced after kim, not ka. According to A. 1.1.56 (p. 111), the replacement ka is treated as though it were the original base kim, so that the operations relative to the stem can apply: after a stem in -a, the endings .ta¯ and bhis are respectively replaced by ina and ais; and if the stem in question is pronominal (sarvanaman¯ ),4 the ending n˙e is replaced by smai. After a non-pronominal stem ending in a, on the other hand, ya replaces n˙e, as in vrks. a-ya (← vrks. a-e). Now, the ﬁnal sound of a stem in a is replaced˚ by the long˚ vowel a¯ before a nominal ending (supi)5 that begins with one of the sounds denoted by the abbreviation yañ, which includes y and bh. Thus the -a of ka-bhyam¯ is replaced by -a¯: kabhy¯ am¯ . Moreover, although the ya of vrks. a-ya is not the original ending introduced after vr- ˚ ˚ ks. a-, by A. 1.1.56 (p. 111) it has the status of the original ending, so that the preceding item is treated as an anga˙ relative to it and the long-vowel replacement is allowed for: vrks. a-ya → vrks. aya¯ . In all these instances, an operation˚ which would˚ apply to or in connection with an item that is replaced is extended to that replacement.6

2.2 S´astr¯ atide¯ sa´ There is a set of rules stated under the heading

• A. 4.2.92 Zea;Sea

4By .sa;va;Ra;d;a; a;na .sa;vRa;na;a;ma;a; a;na (A. 1.1.27), items of the ordered set beginning with sarva ‘all, entire’ — in which kim is included — have the name sarvanaman¯ . 5The abbreviation sup (loc. sg. supi) refers to the set of twenty-one basic nominal endings divided into seven triplets, from su au jas through n˙i os sup. 6.~Ta;a; a;na;k+:a;yRa;ma;a;de;Zea Y; a;ta; a;d;Zya;tea Á (Bh. 1.1.56 [I.133.23–24]). 114 G. CARDONA which introduce taddhita affixes7 under conditions that constitute a remainder (ses´ . a) with respect to conditions stated in prior rules of the taddhita section. As do other groups of rules in this section, sutras¯ stated under A. 4.2.92 (p. 113) provide for affixes to follow padas which contain particular nominal bases8 and also state meaning conditions under which such affixations apply. For example, consider the rules æ • A. 4.3.11 k+:a;l+.a;Æ*+:V,a • A. 4.3.17 :pra;a;va;Sax O;;¾yaH • A. 4.3.54 ; a;d;ga;a; a;d;Bya;ea ya;t,a • A. 4.3.53 ta:a Ba;vaH .

A. 4.3.53 provides for an affix to follow a pada which is a value of tatra,9 that is, which has a nominal base followed by a seventh- triplet nominal ending,10 to form a derived nominal base meaning ‘which occurs in or at X’. A. 4.3.11 and A. 4.3.17 state suffixes which follow padas containing nominals referring to time (kala¯ ): in general, such a pada takes the suffix .thañ,11 but if the base is pravr¯ s. (‘rain season’) in particular, the suffix is en. ya. For exam- ˚ ple, masika¯ (← masa-¯ n˙i-ika) ‘located in a month’, pravr¯ s. en. ya (← ˚ 7A. 4.2.92 (p. 113) heads a subsection of the As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı within the section headed by ta; a:;dÄâ ;ta;aH (A. 4.1.76); the latter section itself falls within the larger group of rules under the heading of :pra;tya;yaH (A. 3.1.1). By A. 3.1.1, items introduced by subsequent rules bear the name pratyaya (‘affix’) and by 4.1.76, affixes introduced by following sutras¯ are called taddhita. See PWT.: 40 ¶70, 7 ¶15. 8 In the absence of such a specification, the affix an. applies for meaning conditions by rules beginning with :pra;a;gd;a;v.ya;ta;ea Y;¾,a (A. 4.1.83) up to the meaning condition stated in .tea;na d;a;v.ya; a;ta Ka;na; a;ta .ja;ya; a;ta ;a:ja;ta;m,a (A. 4.4.2). 9Locative singular of the pronoun tad (‘that’) used as a variable. 10.sa;ma;Ta;Ra;na;Ma :pra;Ta;ma;a;dõ;a (A. 4.1.82) provides that affixes introduced by subsequent rules are introduced optionally and, if a sutra¯ gives more than one related pada, an affix follows the first of semantically and syntactically related (samartha) padas. 11.th is a cover symbol which, by F+.~yea;kH Á I+.sua;sua;+:a;nta;a;tkH (A. 7.3.50–51), is replaced by ika or ka, depending on the shape of the preceding stem. EXTENSIONRULES 115 pravr¯ s. -n˙i-en. ya) ‘located in the rain season’. A. 4.3.54 (p. 114) introduces˚ yat after a pada containing a base of the set beginning with dis´ ‘direction’): dis-´ n˙i-ya → disya´ (‘located in a direction’). Another subsection headed by A. 4.2.92 (p. 113) comes under the heading

• A. 4.2.24 .sa;a;~ya :de;va;ta;a .

Rules of this section introduce affixes after a pada with a first- triplet ending to form derivates denoting something whose divinity is such and such. For example, aindra (← indra-su-an. ) ‘dedicated to Indra’, with the suffix an. (see note 8). Particular rules of the section provide for different affixes, depending on the nominal base of the pada in question. Thus, æ • A. 4.2.30 .sa;ea;ma;a;æ*.a;¾,a introduces .tyan. after a pada with the base soma: soma-su-.tyan. → saumya (‘dedicated to Soma’). There are also derivates that conform to the schema of A. 4.2.24, which have nominal bases denoting times. For example, masika¯ (‘dedicated to a month’), pravr¯ s. en. ya (‘dedicated to the rain season’). To account for such derivates,˚

• A. 4.2.34 k+:a;le+.Bya;ea Ba;va;va;t,a lets affixes introduced under the condition stated in A. 4.2.24 apply as they do under the conditions which hold for derivates formed under the meaning condition stated in A. 4.3.53 (p. 114) (bhavavat ‘in the same manner as for “located in”’). A. 4.2.34 requires that two conditions hold: (a) affixes that are introduced in the meaning ‘located’ apply for derivates meaning ‘Y whose deity is X’; and (b) those affixes that are introduced in the meaning ‘located’ after padas whose nominal bases denote times apply for derivates meaning ‘Y whose deity is X’. If A. 4.2.34 provided for (a) alone, it 116 G. CARDONA would allow any affix allowed under the meaning condition stated in A. 4.3.53 (p. 114) to follow any base denoting a deity, so that yat by A. 4.3.54 (p. 114) would wrongly be allowed to occur with a time word.12 If, on the other hand, (b) alone were provided for by A. 4.2.34 (p. 115), then any affix provided for by A. 4.3.53 (p. 114) would be allowed under the conditions stated in A. 4.2.34 (p. 115), so that .thañ would wrongly be allowed, in accordance with A. 4.3.11 (p. 114), after a base such as indra, forming *ai- ndrika instead of the required aindra.13 The desired derivates are accounted for only if both (a) and (b) hold. Both would not hold, moreover, if A. 4.2.34 (p. 115) provided for extending merely the operations that apply for A. 4.3.53 (p. 114) to derivations by A. 4.2.24 (p. 115). For both conditions to hold, this sutra¯ should extend not operations but rules (sástra¯ ) which provide for operations under specified conditions. This requirement is met because A. 4.2.34 (p. 115) states bhavavat, with the suffix vati, thus requiring that there be a similarity in conditions for operations.14 ñÍ 12This possibility is envisioned in 4.2.34 vt. 1 (k+:a;le+.Bya;ea Ba;vea :pra;tya;ya;ma;a:a;pra;sa;ç*:HÅ ); I have formulated (a) in accordance with Patañjali’s expansion of this varttika¯ (Bh. II.276.16–17): ya; a;d ; a;va;¼a;a;ya;tea Ba;vea yea :pra;tya;ya;a ; a;va; a;h;ta;a;~tea Ba;va;////a;ntak+:a;le+.ByaH .sa;a- ;~ya :de;va;tea;tya;/////////a;sma;a;TRa I+. a;ta :pra;tya;ya;ma;a:Ma :pra;a;pîÅa;ea; a;ta Á I have supplied an example of what would wrongly obtain in accordance with Kaiyat.a (Pr. III.639): :pra;tya;ya;ma;a:a;a;ma; a;ta Á ; a;d;ga;a; a;d;Bya;ea ya; a;d; a;ta ya;tpra;tya;ya;ea ; a;va; a;h;taH .sa k+:a;l+.va;a; a;.ca;ByaH :pra;a;pîÅa;ea;ta;a;tya;TRaH Á 13This possibility is envisioned in 4.2.34 vt. 2 (yaH k+:a;le+.b.ya;ea Ba;vea ta;~ya ; a;va;Da;a;nea ñÍ :pra;a; a;ta;pa; a;d;k+:ma;a:a;a;tpra;sa;ç*:HÅ ); Á Bh. II.276.19–20: º;Ta ; a;va;¼a;a;ya;tea k+:a;le+.Bya;ea Ba;vea yea :pra;tya- ;ya;a ; a;va; a;h;ta;a;~tea Ba;va;////a;nta.sa;a;~ya :de;va;tea;tya;/////////a;sma;a;TRa I+. a;ta :pra;a; a;ta;pa; a;d;k+:ma;a:a;a;tpra;a;pîÅua;va;////a;ntaÁ Pr. æ III.639: :pra;a; a;ta;pa; a;d;k+:ma;a:a;a; a;d; a;ta Á k+:a;l+.a;Æ*+:a;Va; a;ta F+.a;Va;ndÒ +a;de:=+ a;pa :pra;a;pîÅa;ea; a;ta Á 14This is the explanation accepted in the Ka¯sik´ a¯ for A. 4.2.34 (p. 115) and comparable sutras:¯ va;tk+.=+¾Ma .sa;vRa;sa;a;dx;Zya;pa;a:=+g{a;h;a;TRa;m,a Á Later commentators explain similarly. In his third varttika¯ on A. 4.2.24 (p. 115) (;a;sa:;dÄâM tUa;Ba;ya; a;na;deR;Za;a;t,a Á), on the other hand, Katy¯ ayana¯ says the correct results are assured because both the conditions are stated. This is most straightforwardly understood as Patañjali takes it, reformulating the sutra¯ to state kalebhyah¯ . twice (k+:a;le+.Bya;ea Ba;va;va;tk+:a;le+.ByaH Á) so as to provide for affixes after terms denoting times under the conditions which EXTENSIONRULES 117

2.3R up¯ atide¯ sa´ At a stage in deriving the bahuvr¯ıhi compound darsaniyabh´ arya¯ (‘one whose wife is beautiful’) from a string darsan´ ¯ıya-s¯ u bhary¯ a-¯ su, there is a complex darsan´ ¯ıya-bh¯ ary¯ a¯, in which the feminine term darsan´ ¯ıya-¯ occurs before the term bhary¯ a¯, with which it is coreferential. In order to account for a first constituent such as darsan´ ¯ıya- in darsan´ ¯ıya-bharya¯ , ñÍ • A. 6.3.34 ;///a;~:a;ya;aH :pMua;va;;ÂåÅ+a; a;Sa;ta;pMua;~k+:a;d;nUa;óéÅ*;+.ma;a;na;a; a;Da;k+.=+¾eaÉ ;///a;~:a;ya;a;ma;pUa- :=+¾a;a; a;pra;ya;a; a;d;Sua provides that a feminine term (striyah¯ . ) has the form of a corresponding masculine (pumvat˙ ‘like a masculine’) if, in the same meaning, it has a masculine counterpart, the feminine suffix that follows this term is one other than u¯n˙, and it is followed by a coreferential (saman¯ adhikaran¯ . e) feminine term (striyam¯ ) which is neither a member of the set beginning with priya¯ (‘dear’) nor a term containing an ordinal suffix.15

2.4T ad¯ atmy¯ atide¯ sa´ The derivate devadatta is a name (sañjña¯) used with reference to an individual so named because he is someone whose parents concern such items in the section where A. 4.3.53 (p. 114) is stated: ;a;sa:;dÄâ ;mea;ta- ;t,a Á k+:Ta;mua;Ba;ya; a;na;deR;Za;a;t,a Á o+.Ba;ya; a;na;deR;ZaH k+:tRa;v.yaH k+:a;le+.Bya;ea Ba;va;va;tk+:a;le+.Bya I+. a;ta Á (Bh. III.276.22–277.l). Patañjali goes on to reject this reformulation, remarking that the function of vati is accomplished only if A. 4.2.34 (p. 115) lets those affixes introduced to form derivates meaning ‘located in/at X’ apply to form derivates meaning ‘. . . whose deity is X’ under the same distribution of bases: .sa ta;hùÅ:aRu ;Ba- ;ya; a;na;deR;ZaH k+:tRa;v.yaH Á na k+:tRa;v.yaH Á Ba;va;va; a;d; a;ta va; a;ta;na;a ; a;na;deR;Za;ea Y;ya;m,a Á ya; a;d ..ca ya;a;ByaH :pra;kx +: a;ta;Bya;ea yea;na ; a;va;Zea;Sea;¾a Ba;vea :pra;tya;ya;a ; a;va; a;h;ta;a;~ta;a;ByaH :pra;kx +: a;ta;Bya;~tea;na ; a;va;Zea;Sea;¾a .sa;a;~ya :de;va;tea;tya;/////////a;sma;a;TeRaBa;va;////a;nta ta;ta;ea Y;ma;a Ba;va;va;tkx +:ta;aH .~yuaH Á (Bh. II.277.1–4). 15I have simplified for presentation by not mentioning all three possible interpretations of str¯ı in striyah¯ . and striyam¯ , or how bhas¯. itapumsk˙ adan¯ u¯n˙ is to be interpreted. 118 G. CARDONA wished the gods should give him to them; comparably, vis. n. usruta´ 16 names an individual to whom one wishes Vis.n.u would harken. Such a derivate, which includes the expression of a wish (a¯sis´ . i), and in which datta (‘given’) or sruta´ (‘heard’) follows a term denoting a participant in an action (karak¯ at¯ ), has high pitch on its last vowel:17 devadatta-´ , vis. n. usrut´ a-´ . If, however, such a term is used to address someone, its first vowel is high-pitched: devadatta` , vis. n. u`sruta´ .18 According to • A. 6.1.198 º;a;ma;/a:n:a;ta;~ya..ca (º;a; a;dH 197) the first vowel of a nominal form with an ending given the class name amantrita¯ — that is, the ending of what is called a vocative in western terminology — is high-pitched. The same rule accounts for the accentuation of a form such as vrsc´ an` (‘cutting’), vocative singular of the present participle vrsc´ at´˚ (nom. sg. m. vrscan´ ). ˚ ˚¯ Now, in a phrase such as :pa:= +Zua;na;a va;(x ãa;n,aÉ (‘o, you who are cutting with an axe’), the vocative vrscan´ is not so accented. Moreover, the instrumental para`sun´ a¯ has˚ high pitch on its first vowel instead of the stem-final -u (parasun´ a¯`). In effect, the entire phrase is treated ¯ ¯ as a single unit, with high pitch on its first vowel. Pan¯ .ini provides for this in ñÍ • A. 2.1.2 .sua;ba;a;ma;/a:n:a;tea:pa:=+a;ç*:+.va;t~va:=eÅ according to which a form that terminates in a nominal ending (sup) and occurs before a term with an amantrita¯ ending (see note 18) behaves like a part of the following item (para¯ngavat˙ ). Thus, parasun´ a¯ in :pa:= +Zua;na;a va;(x ãa;n,aÉ is treated as though it were part of the following participial form, the entire complex being treated as a unit.

16:de;va;a O;;nMa :de;ya;a;suaH :de;va;d:aH Á ; a;va;S¾ua:=e+nMa (rUa;ya;a;t,a ; a;va;S¾ua;(rua;taH Á (e.g., Ka¯s.´ 6.2.148). 17A. 6.2.148: k+:a:=+k+:a;;a;(rua;ta;ya;ea;=e+va;a; a;Za; a;Sa (º;ntaH 143, .sa;V¼a;a;ya;a;m,a 129). 18In the derivation of such vocative forms, the ending su (named sambuddhi) is deleted. A ﬁrst-triplet nominal ending used in addressing is called amantrita¯ . For details, which need not be considered here, see PWT.: 39 ¶68. EXTENSIONRULES 119

Similarly, in the Rgveda pada¯ (1.3.1b) dÒ +va;tpa;a;¾a;!a Zua;Ba;~å.pa;ta;a (‘[Asvi-´ ns,] you of quick˚ hands, masters of the good’), both the compound dravatp` an¯ . ¯ı and the phrase subh´ as` pat¯ı19 have a single high-pitched vowel, the ﬁrst one.

2.5 Nimittatide¯ sa´

The base d. ukrñ is marked with ñ to show that an l-affix following it is replaced˚ by atmanepada¯ suffixes if the result of the act denoted is intended for the agent and by parasmaipada suffixes if not:20 kurute (‘does, makes . . . for himself’), karoti (‘. . . for someone else’). The derived base ending cik¯ırs. a, with the desiderative suffix san, also takes atmanepada¯ and parasmaipada suffixes under these conditions: cik¯ırs. ate, cik¯ırs. ati. Accordingly, • A. 1.3.62 :pUa;vRa;va;tsa;naH provides that atmanepada¯ affixes occur after a derivate with san as they would after the base which precedes this suffix (purvavat¯ ). Under the view that A. 1.3.62 allows for the extension of conditions, this sutra¯ is considered to extend to the derived base with -san the marking that accompanies the primitive base which this affix follows; this marking is treated as the cause (nimitta) for the introduction of atmanepada¯ or parasmaipada suffixes. Although A. 1.3.62 is a standard example given of nimittatide¯ sa,´ 21 it is also admitted that the same result is achieved with an operation extension (kary¯ atide¯ sa´ §2.1). That is, A. 1.3.62 can be considered to extend to a derived desiderative base the occurrence of atma-¯ nepada suffixes under the same conditions as apply with respect

19 Padapat¯.ha Zua;BaH Á :p!a;ta;!a I+. a;ta Á 20.~va;a:=+ta;a;Va;taH k+.Ra;a;Ba;pra;a;yea ; a;kÒ+:ya;a;P+.le (A. 1.3.72); see PWT.: 88–89 ¶139. 21E.g., SKT. 274 (= 7.1.95, I.277): ; a;na;a;ma:a;a; a;ta;de;Za;ea ya;Ta;a ; a;.ca;k +:a;SRa; a;ta ; a;.ca;k +:a;SRa;tea Á º:a .sa;a;nta;~ya :pUa;vRa;va;tsa;na I+.tya;nea;na ;a;Va:va;a; a;ta;de;Zea k+:tRxa;ga;a;a;ma; a;na ; a;kÒ+:ya;a;P+.l º;a;tma;nea;pa;dM ;a;sa;Dya; a;ta Á 120 G. CARDONA to the primitive base in question. The reason for considering this extension to be of a separate type, namely, an extension of conditions, is that the extension of the operation requires considering first the condition involved.22 Moreover, under the view that A. 1.3.62 (p. 119) involves a nimittatide¯ sa,´ sanah. is most appropriately considered a genitive form:23 a verbal base in -san is similar to the base which precedes the affix by having the markers that serve to show that the base takes atmanepada¯ affixes. However, there are unambiguous forms, such as gatihims˙ arthebhyah¯ . of na ga- ; a;ta; a;hM;sa;a;TeRa;ByaH (A. 1.3.15) showing that sanah. should be considered an ablative form, so that A. 1.3.62 (p. 119) serves to extend atma-¯ nepada affixes, letting these follow a derived base in -san as they do a primitive base preceding the suffix.24

2.6 Vyapadesátide¯ sa´ A vyapadesa´ extension extends a name to an item that otherwise is not so named. A standard example of this type of extension involves extending the terms for the beginning and end of a string to a single sound as occurs in the derivation of abhy¯ am¯ (instr.-dat.- abl. du. of idam ‘this’) and aupagava (‘descendant of Upagu’). The first is derived from idam-bhyam¯ , with replacement of -m by -a and deletion of the segment ida, after which long-vowel replacement should apply to a- of a-bhyam¯ , as it does in vrks. abhy¯ am¯ (← ˚ vrks. a-bhyam¯ ).25 The patronymic aupagava is derived by intro- ˚ ducing the taddhita affix an. after the pada upagu-n˙as, with the sixth-triplet ending n˙as. The affix of aupagava should be the only high-pitched segment in the derivate. Now, the replacement of -a

22na;nua k+:a;ya;Ra; a;ta;de;Zea;na;a;pyea;ta;çÅ+ta;a;TRa;a;ma; a;ta ..cea;d:a;a;hu H Á ; a;na;a;ma:a;pra; a;ta;sa;nDa;a;na;pUa;vRa;k+:tva;a:a;~yea; a;ta ; a;na;a;ma:a;a; a;ta;de;ZaH :pa;Ta;gua;x I+. a;ta Á (SKT. 274 [I.277–278]). 23Jñanendrasarasvat¯ ¯ı uses (see note 21) the genitive sannantasya. 24Cf. Ka¯s.´ 1.3.62: .sa;naH :pUa;va;eRa ya;ea ;Da;a;tua:=+a;tma;nea;pa;d;a ta;dõ;tsa;a;nta;a;d;a;tma;nea;pa;dM Ba;va; a;ta Á 25See §2.1 with note 3. EXTENSIONRULES 121 by -a¯ applies to the final vowel of a stem before its ending, but a- in a-bhyam¯ has a stem that consists of a single vowel. Similarly, there is a rule whereby the first vowel of an affix is high-pitched;26 for example the first vowel of tavya in kartavya (← kr-tavya) has ˚ high pitch. The affix an. , although it consists of a single vowel, should similarly be high pitched. Accordingly, • A. 1.1.21 º;a;dùÅ;a;nta;va;de;k+://///////a;sma;n,a provides that an operation takes effect with respect to a single sound as it would with respect to one that is first or last (adya-¯ ntavat). It may be proposed that A. 1.1.21 serves to extend to single sounds the property of being first or last, thereby letting them be called ‘first’ and ‘last’ even though neither is part of a group of sounds.27 However, this amounts to providing that a single sound will be named adi¯ and anta, hence referred by these terms in su-¯ tras, as in A. 3.1.3 (see note 26). A. 1.1.21 would then be a naming rule (sañjñas¯ utra¯ ) comparable to ñÍ • A. 1.1.23 ba;hu ;ga;¾a;va;tua;q+. a;ta .sa;*ËÉ +;a;aùÁ whereby sankhy˙ a¯ (‘number [word]’) is allowed to refer not only to usual number words like s. as. ‘six’ but also to bahu ‘many’, ga- n. a ‘group’ and items that end with the suffix d. ati. If Pan¯ .ini had intended A. 1.1.21 to function in this way, however, one would expect him to formulate it in a manner comparable to A. 1.1.23, which he does not. In fact, Pan¯ .in¯ıyas reject vyapadesátide¯ sa´ as a distinct category28 and consider A. 1.1.21 an instance of a rule

26º;a;dùuÅ;a;d;a:a;(ãaÉ (A. 3.1.3); see PWT.: 378 ¶592. 27Thus, for example, with respect to a sound being treated as the ﬁrst of a group, SKT. 274 (I.278): v.ya;pa;de;Za;a; a;ta;de;Za;ea ya;Ta;a º;a;dùÅ;a;nta;va;de;k+://///////a;sma; a;a;tya;nea;nak+:tRa;v.ya;a;ma- ;tya;a;d;Ea .sa;a;va;k+:a;Za;pra;tya;ya;a;dùuÅ;a;d;a:a;tva;P+.l+.k º;a; a;d;tva;v.ya;pa;deZa º;Ea;pa;ga;va;a;d;a;va; a;ta; a;d;Zya;tea Á 28For example, VPPu. 2.77 (38.7–8): v.ya;pa;de;Za;a; a;ta;de;Za;~tua v.ya;a;k+.=+¾ea .nEa;va .sa;}Ba;va; a;ta .sa;V¼a;a;pa:»a;a;d; a;va;Zea;Sa;a;dõ;tk+.=+¾a;vEa;P+.ya;pra;sa;ç*:+.a;añÅÍ Á 122 G. CARDONA extending operations (kary¯ atide¯ sa´ ): an operation applies (bhavati ‘is’) for a single (sound) also in the same manner (iva) as for a ﬁrst or last (sound of a larger unit).29

2.7 Arthatide¯ sa´ A standard example of an Arthatide¯ sa´ is

• A. 1.2.66 .~:a;a :pMua;va;a (va:;dÄâx ;ea yUa;na;a ta;+.»a;¾a;(ãea;de;vaÉ ; a;va;Zea;SaH 65, O;;k+:Zea;SaH 64)30 which provides for the single remainder of one of a group of related terms. In this case, a term denoting an elder female of a lineage in conjunction with a younger male descendant constitutes a single remainder. Moreover, the female (str¯ı) is then treated as male (pumvat˙ ). For example, gargyau¯ (nom. pl.) refers to the elder woman (garg¯ ¯ı) and her younger male counterpart (gargy¯ aya-¯ n. a). The term str¯ı is interpreted as denoting a meaning — female — which is said to behave as male. It is possible, nevertheless, to maintain that the operations that apply for a male are here extended to a female.31

29For example, Ka¯s.´ 1.1.21: º;a;d;a; a;va;va;a;nta I+.vEa;k+://///////a;sma;a; a;pak+:a;y a Ba;va; a;ta Á 30For example, SKT. 274 (I.278): º;Ta;Ra; a;ta;de;Za;ea;d;a;h:=+¾Ma tua ga;a;ga;Ra ..ca ga;a;gya;Ra;ya;¾a;Ea ..ca ga- ;ga;RaH Á º:a .~:a;a :pMua;va;ea;tya;nea;na ga;ea:a;pra;tya;ya;a;nta;~:a;a;va;a;.ca;k+:~ya va:;dÄâx ;ea yUa;nea;tyea;k+:Zea;Sea .sa; a;ta .~:ya;TRa;~ya :pua;ma;Ta;eRa Y; a;ta; a;d;Zya;tea Á .tea;na ;///a;~:a;ya;a;ma;pa;tya;kx +:ta;ba;hu ;tvea ya;Va;Va;ea;(ãea; a;taÉ lu+.///////////a;#sa;Dya; a;ta Á Jñanendra¯ illustrates with the plural gargah¯ . , whose derivation involves omitting the afﬁx yañ by A. 2.4.64; Jinendrabuddhi and Haradatta give the same example in their comments on Ka¯s.´ 1.2.66 (N., PM. I.382); see note 95. 31Cf. Ka¯s.´ 1.2.66: :pMua;sa I+.va;a;~ya;aH k+:a;y a Ba;va; a;ta Á .~:ya;TRaH :pua;ma;TRa;va;;ÂåÅ+va; a;ta Á SK. 932 (= A. 1.2.66, II.208): yUa;na;a .sa;h;ea;+:Ea va:;dÄâx ;a .~:a;a ; a;Za;Sya;tea ta;d;TRa;(ãaÉ :pMua;va;t,a Á EXTENSIONRULES 123

3 Extensions of the type ‘X is Y’

The extension rules discussed in §2 contain terms with the suffix vati, but there are also extension rules that do not have such terms. For example, ñÍ • A. 1.2.1 ga;a;öÐÅ*:uÅ +.f;a; a;d;Bya;ea Y;////////a;V¾a;///a;nz+.t,a • A. 1.2.4 .sa;a;vRa;Da;a;tua;k+:ma; a;pa;t,a (; a;z+.t,a 1) are two of a series of rules32 whereby particular affixes are said to bear the marker (it) n˙ (nit˙ ). By the first, any affix not marked with ñ or n. is marked with n˙ if it follows the verbal base ga¯n˙ (suppletive with in˙ ‘study, learn’) and bases of the set beginning with kut.a (‘curve, bend’). By the second, a sarvadh¯ atuka¯ suffix not marked with p is marked with n˙. For example, the affix sic in aga-s¯ ic-ta (→ ag¯ıs..ta in adhy ag¯ıs..ta ‘[has] learned’) is marked with n˙, so that it conditions the replacement of stem-final -a¯ by -¯ı.33 The endings tip and tas differ in that the first bears the marker p from its inception and the second does not. By A. 1.2.4, the latter is marked with n˙. It is therefore barred from conditioning gun.a replacement for the final vowel of a stem such as cinu-: cinutas (‘they two are heaping, plucking’) versus cinoti (3sg. pres. act.).34 Conversely, ñÍ • A. 1.2.19 ; a;na;+a Za;a; a;ó*++. a;d;a;ma; a;d;////a:»va; a;d;DÉ ÖÅ a;SaHx (na .sea;q, 18, ; a;k+:t,a 5) provides that an affix of the class named nis..tha¯, that is, kta or ktavatu, is not (na) marked with k (kit) if it is augmented with initial i.t and follows one of a particular set of verbal bases, including s´¯ın˙ (‘lie, sleep’). The nis.t.ha¯ suffixes are introduced bearing the marker k showing that they do not condition gun.a and vrddhi replacements ˚ 32On these and comparable sutras,¯ see PWT.: 332–338 ¶511–¶521. 33A. 6.4.66: ;Gua;ma;a;~Ta;a;ga;a;pa;a:ja;h;a; a;ta;sa;Ma h; a;l (IR+.t,a 65); see PWT.: 300 ¶451. ëÐÅ 34; a;ñÍ*;+. a;ta ..ca (A. 1.1.5); see PWT.: 57 ¶98. 124 G. CARDONA which affixes of the general class to which they belong regularly condition (see note 34); e.g., krta- (‘done, made’) : kartum (‘to do, ˚ make’ [← kr-tumun]). A. 1.2.19 (p. 123) negates this marking for ˚ kta augmented with i.t and following s´¯ın˙: sayita´ . • A. 7.1.91 .¾a;lu+a;ma;ea va;a (; a;¾a;t,a 90) on the other hand, provides for an optional marking: the ending n. al of the uttama triplet — what is called first person singular in western terminology — is optionally (va¯) marked with n. . An affix marked with n. conditions vrddhi replacement for a stem-final vowel;35 e.g., kar-a¯ in the third˚ singular perfect cakara¯ (‘. . . did, made’ [← kr-n. al]). The corresponding first-person form, on the other hand,˚ is not only cakara¯ but also cakara, without vrddhi replacement. ˚ Rules like A. 1.2.1 and A. 1.2.4 (p. 123) simply state ‘X is Y’. A sarvadh¯ atuka¯ not marked with p is marked with n˙, and a negative rule like A. 1.2.19 (p. 123) denies k marking. The latter does not allow an original k marker to remain, any more than A. 1.2.4 allows for an ending to remain unmarked with k. Accordingly, A. 7.1.91 has to state va¯; a negative rule using nañ would absolutely deny n. marking for the ending. A rule using a term with the affix vati, on the other hand, merely provides that an entity Y is like an X; it does not remove the original properties of Y. Thus, A. 1.1.56 (p. 111) lets a replacement be like the entity in whose place it stands, but does not make it that entity. For example, ya substituting for n˙e is allowed to behave like the replaced affix, so that it can condition an operation on a preceding unit which is now treated as a stem with respect to ya, but it does not make ya to be n˙e. Similarly,

• A. 3.1.87 k+:mRa;va;tk+:mRa;¾a;a tua;ya; a;kÒ+:yaH (k+:tRa;a:= 68) ñÍ 35A. 7.2.115: º;.ca;ea ;////////a;V¾a; a;ta (va; a:;dÄâx H 114, º;ç*:+.~yaÅ 6.4.1); see PWT.: 284 ¶417. EXTENSIONRULES 125 provides that an agent (karta¯) which has the same status with respect to an action (tulyakriyah. ‘whose action is the same’) which it would have as its object (karman. a¯) behaves as though it were an object (karmavat).36 The rule does not provide that such an agent is classed as object. Hence, it allows for the operations which apply when an object is to be signified, but it does not deny the status of an agent as agent, so that any operation which depends on this (sva¯srayam´ ‘depending on what it is properly’) still applies. For example, one says of a grain storage pot (kusula¯ ) that breaks apart at a time that no one is striking it, there is no wind or great sunlight to cause it to break: (3) ;a;Ba;dùÅ;a;tea ku+:sUa;lH ‘The kusula¯ is breaking’ just as one can say (4) ;a;Ba;dùÅ;a;tea ku+:sUa;l+.ea :de;va;d:ea;na ‘The kusula¯ is being broken by Deva- datta.’ Both (3) and (4) have bhidyate, in which the base bhid is followed by two affixes: the atmanepada¯ ending te (← ta) and the stem- suffix yak. In deriving the passive (4), the l-affix lat. is introduced after bhid on condition that an object (karman) of the act of breaking — causing something to break apart37 — is to be signified, and is then replaced by the sarvadh¯ atuka¯ ending ta (→ te); yak follows the verbal base which precedes such an affix.38 The same opera- 36ya;/////////a;sma;nk+:mRa; a;¾ak+:tRxa;BUa;tea Y; a;pa ta;dõ;//a;tkÒ+:ya;a l+»ya;tea ya;Ta;a k+:mRa; a;¾a .sa k+:mRa;¾a;a tua;ya; a;kÒ+:yaH k+:mRa;va;;ÂåÅ+va;ta;a; a;ta Á (Bh. 3.1.87 [II.66.7–8). By karman. a¯ is meant an act which occurs in an object of an action: k+:mRa; a;¾a ; a;kÒ+:ya;a k+:mRa Á k+:mRa;~Ta;ya;a ; a;kÒ+:ya;ya;a tua;ya; a;kÒ+:yaH k+:ta;Ra k+:mRa;va;;ÂåÅ+va; a;ta Á (Ka¯s.´ 3.1.87). The act in question for (3) and (5) is breaking apart (dvidhabh¯ ava¯ ), which resides in the kusula¯ that is breaking. 37I use this wording merely for clarity. The uses of bhid in (3), (5) and (4), (6) respectively correspond to the use of intransitive and transitive break. Sanskrit differs from English — and also other languages, such as Latin — in allowing the type (5), with an instrumental denoting the agent of the objectless verb. 38A. 3.4.69: lH k+:mRa; a;¾a ..ca Ba;a;vea ..ca;a;k+:mRa;ke+:ByaH (k+:tRa;a:= 67), A. 3.1.67: .sa;a;vRa;Da;a;tua;ke ya;k, (Ba;a;va;k+:mRa;¾a;eaH 66). See PWT.: 100 ¶156, 148 ¶232. 126 G. CARDONA tions apply in deriving (3), where, however, the ending of bhidyate refers to an agent, not an object. In this instance, the base bhid denotes an objectless (akarmaka) action, so that an atmanepada¯ ending can follow it also to denote the act (bhava¯ ) of breaking. The agent of this act is then signified by an instrumental form, as in

(5) ;a;Ba;dùÅ;a;tea ku+:sUa;le+.na

This utterance contrasts with (4), which is the passive counterpart to

(6) :de;va;d:aH ku+:sUa;lM ;a;Ba;na; a:a ‘Devadatta is breaking the kusula.’¯

By A. 3.1.87 (p. 124), an object such as the kusula¯ of (3) and (5) is said to be like an object (karmavat); that is, the operations which apply where an object of an action is referred to are allowed to apply. Since the kusula¯ is not, however, said actually to be an object of the action in question, it remains its agent. Thereby, the base bhid remains objectless (akarmaka), so that A. 3.4.69 (see note 38) can serve to introduce an l-affix on condition that an act is signified. Suppose now that, since A. 1.2.4 (p. 123) serves to extend n-˙ marking to a sarvadh¯ atuka¯ not marked with p, one were to interpret nit˙ here as equivalent to nidvat˙ . The sutra¯ would now provide that an affix not marked with p behaves like one that is marked with n˙. It would not, however, do away with the affix’s property of not bearing a marker n˙. An ending such as tas, then, would now be said to be marked with n˙ while not ceasing to lack this marking. Consequently, one would allow not only acceptable forms such as cinutas but also unacceptable ones like *cinotas. Similarly, if kit of a A. 1.2.19 (p. 123), were interpreted as equivalent to kidvat, the affix kta would be said to act as though it lacked the marker k, while still retaining its original property of being so marked. EXTENSIONRULES 127

Obviously, such interpretations lead to contradiction. One could, then, argue that it is not allowed to extend to an X a property of a Y which is contradictory to what X is. This amounts, however, to admitting simply that terms like nit˙ and kit in the sutras¯ at issue may not be interpreted as equivalent to nidvat˙ and kidvat. In sum, there is an essential difference between extensions provided by sutras¯ which state that an entity Y is like another entity X in that it is treated as having properties of X, which it does not have to begin with, and sutras¯ which state that an X has certain properties extended to it, making it different.

4 Syntactic structures

4.1 Predication without comparison An utterance such as A. 1.2.4 (p. 123) is formally comparable to utterances of the type (7) ga;ea;ma;a;nde;va;d:aH ‘Devadatta has many cows’ (8) :pa;vRa;ta;ea va; a;îå+:ma;a;n,a ‘The mountain has fire on it’ in that A. 1.2.4 has a bahuvr¯ıhi compound nit˙ (‘. . . that has a marker n˙’) and (7)–(8) use derivates with matup, which are equivalent to such compounds. All three utterances also involve predication: it is predicated of a sarvadh¯ atuka¯ affix not marked with p that it is marked with n˙, of Devadatta that he possesses many cows, and of a mountain that it has fire on it.

4.2 Comparisons

The comparisons at play in extension rules of the As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı are of two kinds: (a) one entity is comparable to another by virtue of the two having in common an action in progress (kriya¯); (b) an entity is comparable to another by virtue of being the locus or possessor of a property shared by the other. 128 G. CARDONA

4.2.1 Comparison involving a common action Utterances such as A. 1.1.56 (p. 111), with terms that have the suf- ﬁx -vati, involve a comparison, and such utterances can be paraphrased by sentences using tulyam (‘equal to, similar[ly]’) or iva. For example,

(9) a. .~Ta;a; a;na;va;d;a;de;Za;ea va;tRa;tea ‘A replacement is like its original’ (cf. A. 1.1.56 (p. 111)) is equivalent to

(10) b. º;a;de;ZaH .~Ta;a; a;na;na;a tua;yMa va;tRa;tea ‘A replacement is (i.e., behaves) like the entity in whose place it stands’39 and what is expressed in

(11) va;sUa; a;na ta;ea;yMa ;Ga;na;va;dõùÅ;a;k+:a:=+a;t,a ‘(Dasaratha)´ spread wealth as a cloud (spreads) water’ (BhK. 1.3a) can be expressed equivalently by

(12) va;sUa; a;na ta;ea;yMa ;Ga;nea;na tua;yMa v.ya;k+:a:=+a;t,a or

(13) ya;Ta;a ;Ga;na;~ta;ea;yMa ; a;k+.=+ a;ta ta;Ta;a va;sUa; a;na v.ya;k+:a:=+a;t,a40

These utterances involve a comparison of actions, for example the spreading of material wealth by Dasaratha´ is compared to the shedding of water by a cloud. These are comparable in that there is a shared act of spreading something beneﬁcial with no expec- tation of a reward. Pan¯ .ini accounts for derivates with vati in such instances by

39Cf. Ka¯s.´ 1.1.56: .~Ta;a; a;na;na;a tua;yMa va;tRa;ta I+. a;ta .~Ta;a; a;na;va;t,a Á 40Cf. BhKJ. 1.3: ta;ea;ya;mua;d;k+:m,a Á ;Ga;na;ea mea;GaH :P+.l+. a;na:=+pea:»a;ya;a ya;Ta;a ; a;va; a;k+.=+ a;ta ta;dõ;t,a Á EXTENSIONRULES 129

• A. 5.1.115 .tea;na tua;yMa ; a;kÒ+:ya;a ..cea;dõ; a;taH, which can be summarized as follows:

• schema: P1: Bn-3 + P2: tulya-241 • affix: vati; meaning of affix: like X • condition: what is like X is an action (kriya¯)42 • operation: the taddhita affix43 vati is optionally (va¯) introduced after a value of tena, the first of semantically- syntactically related padas44 referred to by A. 5.1.115.

Accordingly, both

(14) a. .tea;na tua;yMa va;tRa;tea b. ta;dõ;dõ;tRa;tea

41A second-triplet ending can be accounted for by: k+:mRa; a;¾a ; a;dõ;ta;a;ya;a Á dõùÅ;ae;k+:ya;ea; a;dõR- ;va;.ca;nEa;k+:va;.ca;nea (A. 2.3.46, 1.4.22) under the assumption that tulyam of A. 5.1.115 signiﬁes a karman (A. 1.4.49: k+:tRua:=+a;/////a;psa;ta;ta;mMak+:mRa). Alternatively, tulya- is a ni- É pata¯ according to the gan.asutra¯ o+.pa;sa;gRa; a;va;Ba; a;+:~va:=+pra; a;ta:+.pa;k+:a;(ãa ; a;na;pa;a;ta;aH (under A. 1.4.57: ..ca;a;d;ya;ea Y;s,aº:vea, cited by Patañjali, Bhas¯. ya on 2.2.24 vt. 22 [Bh. I.425.12]: o+.pa;sa;gRa; a;va;Ba; a;+:~va:=+pra; a;ta:+.pa;k+:a;(ãaÉ ; a;na;pa;a;ta;sa;V¼a;a Ba;va;////a;ntaÁ). tulya- then takes the ending ñÍ su (A. 2.3.46: :pra;a; a;ta;pa; a;d;k+:a;TRa; a;l+.ç*:+.pa;a:=+ma;a;¾a;va;.ca;na;ma;a:eaÅ :pra;Ta;ma;a 1.4.22: dõùÅ;ae;k+:ya;ea; a;dõR ;va;.ca;nEa;k- +:va;.ca;nea). In the present discussion, there is no need to take up additional details. 42That is, an action that is comparable to an act residing in the signiﬁcand of the base in Bn-3. Commentators bring this out. For example, the Nyasa¯ on A. 5.1.115 (IV.99) says, concerning b.ra;a;;¾ea;na tua;yMa va;tRa;tea b.ra;a;;¾a;va;t,a (see note 64), that, although a word like brahman¯ . a does not denote an action, this is understood through its relation with what the term does denote: ya;dùÅ;a; a;pa b.ra;a;;¾a;a; a;d;Za;b.dEH ; a;kÒ- +:ya;a na;ea;.cya;tea ta;Ta;a;pya;a;Ba;Dea;ya;sa;}ba;nDea;na :pra;ta;a;ya;tea Á Further details need not be discussed here. Subramania Iyer (1974) summarizes both what the Mahabh¯ as¯. ya has to say on A. 5.1.115 and Bhartrhari’s lengthy exposition of the sutra¯ and bhas¯.ya, in his Vakyapad¯ ¯ıya. ˚ 43ta; a:;dÄâ ;ta;aH (A. 4.1.76). See note 7. 44.sa;ma;Ta;Ra;na;Ma :pra;Ta;ma;a;dõ;a (A. 4.1.82). See PWT.: 69 ¶111. 130 G. CARDONA meaning ‘. . . is (behaves) like X’45 are derived as alternative expressions from the same basic string, as shown in Table 2. Table 2 Derivation of (14a) .tea;na tua;yMa va;tRa;tea and (14b) ta;dõ;dõ;tRa;tea

46 47 tad-.ta¯ tulya-am vrt-lat. ˚ taa-a¯48 tulya-am vrt-ta49 tad-a-vat¯ 50 vrt-ta ˚ ˚ ta-a¯51 vrt-te52 tad-vat53 vrt-te ˚ ˚ ta-ina54 vrt-´sap-te55 tadvat-su56 vrt-´sap-te ˚ ˚ tulyam57 vart-a-te58 tadvat59 vart-a-te tulyam˙ 60/ tena61 tulyav˜62 vartate tadvad63 vartate

45A possible alternative to (14a) or (14b) would have bhavati ‘is’ instead of vartate. Comparably, one then speaks of an entity Y that has the property of being like X: tadvadbhava¯ . 46tua;ya;a;TERa:=+tua;l+.ea;pa;ma;a;Bya;Ma txa;ta;a;ya;a;nya;ta:=+~ya;a;m,a Á .sua;paH Á dõùÅ;ae;k+:ya;ea; a;dõR ;va;.ca;nEa;k+:va;.ca;nea (A. 2.3.72, 1.4.103, 1.4.22) 47lH k+:mRa; a;¾a ..ca Ba;a;vea ..ca;a;k+:mRa;ke+:ByaH Á .~va;ta:n:aH k+:ta;Ra Á va;tRa;ma;a;nea l+.f, (A. 3.4.69, 1.4.54, 3.2.123). 48tya;d;a;d;a;na;a;maH (A. 7.2.102). 49l+.~ya Á ; a;ta;a;/////////a;~å.½0 Á º;nua;d;a:a; a;z+.ta º;a;tma;nea;pa;d;m,a Á ta;z+.a;na;a;va;a;tma;nea;pa;d;m,a (A. 3.4.77– 78, 1.3.12, 1.4.100). 50A. 5.1.115 (p. 129). 51º;ta;ea gua;¾ea (A. 6.1.97). 52; a;f;ta º;a;tma;nea;pa;d;a;na;Ma .fe:=e Á º;.ca;ea Y;ntya;a; a;d ; a;f (A. 3.4.79, 1.1.64). 53kx +.a; a:;dÄâ ;ta;sa;ma;a;sa;a;(ãaÉ Á .sua;pa;ea ;Da;a;tua;pra;a; a;ta;pa; a;d;k+:ya;eaH (A. 1.2.46, 2.4.71). 54f;a;z+.a;sa;z+.sa;a;a;ma;na;a;t~ya;aH (A. 7.1.12). 55k+:tRa;a:= Za;p,a (A. 3.1.68). ñÍ 56:pra;a; a;ta;pa; a;d;k+:a;TRa; a;l+.ç*:+.pa;a:=+ma;a;¾a;va;.ca;na;ma;a:eaÅ :pra;Ta;ma;a Á .sua;paH Á dõùÅ;ae;k+:ya;ea; a;dõR ;va;.ca;nEa;k+:va;.ca;nea (A. 2.3.46, 1.4.103, 1.4.22). 57º;a;ma :pUa;vRaH (A. 6.1.107). 58:pua;ga;nta;l+.GUa;pa;Da;~ya ..ca Á o+=+¾'a;pa:=H (A. 7.3.86, 1.1.51). EXTENSIONRULES 131

The syntactically pertinent feature of constructions of type (14) is, as Pan¯ .ini observes, that a Y is likened to X by virtue of an activity that both share: Y is like X, the two sharing the act of being or behaving in certain ways, so that their actions are said to be alike. For example, (15) a. b.ra;a;;¾ea;na tua;yMa va;tRa;tea b. b.ra;a;;¾a;va;dõ;tRa;tea convey that someone, such as a ks.atriya, is acting like a brahman¯ .a, that is, that he is performing acts done by brahman¯ .as, such as un- dergoing traditional study.64 Similarly, (11) and (12) convey that Dasaratha´ shares with clouds the act of spreading about something good without requiring rewards: material goods in the case of Da- saratha,´ water in the case of a cloud, and (16) d;Ea; a;h:a;ea Y; a;pa hùÅ:a;mua:a .sa;nta;a:=+ya; a;ta :pa;Ea:a;va;t,a (Manu. 9.139cd) ‘For the child of a daughter also transports one (beyond hell) there (in the afterworld), as a child of a son’ compares a daughter’s son’s transporting one (santarayati¯ ‘makes to cross’) to a son’s son doing this.

4.2.2 Other comparisons È (17) a. ma;Tua:=+a;ya;a;a;ma;va .~å:ua.ò *+eåîÁ :pra;a;k+:a:=H

59 º;v.ya;ya;a;d;a;psua;paH Á .~va:=+a; a;d; a;na;pa;a;ta;ma;v.ya;ya;m,a (A. 2.4.82, 1.1.37), va;t,a (gan.asutra¯ under A. 1.1.37). 60ma;ea Y;nua;~va;a:=H (A. 8.3.23). ñÍ 61º;a;çuÅ+¾aH Á º;de;ç*:uÅ +.¾aH (A. 6.1.87, 1.1.2). 62º;nua;~va;a:=+~ya ya; a;ya :pa:=+sa;va;¾RaH Á va;a :pa;d;a;nta;~ya (A. 8.4.58–59). 63½+.l+.Ma .ja;Za;ea Y;ntea (A. 8.2.39). 64Cf. Ka¯s.´ 5.1.115: b.ra;a;;¾ea;na tua;yMa va;tRa;tea b.ra;a;;¾a;va;t,a Á The Nyasa¯ explains that these speak of a ks.atriya acting like a brahman¯ .a in performing acts such as studying, which the latter performs: k+:a :pua;na:=;a ; a;kÒ+:ya;a—b.ra;a;;¾ea;na tua;yMa va;tRa;tea Á »a; a:a;ya;a; a;d;ga- ;ta;a;Dya;ya;na;a; a;d;k+:a Á (N. IV.98). 132 G. CARDONA

È b. ma;Tua:=+a;va;t~å:ua.ò *+eåîÁ :pra;a;k+:a:=H

(18) a. :de;va;d:a;~yea;va ya;¼a;d:a;~ya ga;a;vaH b. :de;va;d:a;va;dùÅ;a;¼a;d:a;~ya ga;a;vaH also involve comparison: the ﬁrst pair speaks of a city wall in Sru- ghna which is said to be like the one in Mathura,¯ 65 and the second pair says that Yajñadatta’s cattle are like Devadatta’s.66 These do not, however, depend on a common action as the basis of comparison. Instead, they compare a city wall located in one city with a wall located in another and cattle belonging to one man with cattle that belong to another person. To account for such usage, Pan¯ .ini formulates • A. 5.1.116 ta:a ta;~yea;va

This rule also introduces vati, but now after a pada with an ending of the seventh or sixth (tatra ‘X-7’, tasya ‘X-6’) triplet of nominal endings. The taddhita afﬁx vati is optionally (va¯) introduced after a value of tatra or tasya, the ﬁrst of semantically-syntactically related padas referred to in A. 5.1.116, to form a derived nominal base meaning ‘. . . like . . . in/at X’ or ‘. . . like . . . related to X’. (16) has amutra (‘there’), equivalent to the locative amus. min (loke), as (18a) contains the locatives srughne and mathuray¯ am¯ . This does not mean, however, that the two utterances are to be interpreted syntactically in the same manner. (17a) concerns a comparison of two entities, the city walls in Mathura¯ and Srughna, but (16) concerns a comparison of two actions, the transporting away from hell by the son of a son and the son of a daughter, which take place in the world beyond. In a comparable vein, consider now È 65Ka¯s.´ 5.1.116: ma;Tua:=+a;ya;a;a;ma;va ma;Tua:=+a;va;t~å:ua.ò *+eåîÁ :pra;a;k+:a:=H Á 66Ka¯s.´ 5.1.116: :de;va;d:a;~yea;va :de;va;d:a;va;dùÅ;a;¼a;d:a;~ya ga;a;vaH Á EXTENSIONRULES 133

(19) :tEa;l+.pa;a;ke+:na tua;ya;ea ;Ga;ta;pa;a;kHx ‘Cooking with sesame oil is like cooking with ghee.’

Although two sorts of cooking are compared, this is not an example of a comparison covered by A. 5.1.115 (p. 129), so that it is not a possible domain for introducing vati by this rule after the pada tailapaka-¯ a¯.67 For A. 5.1.115 (p. 129) concerns an action (kriya¯) as signified by a verbal base (dhatu¯ ), that is, an act considered as one that is to be brought to accomplishment (sadhy¯ a¯) by participants (karaka¯ , sadhana¯ ). The suffix ghañ in a derivate like paka¯ (← pac-ghañ)68 serves to signify an act as a single global entity, with the status of a thing, as opposed to the act in progress signified by the preceding base pac.69

4.3 Summary of syntactic structures As a general diagnostic, one can distinguish between the following two types of constructions:

I. B-vat is accounted for by A. 5.1.115 (p. 129). The derivate in vat is used with a nominative form; the base B designates an entity in which resides an act viewed in progress (kriya¯), and another individual’s act is compared to this.

67Cf. N. 5.1.115 (IV.99): na;nua ..ca txa;ta;a;ya;a;sa;ma;TRa; a;va;Ba; a;+:va;a;.cya;ya;a ; a;kÒ+:ya;yEa;va :pra;tya;ya;a;TRa- ; a;kÒ+:ya;a;ya;a;~tua;ya;ta;a ta;~ya;a;(ãaÉ ;Ga;Va;nta;ea Y;va;k+:a;ZaH :tEa;l+.pa;a;ke+:na tua;ya;ea ;Ga;ta;pa;a;kx I+.tya;a; a;d Á .nEa;Sa;ea Y;~tya;va;k+:a;ZaH Á ;Da;a;tva;Ta;eRa ; a;h ; a;kÒ+:ya;a .sa;a ..ca :pUa;va;Ra;pa:=+a;BUa;ta;a Á 68A. 3.3.18: Ba;a;vea (;Ga;V,a 16). 69Cf. :pUa;va;Ra;pa:=+a;BUa;tMa Ba;a;va;ma;a;K.ya;a;tea;na;a;.ca;e v.ra:ja; a;ta :pa;.ca;ta;a; a;ta Á o+.pa;kÒ+:ma;pra;Ba;tya;pa;va;gRa;pa;yRa;ntMax mUa- ;t a .sa:va;BUa;tMa .sa:va;na;a;ma;a;BaH v.ra:$ya;a :pa; a;+:a:=+ a;ta Á (Nir. 1.1 [28.1–2]), º;/////a;~taKa;va; a;pa ; a;va;Zea;SaH kx +:d;a;Ba; a;h;ta;~ya Ba;a;va;~ya ; a;ta;z+.a;Ba; a;h;ta;~ya ..ca Á kx +:d;a;Ba; a;h;ta;ea Ba;a;va;ea dÒ +v.ya;va;;ÂåÅ+va; a;ta Á (Bh. 3.1.67 [II.57.7–8]), º;nyaH .sa Ba;a;va;ea ba;a;hùÅ:aH :pra;kx +:tya;Ta;Ra;t,a Á º;nea;nea;d;a;na;a;ma;a;Bya;nta:=e Ba;a;vea .~ya;a;t,a Á kH :pua;na:=e+ta;ya;ea;Ba;Ra;va;ya;ea; a;vRa;Zea;SaH Á o+.+:ea Ba;a;va;Bea;d;ea Ba;a;Syea Á (Bh. 3.3.19 [II.145.16–18]) kx +:d;a;Ba; a;h- ;ta;ea Ba;a;va;ea dÒ +v.ya;va;;ÂåÅ+va;ta;a; a;ta Á (Bh. 2.2.19 [I.417.17–18]). Commentators on A. 5.1.115 (p. 129) and the Ka¯sik´ a¯ and so forth thereon also take up the differences in detail; it is not necessary to consider these here. 134 G. CARDONA

II. B-vat is accounted for by A. 5.1.116 (p. 132). The derivate in vat is used with a locative or genitive form; the base B designates an entity in which or pertaining to which there is something which occurs elsewhere or pertains to something else, and the one is compared to the other.

The syntactic distinction is recognized by Pan¯ .in¯ıyas, most clearly and succinctly by Jinendrabuddhi in his commentary on the Ka¯sik´ a¯ to A. 3.1.87 (p. 124). As noted earlier (§3, §4.2.1), karmavat contains vati by A. 5.1.115 (p. 129). Syntactically, this is seen from the fact that the sutra¯ contains a nominative tulyakriyah. , not a locative tulyakriye or a genitive tulyakriyasya which would accord with vati by A. 5.1.116 (p. 132).70 Similarly, the syntax of A. 1.1.56 (p. 111), with the nominative ade¯ sah´ . — not ade¯ se´ or ade-¯ sasya´ — accords with interpreting sthanivat¯ as derived with vati by A. 5.1.115 (p. 129). On the other hand,

• A. 3.4.85 l+.ea;f;ea l+.zõÅÉ +.t,a conforms to schema II. The term lot.ah. , although formally ambiguous — possibly nominative or accusative plural, ablative or genitive singular — contextually must be interpreted as a genitive singular. A. 3.4.85 occurs in a section headed by

• A. 3.4.77 l+.~ya in which occurs the unambiguously genitive singular form lasya. Rules of this section provide in the first instance for basic verb endings that occur in place of any l-affix, then particular replacements for such verb endings if they substitute for specific l-affixes.71 Ac- cording to A. 3.4.85, a replacement for an ending substituting for

70k+:mRa;va; a;d; a;ta Á .tea;na tua;yMa ; a;kÒ+:ya;a ..cea;dõ; a;taH na tua ta:a ta;~yea;vea; a;ta tua;ya; a;kÒ+:ya I+. a;ta :pra;Ta;ma;a; a;na- ;deR;Za;a;t,a Á º;nya;Ta;a tua;ya; a;kÒ+:yea tua;ya; a;kÒ+:ya;~yea; a;ta .sa;a;}ya;a :Sa;.a;a va;a ; a;na;deR;ZMa ku+:ya;Ra;t,a Á (N. 3.1.87 [II.465–466]). 71See PWT.: 148–149 ¶232, 273–279 ¶395–¶404. EXTENSIONRULES 135

72 lot. is like a replacement for an ending which substitutes for lan˙. That is, the sutra¯ provides for an extension of operations (kary¯ ati-¯ desa´ ), and lanvat˙ is accounted for by A. 5.1.116 (p. 132).73 It is worthy of note, though not at all surprising, that Pan¯ .in¯ı- yas generally agree concerning the syntax of sutras,¯ whether they have forms in vati according to A. 5.1.115 (p. 129) or A. 5.1.116 (p. 132). One particular sutra¯ stands out in this context: • A. 1.3.63 º;a;}å.pra;tya;ya;va;tkx +:Va;ea Y;nua;pra;ya;ea;ga;~ya (º;a;tma;nea;pa;d;m,a 12) according to which krñ used after a form with the suffix am¯ 74 behaves like the base˚ which has the suffix with respect to the distribution of atmanepada¯ affixes.75 Given that A. 1.3.63 has the genitive forms krñah. and anuprayogasya, commentators appropriately consider that˚ ampratyayavat¯ has vati according to A. 5.1.116 (p. 132).76 Nevertheless, this term was also interpreted as ending with vati according to A. 5.1.115 (p. 129).77 This interpretation depends on two factors. First, purvavat¯ of A. 1.3.62 (p. 119) is understood to recur in A. 1.3.63, so that the latter now makes two separate provisions: (a) a positive provision (vidhi): d. ukrñ, which would not take atmanepada¯ affixes if the result of an act˚ is not intended for the agent participating in its accomplishment (see note

72How lot. and lan˙ here refer to endings that substitute for these l-afﬁxes is not crucial to my discussion. 73º; a;ta;de;Za;ea Y;ya;m,a Á l+.ea;f;ea l+.zõÅÉ +.tk+:a;y a Ba;va; a;ta Á (Ka¯s.´ 3.4.85), l+.ea;f;ea l+.z I+.va k+:a;y a .~ya;a;t,a (SK. 2198 = 3.4.85), l+.z I+.va l+.zõÅÉ +.t,a Á ta:a ta;~yea;vea; a;ta :Sa;.a;nta;a;dõ; a;taH Á ta;d;a;h l+.ea;f;ea l+.z I+.vea; a;ta Á (SKB. 2198 [III.34]). ú 74k+:a;~å.pra;tya;ya;a;d;a;ma;ma:n:ea ; a;l+. a;f Á kx +.ã*.a;a;nua;pra;yua:$ya;teaÁ ; a;l+. a;f (A. 3.1.35, 40); see PWT.: 191 ¶286. 75For example, Ka¯s.´ 1.3.63: º;a;}å.pra;tya;ya;ea ya;sma;a;tsa;ea Y;ya;ma;a;}å.pra;ta;yaH Á º;a;}å.pra;tya;ya;~yea;va ;Da;a;ta;eaH kx +:Va;ea Y;nua;pra;ya;ea;ga;~ya;a;tma;nea;pa;dM Ba;va; a;ta Á 76For example, º;a;}å.pra;tya;ya;va; a;d; a;ta ta:a ta;~yea;vea; a;ta va; a;taH Á kx +:Va;ea Y;nua;pra;ya;ea;ga;~yea; a;ta .sa;ma;a- ;na;a; a;Da;k+.=+¾ea :Sa;.a;Ea Á (N. 1.3.63 [I.460]), . . . ta:a ta;~yea; a;ta :Sa;.a;nta;a;dõ; a;ta;a:=+tya;a;h º;a;}å.pra;tya;ya- ;~yea;vea; a;ta ...(PM. 1.3.63 [I.460]). 77SKB. 2240 = A. 1.3.63 (III.59]): º;a;}å.pra;tya;ya;va; a;d; a;ta txa;ta;a;ya;a;nta;a;dõ; a;taH Á This reﬂects what Bhat.t.oji himself accepts; see note 79. 136 G. CARDONA

20), does take such affixes if it is used with a term in -am¯ following an atmanepadin¯ base; e.g., ¯ıhañ¯ cakre ‘. . . exerted himself.’ (b) a restriction (niyama): even if d. ukrñ is eligible for atmanepada¯ affixes because the act in question˚ is intended for its agent, it does so only if the base with -am¯ that it accompanies also takes such affixes; accordingly, kr used with ubj ‘be straight, straighten’ in ud ubjañ¯ cakara¯ ‘. . . straightened˚ . . . ’ does not have an atmane-¯ pada ending.78 Further, once purvavat¯ is understood in A. 1.3.63 (p. 135), not only does one effectively have two statements,79 but the syntax of A. 1.3.62 (p. 119) is imposed on A. 1.3.63 (p. 135). As a consequence, moreover, the genitive krño’nuprayogasya is considered to have the value of an ablative.˚80 Thus, it is not the case that Pan¯ .in¯ıyas merely differ in how they interpret ampratya-¯ yavat of A. 1.3.63 (p. 135). The differing interpretations of this term are based on how the sutra¯ itself is considered in connection to the preceding and other related rules.

5 Semantic and pragmatic considerations

In addition to the syntactic and semantic factors that enter into how extension rules use derivates in -vati, there are also pragmatic factors, and these can give the appearance of a different syntactic interpretation of the utterance with the term in -vati. Consider, for

78º;Tea;h k+:sma;a;a Ba;va; a;ta Á o+.du;}Ba;a:ã*.a;k+:a:=úÁ o+.du;b.ia;a:ã*.a;k+:a:=úÁ Á na;nua ..ca;a;}å.pra;tya;ya;va; a;d;tyua;.cya;tea na ..ca;a:a;a;}å.pra;tya;ya;a;d;a;tma;nea;pa;dM :pa;Zya;a;maH Á na b.rUa;ma;ea Y;nea;nea; a;ta Á ; a;kM ta; a;hR Á .~va;a:=+ta;a;Va;taH k+.Ra;a;Ba;pra;a;yea ; a;kÒ+:ya;a;P+.l º;a;tma;nea;pa;dM Ba;va;ta;a; a;ta Á .nEa;Sa d;ea;SaH Á I+.dM ; a;na;ya;ma;a;T a Ba; a;va;Sya; a;ta Á º;a;}å.pra;tya;ya;va;de;vea- ; a;ta Á ya; a;d ; a;na;ya;ma;a;T a ; a;va; a;Da;nRa :pra;k+:pa;tea Á IR+.h;a:ã*.a;kÒeúÁ +:h;a:ã*.a;kÒúÁ I+. a;ta Á ; a;va; a;Da;(ãaÉ :pra;kw +:aH Á k+:Ta;m,a Á :pUa;vRa;va; a;d; a;ta va;tRa;tea Á º;a;}å.pra;tya;ya;va;tpUa;vRa;va;ea; a;ta Á (Bh. 1.3.63 [I.290.1–6]). 79º;a;}å.pra;kx +:tya;a tua;ya;ma;nua;pra;yua:$ya;ma;a;na;a;tkx +:Va;ea Y;pya;a;tma;nea;pa;dM .~ya;a;t,a Á I+.h :pUa;vRa;va; a;d;tya;nua;va;tyRa va;a;k+.a;Bea:de;na .sa;}ba;Dya;tea Á (SK. 2240 [III.59]). 80 ú :pa:ã*.a;}ya;TeRaÁ :Sa;+a Á (SKB. 2240 [III.59]). This clariﬁes what Bhat.t.oji says (note 79). EXTENSIONRULES 137 example, a laukika example comparable to A. 1.1.56 (p. 111), such as

(20) gua:+:va;çuÅ;+:pua:a;ea Ba;va; a;ta ‘A teacher’s son is like a teacher.’

In addition to (20), one may also say

(21) gua:+:va;çuÅ;+:pua:ea va; a;tRa;ta;v.ya;m,a ‘One is to act towards a teacher’s student as one does toward the teacher.’

Both convey that a teacher’s son who comes in place of his father merits all the honoring acts due to the teacher; comparably, the operations proper to an original item are extended to its replacement (ade¯ se´ ).81 That (21) may be used properly to describe what is provided for in (20) does not mean that guruvat of the latter conforms to schema II. Similarly, that one can appropriately say A. 1.1.56 (p. 111) provides for extending to a replacement — using a locative form ade¯ se´ — an operation proper to the element this replaces does not serve to show that sthanivat¯ should be interpreted as containing -vati by A. 5.1.116 (p. 132) according to schema II. A particularly interesting example of syntactic and pragmatic criteria is afforded by

• A. 7.1.95 txa:$va;tkÒ+:ea;uH (.sa;vRa;na;a;ma;~Ta;a;nea 86, º;sa;}bua:;dÄâ ;Ea 92) which provides that before a nominal ending of the sarvanama-¯ sthana¯ class other than one called sambuddhi, the stem kros..tu- (nom. sg. kros..tuh. ) ‘jackal’ behaves like the derivate in -trc from the same verbal base krus´. That is, the derivate in -tun takes˚ the

81Cf. 1.1.56 vt. 1: .~Ta;a;nya;a;de;Za;pa;Ta;+:a;d;a;de;Zeax .~Ta;a; a;na;va;d;a;de;Za;ea gua:+:va;çuÅ;+:pua:a I+. a;ta ya;Ta;a Á Bh. 1.1.56 (I.133.22–24): gua:+:va;çuÅ;+:pua:a I+. a;ta ya;Ta;a Á ta;dùÅ;a;Ta;a gua:+:va;d;/////////a;sma;ngua:+:pua:eava; a;tRa;ta;v.ya- ;a;ma; a;ta gua:=+Ea ya;tk+:a;y a ta;çuÅ;+:pua:ea Y; a;ta; a;d;Zya;tea O;;va;a;ma;h;a; a;pa .~Ta;a; a;na;k+:a;yRa;ma;a;de;Zea Y; a;ta; a;d;Zya;tea Á 138 G. CARDONA form of a derivate in -trc:82 kros..ta¯ (nom. sg.), kros..tarau¯ (nom.- ˚ acc. du.), kros..tarah¯ . (nom. pl.), kros..to (voc. sg.). As Pan¯ .in¯ı- yas recognize, trjvat in this sutra¯ has -vati according to A. 5.1.115 ˚ (p. 129).83 The effect of letting kros..tu- behave as though it were kros..tr- is, of course, to allow for one stem to occur instead of the other,˚ just as a subsequent rule accounts for the alternation of the stems before vowel-initial endings of the third and following triplets, e.g., kros..tre/kros..tave (dat. sg.).84 In fact, after explicitly interpreting trjvat in accordance with A. 5.1.115 (p. 129), Bhat.t.o- ji goes on to˚ say that what is intended by A. 7.1.95 (p. 137) (ity arthah. ‘thus what is meant’) is that kros. tr is to be used instead 85 ˚ of kros..tu. As both Vasudeva¯ D¯ıks.ita and Jñanendrasarasvat¯ ¯ı are quick to point out, however, Bhat.t.oji simply means to express the 82kÒ+:ea;u;Za;b.d;~tua;npra;tya;ya;a;ntaH .sa;V¼a;a;Za;b.dH .sa;vRa;na;a;ma;~Ta;a;nea Y;sa;}bua:;dÄâ ;Ea :pa:=+ta;~txa:$va;;ÂåÅ+va; a;ta Á txa:ja;nta;~ya ya;dÒU +pMa ta;d;~ya Ba;va;ta;a;tya;TRaH Á .+.pa;a; a;ta;de;Za;ea Y;ya;m,a Á :pra;tya;a;sa:ea;(ãaÉ kÒu+:Zea;=e+va txa:ja;nta;~ya ya;dÒU +pMa ta;d; a;ta; a;d;Zya;tea Á (Ka¯s.´ 7.1.95). The sufﬁx tun is provided by ;a;sa;ta; a;na;ga;a;ma;ma;a;sa- ;sa;.cya; a;va;Da;a;VkÒu+: a;Za;Bya;~tua;n,a (US. 1.70). 83txa:$va;;ÂåÅ+va;ta;a; a;ta Á txa;.ca;a tua;yMa va;tRa;ta I+.t,aI txa:$va;t,a Á (N. 7.1.95 [V.640]), kÒ+:u;~txa:ja;ntea;na tua;yMa va;tRa;tea Á (SK. 274 = 7.1.95 [I.277]), kÒ+:ea;u;a:=+ a;ta tua;a;nta;a;tpra;Ta;ma;a Á txa:$va; a;d; a;ta txa;ta;a;ya;a- ;nta;a;dõ; a;taH Á (BS´S´ 7.1.95 [I.510], SKT. 274 [I.277]), .tea;na tua;ya;a;ma; a;ta txa;ta;a;ya;a;nta;a;dõ; a;taH Á (SKB. 274 [I.277]). 84; a;va;Ba;a;Sa;a txa;ta;a;ya;a; a;d;Sva; a;.ca (A. 7.1.97). It is not necessary here to consider feminine forms. 85kÒ+:ea;u;Za;b.d;~ya .~Ta;a;nea kÒ+:ea;x;Za;b.dH :pra;ya;ea;+:v.ya I+.tya;TRaH Á (SK. 274 [I.277]). Much earlier, Katy¯ ayana¯ argued that if A. 7.1.95 (p. 137) is considered to provide a rup¯ atide¯ sa,´ this would allow for tr to be a replacement for all of kros..tu-: .+.pa;a- ñÍ ˚ ; a;ta;de;Za I+. a;ta ..cea;tsa;va;Ra;de;Za;pra;sa;ç*:HÅ (7.1.95 vt. 3), .+.pa;a; a;ta;de;Za I+. a;ta ..cea;tsa;va;Ra;de;ZaH :pra;a;pîÅa;ea; a;ta Á .sa;vRa;~ya tua;na;nta;~ya txa;Za;b.d º;a;de;ZaH :pra;a;pîÅa;ea; a;ta Á (Bh. III.274.25–26). Since the sutra¯ in question is not overtly a substitution rule, what this means is, as Nage¯ sa´ remarks, that extending the form of trc to the stem kros..tu- results in one occurring for ˚ the other: .+.pa;a; a;ta;de;Za;dõ;a:=e+¾a;a;de;Za O;;va :P+.l+.ta;ea ; a;va;Da;a;ya;ta I+.tya;TRaH Á (Ud. V.89). Other parts of the Bhas¯. ya arguments, as well as Kaiyat.a’s comments thereon, cannot be considered here. EXTENSIONRULES 139 ultimate result of the sutra.¯ 86 This is as it should be. For the syntax of A. 7.1.95 (p. 137) is according to schema I: a nominative kros..tuh. along with trjvat, ˚ which refers to the act that kros..tu- shares with the derivate in -trc, namely having its form before sarvanamasth¯ ana¯ endings other than˚ a sambuddhi ending. Despite the ultimate result noted by Bhat.t.o- ji, it is not immediately possible to interpret the rule in accordance with schema II.87 If this were the case, one would expect a genitive kros..toh. instead of the nominative kros..tuh. . In fact, however, the latter has been interpreted as a genitive form in this sutra.¯ Thus, Haradatta remarks that one should read tasya after sañjña¯sabdah´ . of the Ka¯sik´ a¯’s paraphrase of A. 7.1.95 (p. 137) (see note 82), because the genitive kros..tuh. is stated in the sutra.¯ 88 He also goes on to say that trjvat contains vati introduced after a genitive form, by A. 5.1.116˚ (p. 132),89 so that the sutra¯ conforms to schema II. The question nevertheless remains: how can kros..tuh. be a genitive form of kros..tu-? Commenting on Rama-¯ 90 candra’s paraphrase of A. 7.1.95 (p. 137), Sr´ ¯ıkrs.n.a confronts the question, noting that what Ramacandra¯ says is˚ based on the following reasoning. To begin with, kros..tuh. in the sutra¯ contains a sixth-triplet ending after a citation form of the stem kros..tu, but the form is stated as though it were from the stem kros..tr-. It would be ˚ 86... I+.tya;a;Ba;prea;tya :P+. a;l+.ta;ma;a;h kÒ+:ea;u;Za;b.d;~ya .~Ta;a;na I+. a;ta Á (SKB. 274 [I.277), :P+. a;l+.ta- ;ma;a;h kÒ+:ea;u;Za;b.d;~ya .~Ta;a;nea kÒ+:ea;x;Za;b.d I+. a;ta Á (SKT. 274 [I.277]). Cf. note 85. 87Although some commentaries appear to do so. Thus, Dharmak¯ırti says (RA. 7.1.95 [I.53]) kÒ+:ea;u;Za;b.d;~ya txa:ja;nta;~yea;va .+.pMa Ba;va;tya;sa;}bua:;dÄâ ;Ea .sa;vRa;na;a;ma;~Ta;a;nea :pa:=+taH Á .+.pa;a- ; a;ta;de;Za;ea Y;ya;m,a Á See also note 90. 88.sa;V¼a;a;Za;b.d I+. a;ta Á tua;npra;tya;ya;~ya .sa;V¼a;a;TeRa ; a;va;Da;a;na;a;t,a Á .ja;}bua;k+:~ya ..cea;yMa .sa;V¼a;a Á va;~tua;~va- :+.pak+:Ta;na;mea;ta;t,a Á º:a;a;na;nta:=M ta;~yea; a;ta :pa; a;F+.ta;v.yMa kÒ+:ea;u;a:=+ a;ta .sUa:ea :Sa;+a; a;na;deR;Za;a;t,a Á (PM. 7.1.95 [V.640]). 89txa:$va;;ÂåÅ+va;ta;a; a;ta Á txa;.ca I+.va txa:$va;t,a Á ta:a ta;~yea;vea; a;ta :Sa;+a;sa;ma;Ta;Ra;dõ; a;taH Á (PM. 7.1.95 [V.640]). 90kÒ+:ea;u;Za;b.d;~ya kÒ+:ea;x;Za;b.d;va;dÒU +pMa .~ya;a;d;sa;}bua:;dÄâ ;Ea .sa;vRa;na;a;ma;~Ta;a;nea Á (PK. 7.1.95 [I.168]); similarly, Mit. 7.1.95. 140 G. CARDONA

purposeless to have kros..tuh. be a citation of a form from kros..tr-.91 ˚ Sr´ ¯ıkrs.n.a is aware of how difficult it is to maintain this interpreta- ˚ tion. For he immediately goes on to say that, alternatively, kros..tuh. contains a first-triplet ending after the stem in -tun, that trjvat contains vati introduced after a pada with a third-triplet ending,˚ by A. 5.1.115 (p. 129), and that Ramacandra’s¯ paraphrase conveys only the ultimate intent of the rule: kros..tu- behaves like the stem in -trc by taking on a form identical with that of this stem.92 ˚ A final question remains: if this is indeed Pan¯ .ini’s intent, why did he formulate an extension rule and not a substitution rule whereby kros..tu- would be replaced by kros..tr-, optionally in partic- ˚ ular forms? The suggestion I can make is this: kros..tu, derived with tun, refers to a particular creature that shrieks, a jackal. No sutra¯ provides for a stem in trc similarly restricted. Stating A. 7.1.95 (p. 137) as an extension˚ rule allows for forms from a stem in trc ˚ instead of kros..tu- but also allows for maintaining the semantics of the latter.

6 Summary

Pan¯ .ini’s As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı includes sutras,¯ called atidesas´ utra¯ , which serve to extend properties or operations. Pan¯ .in¯ıyas recognize a fairly wide variety of extensions (§2) — up to seven types — although there are four major kinds: extension of operations (ka-¯

91.sUa:ea ..ca kÒ+:ea;u;a:=+ a;ta tua;a;nta;a;nua;k+.=+¾a;a;tSa;+a Á l+»a;¾a;va;Za;a:ua txa:$va;;ÂåÅ+a;vea;na ; a;na;deR;ZaH kx +:taH Á txa:ja;nta;a;nua;k+.=+¾ea tua txa:$va;;ÂåÅ+a;va; a;va;Da;a;na;ma;na;TRa;kM .~ya;a; a;d;tya;a;Za;yea;na;a;h kÒ+:ea;u;Za;b.d;~yea; a;ta Á (PKPr. 7.1.95 [I.261]). The published text has trjvadabhavena¯ , which I have emended to ˚ trjvadbhavena¯ . Under the emended reading, Sr´ ¯ıkrs.n.a maintains that the form is ˚ ˚ stated as though it were from the stem kros..tr-, in accordance with A. 7.1.97 (see note 84). ˚ 92ya;dõ;a ta;a;tpa;yRa;k+:Ta;na;mea;ta;t,a Á ta:va;ta;~tua kÒ+:ea;u;a:=+ a;ta tua;a;nta;a;tpra;Ta;ma;a Á txa;ta;a;ya;a;nta;a;dõ; a;taH txa;.ca;a tua;yMa txa:$va;t,a Á ta;ta;(ãaÉ kÒ+:ea;u;Za;b.d;~txa:ja;ntea;na tua;yMa va;tRa;tea Á .tea;na tua;yMa .+.pMa :pra;a;pîÅa;ea;ta;a;tya;TRaH Á (PKPr. 7.1.95 [I.261]). EXTENSIONRULES 141 rya), rules (s´astra¯ ), physical shape (rupa¯ ), and identity (tad¯ atmya¯ ). There are syntactically two major types of atidesas´ utras:¯ those which provide for an entity X to be Y through attributing particular properties to it, thereby depriving X of its original properties (§3, §4.1); those which provide that an entity X behaves or is like an entity Y while still retaining its original properties. The second type is itself twofold: X is comparable to Y in that the two share an action (kriya¯), so that what is compared is that action relative to X and Y (§4.2.1); an X is said to be like a Y in that both are substantive entities sharing something that is located in or pertains to an X with which Y is comparable (§4.2.2). These two main types of comparisons also differ syntactically. The ﬁrst involves an act in progress and a pertinent sutra¯ contains — either in the sutra¯ itself or by anuvrtti — a nominative form referring to the entity said to be or behave˚ as such and such. Sutras¯ of the second type have locative or genitive forms. There are also pragmatic factors which can impinge on how sutras¯ are understood (§5). A recent study (Katira, Dharurkar, and Kulkarni 2013) is devoted to considering, on the basis of a sample of rules, how modern translators differ in their interpretations of sutras¯ containing terms with vati, depending on whether they intend to convey literal meaning or the intent of a rule.93 It is worth emphasizing that native speakers of Sanskrit themselves were expected to interpret such sutras,¯ basing their understanding on the conventions of their own speech — which Pan¯ .ini describes — with respect to the syntax of statements and how these would be paraphrased by native speakers.

93The general study on extension rules by S. Lakshmi Narasimham (2008) came to my attention after I had written this paper, so that I have not been able to discuss this work here. 142 G. CARDONA

7 As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı sutras¯ in which terms with -vati are used

7.1 List indicating extension type Key to abbreviations in Table 3, column 3: k kary¯ atide¯ sa´ s´ s´astr¯ atide¯ sa´ r rup¯ atide¯ sa´ t tad¯ atmy¯ atide¯ sa´ n nimittatide¯ sa´ v vypades´atide¯ sa´ a arthatide¯ sa´ In notes accompanying sutras,¯ I cite representative commentaries, with no attempt to cover all.

Table 3 Sutras¯ with terms in -vati

1.1.21 º;a;dùÅ;a;nta;va;de;k+://///////a;sma;n,a k §2.6, p. 121 1.1.56 .~Ta;a; a;na;va;d;a;de;Za;ea Y;na;//////a;va;Da;Ea k §2.1, p. 111 1.2.5194 lu+. a;pa yua;+:va;dõùÅ;a; a;+:va;.ca;nea k 1.2.6695 .~:a;a :pMua;va;a ak

94This sutra¯ includes a term with vati under one of two alternative interpretations proposed: (a) yuktavadvyaktivacane is a s.as.t.h¯ı-tatpurus.a the first constituent of which is yuktavat; this term derives from yuj ‘join, connect’ with the participial affix ktavatu and refers to a base meaning. (b) the sutra¯ consists of two padas, the first of which is yuktavat, with the suffix vati. Ka¯s.´ : yua;+:va; a;d; a;ta ; a;na;+a;pra;tya;yea;na +:va;tua;na;a :pra;kx +:tya;TRa o+..cya;tea Á .sa ; a;h :pra;tya;ya;a;TRa;ma;a;tma;na;a yua;na; a; Á ta;~ya yua;+:va;ta;ea v.ya; a;+:va;.ca;nea lu+.ba;TeRa ; a;va;Da;a;yea;tea Á º;Ta;va;a yua;H :pra;kx +:tya;TRaH :pra;tya;ya;a;TeRa;na .sa;}ba:;dÄâ H Á ta;/////////a;sma; a;a;va v.ya; a;+:va;.ca;nea lu+.ba;TeRa Ba;va;taH Á 95This is one of a set of rules providing for one of a group of terms to be a single remainder (PWT.: 260 ¶374), as in gargyau¯ (nom.-acc. du. masc.) equivalent to garg¯ ¯ı ca gargy¯ an¯ . as´ ca ‘A senior female gotra descendant of Garga and a EXTENSIONRULES 143

1.2.6996 na;pMua;sa;k+:ma;na;pMua;sa;ke+:nEa;k+:va;a;a;~ya;a;nya;ta:=+~ya;a;m,a k 1.3.62 :pUa;vRa;va;tsa;naH k §2.5, p. 119 1.3.63 º;a;}å.pra;tya;ya;va;tkx +:Va;ea Y;nua;pra;ya;ea;ga;~ya k §4.3, p. 135 1.4.106 :pra;h;a;sea ..ca ma;nya;ea;pa;pa;de ma;nya;tea:+.a;ma O;;k+:va;a k ñÍ 2.1.2 .sua;ba;a;ma;/a:n:a;tea:pa:=+a;ç*:+.va;t~va:=eÅ t §2.4, p. 118 ñÍ 2.4.2697 :pa:=+va; a;+:ç*:MÅ dõ;ndõ;ta;tpua:+:Sa;ya;eaH a 2.4.27 :pUa;vRa;va;d:(õ;a;va;q+.va;Ea a

junior descendant of this line’. As with other sutras¯ where the term str¯ı is used, the question arises whether this refers to (a) feminine affixes introduced under the heading of A. 4.1.3: ;///a;~:a;ya;a;m,a (PWT.: 66 ¶107), (b) the meaning feminine, or (c) a feminine word. Under (a) or (c), a problem arises concerning the derivation of gargah¯ . equivalent to garg¯ ¯ı ca gargy¯ ayan¯ . au ca ‘A senior female gotra descendant of Garga and two younger descendants of this lineage’, with gargya-¯ n˙¯ıp (→ garg¯ ¯ı). According to A. 2.4.64: ya;Va;Va;ea;(ãaÉ (PWT.: 308 ¶465), yañ of a derivate such as gargya¯ (← garga-n˙as-yañ) is omitted if it is used with reference to a plurality of descendants excluding a feminine. Under (a), A. 1.2.66 would prevent the occurrence of a feminine suffix n˙¯ıp (A. 4.1.16: ya;Va;(ãaÉ ) but the femininity of the base which would take this suffix as a cosignifier of this meaning would not be suppressed. Under (c), the rule would let the word in question be treated as masculine but again not eliminate its feminine meaning. A. 2.4.64, which excludes a female, would then not apply. Moreover, the ending ´sas of an accusative plural gargan¯ (← garga-´sas) equivalent to garg¯ ¯ı ca gargy¯ ayan¯ . au ca would now not be eligible for having its -s replaced by -n, since the rule in question (A. 6.1.103: ta- ;sma;a;.cC+.sa;ea naH :pMua;a;sa) requires a masculine referent. Hence, position (b) is adopted. Thus, the Bhas¯. ya and later commentaries: ya; a;d :pra;tya;ya;g{a;h;¾Ma va;a Za;b.d;g{a;h;¾Ma va;a ga;a;ga;Ra ..ca ga;a;gya;Ra;ya;¾a;Ea ..ca ga;ga;RaH :ke+:na ya;Za;b.d;ea na (rUa;yea;ta Á º;///a;~:a;ya;a;a;ma; a;ta; a;h lu+.gua;.cya;tea Á I+.h ..ca ga;a;ga;Ra ..ca ga;a;gya;Ra;ya;¾a;Ea ..ca ga;ga;Ra;npa;Zya ta;sma;a;.cC+.sa;ea naH :pMua;sa;a; a;ta na;tvMa na :pra;a;pîÅa;ea; a;ta Á º;Ta;a;TRa;g{a;h;¾Ma na d;ea;Sa;ea Ba;va; a;ta Á (Bh. I.247.23–248.3). Accordingly, A. 1.2.66 can be considered to extend masculinity. Nevertheless, it thereby extends operations proper to a masculine. Cf. Ka¯s.´ 1.2.66: .~:a;a va:;dÄâx ;a yUa;na;a .sa;h;va;.ca;nea ; a;Za;Sya;tea Á ta;+.»a;¾a;(ãea;de;vaÉ ; a;va;Zea;Sa;ea Ba;va; a;ta Á :pMua;sa I+.va;a;~ya;aH k+:a;y a Ba;va; a;ta Á .~:ya;TRaH :pua;ma;TRa;va;;ÂåÅ+va; a;ta Á 96... O;;k+:va;a;a;~ya k+:a;y a Ba;va;tya;nya;ta:=+~ya;a;m,a Á (Ka¯s.´ 1.2.69). ñÍ 97O;;ta;ya;eaH :pa:=+pa;d;~yea;va ; a;l+.ç*:MÅ .~ya;a;t,a Á (SK. 812). 144 G. CARDONA

Å 3.1.3998 Ba;a;hò ;a;Ba;hx u ;va;Ma (ì;Éu+va;a k 3.1.87 k+:mRa;va;tk+:mRa;¾a;a tua;ya; a;kÒ+:yaH k §3, p. 124 3.3.131 va;tRa;ma;a;na;sa;a;ma;a;pyea va;tRa;ma;a;na;va;dõ;a s´ 3.3.132 º;a;ZMa;sa;a;ya;Ma BUa;ta;va;a s´ 3.3.135 na;a;na;dùÅ;a;ta;na;va;//a;tkÒ+:ya;a;pra;ba;nDa;sa;a;ma;a;pya;ya;eaH s´ 3.4.85 l+.ea;f;ea l+.zõÅÉ +.t,a k §4.3, p. 134 4.2.3499 k+:a;le+.Bya;ea Ba;va;va;t,a s´ §2.2, p. 115 4.2.46 ..ca:=+¾ea;Bya;ea ;Da;mRa;va;t,a s´ ñÍ 4.3.80 ga;ea:a;a;d;öÐÅ*:+.va;t,aÅ s´ 4.3.100100 .ja;na;pa; a;d;na;Ma .ja;na;pa;d;va;tsa;v a .ja;na;pa;de;na .sa;ma;a- s´ ;na;Za;b.d;a;na;Ma ba;hu ;va;.ca;nea 4.3.156 kÒ +:a;ta;va;tpa;a:=+ma;a;¾a;a;t,a s´ 5.1.96 ta:a ..ca d;a;ya;tea k+:a;y a Ba;va;va;t,a s´ 5.4.22 .sa;mUa;h;va;a ba;hu ;Sua s´ 6.1.85101 º;nta;a; a;d;va;a k Å 6.1.129102 º;pì;Éu+ta;va;du;pa;//////a;~Ta;tea k 6.2.175 ba;h;ea;nRa;Vva;du:a:=+pa;d;BUa;a;}îå:a s´

Å 98... O;;tea;Bya;ea ; a;l+. a;f :pa:=+ta º;a;}å.pra;ta;ya;ea Ba;va;tya;nya;ta:=+~ya;a;m,a Á (ì;+a; a;va;vaÉ ..ca;a;/////////a;sma;nk+:a;y aBa;va; a;ta Á (Ka¯s.´ 3.1.39). 99A. 4.2.46; 4.3.80, 156; 5.1.96; 5.4.22 are comparable to A. 4.2.34. 100.ja;na;pa; a;d;na;ea yea ba;hu ;va;.ca;nea .ja;na;pa;de;na .sa;ma;a;na;Za;b.d;a;~tea;Sa;Ma .ja;na;pa;d;va;tsa;v a Ba;va; a;ta :pra;tya;yaH :pra- ;kx +: a;ta;(ãaÉ .sa;ea Y;~ya Ba; a;+:a:=+tyea;ta;/////////a;sma;///a;nva;Sa;yea Á .ja;na;pa;d;ta;d;va;Dya;ea;(ãaÉ (A. 4.2.124) I+.tya:a :pra;k+.=+¾ea yea :pra;tya;ya;a ; a;va; a;h;ta;a;~tea .ja;na;pa; a;d;Bya;ea Y;/////////a;sma;a;TeRaY; a;ta; a;d;Zya;ntea Á (Ka¯s.´ 4.3.100). 101The sutra¯ is comparable to A. 1.1.56 (p. 111) (§2.1): a single replacement for two contiguous vowels behaves like the ﬁnal and initial sound of the prior and subsequent elements to which the two vowels replaced belong. Cf. SKP. 75 (162): .~Ta;a; a;na;va;tsUa:ea;¾Ea;va ga;ta;a;TRa;a;ma;dM .sUa:a;m,a Á 102o+.pa;//////a;~Ta;tMana;a;ma;a;na;a;SRa I+. a;ta;k+.=+¾aH .sa;mua;d;a;ya;a;d;va;/////a;.cC+.dùÅ;a :pa;dM yea;na .~va:+.pea Y;va;~Ta;a;pya;tea Á Å Å Å ta;/////////a;sma;npa:=+taH:pì;Éu+ta;ea Y;pì;Éu+ta;va;;ÂåÅ+va; a;ta Á :pì;Éu+ta;k+:a;y a :pra;kx +: a;ta;Ba;a;vMa na k+.=+ea; a;ta Á (Ka¯s.´ 6.1.129). EXTENSIONRULES 145

ñÍ 6.3.34103 ;///a;~:a;ya;aH :pMua;va;;ÂåÅ+a; a;Sa;ta;pMua;~k+:a;d;nUa;óéÅ*;+.ma;a;na;a; a;Da;k+.=-É r §2.3, p. 117 +¾ea ;///a;~:a;ya;a;ma;pUa:=+¾a;a; a;pra;ya;a; a;d;Sua 6.3.42 :pMua;va;tk+:mRa;Da;a:=+ya:ja;a;ta;a;ya;de;Za;a;yea;Sua r 6.3.68 I+..ca O;;k+:a;.ca;ea Y;}å.pra;tya;ya;va;a k 6.4.22104 º;a;sa:;dÄâ ;va;d:a;a Ba;a;t,a k æ 6.4.62 .~ya;a;sa;.csa;a;yua;*+.a;a;sa;SuaôåÅ Ba;a;va;k+:mRa;¾a;ea:+:pa;de;Zea k æ Y;$½+.na;g{a;h;dx;Za;Ma va;a ; a;.ca;¾va; a;d:ãÅ*:Å 7.1.74105 txa;ta;a;ya;a; a;d;Sua Ba;a; a;Sa;ta;pMua;~kM :pMua;va;çÅ+a;l+.va;~ya r 7.1.95 txa:$va;tkÒ+:ea;uH r §4.3, p. 137 7.2.61 º;.ca;~ta;a;~va;tTa;ya; a;na;f;ea ; a;na;tya;m,a k ñÍ 7.4.93 .sa;nva;+:Gua; a;na ..ca:*:+=eðÅÉ Y;na;gl+.ea;pea k 8.1.9 O;;kM ba;hu ;v.ra;a; a;h;va;t,a k 8.1.11 k+:mRa;Da;a:=+ya;va;du:a:=e+Sua k 8.1.72106 º;a;ma;/a:n:a;tMa:pUa;vRa;ma; a;va;dùÅ;a;ma;a;na;va;t,a k

103Similarly, A. 6.3.42 provides that a feminine takes a masculine form in a karmadharaya¯ compound as well as when an afﬁx jat¯ ¯ıyar or des´¯ıya follows. 104na ;a;sa:;dÄâ ;ma;a;sa:;dÄâ ;m,a Á ;a;sa:;dÄâ ;k+:a;ya;Ra;k+.=+¾a;sa;a;Da;}yeRa;¾a;a;a;sa:;dÄâe ;na tua;yMa va;tRa;ta I+.tya;a;sa:;dÄâ ;va;t,a Á (N. 6.4.22 [V.363–364]), na ;a;sa:;dÄâ ;ea Y;a;sa:;dÄâ H Á yaH :pua;naH ;a;sa:;dÄâ ;ea Y; a;pa ;a;sa:;dÄâ ;k+:a;y a na k+.=+ea; a;ta .sa .tea;na tua;yMa va;tRa;ta I+.tya;a;sa:;dÄâ ;va;t,a Á (PM. 6.4.22 [V.364]). The view is also entertained that A. 6.4.22 provides for rule suspension (s´astr¯ atide¯ sa´ ); see PWT.: 423–425 ¶659–661 and note 121 below. 105Cf. A. 6.3.34; see note 103. 106º;a;ma;/a:n:a;tMa:pUa;vRa;ma; a;va;dùÅ;a;ma;a;na;va;;ÂåÅ+va; a;ta Á ta;/////////a;sma;nsa; a;taya;tk+:a;y a ta;a Ba;va; a;ta Á º;sa; a;ta ya:a;;ÂåÅ- +va; a;ta Á (Ka¯s.´ 8.1.72). 146 G. CARDONA

7.2 Syntax of sutras¯ with terms in -vati Pertinent forms are underlined.

7.2.1 Schema I (§4.3)

Table 4 Ia. Sutras¯ in which a nominative form is explicit

1.1.56107 .~Ta;a; a;na;va;d, º;a;de;Za;ea Y;na;//////a;va;Da;Ea §2.1, p. 111 1.2.66108 .~:a;a :pMua;va;a 1.4.106 :pra;h;a;sea ..ca ma;nya;ea;pa;pa;de ma;nya;tea:=, o+a;ma O;;k+:va;a 2.4.27109 :pUa;vRa;va;d, º:(õ;a;va;q+.va;Ea 3.1.87110 k+:mRa;va;tk+:mRa;¾a;a tua;ya; a;kÒ+:yaH §3, p. 124 6.3.68 I+..ca O;;k+:a;.ca;ea Y;m,a :pra;tya;ya;va;a 7.1.74111 txa;ta;a;ya;a; a;d;Sua Ba;a; a;Sa;ta;pMua;~kM :pMua;va;çÅ+a;l+.va;~ya 7.1.95112 txa:$va;t,akÒ+:ea;uH §4.3, p. 137 8.1.9113 O;;kM ba;hu ;v.ra;a; a;h;va;t,a

107.~Ta;a; a;na;na;a tua;yMa va;tRa;ta I+. a;ta .~Ta;a; a;na;va;t,a Á (Ka¯s.´ 1.1.56), .~Ta;a; a;na;na;a tua;yMa va;tRa;ta I+. a;ta ta:ua;ya;k+:a;yRa;tva;a:ea;na tua;ya;m,a Á (N. 1.1.56 [I.184]). 108:pMua;sa I+.va;a;~ya;aH k+:a;y a Ba;va; a;ta Á .~:ya;TRaH :pua;ma;TRa;va;;ÂåÅ+va; a;ta Á (Ka¯s.´ 1.2.66); see note 95. 109The sutra¯ cites the dual asvavad´ . avau and states that its gender is like that of the ﬁrst constituent. Since the form given is nominative, purvavat¯ is properly interpreted according to schema I. On the other hand, this rule is an exception to A. 2.4.26, which is formulated according to schema IIa. 110See note 70. 111:pMua;va; a;d; a;ta :pMua;Za;b.de;na tua;ya;a;ma;tya;TRaH Á (PM. 7.1.74 [V.617]). 112txa;.ca;a tua;yMa va;tRa;ta I+. a;ta txa:$va;t,a Á (N. 7.1.95 [V.640]). 113A. 8.1.9 comes under the heading A. 8.1.1 .sa;vRa;~ya :dõe . Rules headed by the latter provide for iterating padas under stated conditions. By A. 8.1.9, the term eka (nom. sg. nt. ekam) when iterated behaves as does a bahuvr¯ıhi compound. See PWT.: 257–259 ¶370–372. EXTENSIONRULES 147

8.1.72114 º;a;ma;/a:n:a;tMa:pUa;vRa;m,a º; a;va;dùÅ;a;ma;a;na;va;t,a

Table 5 Ib. Sutras¯ in which a nominative form is understood

1.3.62115 :pUa;vRa;va;tsa;naH (º;a;tma;nea;pa;d;m,a 12) §2.5, p. 119 3.3.131116 va;tRa;ma;na;sa;a;ma;a;pyea va;tRa;ma;a;na;va;dõ;a (:pra;tya;yaH 3.1.1) 3.3.132 º;a;ZMa;sa;a;ya;Ma BUa;ta;va;a (:pra;tya;yaH 3.1.1) 3.3.135 na;a;na;dùÅ;a;ta;na;va;//a;tkÒ+:ya;a;pra;ba;nDa;sa;a;ma;a;pya;ya;eaH (:pra;tya;yaH 3.1.1) 4.2.34117 k+:a;le+.Bya;ea Ba;va;va;t,a (:pra;tya;yaH 3.1.1, ta; a:;dÄâ ;ta;aH §2.2, p. 115 4.1.76) 4.2.46 ..ca:=+¾ea;Bya;ea ;Da;mRa;va;t,a (:pra;tya;yaH 3.1.1, ta; a:;dÄâ ;ta;aH 4.1.76) ñÍ 4.3.80 g{a;ea:a;a;d;öÐÅ*:+.va;t,aÅ (:pra;tya;yaH 3.1.1, ta; a:;dÄâ ;ta;aH 4.1.76) 4.3.156 kÒ +:a;ta;va;tpa;a:=+ma;a;¾a;a;t,a (:pra;tya;yaH 3.1.1, ta; a:;dÄâ ;ta;aH 4.1.76) 5.1.96 ta:a ..ca d;a;ya;tea k+:a;y a Ba;va;va;t,a (:pra;tya;yaH 3.1.1, ta; a:;dÄâ - ;ta;aH 4.1.76) 5.4.22118 .sa;mUa;h;va;a ba;hu ;Sua (:pra;tya;yaH 3.1.1, ta; a:;dÄâ ;ta;aH 4.1.76)

114º; a;va;dùÅ;a;ma;a;nea;na tua;yMa va;tRa;ta I+.tya; a;va;dùÅ;a;ma;a;na;va;t,a Á (N. 8.1.72 [VI.322]). 115:pUa;vRa;va; a;d; a;ta .tea;na tua;yMa ; a;kÒ+:ya;a ..cea;dõ; a;taH Á (N. 1.3.62 [I.456]). 116va;tRa;ma;a;na;sa;ma;a;pea BUa;tea Ba; a;va;Sya; a;ta ..ca va;tRa;ma;a;na;a:;dÄâ ;a;ta;eaH va;tRa;ma;a;na;va;tpra;tya;ya;a va;a Ba;va;////a;ntaÁ (Ka¯s.´ 3.3.131). Jayaditya¯ appropriately supplies the plural pratyayah¯ . , by contextual modiﬁcation, for the singular pratyayah. in the major heading. He does the same in his comments on A. 3.3.132: ta:a Ba; a;va;Sya; a;ta k+:a;l º;a;ZMa;sa;a;ya;Ma ga;}ya;ma;a;na;a;ya;Ma ;Da;a;ta;ea;va;Ra BUa;ta;va;tpra;tya;ya;a Ba;va;////a;ntaÁ 117k+:a;l+. a;va;Zea;Sa;va;a; a;.ca;ByaH Za;b.de;Bya;ea Ba;va;va;tpra;tya;ya;a Ba;va;////a;nta .sa;a;~ya :de;va;tea;tya;/////////a;sma;///a;nva;Sa;yeaÁ (Ka¯s.´ 4.2.34); comparably on A. 4.2.46. 118ba;hu ;Sua :pra;kx +:tea;SUa;.cya;ma;a;nea;Sua .sa;mUa;h;va;tpra;tya;ya;a Ba;va;////a;ntaÁ (Ka¯s.´ 5.4.22). 148 G. CARDONA

6.1.85119 º;nta;a; a;d;va;a (O;;kH :pUa;vRa;pa:=+ya;eaH 84) Å 6.1.129120 º;pì;Éu+ta;va;du;pa;//////a;~Ta;tea 6.4.22121 º;a;sa:;dÄâ ;va;d:a;a;Ba;a;t,a 8.1.11122 k+:mRa;Da;a:=+ya;va;du:a:=e+Sua

7.2.2 Schema II

Table 6 IIa. B-vat = B6 iva

1.2.69 na;pMua;sa;k+:ma;na;pMua;sa;ke+:nEa;k+:va;a;a.~ya;anya;ta:=+~ya;a;m,a 1.3.63 º;a;}å.pra;tya;ya;va;t,a kx +:Va;ea Y;nua;pra;ya;ea;ga;~ya §4.3, p. 135 ñÍ 2.4.26123 :pa:=+va; a;+:ç*:MÅ dõ;ndõta;tpua:+:Sa;ya;eaH 3.4.85 l+.ea;f;ea l+.zõÅÉ +.t,a §4.3, p. 134

119See note 101. 120As shown in note 102, Vamana¯ supplies plutah, which is appropriate. For A. . Å 6.1.129 has to be considered together with A. 6.1.125 :pì;Éu+ta;pra;ga;hx ùÅ:a;a º; a;.ca ; a;na;tya;m,a (:pra;kx - +:tya;a 115), to which it is an exception: a pluta vowel obligatorily retains its original form before a vowel, but before iti of a Vedic padapat¯.ha; it behaves as though it were not a pluta element. The term pluta, included in the compound plutapra- grhyah¯ . is understood in the later rule, where it contextually has an ending of the ﬁrst˚ triplet. 121Depending on whether A. 6.4.22 is considered to provide that rules or operations stated in the section that follows are treated as suspended, one supplies s´astram¯ or karyam¯ . I consider that A. 6.4.22 provides for treating as suspended operations that are stated in the section of rules it governs. See note 104. 122A. 8.1.11 is a subheading under the heading A. 8.1.1 (see note 113). Rules under the former state conditions for doubling such that the resulting sequence behaves like a karmadharaya¯ compound; that is, operations which apply to such a compound apply also in these sequences. Accordingly, karyam¯ is supplied. Thus, for example, Ka¯s.´ 8.1.11: I+.ta o+a:=e+Sua ; a;dõ;vRa;.ca;nea;Sua k+:mRa;Da;a:=+ya;va;tk+:a;y a Ba;va;ta;a; a;ta :vea; a;d;ta;v.ya;m,a Á ñÍ 123O;;ta;ya;eaH :pa:=+pa;d;~yea;va ; a;l+.ç*:MÅ .~ya;a;t,a Á (SK. 812 = 2.4.26), :pa:=+va; a;d; a;ta :Sa;.a;nta;a;dõ; a;taH Á ta;d;a;h0 (SKB. 812 [II.119]). EXTENSIONRULES 149

4.3.100124 .ja;na;pa; a;d;na;Ma .ja;na;pa;d;va;tsa;v a .ja;na;pa;de;na .sa;ma;a;na;Za- ;b.d;a;na;Ma ba;hu ;va;.ca;nea 6.2.175125 ba;h;ea;nRa;Vva;du:a:=+pa;d;BUa;a;}îå:a ñÍ 6.3.34126 ;///a;~:a;ya;aH :pMua;va;;ÂåÅ+a; a;Sa;ta;pMua;~k+:a;d;nUa;óéÅ*;+.ma;a;na;a; a;Da;k+.=+¾eaÉ §2.3, p. 117 ;///a;~:a;ya;Ma :pUa:=+¾a;a; a;pra;ya;a; a;d;Sua 6.3.42 :pMua;va;tk+:mRa;Da;a:=+ya:ja;a;ta;a;ya;de;Za;a;yea;Sua (;///a;~:a;ya;aH 34)

124See note 100 125A. 6.2.175 says nañvat, so that it is connected with A. 6.2.172: na;Vsua;Bya;a- ;m,a (ba;hu ;v.ra;a;h;Ea 162, º;ntaH 143), whereby a constituent in a bahuvr¯ıhi compound has high pitch on its last vowel if it follows nañ or su. According to A. 6.2.175, a constituent in a bahuvr¯ıhi behaves similarly if it follows bahu used to signify a large amount of what the following constituent denotes, as in b!a;hu!;y!a;vaH (‘. . . which has a great deal of barley’). Accordingly, the Ka¯sik´ a¯ paraphrases supplying svarah. : o+a:=+pa;d;ba;hu ;tvea ya;ea ba;hu ;Za;b.d;ea va;tRa;tea ta;sma;a;a;Va I+.va .~va:=+ea Ba;va; a;ta Á Under this interpretation, nañvat is best considered to have vati by A. 5.1.115 (p. 129), so that the sutra¯ fits under schema I (p. 133). On the other hand, the use of nañvat obviously calls for relating A. 6.2.175, where nañ- is part of a dvandva with a fifth-triplet ending, an ablative form. It is then difficult to account for vati by A. 5.1.115 (p. 129). Two ways of solving this problem have been considered. First, the very use of nañvat here serves to indicate that vati is allowed after a pada with a fifth-triplet ending. Alternatively, nañvat here is considered to have vati introduced after a pada with a sixth-triplet ending, by A. 5.1.116 (p. 132) under schema II (p. 134). Since such an ending is used, according to A. 2.3.50 :Sa;+a Zea;Sea, to denote any non-karaka¯ relation in general (sambandhasam¯ anya¯ ), it includes meanings attributed to any nominal ending that does not signify a karaka,¯ including a fifth-triplet ending; in brief, nañvat has vati after a pada B6 equivalent to B5 construed with para (‘following’). Haradatta presents both alternatives: na;Va I+.va na;Vva;t,a Á º;sma;a;de;va ; a;na- ;pa;a;ta;na;a;tpa:ã*.a;ma;a;sa;ma;Ta;Ra;dúÁ õ; a;taH Á ya;dõ;a .sa;}ba;nDa;sa;a;ma;a;nyea :Sa;+a Á ta;ya;a .sa;veRa ; a;va;Ba;+.a;Ta;Ra .sMa;ga;hx ùÅ:a;nta ú I+. a;ta :pa:ã*.a;}ya;TeRaÁ Y; a;pa ta:a ta;~yea;vea; a;ta va; a;taH :Sa;.a;nta;a;de;va Á (PM. 6.2.175 [V.166]). I think the second position is the more plausible: nañvat = naña iva (‘as if related to nañ’). 126The term striyah¯ . is to be interpreted as a genitive, in accordance with related sutras containing unambiguously genitive forms: na k+:ea;pa;Da;a;ya;aH Á .sa;V¼a;a;pUa:=+¾a;ya;ea;(ãaÉ Á ñÍ Thus, for example, Ka¯s.´ 6.3.34: ta;~ya Ba;a; a;Sa;ta;pMua;~k+:a;d;nUa;óéÅ*;,É;a;a;Za;b.d;~ya :pMua;Za;b.d;~yea;va .+.pMa Ba;va; a;ta0 150 G. CARDONA

Table 7 IIb. B-vat = B7 iva

1.1.21127 º;a;dùÅ;a;nta;va;d, O;;k+://///////a;sma;n,a §2.6, p. 121 1.2.51128 lu+. a;pa yua;+:va;dõùÅ;a; a;+:va;.ca;nea æ 6.4.62129 .~ya;a;sa;.csa;a;yua;*+.a;a;sa;SuaôåÅ Ba;a;va;k+:mRa;¾a;ea:+:pa;de;Zea Y;$½- æ +.na;g{a;h;dx;Za;Ma va;a ; a;.ca;¾va; a;d:ãÅ*:Å 7.2.61 º;.ca;~ta;a;~va;t,a Ta;ya; a;na;f;ea ; a;na;tya;m,a ñÍ 7.4.93 .sa;nva;+:Gua; a;na ..ca:*:+=eðÅÉ Y;na;gl+.ea;pea

Table 8 Abbreviations

A. As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı. Bh. Mahabh¯ as¯. ya. See Kielhorn 1962–1972; Vedavrata 1962–1963. BhK. Bhat..tikavya¯ . See B. Misra´ 2004. BhKJ. Jayamangala’s˙ Jayamangal˙ a¯ on the Bhat..tikavya¯ . See B. Misra´ 2004. BS´S.´ Brhacchabdendusekhara´ . See Sitaram Shastri 1960. ˚ JMSS.´ S´abarabh¯ as¯.ya on Jaimini’s M¯ıma¯ms˙ as¯ utra¯ . See Ab- hyankar, Joshi, et al. 1976–1985. Ka¯s.´ Ka¯sik´ avr¯ tti. See Sharma, Deshpande, and Padhye 1969–1970.˚ Manu. Manusmrti. See Dave 1972–1984. ˚ Mit. Mitaks¯ . ara¯. See Aryavaraguru¯ and Bhat.t.anathasw¯ amy¯ 1903–1906.

127.sa;a;}ya;TeRa va; a;taH Á (Ka¯s.´ 1.1.21). 128.sa;a;}ya;TeRa va; a;taH Á (Ka¯s.´ 1.2.51); see note 94. æ 129.~ya;a;sa;.csa;a;yua;*+.a;a;sa;/a;Sva; a;ta.sa;a;}ya;aôåÅ :pra; a;ta;ya;ea; a;ga;na;ea ; a;na;deR;Za;a; a;a;¾a;a;va ; a;.ca;¾va; a;d; a;ta .sa;a;ma;a;sa- ;ma;Ta;Ra;dõ; a;ta; a;vRa;¼a;a;ya;tea ya;Ta;a ma;Tua:=+a;va;tpa;a;f; a;l+.pua:ea :pra;a;k+:a:= I+. a;ta Á (N. 6.4.62). REFERENCES 151

N. Nyasa¯ on the Ka¯sik´ avr¯ tti. See Dwarika Das Shastri and Kalika Prasad Shukla˚ 1965–1967. Nir. Nirukta. See Sarup 1920–1929. PK. Prakriyakaumud¯ ¯ı. See Trivedi 1925–1931. PKPr. Praka¯sa´ on the Prakriyakaumud¯ ¯ı. See M. Misra´ 1977– 1980. PM. Padamañjar¯ı on the Ka¯sik´ avr¯ tti. See Dwarika Das Shastri and Kalika Prasad Shukla˚ 1965–1967. PWT. See Cardona 1997. Pr. Prad¯ıpa on the Mahabh¯ as¯. ya. See Vedavrata 1962– 1963. RA. Rup¯ avat¯ ara¯ . See Rangacharya 1916, 1917. SK. Siddhantakaumud¯ ¯ı. See Giridharasarm´ a¯ and Parame- svar´ ananda¯ sarm´ a¯ 1967–1975. SKB. Balamanoram¯ a¯ on Siddhantakaumud¯ ¯ı. See Giridhara- sarm´ a¯ and Paramesvar´ ananda¯ sarm´ a¯ 1967–1975. SKP. Praud. hamanorama¯ on Siddhantakaumud¯ ¯ı. See Sitaram Shastri 1964–1992. SKT. Tattvabodhin¯ı on Siddhantakaumud¯ ¯ı. See Giridharasa-´ rma¯ and Paramesvar´ ananda¯ sarm´ a¯ 1967–1975. Ud. Uddyota on the Mahabh¯ as¯. ya. See Vedavrata 1962– 1963. US. Un. adis¯ utra¯ . See Aufrecht 1859. VPPu. Pun.yaraja’s¯ T. ¯ıka¯ on the Vakyapad¯ ¯ıya. See Subramania Iyer 1983.

References

Abhyankar, Vasudev Kashinath, Ganeshashastri Ambadas Joshi, et al., eds. 1976–1985. Sr´ ¯ımajjaiminipran. ¯ıte M¯ıma¯ms˙ adar¯ sane´ ... 7 vols. Anand¯ a¯srama´ Sanskrit Series 97. Pune: Anand¯ a¯sra-´ ma. 152 G. CARDONA

Aryavaraguru,¯ Jagannathasw¯ amy¯ and Ach¯ arya¯ Bhat.t.anathasw¯ amy,¯ eds. 1903–1906. Vyakaran¯ . amitakshar¯ a,¯ a Gloss on Pan¯ . ini’s Grammatical Aphorisms by Sr´ ¯ı Annambhat..ta. Benares San- skrit Series 20. Benares: Braj B. Das. Aufrecht, Theodor, ed. 1859. Ujjvaladatta’s Commentary on the Un. adis¯ utras¯ . Bonn: Adolphus Marcus. Cardona, George. 1997. Pan¯ . ini: his work and its traditions; vol. 1, Background and Introduction. Second edition, revised and enlarged. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Dave, J. H., ed. 1972–1984. Manu-Smriti with Nine Commen- taries by Medhatithi,¯ Sarvajñanar¯ ayan¯ . a, Kulluka,¯ Raghav¯ a-¯ nanda, Nandana, Ramacandra,¯ Man. irama,¯ Govindaraja,¯ and Bharuci¯ . 6 vols. in seven parts. Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bha- van. Dwarika Das Shastri and Kalika Prasad Shukla, eds. 1965–1967. Nyasa¯ or Pañcika¯ of Ac¯ arya¯ Jinendrabuddhipada¯ and Pa- damañjar¯ı of Haradatta Misra´ on the Ka¯sik´ avr¯ . tti [Com- mentary on the As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı of Pan¯ . ini] of Vamana-Jay¯ aditya:¯ Bodhisattvades´¯ıyac¯ aryajinendrabuddhip¯ adaviracitay¯ a¯ Nyas¯ a-¯ paraparyayak¯ a¯sik´ avr¯ . ttipañcikaya¯ vidvadvaraharadattamisra-´ viracitaya¯ Padamañjar¯ıvyakhyay¯ a¯ ca sahita¯ Ka¯sik´ avr¯ . ttih. Pa-¯ n. in¯ıyas¯..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ıvyakhy¯ a¯. 6 vols. Prachya Bharati Series 2–7. Varanasi: Prachya Bharati Prakashan. Giridharasarm´ a¯ and Paramesvar´ ananda¯ sarm´ a,¯ eds. 1967–1975. Sr´ ¯ımadbhat..tojid¯ıks. itaviracita¯ Vaiyakaran¯ . asiddhantakaumud¯ ¯ı ... Sr´ ¯ımadvasudevad¯ ¯ıks. itapran. ¯ıtaya¯ Balamanoram¯ akhyavy¯ a-¯ khyaya¯ Srimajjñ´ anendrasarasvat¯ ¯ıviracitaya¯ Tattvabodhinya-¯ khyavyakhyay¯ a¯ ca sanathit¯ a¯. 4 vols. Delhi: Motilal Banarsi- dass. Katira, Dipesh, Chinmay Dharurkar, and Malhar Kulkarni. 2013. “Vat: a textual study.” Proceedings of the 15th World Sanskrit Conference; vol. 2, Vyakaran¯ . a Across the Ages: proceedings of REFERENCES 153

the vyakaran¯ . a section of the 15th World Sanskrit Conference, ed. by George Cardona, pp. 147–67. Kielhorn, Lorenz Franz, ed. 1962–1972. The Vyakaran¯ . a = Ma- habh¯ as¯. ya of Patañjali: revised and furnished with additional readings, references, and select critical notes, rev. by Vasudev Kashinath Abhyankar. 3rd ed. 3 vols. Poona: Bhandarkar Ori- ental Research Institute. [A reissue labelled ‘fourth edition’ was published in 1985 and 1996.] Lakshmi Narasimham, S. 2008. Pan¯ . in¯ıye atides´anu¯ s´¯ılanam.Ra-¯ s.t.riyasamskr˙ tavidyap¯ ¯ıt.hagranthamal¯ a¯ 187, Paramparika¯ s´astra-¯ ˚ samutkars.agranthamal¯ a¯ 30. Tirupati: Ras¯.t.riyasamskr˙ tavidya-¯ ˚ p¯ıt.ham. Misra,´ Bankel˙ ala,¯ ed. 2004. Bhat..tikavyam¯ of Sr´ ¯ı Bhat..tikavi: with the commentaries ‘Jayamangal˙ a’¯ by Sr´ ¯ı Jayamangala˙ & ‘Sa- rvapath¯ına’¯ by Sr´ ¯ı Mallinatha¯ Suri¯ . 2 vols. Sarasvat¯ıbhavana- Granthamal¯ a¯ 147. Varanasi: Sampurnanand Sanskrit Univer- sity. Misra,´ Mural¯ıdhara, ed. 1977–1980. Prakriyakaumud¯ ¯ı by Rama-¯ candrac¯ arya:¯ with Praka¯sa´ by Sr´ ¯ıkris. n. a edited with his ‘Ra- smi’´ by Pt. Mural¯ıdhara Misra´ . 3 vols. Sarasvart¯ıbhavana-Gra- nthamal¯ a¯ 111–112. Varanasi: Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vish- vavidyalaya. Rangacharya, Rao Bahadur M., ed. 1916. The Rup¯ avat¯ ara¯ of Dha- rmak¯ırti: edited with additions and emendations, for the use of college students. Vol. 1. Madras: G. A. Natesan & Co. —. ed. 1917. The Rup¯ avat¯ ara¯ of Dharmak¯ırti: edited with additions and emendations, for the use of college students. Vol. 2. Bangalore: The Bangalore Press. Sarup, Lakshman, ed. and trans. 1920–1929. The Nighan. .tu and the Nirukta: the oldest treatise on etymology, philology and semantics: critical edition, translation, introduction, exegeti- cal and critical notes, indexes and appendices. 1st ed. Lon- don: Oxford University Press; Lahore: University of the Pan- 154 G. CARDONA

jab. [Reprinted with three parts in one volume: Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1967, 1984, 1998.] Sharma, Aryendra, Khanderao Deshpande, and D. G. Padhye, eds. 1969–1970. Ka¯sik´ a:¯ a commentary on Pan¯ . ini’s grammar by Vamana¯ & Jayaditya¯ . 2 vols. Sanskrit Academy Se- ries 17, 20. Hyderabad: Sanskrit Academy, Osmania Univer- sity. [Reprinted in one volume, 2008.] Sitaram Shastri, ed. 1960. Brhat-Sabdendu´ sekhara´ by Nage¯ sa´ ˚ Bhat..ta. 3 vols. Sarasvati Bhavana Granthamala 87. Varanasi: Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishvavidyalaya. —. ed. 1964–1992. Praud. hamanorama¯ of Sr´ ¯ı Bhat..toji D¯ıkshita: together with Br. ihachchhabdaratna and unpublished commentary of Sr´ ¯ı Hari D¯ıks. ita and Laghusabdaratna´ of Sr´ ¯ı Nage-¯ sa´ Bhat..ta. 2 vols. Continuous pagination. Varanasi: Banaras Hindu University. Subramania Iyer, K. A. 1974. “Bhartr.hari on taddhita formations involving comparison.” Charudeva Shastri Felicitation Vol- ume: presented to Prof. Charudeva Shastri on the occasion of his seventy-ﬁfth anniversary by friends and admirers, ed. by Charudeva Shastri felicitation volume editorial committee, pp. 241–57. Delhi: Charudeva Shastri Felicitation Committee. —. ed. 1983. Vakyapad¯ ¯ıya of Bhartr. hari (An ancient Treatise on the Philosophy of Sanskrit Grammar) Containing the T. ¯ıka¯ of Pun. yaraja¯ and the Ancient Vr. tti: edited ... with a Foreword by Ashok Aklujkar, Kan¯ . d. a II. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Trivedi, Kamlashankar Pranashankar, ed. 1925–1931. The Prakriyâkaumudî of Râmachandra: with the commentary Prasâda of Vitt.hala and with a critical notice of manuscripts and an exhaustive and critical introduction. 2 vols. Bombay Sanskrit and Prakrit Series 78, 82. Poona: Bhandarkar Orien- tal Research Institute. Vedavrata, ed. 1962–1963. Sr´ ¯ıbhagavatpatañjaliviracitam˙ Vyaka-¯ ran. a-mahabh¯ as¯. yam: Sr´ ¯ıkaiyyat.akrtaprad¯ıpena Nagoj¯ ¯ıbhat..ta- ˚ REFERENCES 155

krtena Bhas¯. yaprad¯ıpoddyotena ca vibhus¯. itam. 5 vols. Gurukul ˚ Jhajjar (Rohtak): Harayan¯ .a-S¯ ahitya-Sa¯ msth˙ anam.¯ 156 G. CARDONA Voice, preverb, and transitivity restrictions in Sanskrit verb use

PETER SCHARF, PAWAN GOYAL, ANUJA AJOTIKAR, and TANUJA AJOTIKAR

Abstract: In the third pada¯ of the As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı Pan¯ .ini states rules that account for the occurrence of verbs in the active, middle, and passive voices under semantic and coocurrence conditions. These rules include specific conditions that specify not only which verbs occur in the active or middle voice but also in which meanings they do so, with which preverbs they do so, and whether they do so when transitive or intransitive. Some of the information in these rules is included in comprehensive bilingual lexical and grammatical reference sources such as Böhtlingk and Roth (1855–1875), and some reference sources such as Ober- lies (2003) provide complementary information for specific genres and periods. Yet common reference works such as Whitney (1885, 1945) do not include these specific conditions, and the information has yet to be used in any systematic way to analyze Sanskrit syntax. The authors collect and analyze the provisions Pan¯ .ini has made concerning the semantic and cooccurrence conditions of preverbs and verbal roots and utilize it in a computational implementation of the third pada¯ of the first adhyaya.¯

Keywords: voice assignment, verb usage, computational implementation, Pan¯ .ini

157 158 SCHARF, GOYAL, AJOTIKAR, and AJOTIKAR

1 Introduction

Pan¯ .ini introduces verbal terminations after verbal roots (dhatu¯ s) by providing a cover symbol l marked variously under various conditions such as time and mood. For example,

• A. 3.2.123 va;tRa;ma;a;nea l+.f, (;Da;a;ta;eaH 3.1.91) The afﬁx lat. occurs after a verbal root that denotes an action occuring in present time.

These l-afﬁxes are introduced to denote the agent (kartr), direct object (karman), or the action itself (bhava¯ ) by ˚

• A. 3.4.69 lH k+:mRa; a;¾a ..ca Ba;a;vea ..ca;a;k+:mRa;ke+:ByaH L-affixes occur to denote either an agent (kartr) or a direct object (karman), or, after intransitive roots, to˚ denote either an agent (kartr) or the action itself (bhava¯ ). ˚ These l-affixes are then replaced by verbal terminations indiscrim- inantly by ëâ • A. 3.4.78 ; a;ta;a;/////////a;~å.½+.a;sa;pTa;~Ta;a;ma;+;a;sma;~ta;a;ta;a;V½+.Ta;a;sa;a;Ta;a;nDva;a;ma;qëÁ õÅÉ+: a;h- ;ma; a;h;z, The affixes tip etc. occur in place of an l-affix.

The ﬁrst nine of the eighteen verbal afﬁxes introduced by A. 3.4.78 are termed parasmaipada by A. 1.4.99, the second nine atmanepa-¯ da by A. 1.4.100.

• A. 1.4.99 lH :pa:=+smEa;pa;d;m,a Replacements for l-afﬁxes are termed parasmaipada.

• A. 1.4.100 ta;z+.a;na;a;va;a;tma;nea;pa;d;m,a The latter nine afﬁxes referred to by the abbreviation tan˙ and the (participial) afﬁxes of the form ana¯ (´sana¯ c and kana¯ c) are termed atmanepada¯ instead. VOICE, PREVERB, ANDTRANSITIVITYRESTRICTIONS 159

Pan¯ .ini accounts for what in European grammar is called the ‘voice’ of verbs by the intersection of two factors: • whether the verbal terminations are used to denote the agent (kartr), the direct object (karman), or the action denoted by the verbal˚ root itself (bhava¯ ). • whether the verbal terminations used are those termed parasmaipada or atmanepada¯ . Subsequent Indian grammatical tradition refers to the usage of verbal terminations described in the first point as prayoga ‘usage’. The phrases kartari prayoga, karman. i prayoga, and bhave¯ prayoga and the corresponding compound terms kartr-prayoga, karma-prayoga, and bhava-prayoga¯ refer to the agentive,˚ passive, and stative use of the verb respectively. By ‘stative’ we refer to the passive of an intransitive verb. The parasmaipada terminations referred to in the second point are used in the active voice, and the atmanepada¯ terminations are used in the middle voice and reflexive usages as well as in the passive and stative. The possessive adjectives parasmaipadin and atmanepadin¯ are used to describe verbs that use the former and latter affixes respectively, and the possessive adjective ubhayapadin to describe verbs that use both. The term pada alone is currently used to refer to the general feature that derscribes which terminations verbs use. These two factors, prayoga and pada, align with and uniquely determine what in Eu- ropean grammar is termed ‘active’, ‘middle’ and ‘passive’ voice as shown in Table 1. In the third pada¯ of the As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı (A. 1.3.12–93), Pan¯ .ini states restrictive rules that govern the occurrence of verbal terminations (tin˙) under semantic and coocurrence conditions. These rules range from general to particular. General rules utilize markers attached to verbal roots (n˙, ñ, and nasalized anudatta¯ and svarita vowels), and categorical semantic conditions in the Dhatup¯ a-¯ .tha (gatyartha, hims˙ artha¯ ) in order to restrict the occurrence of 160 SCHARF, GOYAL, AJOTIKAR, and AJOTIKAR

Table 1 Correspondence of voice with prayoga and pada

Voice Prayoga Pada active kartr parasmaipada active reflexive kartr˚ atmanepada¯ middle kartr˚ atmanepada¯ passive karman˚ atmanepada¯ stative bhava¯ atmanepada¯ atmanepada¯ terminations. Particular rules specify the occurrence of atmanepada¯ terminations after certain roots when they occur with certain preverbs, in certain meanings, or intransitively (akarmaka). Pan¯ .ini mentions the coocurrence of certain preverbs with certain roots throughout the third adhyaya¯ and elsewhere as well as in the third pada¯ of the first adhyaya.¯ Some of the linguistic information contained in these rules is included in comprehensive bilingual dictionaries such as Böhtlingk and Roth’s (1855–1875) Sanskrit-Wörterbuch and Monier-Williams, Leumann, and Cap- peller’s (1899) A Sanskrit-English Dictionary. Oberlies (2003) pointed out departures from such restrictions in Epic Sanskrit in his A grammar of Epic Sanskrit. Despite the partial and complementary information provided by these modern lexical and grammatical resources, the information provided by Pan¯ .ini has yet to be presented in a formal systematic way amenable to computational use and has yet to be used to analyze Sanskrit syntax. After collecting and thoroughly analyzing the provisions Pan¯ .ini has made concerning the cooccurrence conditions of preverbs and verbal roots in the As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı, the authors utilized it in a computational implementation of the third pada¯ of the first adhyaya¯ in order to generate comprehensive data of the semantic and cooccurrence restrictions Pan¯ .ini details regarding the use of parasmaipada and atmanepada¯ VOICE, PREVERB, ANDTRANSITIVITYRESTRICTIONS 161 verbal terminations. The current paper describes the implementation of this module. Conditions used to restrict the occurrence of parasmaipada and atmanepada¯ terminations in (A. 1.3.12–93) include root markers in the Dhatup¯ at¯.ha, prayoga, other semantic conditions, preverbs, and other co-occurrence conditions.

1.1 Root markers

In the Dhatup¯ at¯.ha, roots generally appear marked with phonetic segments not part of the root itself. Pan¯ .ini’s sutras¯ A. 1.3.2–9 identify markers and remove them. Certain markers serve as conditions that restrict the use of parasmaipada and atmanepada¯ terminations in A. 1.3. Vowel-final roots may be marked with a final n˙ or ñ, and consonant final roots may be marked with an accented nasalized vowel. The accent is high-pitched (udatta¯ ), low-pitched (anudatta¯ ), or circumflex (svarita). Certain rules in A. 1.3 use these markers to restrict the use of parasmaipada and atmanepada¯ terminations. For example,

• A. 1.3.12 º;nua;d;a:a; a;z+.ta º;a;tma;nea;pa;d;m,a Atmanepada¯ afﬁxes occur after a root marked with a low- pitched (anudatta¯ ) vowel or with n˙.

1.2 Prayoga Some rules restrict the use of parasmaipada and atmanepada¯ terminations to when they are used to denote the agent, direct object or the action itself. Pan¯ .ini ﬁrst accounts for the use of atmanepada¯ terminations in the passive and stative generally.

• A. 1.3.13 Ba;a;va;k+:mRa;¾a;eaH (º;a;tma;nea;pa;d;m,a 12) An atmanepada¯ afﬁx occurs after a root when the action itself (bhava¯ ) or the direct object (karman) is to be denoted. 162 SCHARF, GOYAL, AJOTIKAR, and AJOTIKAR

He then states a number of specific conditions under which atma-¯ nepada terminations are used to denote the agent of the action, for example, • A. 1.3.14 k+:tRa;a:= k+:mRa;v.ya; a;ta;h;a:=e (º;a;tma;nea;pa;d;m,a 12) An atmanepada¯ affix occurs after a root when the action is mutual and the agent (kartr) is to be denoted. ˚ Finally he states a remainder condition under which parasmaipada terminations are used to denote the agent of the action. • A. 1.3.78 Zea;Sa;a;tk+:tRa;a:= :pa:=+smEa;pa;d;m,a After a root for which an atmanepada¯ affix has not been provided by a previous rule, a parasmaipada affix occurs when the agent (kartr) is to be denoted. ˚ 1.3 Other semantic conditions Besides whether an agent, direct object, or the action itself is to be denoted, other semantic conditions are also used as a basis to restrict the use of parasmaipada and atmanepada¯ terminations. • A. 1.3.23 :pra;k+:a;Za;na;~Tea;ya;a;K.ya;ya;ea;(ãaÉ (.~TaH 22, º;a;tma;nea;pa;d;m,a 12) An atmanepada¯ affix occurs after the root stha¯ when praka-¯ sana´ ‘revelation of one’s own intent’ or stheyakhy¯ a¯ ‘reference to an arbiter’ is to be denoted.

1.4 Preverbs Many rules in A. 1.3 restrict the use of parasmaipada or atmanepa-¯ da terminations to when a root is used with or without a preverb or with particular preverbs. • A. 1.3.17 nea; a;vRa;ZaH (º;a;tma;nea;pa;d;m,a 12) An atmanepada¯ afﬁx is employed after the root vis´ when preceded by the preverb ni. VOICE, PREVERB, ANDTRANSITIVITYRESTRICTIONS 163

• A. 1.3.43 º;nua;pa;sa;ga;Ra;dõ;a (kÒ+:maH 38, º;a;tma;nea;pa;d;m,a 12) An atmanepada¯ afﬁx is optionally employed after the root kram when not used with a preverb.

1.5 Other co-occurrence conditions Many rules condition the use of parasmaipada or atmanepada¯ terminations when roots govern certain subordinate words (upapadas), for example,

• A. 1.3.16 I+.ta:=e+ta:=+a;nya;ea;nya;ea;pa;pa;d;a;a (k+:tRa;a:= k+:mRa;v.ya; a;ta;h;a:=e 14, na 15, º;a;tma;nea;pa;d;m,a 12) An atmanepada¯ afﬁx does not occur after a root which has as a subordinate co-occurring word itaretara ‘each other’ or anyonya ‘one another’ when the action is mutual and the agent (kartr) is to be denoted. ˚ • A. 1.3.85 ; a;va;Ba;a;Sa;a;k+:mRa;k+:a;t,a (o+.pa;a;t,a 84, .=+maH 83, k+:tRa;a:= 78, :pa:=+smEa- ;pa;d;m,a 78) A parasmaipada afﬁx occurs only optionally after the root ram preceded by the preverb upa when the root is intransitive.

1.6 Tabulation of voice conditions As is evident from the rules exemplified above, the eighty-two rules in A. 1.3 that specify the conditions under which parasmaipada and atmanepada¯ terminations are used are sufficiently complicated to make it difficult to sort out the exact conditions under which Pan¯ .ini accounts for the voice of each root. This difficulty might be one of the reasons for the lack of a work that tabulates these exact conditions. Another might be that the utility of such a tabulation was not felt hitherto. Now, however, with the development of Sanskrit computational linguistics software, the utility of 164 SCHARF, GOYAL, AJOTIKAR, and AJOTIKAR such a tabulation is highly evident. For instance, a table that details the voices permitted for roots when they occur with certain preverbs could add to the precision and completeness of the Sanskrit Heritage system. Goyal and Huet (2013) discuss issues regarding completeness of the Sanskrit Heritage system and particularly the need to limit over-generation. In the Sanskrit Heritage platform (http://sanskrit.inria.fr), root forms correspond to a particular phase to which the preverbs are appended to form finite verb forms that contain preverbs. Incidentally, the same mechanism is used to generate the nominal stems that contain preverbs. Without any additional information regarding the dependence of voice on the use of roots with particular preverbs, roots with preverbs would take exactly the same voice as defined for the roots alone. For example, if the root vis´ were declared as taking only parasmaipada affixes, vis´ would also take only parasmaipada affixes with any preverb, including with the preverb ni. Such forms are incorrect according to A. 1.3.17 (p. 162) which states a restriction that only atmanepada¯ affixes occur after the root vis´ preceded by the preverb ni. The Sanskrit Heritage system would thus be incomplete because it would not be able to generate forms in the middle voice such as nivisate´ and imprecise because it would generate erroneous forms in the active voice such as *nivisati´ . On the other hand, if the root vis´ were declared as ubhayapadin, i.e. taking both the parasmaipada and atmanepada¯ affixes, the system would generate the correct active forms of the root by itself such as visati´ and middle forms of the root with the preverb ni such as nivisa-´ te, but the system would also generate incorrect middle forms of the root vis´ alone and incorrect active forms of vis´ preceded by the preverb ni. Too narrow a restriction on the pada of the root leads to imprecision and too loose a restriction leads to over-generation. An exact tabulation of the conditions would enable the system to be complete and at the same time not to over-generate. Conversely, by incorporating the precise conditions under VOICE, PREVERB, ANDTRANSITIVITYRESTRICTIONS 165 which a root occurs in a particular voice, a syntax analyzer would have access to syntactic information that would limit the number of possible analyses of a sentence. For example, in the sentence

(1) h;tva;a .=+a;va;¾Ma .=+a;ma o+.pa:=+ma;tea ‘After slaying Ravan¯ .a Rama¯ desists.’ the fact that the root ram preceded by the preverb upa occurs in the middle voice indicates that it must be intransitive so that Ra-¯ van.a can only be the direct object of the action of slaying denoted by the root han, not of the action of stopping denoted by the root ram. For A. 1.3.85 (p. 163) permits the atmanepada¯ terminations after the root ram preceded by the preverb upa only if it is used intransitively. As shown by these examples, ﬁnding the exact conditions for voice has valuable applications, and yet these conditions are fairly complex. The combination of the value and complexity motivated the authors to produce a tabulation of conditions for the use of proper voice using a computational implementation of the relevant rules of Pan¯ .ini’s grammar. The rest of the paper describes this work in detail. Section 2 discusses existing efforts to develop a computational implementation of the As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı. Section 3 describes the steps taken to prepare the input data for this work. Sec- tion 4 gives the implementation details and discusses the notations used in the derivation tree produced as output. Section 5 shows the derivation tree produced for some of the roots and discusses various related issues. Conclusions and future work are discussed in section 6.

2 Related Work

Although the authors know of no effort to produce a detailed tabulation of the exact conditions for voice assignment for roots, there 166 SCHARF, GOYAL, AJOTIKAR, and AJOTIKAR have been numerous attempts to produce computational implementations of parts of Pan¯ .ini’s As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı and a few attempts to produce computational implementations of the whole. Discussion about how to formalize Pan¯ .ini’s rules goes back to Staal’s (1965) and Cardona’s (1965) formal rendition of rules that specify replacement in left and right contexts in accordance with Pan¯ .ini’s metarules A. 1.1.49, A. 1.1.66, and A. 1.1.67. Cardona (1974) discusses these rules more explicitly, and Cardona (1969) utilizes the formalization in a large number of phonetic rules. In 1991, Scharf wrote a Pascal program that modeled Pan¯ .i- nian sandhi rules. The program has since been reproduced in C, Perl, and Java by Ralph Bunker, Malcolm Hyman, and Jim Funder- burk respectively. Hyman (2009) described an XML vocabulary for formalizing Pan¯ .inian rules, and steps to translate it automatically into Perl executable code and to compile it into a finite state transducer. Scharf (2009c: 118–25) briefly describes Scharf and Hyman’s joint production of XML formalizations of Pan¯ .inian sandhi, nominal derivation, and verbal conjugation rules and their automated translation into executable Perl code with rule tracking. Scharf (2010) describes a similar XML module to derive participial stems from roots. M. Kulkarni (2009) illustrates problems of phonological overgeneration that would result from a strict implementation of Pan¯ .inian rules. Jha and S. K. Mishra (2009) consider difficulties in formalizing semantic categorization rules and illustrate the formalization of karaka¯ and vibhakti rules. Satuluri and A. Kulkarni (2013) are currently working on a Sanskrit compound generator. Patel and Katuri (2014) are currently working on nominal inflection software with rule-tracking. Swamiji (2010) continues to expand his computerization of Pan¯ .ini begun before he hosted the World Sanskrit Conference in Bangalore in 1997. A complete model of Pan¯ .ini’s As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı involves working out how to represent the various stages of derivation (prakriya¯) from the state of basic elements as they are initially taught (upa- VOICE, PREVERB, ANDTRANSITIVITYRESTRICTIONS 167 desa´ ), both in components of the grammatical system supplementary to the rules such as the Gan. apat¯.ha and Dhatup¯ at¯.ha as well as in the rules themselves, to the final state of speech forms as they are actually used. In computational terms, a complete model requires determining a data structure to represent the derivation tree from input to output. In the past several years, several arti- cles have addressed fundamental theoretical issues directly relevant to creating a complete implementation of Pan¯ .ini’s As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı and have taken practical steps to lay the foundation for such an endeavor. Gillon (2007) demonstrates that Pan¯ .ini’s grammar is a generative grammar. Kiparsky (2009) provides an overview of the organization of the grammar, types of rules, and principles of rule application. Scharf (2009c: 95–117) describes the components of Pan¯ .inian grammar, the extent of semantic conditions involved, the categorization of semantic conditions, and their employment in introducing and modifying speech forms. Scharf (2009a) den- igrates a formal segregation into levels. Scharf (2011a) demonstrates that semantics and semantic categorization drive the introduction of basic elements at the foundation of Pan¯ .inian derivational procedure. Scharf (2009b) reconstructs from the Madhav¯ ¯ı- yadhatuvr¯ tti the form of Sayan¯ .a’s Dhatup¯ at¯.ha expected as basic ˚ elements input to the rules of the As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı. Scharf and Hy- man (2011) present a comprehensive and unambiguous phonetic encoding scheme for Sanskrit, including Vedic, designed for linguistic processing and discuss relevant theoretical issues of which Scharf (2014b) presents a concise overview. Scharf (2013a) describes a database of the As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı containing a detailed analysis of the text on the sutra,¯ pada, and component levels. Petersen (2013) describes the launch of another initiative to create a Pan¯ .i- nian database. Finally, A. Mishra (2009b,a, 2010, 2014) presents a comprehensive computational model for representing the grammatical processes of Pan¯ .ini’s grammar step-by-step from the in- 168 SCHARF, GOYAL, AJOTIKAR, and AJOTIKAR troduction of basic elements to the constitution of the final expression. The production of a complete computational implementation of Pan¯ .inian grammar is not a monolithic task. Scharf (2008a,b) demonstrates that different Pan¯ .inian commentators held different interpretations of rules and the order of their implementation. The interpretation of each of these commentators results in a different linguistic description which would require an alternative implementation. The formalization of Pan¯ .inian grammar has implications beyond the technological. Attempts to formalize Pan¯ .inian procedure often uncover theoretical issues hidden in the complexity of the grammar and left unattended even by two thousand years of indige- nous grammatical commentators and two hundred years of modern scholarship. Several such issues encountered in their current work of formalizing the entire As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı in an XML framework are discussed by T. Ajotikar, A. Ajotikar, and Scharf (2015), and by Scharf (2014a). The latter discusses a fundamental gap in the procedure to derive nominal stems ending in taddhita affixes which is not explicitly commented upon and is mentioned only briefly by Cardona (1970: 47–48). An accurate representation of the As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı involves designing a method of dynamic rule selection so that rules are triggered on the state of the derivation without requiring an explicit predetermined rule ordering. For, although metarules (paribhas¯. a¯s) stated in the As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı itself and collections of them in other texts such as the Vyad¯ . iparibhas¯. avr¯ tti offer various principles of ˚ rule selection, the As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı itself contains no explicit rule selection mechanism that governs derivations from start to finish. On the contrary, various principles are operative in various domains. These include the following: VOICE, PREVERB, ANDTRANSITIVITYRESTRICTIONS 169

1. the priority of an exception over a general rule (utsargapa-¯ vadabh¯ ava¯ ), 2. a substitute’s inheritance of attributes and reversion to the status of its substituend (sthanivadbh¯ ava¯ ), 3. the persistence of the effects of an affix even after its deletion (pratyayalope pratyayalaks. an. am), 4. the priority of internally conditioned operations over externally conditioned ones, or the suspension of externally conditioned ones with respect to internally conditioned ones (antarangatva˙ ), 5. the priority of the operation that bleeds the other over the operation that feeds the other where two operations apply to the same state (nityatva), 6. the priority of the later rule where two rules, each of which applies to an exclusive domain, share a domain (vipratis. e- dha), 7. the suspension of rules (asiddha), and of their effects (asiddhavat), 8. the overriding of rule suspension where a rule with respect to which a rule is suspended depends upon the effects of the would-be suspended rule (a¯srayatva´ ), 9. the priority of a rule that otherwise would have no scope (anavaka¯satva´ ). Determining which of the above principles applies under what circumstances is not trivial and has been the subject of extended discussion and debate. Cardona (1997: 52–64, 401–427 ¶89–104, ¶623–665), explained how most of these principles operate. Car- dona (1970) discussed the proper domains of application of the rule selection principles 1, 4, 5, 6, and 9. Scharf (2010) described an implementation of forward-looking conditions—conditions that depend upon a state brought about later in the derivation. Scharf (2013b) proposed interpreting locatives in rules that introduce ver- 170 SCHARF, GOYAL, AJOTIKAR, and AJOTIKAR bal stem-forming affixes (vikaran. a) as vis.ayasaptam¯ıs and utilizing forward-looking conditions to implement them in order to sim- plify accentual derivation. Scharf (2002) examined how the role of a speaker’s intention (vivaks. a¯) desired by Pan¯ .inian commentators transcends what can be captured by the operation of vipratis.edha (6) in the karaka¯ section. Scharf (2011b) examined cases of vipratis.edha (6) throughout the grammar and cast doubt on their consistent solvability by simple rule-selection principles. Kiparsky and Joshi (2006) proposed that Pan¯ .ini assumed an extended siddha principle according to which trajectories through the rules that maximize rule-interaction are favored. Cardona (2011) explained how the asiddhatva principle (7) is limited by the principle of a¯srayatva´ (8). A complete model of the As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı involves working out a model of rule priority by mathematically representing conflict resolution techniques. Subbanna and Varakhedi (2009) discuss and suggest formalizations for serveral of the principles listed above and present a mathematical model of conflict resolution techniques as well as of the asiddha and asiddhavat principles. Goyal, A. Kulkarni, and Behera (2009) developed a model for automatically triggering a rule in a prakriya¯ structure as well, deciding rule priority based on the concepts of rule blocking (1), and the suspension of rules and their effects (7). The present work improves upon existing models in several ways. First, it proceeds along the derivation path with the full accentual inforamtion. Second, rules are triggered automatically, and rule ordering is not decided a priori. Third, the implementation not only uses all the semantic and co-occurrence conditions but also keeps track of these conditions in the data structure so that the end result contains all the conditions under which a particular form is derived. Finally, the model proposed in this paper keeps track of the entire history of derivation in order to implement the principles of sthanivadbh¯ ava¯ (2), asiddhatva and asiddhavattva (7). VOICE, PREVERB, ANDTRANSITIVITYRESTRICTIONS 171

In the next section, we will discuss the steps taken to prepare the input data for this implementation.

3 Preparing inputs for the implementation

3.1 XML Dhatup¯ at¯.ha database As is well known, Pan¯ .ini’s grammar assumes the existence of certain ancilliary lists that are expected as essential components of the grammar. Scharf (2009c: 97, Figure 1) presents a diagram of these components. Components include lists of nominal bases (pratipadikas¯ ) recited in the Gan. apat¯.ha and, most prominently, a list of verbal roots recited in the Dhatup¯ at¯.ha. When Pan¯ .ini’s grammar introduces verbal terminations, as described for example in A. 3.2.123 (p. 158), it does so after an item termed dhatu¯ ‘verbal root’ in accordance with the heading

• A. 3.1.91 ;Da;a;ta;eaH After a verbal root which recurs thoughout the remainder of the third adhyaya.¯ Items beginning with bhu¯ listed in the Dhatup¯ at¯.ha are termed dhatu¯ by • A. 3.3.1 BUa;va;a;d;ya;ea ;Da;a;ta;vaH The speech forms beginning with bhu¯ are termed dhatu¯ .

Roots in the Dhatup¯ at¯.ha are expected by Pan¯ .inian rules to have particular phonetic shapes with certain markers and accents. The introduction to Scharf’s Madhav¯ ¯ıya Dhatuvr¯ tti canonical index (Scharf 2009b) described in detail the characteristics˚ expected, the obliteration of many of these characteristics in normalized editions of the Dhatup¯ at¯.ha, and how these characteristics have been re- stored to exactly the form in which they are expected by Pan¯ .inian rules in his canonical edition of the Madhav¯ ¯ıyadhatup¯ at¯.ha — the 172 SCHARF, GOYAL, AJOTIKAR, and AJOTIKAR form of the Dhatup¯ at¯.ha commented upon in Sayan¯ .a’s Madhav¯ ¯ı- yadhatuvr¯ tti. Our computational implementation of A. 1.3 utilizes ˚ Scharf’s XML database of the canonical Madhav¯ ¯ıyadhatup¯ at¯.ha as its source of verbal roots. The information there required to derive forms in this implementation includes the following:

• the root with its markers, accents, and nasalization, • the sense or senses of the root, and • the gan.a of the root. As an example of how information is provided for a root in this database consider the entry for the root d. ukrñ karan. e. ˚¯ qukfY qu kf Y karaRe The root is given in two forms, with its markers in the fullDAtu element, and with its markers removed in the root element. The latter is a child of the lemma element and its sibling elements premarker and marker contain the initial and ﬁnal markers attached to the root respectively. The root and marker accent information is provided in the value of the sUtra element’s attribute preds (short for ‘predicates’). Here four sequential characters record information explicitly stated in sutras¯ in the Dhatup¯ at¯.ha that describe characteristics of roots in the sections these sutras¯ VOICE, PREVERB, ANDTRANSITIVITYRESTRICTIONS 173 conclude. The characteristics described include the following four attributes of roots:

1. the root accent (u: udatta,¯ a: anudatta),¯ 2. whether the root conditions the augment i.t (s: set., a: anit.), 3. the marker accent (u: udatta,¯ a: anudatta,¯ s: svarita), and 4. whether the root conditions parasmaipada or atmanepada¯ verbal terminations (p: parasmaipada, a: atmanepada).¯

The ﬁrst attribute directly determines the second, and the third attribute, along with consonant markers n˙ and ñ, directly determines the fourth. The root accent is used solely for the purpose of determining whether the root conditions the augment i.t; for all roots are given high pitch when introduced in a derivation by

• A. 6.1.162 ;Da;a;ta;eaH (º;ntaH o+.d;a:aH 159) The last vowel of a root is high-pitched.

Where the condition is vacuous, for instance where there is no vowel marker and hence no marker accent, the value is marked with an x. The pada information indicated applies only to the root alone; it does not include its pada with preverbs or other particular coocurring terms, nor in special senses. It is usually only this general information regarding pada that is included in general lexical and grammatical reference sources as mentioned in §1 above (p. 160). The sense of the root is given in two forms as well. The senseTerm element gives the term that descibes the sense in the exact form in which it appears in the Dhatup¯ at¯.ha, including in- ﬂection and compounding. The value of the sense element’s attribute senses lists the stems (pratipadika¯ s) of each sense term. The information regarding each root provided in Scharf’s Ma-¯ dhav¯ıyadhatup¯ at¯.ha XML database is converted to a form in another XML database that conforms more closely to the initial form expected by Pan¯ .ini’s rules (upadesa´ ) and the initial state of the 174 SCHARF, GOYAL, AJOTIKAR, and AJOTIKAR datastructure to be used in our implementation. The entry of the root kr above is converted to the following form: ˚ qukf\Y qukfY q u k f Y karaRe Here the root is given in its full form in three different ways. The accent information given in the value of the preds attribute is indicated explicitly in the Sanskrit Library Phonetic basic encoding (SLP1) in the content of the slp1 element. The backslash marks the preceding r, indicated by an f, as low-pitched. The morpheme element˚ contains just the phonetic segments of the full root without using attributes to mark accent or nasalization. Where SLP1 utilized ASCII characters to indicate phonetic features as well as phonetic segments,1 the phones element explicitly separates phonetic attributes from phonetic segments: the latter are given as the content of phone elements, and the former are indicated in the value of attributes of the element it qualiﬁes. Our implementation employs a structure that similarly segregates segments from attributes. We specify a string of characters each

1See Scharf and Hyman 2011 for a detailed analysis of the linguistic principles of encoding, and consistent segmental and featural encoding systems for Sanskrit in addition to the serviceable ASCII-only SLP1. VOICE, PREVERB, ANDTRANSITIVITYRESTRICTIONS 175 of which represents a single phonetic segment and list attributes keyed to sequences of one or more contiguous segments in this string.

3.2 Preverb cooccurences attested by Pan¯ . ini The next task was to ﬁnd out which preverbs are attested with each root. Since we wanted our implementation to reﬂect Pan¯ .ini’s linguistic description, we set out to determine which preverbs cooccur with which root as attested by him. We accept that Pan¯ .ini attests that a preverb occurs with a root if either of the following two conditions holds:

•AP an¯ .inian sutra¯ explicitly mentions the preverb as a co- occurrence condition of the root. •AP an¯ .inian sutra¯ uses a term that demonstrates the cooccurrence.

As an example of the former, consider

• A. 1.3.19 ; a;va;pa:=+a;Bya;Ma .jeaH An atmanepada¯ afﬁx occurs after the root ji ‘conquer’ when it is used with either of the preverbs vi or para¯.

This rule explicitly describes that the preverbs vi and para¯ are used with the root ji. As an example of where Pan¯ .ini uses a term that demonstrates that a preverb cooccurs with a root, consider

• A. 8.3.59 º;a;de;Za;pra;tya;ya;ya;eaH (I+.¾k+:eaH 57, º;pa;d;a;nta;~ya 55, .saH 56, mUa;DRa;nyaH 55, nua;////a;}va;sa:jRa;na;a;ya;Za;v.yRa;va;a;yea 58, º; a;pa 58) An s that is a replacement (ade¯ sa´ ) or that belongs to an affix (pratyaya), which follows a vowel of class i, u, r, or l and is non-final in a pada is replaced by its corresponding˚ retroflex˚ sound (s. ) even if the augment num, a visarga, or a sibilant intervenes. 176 SCHARF, GOYAL, AJOTIKAR, and AJOTIKAR

Here the sutra¯ uses the form ade¯ sa´ , which is derived from the root dis´ preceded by the preverb a¯, and the form pratyaya, which is derived from the root i preceded by the preverb prati.Pan¯ .ini’s use of these derivates attests that in the language known to him the preverb a¯ was used with the root dis´ and the preverb prati was used with the root i. After collecting all the evidence of the cooccurences of preverbs with roots attested in the As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı, we then had to determine with which particular root in the Dhatup¯ at¯.ha to associate the roots mentioned in the As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı. For example, for the root ji mentioned in A. 1.3.19, there are two possible candidates in the Dhatup¯ at¯ ha: ji jaye and ji abhibhave. For the root i in the derivate . ¯ ¯ pratyaya in A. 8.3.59, there are three possible candidates: in gatau, ¯ . in˙ adhyayane, and ik smarane. Likewise, in the sutra¯ ¯ ¯ . • A. 1.3.63 º;a;}å.pra;tya;ya;va;tkx +:Va;ea Y;nua;pra;ya;ea;ga;~ya (k+:tRa;a:= 14, º;a;tma;nea:pa- ;d;m,a 12) An atmanepada¯ afﬁx occurs to denote the agent after the root krñ as it would after the root after which the afﬁx am¯ has been˚ introduced and which krñ follows in accordance with A. 3.1.40. ˚

In this example, it was to be decided whether the root krñ men- ˚ tioned here corresponds with the root d. ukrñ karan. e or the root krñ hims˙ ay¯ am¯ . The information concerning˚¯ to which precise root˚¯ or roots a rule refers and with which precise roots a preverb is associated has to be provided to the system to avoid undesired ambiguities. We permitted roots mentioned or used in the As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı to be associated by default with whichever Dhatup¯ at¯.ha roots they share the phonetic form, markers, semantics, and cooccurrence conditions the As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı mentions. In the case of derivates such as pratyaya, etc., this means we associate them just on the basis of the phonetic shape. However, where we have good reason to make VOICE, PREVERB, ANDTRANSITIVITYRESTRICTIONS 177 a more speciﬁc judgement, we do so, as for example in the case of the root krñ in anuprayoga, where we associate it solely with the ˚ root d. ukrñ karan. e. ˚¯ 4 Implementation details

Although the implementation was done with the speciﬁc purpose of ﬁnding the pada information for various roots along with the exact conditions, the model was general enough to be applied to any other section of Pan¯ .ini’s As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı. We describe various components of the implementation below.

4.1 Data Structure For each stage of the derivation, the data structure includes a phonetic string in SLP1, minus any modiﬁer characters that would indicate phonetic features, and a list of attributes keyed to segments in the phonetic string. Attributes refer to the phonetic string by indicating the offset of the segment in the complete string which we term the ‘start’, and the length of the string. We refer to a derivation path using the term prakriya¯. At the ith point in a derivation, ( f orm,list att)i denotes the status of the prakriya,¯ where att = (attribute,start,length) stores the relative position of attribute in the string form. For example, the upadesa´ stage (prakriya¯0) for the root d. ukrñ will be stored using the following data structure: ˚

prakriya¯0 = (d. ukrñ,{(gan.a = tanadi¯ | bhvadi¯ ,0,5), ˚ (svara=anudatta¯ ,3,1), (sense = karan. a,0,5)} which gives the information that the phonetic form d. ukrñ has the ˚ attributes gan.a=tanadi¯ |bhvadi¯ and sense=karan. a for the com- 178 SCHARF, GOYAL, AJOTIKAR, and AJOTIKAR plete string (starting at index 0 and having length 5), while the attribute svara=anudatta¯ belongs only to the root vowel r (starting at index 3 and having length 1). ˚

4.2 Rule formulation The rules were formulated such as to divide the rule conditions into various attributes which can be dealt with differently by the program. The main attributes used for formulating a rule are described in the following subsections.

4.2.1 Phonetic conditions The phonetic conditions expressed by a sutra¯ are coded in this attribute using regular expressions. For example, the phonetic condition tusmah¯ . speciﬁed in • A. 1.3.4 na ; a;va;Ba;+:Ea tua;sma;aH (o+.pa;de;Zea 2, h;l+.ntya;m,a 3, I+.t,a 2) A dental stop, s, or m, occuring ﬁnal in a vibhakti when originally taught, is not termed it. is encoded as phone-cond=([tTdDnsm]), where the phrase [tTdDnsm] is a regular expression meaning any of the sounds t, th, d, dh, n, s, or m.

4.2.2 Attribute conditions These denote attributes in the prakriya¯ including major and subordinate classes of technical terms which we call sa- ñjña¯, and varga, and a type attribute to distinguish states of the prakriya.¯ For example, the attribute conditions for A. 1.3.4 are coded as att-cond = type=upadesa´ ,sa- ñjña=¯ pratyaya,varga=vibhakti. VOICE, PREVERB, ANDTRANSITIVITYRESTRICTIONS 179

4.2.3 Semantic conditions These conditions may or may not coincide with semantic conditions stated as meanings of roots in the Dhatup¯ at¯.ha but might instead refer to shades of meaning that emerge in particular contextual uses. For example, the Dhatup¯ at¯.ha lists the root stha¯ in the meaning ‘cessation of locomotion’ (MDhP. 1.650 s. tha¯ gati-nivr- ttau). A contextual meaning is stated as a semantic condition for˚ the use of atmanepada¯ terminations after this root by A. 1.3.23 (p. 162). The semantic conditions are coded as sem-cond = prayoga=kartr,meaning=praka¯sana´ |meaning=stheyakhy¯ a¯. ˚ 4.2.4 Optionality If a rule is optional, this information is encoded using a boolean attribute optional=true in the rule structure.

4.2.5 Action This attribute stores the operation prescribed by the rule. For instance, for the example A. 1.3.23 above, the operation is coded as action = pada=atmane¯ .

4.3 Control structure The control structure of the implementation is depicted in Figure 1. The starting point is the upadesa´ state, which we denote as prakriya¯0. Rules are coded in the structure described in §4.2 and are presented in the order in which they appear in Pan¯ .ini’s grammar. The block Match conditions matches prakriya¯i for the conditions speciﬁed in various rules, and the rules that match the conditions are stored in the set triggered rules. The rule priority principle is used to decide which among the triggered rules is the winner rule. The winner rule is then applied 180 SCHARF, GOYAL, AJOTIKAR, and AJOTIKAR to prakriya¯i to obtain the next state prakriya¯i+1. This process is applied recursively until no rules are triggered, which is the termination condition and we obtain the ﬁnal result.

Start

prakriya¯0

Rule 1 Rule 2 . Match . Conditions . . triggered Rule n rules

Rule Rule Priority Exceptions

winner rule

Apply Rule prakriya¯i prakriya¯i+1 Figure 1 The control structure for the implementation. This process is applied recursively until no rules are triggered.

In our implementation, we explicitly created pairs of rules VOICE, PREVERB, ANDTRANSITIVITYRESTRICTIONS 181

{rule1,rule2} such that rule1 forms an exception to rule2. These rule pairs are provided to the control structure. The resulting rule priority function is thus quite straightforward. The implementation proceeded along the following path:

1. Roots were taken from the Dhatup¯ at¯.ha with their markers, marker-like root accent, and marker accent. 2. Rules in section A. 1.3.2–9 of the As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı were implemented to identify and delete markers to obtain the bare roots. 3. A. 6.1.162 (p. 173) was applied to give the actual initial accent to root vowels. 4. The voice assignment for the roots was determined by implementing the rest of section A. 1.3 for all the roots. In the next section, we will discuss the derivation trees produced by the implementation and give examples for some of the roots.

5 Results and related discussions

5.1 Notations in the derivation tree Let us first describe the notations used in the derivation tree by way of an example. Figure 2 shows the derivation tree produced for the root bhu¯. The nodes correspond to various states of the derivation. Three different colors have been used as backgrounds for three different stages of the derivation. The upadesa´ state corresponds to the top node of the tree in the figure which is shown with a bisque background. The final states of the prakriya¯ are shown with nodes having rose background. The number of final states is equivalent to the number of leaf nodes in the tree. In our current implementation, a final state corresponds to the state when a pada is assigned to the root under certain conditions. All intermediate states of the derivation are shown with nodes having olive background. 182 SCHARF, GOYAL, AJOTIKAR, and AJOTIKAR

Inside each node, we first display the phonetic form of the output in Devanagar¯ ¯ı script with accentual information marked with a vertical bar above a high-pitched vowel. Then we display the attributes associated with that state of the derivation. For the upadesa´ state, all the attributes are shown, but for all subsequent states, only those attributes that differ from the parent node are shown in order to avoid cluttering the tree. A parent and a child node are connected with an arrow going from the parent to the child node. This arrow corresponds to the application of a certain rule and is marked with the number of that rule. Again, two different colors have been used to label the arrows. A rule is written with red color if the rule has been applied on that particular path. However, if an additional path or paths result from the implementation of a rule, the rule number on the additional paths on which the rule did not apply is written with blue color. Let us explain the colors on the arrow labels with reference to Figure 2. Consider A. 1.3.13. This rule gets applied to assign pada=atmane¯ to the root bhu¯, and the corresponding final state is shown in rose color with the arrow labeled 1-3-13 in red. How- ever, prayoga=bhava¯ |karman indicates semantic conditions, but since these are not exhaustive, we have to account for the derivation tree corresponding to prayoga=kartr as well. This prayoga is non-overlapping with the other two˚ prayogas mentioned in A. 1.3.13. Therefore we find a bifurcation at the application of this rule, with the other branch being labeled with the same rule but in blue color. Note that this branch corresponds to the semantic condition prayoga=kartr. A similar phenomenon occurs with the application of A. 1.3.16,˚ where three paths result due to complementary semantic conditions and complementary cooccurrence conditions at the same point. The derivation tree for the root bhu¯ contains four leaf nodes denoting the final states. For any of these leaf nodes, the set of final attributes can be obtained by tracing the derivation path from VOICE, PREVERB, ANDTRANSITIVITYRESTRICTIONS 183

Figure 2 Derivation tree for the root bhu¯

the root node to the leaf node. The derivation path is unique for any node. We start from the attributes of the root node and traverse down the unique derivation path from the root node to the leaf node. With each node, we keep on adding the new attributes to the existing list of attributes. Now that we have discussed the graph notations, we will discuss certain issues that we faced in the computational implementation of this particular section of Pan¯ .ini’s grammar and provide an example demonstrating how we handled each issue. 184 SCHARF, GOYAL, AJOTIKAR, and AJOTIKAR

5.2 Handling meaning conditions

Throughout his grammar, Pan¯ .ini includes various semantic conditions in his sutras.¯ As mentioned above (§2), Scharf (2009c: 95– 111) discussed these conditions in some detail. In a comprehensive computational implementation, one needs to handle all possibilities, not just the mentioned ones; thus whenever a rule mentions semantic conditions, action required for the complementary condition also needs to be worked out. As stated earlier (§5), semantic conditions were treated as bifurcations in our implementation; that is, whenever a rule ordains a semantic condition, two branches of the derivational tree will be created: one with the semantic condition, and one without it. Consider the case of the root da¯ shown in Figure 3 and the application of A. 1.3.20 for example.

• A. 1.3.20 º;a;z+.ea d;ea Y;na;a;~ya; a;va;h:=+¾ea (k+:tRa;a:= 14, º;a;tma;nea;pa;d;m,a 12) An atmanepada¯ termination is selected after the root da¯ used with the preverb a¯ when the meaning ‘to open the mouth’ (asya-viharan¯ . a) is not to be understood. The arrow labeled 1-3-20 in red in the lower left in Figure 3 shows the application of this rule where the meaning condition is satisﬁed. The terminal rose-colored oval shows the negation of meaning=º;a;~ya-; a;va;h:=+¾a and the assignment :pa;d=º;a;tma;nea. To handle the complementary semantic condition in the case when asya-¯ viharan. a is to be understood, there is a bifurcation. Thus there is another path labeled with the same rule number 1-3-20 in blue pointing to an oval containing meaning=º;a;~ya-; a;va;h:=+¾a. The derivation tree also shows a third path between these two which corresponds to complementary coocurrence conditions, namely, the cases where the root da¯ is used without a preverb or with preverbs other than a¯ alone. The right and left paths for A. 1.3.20 deal only with the cases in which the root is used with the preverb a¯ VOICE, PREVERB, ANDTRANSITIVITYRESTRICTIONS 185 as shown by the condition o+.pa;sa;gRa=º;a written in the top line of the ovals to which the arrows labeled 1-3-20 point.

5.3 Handling rule interaction Determining how rules interact where more than one rule has scope within the same domain is one of the most significant challenges to the computational implementation of Pan¯ .ini’s grammar. While all rules in this section are restrictions to A. 3.4.78 (p. 158), the relations of being an exception (apavada¯ ), a negation (prati- s. edha), and a remainder (ses´ . a) are also found. Principal among these is the relation of being an exception. Of the eighty-two rules in the section, twenty are exceptions, seven are negations, and one is a remainder. A. 1.3.78 (p. 162) is the remainder rule. This rule requires that a parasmaipada affix be selected to denote the agent (kartr) if none of the rules that provide an atmanepada¯ affix to denote˚ an agent, namely A. 1.3.12 and A. 1.3.14–77, applies. Consider the example of the root gam whose derivation tree is shown in Figure 4. The two bottom rose-colored terminal nodes have arrows labeled 1-3-78 indicating the application of the remainder rule. Similar are the left and right bottom rose-colored terminal nodes in Figure 2 and the bottom rose-colored terminal nodes in figures 3, 5, and 6. These nodes occur at the bottom precisely because A. 1.3.78 is determined to apply only after considering all other rules in the section, particularly those to which it serves as the remainder. A. 1.3.15–16 (p. 163) are negations of A. 1.3.14 (p. 162). On the branch marked with the label 1-3-13 in blue in Figure 4, below the oval labeled :pra;ya;ea;ga=k+:tRxa, two rules, A. 1.3.14 (p. 162) and A. 1.3.15, get triggered. Because the root gam occurs in the sense of ‘motion’, A. 1.3.15 applies negating A. 1.3.14 as shown by the label 1-3-15 in red at this point in the tree. 186 SCHARF, GOYAL, AJOTIKAR, and AJOTIKAR

• A. 1.3.15 na ga; a;ta; a;hM;sa;a;TeRa;ByaH (k+:tRa;a:= k+:mRa;v.ya; a;ta;h;a:=e 14, º;atma;nea;pa- ;d;m,a 12) An atmanepada¯ termination is not used after roots having the sense of ‘motion’ or ‘injury’, when the action is mutual and the (kartr) is to be denoted. ˚ Rule1 is an exception to and overrides rule2 if rule2 would apply in the absence of rule1. A. 1.3.83 is an exception to A. 1.3.12 (p. 161). Because the root rama˜ kr¯ıday¯ am¯ is listed in the Dhatup¯ a-¯ ¯ ¯ . .tha with a low-pitched marker vowel a, as shown in the ﬁrst line of the initial oval at the top of Figure 4, A. 1.3.12 (p. 161) would apply to select an atmanepada¯ termination. However, when the root occurs with one of the three preverbs vi, a¯, or pari and an agent is to be denoted, A. 1.3.83 applies to select a parasmaipada termination. The application of this rule is shown in the leftmost branch in Figure 7, labeled 1-3-83, and the resulting attributes are shown in the rose-colored oval that terminates that branch. ñÍ • A. 1.3.83 v.ya;a:*:+.a:=+Bya;eaðÅÉ .=+maH (k+:tRa;a:= :pa:=+smEa;pa;d;m,a 78) A parasmaipada termination is selected after the root ram used with one of the preverbs vi, a¯, or pari. As stated before (§4.3), in our current implementation, we explicitly provide the system with information concerning rule exceptions. The ﬁle that pairs rules with exceptions handles negations and exceptions in exactly the same manner: the negation or exception is selected as the winning rule over the negated or ex- cepted rule. When an exception applies, it applies to a domain that is a subset of the domain of the general rule to which it is an exception. In the remainder of the domain of the general rule, the general rule applies instead except where other exceptions carve out other domains. Hence an exception creates a bifurcation of the derivational tree. Consider the derivation path of root ks. ip, as shown in Figure 5. Rules 1.3.72 and 1.3.80 get triggered during the derivation. VOICE, PREVERB, ANDTRANSITIVITYRESTRICTIONS 187

• A. 1.3.72 .~va;a:=+ta;a;Va;taH k+.Ra;a;Ba;pra;a;yea ; a;kÒ+:ya;a;P+.le (k+:tRa;a:= 14, º;a;tma;nea- ;pa;d;m,a 12) An atmanepada¯ termination is selected after a verb marked with a svarita vowel or with n˙ when the fruit of the action accrues to the agent. • A. 1.3.80 º;a;Ba;pra;tya; a;ta;ByaH ; a:»a;paH (k+:tRa;a:= 78, :pa:=+smEa;pa;d;m,a 78) A parasmaipada termination is selected after the root ks. ip used with one of the preverbs abhi, prati, or ati, even though the fruit of the action accrues to the agent. While A. 1.3.80 is an exception to A. 1.3.72, it applies only when this root occurs with any of the preverbs abhi, prati, or ati and not otherwise. Thus this exception applies only for the subset of the derivational tree shown with the arrow labeled 1-3-80 in red that terminates in the rose-colored oval containing o+.pa;sa;gRa=º;a;Ba|:pra- ; a;ta|º; a;ta. The complementary set for which A. 1.3.80 is not triggered is handled by another branch beginning with the arrow labeled 1-3-80 in blue pointing to the olive-colored oval containing o+.pa;sa;gRa=none|º;va|:pa;a:=. On this branch, the general rule to which A. 1.3.80 is an exception, namely, A. 1.3.72, applies, as is shown by the arrow labeled 1-3-72 in red. In turn in the complementary case when this rule does not apply, namely, when the fruit of the action does not accrue to the agent, the complementary branch is shown with the arrow labeled 1-3-72 in blue, pointing to the oval containing º;a;Ba;pra;a;ya=º;nya;a;a;Ba;Bra;a;ya. Finally this branch terminates in the remainder rule A. 1.3.78. Now returning to the derivation of the root ram shown in Fig- ure 7, where A. 1.3.83 in exception to A. 1.3.12 creates a bifurcation of the tree, the arrows labeled 1-3-83 in blue show two paths on which A. 1.3.83 does not apply, one for the complement of each of the conditions included in A. 1.3.83. Notice that each of these branches leads to a branch on which the general rule A. 1.3.12 applies. The middle branch is complicated by the fact that A. 1.3.84 188 SCHARF, GOYAL, AJOTIKAR, and AJOTIKAR

(p. 189), which itself has an exception, is also an exception to A. 1.3.12.

5.4 Handling praptavibh¯ as¯ .a¯ A rule is called a praptavibh¯ as¯. a¯ if it optionally prescribes an operation already prescribed by another rule. A praptavibh¯ as¯.a¯ is thus an exception to the rule that already prescribed the operation. Con- sider how A. 1.3.77 interacts with A. 1.3.72 (p. 187).

• A. 1.3.77 ; a;va;Ba;a;Sa;ea;pa;pa;de;na :pra;ta;a;ya;ma;a;nea (k+.Ra;a;Ba;pra;a;yea ; a;kÒ+:ya;a;P+.le 72, k+:tRa;a:= 14, º;a;tma;nea;pa;d;m,a 12) An atmanepada¯ termination is only optionally used when the fact that the fruit of the action accrues to the agent is indicated by an upapada.

A. 1.3.77 is a praptavibh¯ as¯.a¯ in exception to 1.3.72. Consider the derivation tree for the root kr¯ı in Figure 6. There are two branches corresponding to the application of A. 1.3.77. On the branch with the arrow labeled 1-3-77 in red, we apply the option that voids the application of A. 1.3.77, just as we would any exception. On the other branch, A. 1.3.72 gets applied, just as the general rule does in the domain where an exception does not apply. Note that A. 1.3.72 applies only on the subset of the derivational tree with the rose-colored oval containing º;a;Ba;pra;a;ya=k+.Ra;a;Ba;pra;a;ya and not under the complementary condition shown in the olive-colored oval containing º;a;Ba;pra;a;ya=º;nya;a;a;Ba;pra;a;ya. The additional bifurcation occurs because the domain of A. 1.3.72, to which A. 1.3.77 is an exception, itself applies to a subset of the semantic space to which the remainder rule A. 1.3.78 applies. Now let us look at the praptavibh¯ as¯.a¯ that occurs in the derivation tree of the root ram shown in Figure 7. Consider the relation of A. 1.3.85 (p. 163) with its preceding rule: VOICE, PREVERB, ANDTRANSITIVITYRESTRICTIONS 189

• A. 1.3.84 o+.pa;a;a (.=+maH 83, k+:tRa;a:= 78, :pa:=+smEa;pa;d;m,a 78) A parasmaipada afﬁx is selected after the root ram used with the preverb upa.

A. 1.3.85 is a praptavibh¯ as¯.a¯ in exception to A. 1.3.84. There are two branches corresponding to the application of A. 1.3.85, and the handling is exactly the same as in the case of kr¯ı. On the branch with the arrow labeled 1-3-85 in red, we apply the option that voids the application of A. 1.3.84. On the complementary branch with the arrow labeled 1-3-85 in blue, A. 1.3.84 applies on the subordinate branch with the arrow labeled 1-3-84 in red. Additional branches with arrows labeled 1-3-84 in blue occur because A. 1.3.84 is applicable only to a subset of the semantic and cooccurence conditions.

6 Conclusions and Future Work

In this paper, we discussed the computational implementation of As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı 1.3 which deals with the voice assignment for roots under various semantic and co-occurrence conditions. The present work stands out in that it courses through all possible derivation paths and thus presents an exhaustive table that associates the derived form with the conditions for rules and attributes assigned by those rules. This information will be beneﬁcial for computational tools dealing with morphological generation and analysis as well as with dependency parsing. Future work involves evaluation of the correspondence of the computational implementation to the coocurrences found in a tagged corpus of the Pañcakhy¯ anaka¯ and Mahabh¯ arata¯ sentences. The simulation described here is currently being extended in the development of a complete computational model of the As..tadhy¯ a-¯ y¯ı as described by Scharf (2015). 190 SCHARF, GOYAL, AJOTIKAR, and AJOTIKAR eiainte o h otd root the for tree Derivation iue3 Figure a ¯ VOICE, PREVERB, ANDTRANSITIVITYRESTRICTIONS 191

Figure 4 Derivation tree for the root gam 192 SCHARF, GOYAL, AJOTIKAR, and AJOTIKAR

Figure 5 Derivation tree for the root ks. ip VOICE, PREVERB, ANDTRANSITIVITYRESTRICTIONS 193

Figure 6 Derivation tree for the root kr¯ı 194 SCHARF, GOYAL, AJOTIKAR, and AJOTIKAR

Figure 7 Derivation tree for the root ram REFERENCES 195

References

Ajotikar, Tanuja, Anuja Ajotikar, and Peter M. Scharf. 2015. “Some issues in the computational implementation of the A- s.t.adhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı.” Proceedings of the ‘Sanskrit and the IT World’ section of 16th World Sanskrit Conference, ed. by Amba Kulkarni and Vineet Chaitanya. New Delhi: D. K. Publishers. Böhtlingk, Otto von and Rudolf von Roth. 1855–1875. Sanskrit- Wörterbuch. 7 vols. St. Petersburg: Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Cardona, George. 1965. “On translating and formalizing Pan¯ .inian rules.” Journal of the Oriental Institute of Baroda 14: 306–14. —. 1969. Studies in Indian grammarians I: the method of description reﬂected in the Sivas´ utras¯ . Transactions of the Ameri- can Philosophical Society, new series 59.1. Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society. —. 1970. “Some principles of Pan¯ .ini’s grammar.” Journal of In- dian Philosophy 1: 40–74. —. 1974. “On Pan¯ .ini’s metalinguistic use of cases.” Charudeva Shastri felicitation volume: presented to Prof. Charudeva Shastri on the occasion of his seventy-ﬁfth anniversary by his friends and admirers, ed. by S. K. Chatterji et al., pp. 305–26. Delhi: Charudeva Shastri Felicitation Committee. —. 1997. Pan¯ . ini: his work and its traditions; vol. 1, Background and Introduction. Second edition, revised and enlarged. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. —. 2011. “Purvatr¯ asiddham¯ and a¯sray´ at¯ siddham.” Studies in Sanskrit grammars: proceedings of the Vyakaran¯ . a section of the 14th World Sanskrit Conference, 1–5 September 2009, Ky- oto University, Kyoto, ed. by George Cardona, Ashok Aklu- jkar, and Hideyo Ogawa, pp. 123–62. Cardona, George, Ashok Aklujkar, and Hideyo Ogawa, eds. 2011. Studies in Sanskrit grammars: proceedings of the Vyakaran¯ . a 196 SCHARF, GOYAL, AJOTIKAR, and AJOTIKAR

section of the 14th World Sanskrit Conference, 1–5 September 2009, Kyoto University, Kyoto. New Delhi: D. K. Printworld. Gillon, Brendan S. 2007. “Pan¯ .ini’s As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı and linguistic theory.” Journal of Indian Philosophy 35: 445–68. Goyal, Pawan and Gérard Huet. 2013. “Completeness analysis of a Sanskrit reader.” Proceedings of the Fifth International Sanskrit Computational Linguistics Symposium, ed. by Malhar Kulkarni and Chaitali Dangarikar, pp. 130–71. Goyal, Pawan, Amba Kulkarni, and Laxmidhar Behera. 2009. “Computer simulation of As.t.adhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı: some insights.” Sanskrit computational linguistics: first and second international symposia, Rocquencourt, France, October 2007; Providence, RI, USA, May 2008; Revised selected and invited papers, ed. by Gérard Huet, Amba Kulkarni, and Peter M. Scharf, pp. 139– 61. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 5402. Huet, Gérard and Amba Kulkarni, eds. 2009. Sanskrit computational linguistics: third international symposium, Hyderabad, India, January 2009, proceedings. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 5406. Berlin; Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. Huet, Gérard, Amba Kulkarni, and Peter M. Scharf, eds. 2009. Sanskrit computational linguistics: first and second international symposia, Rocquencourt, France, October 2007; Prov- idence, RI, USA, May 2008; Revised selected and invited papers. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 5402. Berlin; Hei- delberg: Springer-Verlag. Hyman, Malcolm D. 2009. “From Pan¯ .inian sandhi to finite state calculus.” Sanskrit computational linguistics: first and second international symposia, Rocquencourt, France, October 2007; Providence, RI, USA, May 2008; Revised selected and invited papers, ed. by Gérard Huet, Amba Kulkarni, and Peter M. Scharf, pp. 253–65. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 5402. REFERENCES 197

Jha, Girish Nath, ed. 2010. Sanskrit computational linguistics: 4th International Symposium, New Delhi, India, December 2010, Proceedings. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 6465. Berlin; Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. Jha, Girish Nath and Sudhir K. Mishra. 2009. “Semantic processing in Pan¯ .ini’s karaka¯ system.” Sanskrit computational linguistics: first and second international symposia, Rocquencourt, France, October 2007; Providence, RI, USA, May 2008; Re- vised selected and invited papers, ed. by Gérard Huet, Amba Kulkarni, and Peter M. Scharf, pp. 239–52. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 5402. Kiparsky, Paul. 2009. “On the architecture of Pan¯ .ini’s grammar.” Sanskrit computational linguistics: first and second international symposia, Rocquencourt, France, October 2007; Prov- idence, RI, USA, May 2008; Revised selected and invited papers, ed. by Gérard Huet, Amba Kulkarni, and Peter M. Scharf, pp. 33–94. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 5402. Kiparsky, Paul and S. D. Joshi. 2006. “The extended siddha- principle.” Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Insti- tute 2005: 1–26. Kulkarni, Malhar. 2009. “Phonological overgeneration in Pan¯ .inian system.” Sanskrit computational linguistics: first and second international symposia, Rocquencourt, France, October 2007; Providence, RI, USA, May 2008; Revised selected and invited papers, ed. by Gérard Huet, Amba Kulkarni, and Peter M. Scharf, pp. 306–19. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 5402. Kulkarni, Malhar and Chaitali Dangarikar, eds. 2013. Proceedings of the Fifth International Sanskrit Computational Linguistics Symposium. New Delhi: D. K. Printworld. Mishra, Anand. 2009a. “Modelling the grammatical circle of the Pan¯ .inian system of Sanskrit grammar.” Sanskrit computational linguistics: third international symposium, Hyderabad, India, 198 SCHARF, GOYAL, AJOTIKAR, and AJOTIKAR

January 2009, proceedings, ed. by Gérard Huet and Amba Kulkarni, pp. 40–55. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 5406. —. 2009b. “Simulating the Pan¯ .inian system of Sanskrit grammar.” Sanskrit computational linguistics: first and second international symposia, Rocquencourt, France, October 2007; Prov- idence, RI, USA, May 2008; Revised selected and invited papers, ed. by Gérard Huet, Amba Kulkarni, and Peter M. Scharf, pp. 127–38. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 5402. —. 2010. “Modelling As.t.adhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı: an approach based on the methodology of ancillary disciplines (veda¯nga).”˙ Sanskrit computational linguistics: 4th International Symposium, New Delhi, India, December 2010, Proceedings, ed. by Girish Nath Jha, pp. 239–58. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 6465. —. 2014. “A formal re-presentation of the As.t.adhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı.” Unpub- lished. Monier-Williams, Monier, Ernst Leumann, and Carl Cappeller. 1899. A Sanskrit-English dictionary: etymologically and philologically arranged with special reference to cognate Indo-European languages: new edition, greatly enlarged and improved. Oxford: The Clarendon Press. Oberlies, Thomas. 2003. A grammar of Epic Sanskrit. Indian Philology and South Asian Studies. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Patel, Dhaval and Shivakumari Katuri. 2014. Prakriyapradars¯ . i- n. ¯ı: an open source subanta generator. URL: http : / / lanover.com/lan/sanskrit/subanta.html. Petersen, Wiebke. 2013. “Structure and implementation of a digital edition of the As.t.adhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı.” Proceedings of the Fifth Inter- national Sanskrit Computational Linguistics Symposium, ed. by Malhar Kulkarni and Chaitali Dangarikar. Satuluri, Pavan Kumar and Amba Kulkarni. 2013. “Generation of Sanskrit compounds.” Proceedings of ICON 2013, the 10th In- ternational Conference on NLP, pp. 77–86. REFERENCES 199

Scharf, Peter M. 2002. “Pan¯ .ini, vivaks. a¯, and karaka¯ -rule- ordering.” Indian linguistic studies: festschrift in honour of George Cardona, ed. by Madhav Murlidhar Deshpande and Peter Edwin Hook, pp. 121–49. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. —. 2008a. “Pan¯ .inian accounts of the class eight presents.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 128.3: 489–504. —. 2008b. “Pan¯ .inian accounts of the Vedic subjunctive: let. krn. va´ı- te.” Indo-Iranian Journal 51.1: 1–21. ˚ —. 2009a. “Levels in Pan¯ .ini’s As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı.” Sanskrit computational linguistics: third international symposium, Hyderabad, India, January 2009, proceedings, ed. by Gérard Huet and Amba Kulkarni. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 5406. —. 2009b. Madhav¯ ¯ıya Dhatuvr¯ tti canonical index. URL: http: //sanskritlibrary.org˚ . —. 2009c. “Modeling Pan¯ .inian grammar.” Sanskrit computational linguistics: first and second international symposia, Rocquen- court, France, October 2007; Providence, RI, USA, May 2008; Revised selected and invited papers, ed. by Gérard Huet, Amba Kulkarni, and Peter M. Scharf. Lecture Notes in Artificial In- telligence 5402. —. 2010. “Rule-blocking and forward-looking conditions in the computational modeling of Pan¯ .inian derivation.” Sanskrit computational linguistics: 4th International Symposium, New Delhi, India, December 2010, Proceedings, ed. by Girish Nath Jha. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 6465. —. 2011a. “On the semantic foundation of Pan¯ .inian derivational procedure: the derivation of kumbhakara¯ .” Journal of the American Oriental Society 131.1: 39–72. —. 2011b. “Rule selection in the As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı or Is Pan¯ .ini’s grammar mechanistic?” Studies in Sanskrit grammars: proceedings of the Vyakaran¯ . a section of the 14th World Sanskrit Con- ference, 1–5 September 2009, Kyoto University, Kyoto, ed. 200 SCHARF, GOYAL, AJOTIKAR, and AJOTIKAR

by George Cardona, Ashok Aklujkar, and Hideyo Ogawa, pp. 319–50. —. 2013a. “An analytic database of the As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı.” Proceedings of the Fifth International Sanskrit Computational Linguistics Symposium, ed. by Malhar Kulkarni and Chaitali Dangarikar. —. 2013b. “Teleology and the simplification of accentuation in Pan¯ .inian derivation.” Proceedings of the Vyakaran¯ . a Section of the 15th World Sanskrit Conference, ed. by George Cardona, pp. 31–53. New Delhi: D. K. Printworld. —. 2014a. “Are taddhita affixes provided after pratipadikas¯ or padas?” Paper presented at the Troisième Atelier du Projet ANR e e PP16–17 (Pan¯ .ini et les Pan¯ .inéens des XVI –XVII siècles) accueilli par EFEO, IFP, EPHE, Pondichéry, 14–16 octobre 2014. In preparation. —. 2014b. “Linguistic issues and intelligent technological solutions in encoding Sanskrit.” Document numérique 16.3: 15– 29. Paper presented at Gestions informatisée des écritures anciennes: État des lieux & perspectives, 21–22 May 2013, Cen- tre d’Études Supérieures de la Renaissance (CESR), Université François-Rabelais, Tours. —. 2015. “An XML formalization of the As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı.” Proceed- ings of the ‘Sanskrit and the IT World’ section of 16th World Sanskrit Conference, ed. by Amba Kulkarni and Vineet Chai- tanya. New Delhi: D. K. Publishers. Scharf, Peter M. and Malcolm D. Hyman. 2011. Linguistic issues in encoding Sanskrit. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Staal, J. Frits. 1965. “Context-sensitive rules in Pan¯ .ini.” Founda- tions of Language 1: 63–72. Subbanna, Sridhar and Srinivas Varakhedi. 2009. “Computational structure of the As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı and conflict resolution techniques.” Sanskrit computational linguistics: third international symposium, Hyderabad, India, January 2009, proceedings, ed. by REFERENCES 201

Gérard Huet and Amba Kulkarni, pp. 56–65. Lecture Notes in Artiﬁcial Intelligence 5406. Swamiji, Shivamurthy. 2010. Gan. akas¯..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı. URL: http:// www.taralabalu.org/panini/. Whitney, William Dwight. 1885. The roots, verb-forms, and primary derivatives of the Sanskrit language: a supplement to his Sanskrit grammar. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel. —. 1945. The roots, verb-forms, and primary derivatives of the Sanskrit language: a supplement to his Sanskrit grammar. American oriental series 30. New Haven: American Oriental Society. [Reprint of Whitney 1885.] 202 SCHARF, GOYAL, AJOTIKAR, and AJOTIKAR Interrogatives and word-order in Sanskrit

PETER M.SCHARF

Abstract: Recent linguistic theory implies that subject– object–verb (SOV) languages place interrogatives at the end of a sentence. This implies that it would hold true for Sanskrit because it is an SOV language. It doesn’t. Evalu- ation of the position of interrogatives in prose portions of the Vis. n. upuran¯ . a reveals that interrogatives locate in positions of focus and topic just as Hock (1989) showed relative pronouns do. Their position is thus influenced by discourse factors rather than grammatical relations. The analysis confirms the unimportance of word-order as compared with inflection in embodying syntactic relations. The fact that position is not fundamental to syntactic relations in turn suggests that syntactic analysis be represented in an abstract space that permits representation of more complex structure than is permitted in the approach that imbues position in the one-dimensional space of linear word-order with fundamental syntactic significance.

Keywords: Sanskrit, linguistics, word order, interrogative, pronoun

1 The problem

At a Conference on Language Universals in 1961, Joseph Green- berg (1966) reported signiﬁcant correlations in the ordering of constituents in various types of constructions within a language. In- vestigating a diverse sample of thirty of the world’s languages, he

203 204 P. SCHARF observed, for instance, that the following sequences are mutually correlated: object–verb, genitive–noun, adjective–noun, adverb– verb, and noun–postposition and that these are correlated also with the sentence-ﬁnal occurrence of an interrogative particle in general (i.e. yes/no) questions and with in situ occurrence of an interrogative in special (i.e. wh-) questions.

SOV/Postposition/GN/AN/AdvV/Q-ﬁnal/SpQ-in situ (1)

Conversely, the opposite sequences verb–object, noun–genitive, noun–adjective, verb–adverb, and preposition–noun are correlated with each other and with the occurrence of a sentence-initial interrogative particle in general (i.e. yes/no) questions and sentence- initial interrogative in special (i.e. wh-) questions.

SVO/Preposition/NG/NA/VAdv/Q-initial/SpQ-initial (2)

While Greenberg (1966: 104) considered “the principles described ... as no more than suggestive,” Theo Vennemann (1974: 80) formally stated two generalizations: 1. “Any given operator–operand relationship tends to be serialized unidirectionally in a language.”

2. “All operator–operand relationships tend to be serialized in the same direction in a language, namely that direction which is deﬁned by the serialization of object and verb.” He (1974: 81) then formulated these generalizations in the principle of serialization shown in equation 3,  [Operator[Operand]]   in OV languages {Operator{Operand}} => (3) [Operand[Operator]]   in VO languages INTERROGATIVES AND WORD-ORDERIN SANSKRIT 205 noting that “the object–verb relationship is itself an operator– operand relationship, with the object as operator and the verb as operand.” Now Vennemann does not explicitly include interrogatives in his discussion. However, Jackendoff (1977: 85) generalizes serialization over all phrase types stating, “the evaluation measure for phrase structure rules counts parallelisms of word order across Xn as generalizations” (where X is instantiated as a phrase type and n as one of the three levels in his analysis). Comrie (1988: 454) summarizes this development as follows:

Within X-grammar,¯ the basic schema specifying the structure of different kinds of phrases (e.g. noun phrase, verb phrase, prepositional phrase) is the same, so that languages like Japanese have a basic phrase- structure rule specifying that the head is preceded by its adjuncts [complement], while Welsh has the mirror-image rule, specifying that the head is followed by its adjuncts [complements]. Vennemann’s terms ‘operator’ and ‘operand’ can simply be replaced by ‘adjunct’ [complement] and ‘head,’ and languages are either head-ﬁnal or head-initial.

Chung and McCloskey (1987: 201) describe the serialization of constituents in various relationships such as that of government in their examination of Irish:

Much work (...) leads to the conclusion that government and other relationships such as Case assignment, may be constrained by directionality conditions—that in a given language, for instance, governors must be to the left of the phrases they govern, or Case assign- ers to the left of the NP to which they assign Case. Now Irish is a massively regular head-initial language 206 P. SCHARF

[VSO p. 211] and in every instance of the government relation known to us the governor precedes the governed phrase.

Recent work in generative grammar typically includes complementizer phrases (phrases such as subordinate clauses) among phrases subject to the serialization constraints just described. In- cluded among complementizer phrases are interrogative clauses. In his introductory textbook on syntax, Radford (1997: 106) describes complementizers and complementizer phrases as follows:

Complementizers head a separate layer of functional superstructure in clauses, which we termed a complementizer phrase with the head C position of CP being ﬁlled by complementizers like that/for/if or auxiliaries in yes/no questions.

In yes/no questions in languages that have explicit question markers, the question marker fills the specifier position within the complementizer phrase, and in special [wh-] questions in languages which move the interrogative, the interrogative moves to the specifier position within the complementizer phrase. Radford (1997: 18, 130–131) presents a binary wh-parameter in universal grammar that would either restrict interrogatives to remain in the canonical (i.e. ‘usual’) position associated with their grammatical function or allow them to be moved to the specifier position within the complementizer phrase (spec-CP). Complementizer phrases are at the highest level of the clause- structure. In general, movement of any constituent is raising it to a higher position in the clause structure. Thus Jackendoff (1977: 75) acknowledges that “the Extended Standard Theory does include a general uneasiness with lowering rules,” and Chung and McCloskey (1987: 195) “assume a condition on possible adjunction sites ... that requires [that] elements to be adjoined always ... INTERROGATIVES AND WORD-ORDERIN SANSKRIT 207 move upward in a tree.” Therefore, in a head-initial language such as Irish, typically having Verb–Subject–Object word order, an interrogative moves to the front of the sentence prior to the verb, as it does also in English.

Where1 does an interrogative adverb go t1? (4)

Now Sanskrit has overwhelmingly head-ﬁnal word-order. Del- brück’s (1878) description of the usual word-order found in the Satapathabr´ ahman¯ . a [reported by Staal (1967: 51) may be summarized as follows:

subject ... dative ... accusative–verb adjective–noun genitive–noun noun–postposition

In accordance with Greenberg’s observations of other languages with object–verb order and with Vennemann’s predictions, since Sanskrit serializes the object and verb in the order stated, the ordering of other operator–operand pairs follows suit. In X-grammar¯ the general rule governing word-order in phrases of all types would specify that the complement is followed by the head. In a head- final language, if the language moves interrogatives, an interrogative particle in general (i.e. yes/no) questions and an interrogative in a special (i.e. wh-) questions lodge at the head of the complementizer phrase, that is, after the verb at the end of the clause. We do in fact find certain complementizers at the end of their clauses in Sanskrit, for example, iti closes quotes and the relative pronoun typically appears final in the clause in a commentator’s gloss of bahuvr¯ıhi compounds. Therefore, as shown in (5),

kim˙ sabdah´ . tis..thati kutra? (5) 208 P. SCHARF since Sanskrit is a head-final language, according to the general rule governing word-order, we would expect to find the interrogative particle final in yes/no questions and the interrogative pronoun final in special [wh-] questions, unless in the latter it remains in situ in the position associated with its grammatical function. We don’t.

2 The evidence

The data upon which the following conclusions are based consist of all the interrogative clauses in prose in the fourth am˙ sa´ of the Vis. n. upuran¯ . a. The rather unadorned prose in the fourth am˙ sa´ of the Vis. n. upuran¯ . a, interrupted occasionally by verse, is probably about as ordinary a Sanskrit word-order as one may find. In the few general [yes/no] questions occurring, such as (1), the interrogative particle api appears initial rather than final in the clause. (1) º;pyea;tea Y;sma;tpua:a;aH k+:l+.Ba;a; a;Sa;¾aH :pa;;dÂåùÅ;a;Ma ga;.cCe+.yuaH Á (VP 4.2.43) api ete asmatputrah¯ . kalabhas¯. in. ah. padbhyam¯ gaccheyuh. ? [yes/no q-marker] these our-sons softly-speaking by feet go? Will these baby-talking sons of ours walk? Of the forty special questions, none terminates in the interrogative, that is, in a declined form of, or derivate of, kim. It is obvious that Sanskrit does not move the interrogative to the sentence-final position as the general rule serializing phrase constituents would lead us to expect. Where does the interrogative appear? Twenty-three of the forty special questions begin with the interrogative, of which seven contain only a single word besides the interrogative, e.g. (2)–(3). (2) ; a;kM ku+:mRaH (VP 4.2.26) kim kurmah. ? What shall we do? INTERROGATIVES AND WORD-ORDERIN SANSKRIT 209

ëÐÅ (3) ë*:Á ga;a;ma;Sya;Ta (MBh 4.329.22) kva gamis. yatha? Where will you go?

Seventeen of the forty have non-initial interrogative. In two of these the interrogative occurs immediately following a subordinat- ing conjunction e.g. (4); (4) ta;Ta;a; a;pa :ke+:na va;a .ja;n}å.a;BUa;a;ma;nRa .sma;yRa;tea Á (VP 4.2.39) tatha¯ api kena va¯ janmabhumih¯ . na smaryate? Nevertheless by whom or native-land no is missed? Nevertheless, who doesn’t miss his native land? in two, after a vocative, e.g. (5); (5) :pua; a:a k+:sma;a;a .ja;a;ya;sea Á (VP 4.13.56) putri kasmat¯ na jayase?¯ Daughter, why not are you being borne? Daughter, why aren’t you being borne? in four, kim uta or kim punar begins a new clause, e.g. (6). (6) º;sua:=+sua:=+ya:»a;ga;nDa;vRa:=+a:»a;sa;a; a;d;a;Ba:=+pya;a;Ka;lE+.BRa;ga;va;a;a .jea;tMua Za;k+.aH ; a;k+:mua- ;ta;a;va; a;na;ga;ea;.ca;=E;=+pa;va;a;yERa;nRa+:=EH ...(VP 4.13.28) asurasurayaks. agandharvaraks¯ . asadibhih¯ . api akhilaih. bhagavan¯ na jetum sakyah´ . ; kim uta avanigocaraih. alpav¯ıryaih. naraih. ...? By demons, gods, Yaks.as, Gandharvas, Raks¯ .asas, etc. even all your divinity not to conquer is able; what more earth- realm (instr.) small-strength (instr.) men (instr.) . . . . Your divinity is not able to be conquered even by all the demons, gods, Yaks.as, Gandharvas, Raks¯ .asas, etc.; how much less so by weak men whose realm is the earth . . . ? This leaves eight embedded interrogatives and sixteen initial which may suggest that the interrogative either occurs in situ or moves to 210 P. SCHARF the initial position in the clause. Examples of sentences of more than two words with initial interrogative are shown in (7)–(8). (7) k+:~yea;ya;ma;hR; a;ta (VP 4.1.20) kasya iyam arhati? Of whom this one (fem.) is worthy? Of whom is she worthy?

(8) :ke+:nEa;ta;n}å.a:n:a;pUa;tMa va;a;a:= :pa;a;ta;m,a Á (VP 4.2.15) kena etat mantraputam¯ vari¯ p¯ıtam? By whom this mantra-puriﬁed water drunk? by whom was this water, puriﬁed by mantras, drunk?

A closer look at the eight questions with embedded interrogative (9)–(16) mostly corroborates the view that the interrogative remains in situ or moves to the front of its clause. In (9), one may say that the adverb anyatha¯ ‘otherwise’ and the pronoun tasya ‘of him’, which refers to Krs.n.a about whom his soldiers speak, has been fronted before the˚ initial interrogative adverb katham. Like- wise in (10), one may say that svakam¯ mataram¯ ‘own mother’ has been topicalized. Similarly, in sentences (11)–(12), one may say that topicalized phrases have been fronted leaving the interrogative subject in the position usual for its grammatical function in the clause, namely, initial. In (13), the particle nama¯ indicates that the participial clause has been fronted. The core clause then contains subject–object–verb in the canonical order with the interrogative object in situ. Sentences (14)–(15) are passive constructions with the direct object in the nominative case in its canonical place before the verb in (14) and before the negative adverb na in (15). However, one does not seem to be able to explain the location of the interrogative in sentence (16) as in situ or clause-initial after fronted constituents. In (16), the interrogative dative intervenes between the nominative direct object and the passive verb. Recent generative grammar generally considers the direct object to be the INTERROGATIVES AND WORD-ORDERIN SANSKRIT 211 complement of the verb with which it forms a verb phrase prior to being related to other phrases in the sentence. Moreover, there does not seem to be any motivation for the object in sentence (16) to move out of its verb phrase. There remains no explanation in the serialization theories discussed for how the interrogative in this sentence intervenes between the direct object and the verb.1

(9) º;nya;Ta;a ta;~ya k+:Ta;mea;ta;a;va;////a;nta ; a;d;na;a; a;na Za:ua:ja;yea v.ya;a:»ea;pa;ea Ba; a;va;Sya; a;ta Á (VP 4.13.25) anyatha¯ tasya katham etavanti¯ dinani¯ satrujaye´ vyaks¯ . epah. bhavis. yati. Otherwise, of him, how, for so many days, in the vanquishing of the enemy, occupation will be? Otherwise how could he be occupied in vanquishing the enemy for so many days? ëÐÅ (10) .~va;k+:Ma ..ca ma;a;ta:=M ; a;k+:a;ma; a;ta ; a;.ca:=M :ì*:e+:Za;ya;a;saÉ Á (VP 4.13.56) svakam¯ ca mataram¯ kim iti ciram klesayasi.´ Own and mother why for long you torment? And why do you torment your own mother for a long time?

(11) Ba;ga;va;a;sma;a;k+:ma:a ; a;va:=+ea;Dea k+:ta;maH :pa:»a;ea .jea;ta;a Ba; a;va;Sya; a;ta Á (VP 4.9.2) bhagavan asmakam¯ atra virodhe katamah. paks. ah. jeta¯ bhavis. yati. O lord, of us in this conﬂict which side winner will be? O lord, in this conﬂict of ours, which side will be the winner?

(12) º; a;ta;.ca;pa;l+. a;.ca:a;a:a .~ya;nd;nea :ke+:ya;ma;a:=+ea; a;pa;ta;a Á (VP 4.12.9) aticapalacitta¯ atra syandane ka¯ iyam aropit¯ a.¯ Whose-mind-is-exceedingly-agitated in this chariot which

1If one argues that the nominative is the subject, not the object, then the position of the nominatives in sentences (14)–(15) becomes problematic. As subjects, which they would have to be considered by analogy with (16), they should not intervene between the instrumental agents and the verbs. 212 P. SCHARF

this woman has been made to mount? Who is this very mentally agitated woman you have made to mount this chariot?

(13) .ja;a;ta;ea na;a;mEa;SaH kM ;Da;a;~ya; a;ta Á (VP 4.2.17) jatah¯ . nama¯ es. ah. kam dhasyati.¯ Born, indeed, this one whom will suckle? Once he has been born, whom will he suckle?

(14) ya;dùÅ;ae;vMa :pUa;vRa;mea;va tva;ya;a;hM ..ca;ea; a;d;taH .~ya;Ma ta;n}å.a;ya;a tva;d;T a ; a;k+:ma;k+:tRa;v.ya;m,a Á (VP 4.9.7) yadi evam purvam¯ eva tvaya¯ aham coditah. syam¯ tat maya¯ tvadartham kim akartavyam. If thus at ﬁrst only by you urged I had been, then by me for you what would not have been done? If you had urged me right at ﬁrst, then what wouldn’t I have done for you?

(15) ;Ga;a;ta; a;ya;tvEa;nMa ta;n}å.a;h;a:=+Ma tva;ya;a ; a;kM na ga;hx ùÅ:a;tea Á (VP 4.13.35) ghatayitv¯ a¯ enam tat maharatnam¯ tvaya¯ kim na grhyate. After slaying him, that great-jewel by you why not˚ is taken? After slaying him why don’t you take that great-jewel?

(16) Ba;ga;va;ea;va;ma;va;//////a;~Ta;teama;yea;yMa k+:smEa :de;ya;a Á (VP 4.1.25) bhagavan evam avasthite maya¯ iyam kasmai deya.¯ O lord, thus situated by me this girl to whom is to be given? O lord, when the situation is such, to whom should I give this girl?

3 Parallels with other pronouns

Hock (1989) points out similar issues with relative and correlative pronouns. These pronouns, just as the interrogative pronouns, INTERROGATIVES AND WORD-ORDERIN SANSKRIT 213 locate either at the beginning of their clauses, e.g. the relative pronoun yas´ in (17) and the demonstrative pronoun tam´ in (18), or just prior to the verb, e.g. the relative pronoun yo´ in (19) and the demonstrative pronoun sa¯´ in (20). If one scrapped the serialization hypothesis there is no problem explaining the initial position of the pronouns in (17)–(18) by movement to a higher position in the syntactic tree. Yet one would still not be able to explain the position of the pronouns in (19)–(20) because this would involve the deplored movement to a lower position in the syntactic tree. The relative pronoun yo´ and the demonstrative pronoun sa,¯´ which are subjects, intervene between the ﬁnite verbs and their direct objects.

(17) ya;~te!a .sa;a;Ka;By!a º;a va:= +m,a(RV 1.4.4c) yas´ te sakhibhya´ a¯´ varam´ ˚ . . . , who is dearer to you than all friends (Hock 1989: 17)

(18) tMa tva;!a va;a:jea;Su!a va;a;a:ja;nMa va;!a:ja;ya;a;maH (RV 1.4.9ab) ˚ ta´m˙ tva¯ vajes¯´ . u vajina¯´ m˙ vaj¯ ay´ amah¯ . We make victorious you, the victorious, in the victories . . . (Hock 1989: 17)

(19) o+.du! ;a;~å:a;ya;ò !a .ja; a;na;ta;!a ya;ea .j!a:ja;a;na (RV 3.1.12c) ˚ ud´ usr´ıya¯ janit´ a¯ yo´ jajana¯´ . . . who as creator created forth the cows (Hock 1989: 18)

(20) v!a;v.ra;

Hock (1989: 22–26) argues that stressed pronouns move to TOPIC or FOCUS rather than to COMP. He concludes (1989: 26), “the ‘landing site’ for RPs in Sanskrit relative-correlatives is not COMP, but either TOPIC or preverbal FOCUS.” 214 P. SCHARF

The evidence provided for interrogatives in this paper and Hock’s (1989) analysis of relative and correlative structures imply that the occurrence of interrogative, relative and demonstrative pronouns in initial and preverbal positions is due to movement motivated by discourse factors rather than by grammatical ones. Movement to either of these positions contradicts the predictions of the serialization hypothesis for movement to ﬁnal position in the clause. Moreover, even if one abandons the serialization hypothesis, problems remain with syntactically motivated explanations of movement altogether. While movement to initial position is un- problematic since it involves movement to a higher position in the syntactic tree, movement to the preverbal position intervening between a verb and its direct object would involve lowering in the syntactic hierarchy which is deplored. Syntactic serialization and movement theories seem to be unable to account for the order of constituents in such sentences adequately.

4 The solution

Theories of the serialization of word-order grow out of a tradition of associating position with grammatical function. In English and other Western European languages, word-order does indeed serve grammatical function. However, highly inflected languages utilize different mechanisms to indicate grammatical function. As Staal (1967: 59) argued with great clarity more than thirty years ago, to no avail it seems in the world of contemporary linguistic theory, “word order has no grammatical significance or value,” in Sanskrit and in other highly inflected languages, and (1967: 77) “grammatical relations, ..., are always independent of order.” He stated plainly (1967: 71) “even if free word order in this sense would not obtain anywhere, the divergent arrangements of words in different INTERROGATIVES AND WORD-ORDERIN SANSKRIT 215 types of language would require the base of a system of universal grammar to be unordered.” Comrie (1984: 13) argues that in highly inflected languages such as Russian in which word-order is free, it is constrained by the pragmatic structure of the sentence, that is, by factors such as the topic–comment structure and the focus. Wallace (1984) discusses the interaction of word order and pragmatics in Sanskrit. Hueckstedt (1985) points out numerous factors which influenced the ordering of constituents in the style of Ban¯ .a: (1985: 45) an initial verb provides emphasis, (1985: 67) elements are ordered to postpone the expected, and (1985: 78) sequence in time and space determines the sequence of clauses, to name a few. It seems to me that the behavior of interrogatives in Sanskrit conforms to this functional sentence perspective. The interrogative is placed in positions at the beginning of the sentence and immediately before the final verb for emphasis. It is crucial to note that the placement of the interrogatives in sentence (16) and of relatives and demonstratives in (19)–(20) cannot be explained by movement from underlying positions associated with grammatical roles. An explanation that the pronouns did move forward here, would have to explain how in general pronouns in Sanskrit could move to places of emphasis in two opposite directions: forward to the position just before the verb or backward to the beginning of the clause where they often appear. Movement in two opposite directions is incompatible with the theories that serialization is unidirectional in any given language. In contrast, the theory that grammatical function is inherently unordered does not conflict with evidence that shows usual orders. It is quite clear that many languages utilize position for grammatical roles. It is also clear that there are elements of usual order in Sanskrit and other highly inflected languages. Yet to claim that such grammaticality is inherent to position and that movement is unidirectional is ludicrous as is clearly shown regarding the inter- 216 P. SCHARF rogatives in this paper. Rather than put linearity at the foundation of grammatical relations and syntax, a more productive approach, in agreement with Staal and as the author has argued elsewhere, is to describe grammatical relations in an abstract multidimensional space and to project these relations onto linear speech taking into account discourse factors as well as grammatical roles.

References

Chung, Sandra and James McCloskey. 1987. “Government, barriers, and small clauses in modern Irish.” Linguistic inquiry 18.2: 173–237. Comrie, Bernard. 1984. “Russian.” Interrogativity: a colloquium on the grammar, typology and pragmatics of questions in seven diverse languages, Cleveland, Ohio, October 5th 1981 - May 3rd 1982, ed. by William S. Chisholm, pp. 7–46. Typological Studies in Language 4. —. 1988. Linguistic typology. Linguistics: the Cambridge survey, ed. by Frederick J. Newmeyer, vol. 1, pp. 447–461. Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press. Delbrück, Bertold. 1878. Syntaktische Forschungen; vol. 3, Die altindische Wortfolge aus dem Satapathabr´ ahman¯ . a dargestellt. Halle: Waisenhaus. Greenberg, Joseph H. 1966. “Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements.” Uni- versals of language, ed. by Joseph H. Greenberg, pp. 73–113. Second edition. Hock, Hans Henrich. 1989. “Conjoined we stand: Theoretical implications of Sanskrit relative clauses.” Studies in the Linguis- tic Sciences 19.1: 93–126. Hueckstedt, Robert. 1985. The style of Ban¯ . a. Lanham, MD: Uni- versity Press of America. REFERENCES 217

Jackendoff, Ray. 1977. X¯ syntax: a study of phrase structure. Cam- bridge: The MIT Press. Radford, Andrew. 1997. Syntax: a minimalist introduction. Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press. Staal, J. F. 1967. Word order in Sanskrit and universal grammar. Foundations of Language, Supplementary Series 5. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Co. Vennemann, Theo. 1974. “Analogy in generative grammar: the origin of word order.” Proceedings of the eleventh international congress of linguists, Bologna-Florence, August 28 - Sept 2, 1972, ed. by Luigi Heilmann, vol. II, pp. 79–84. Wallace, William D. 1984. “The interaction of word order and pragmatics in a Sanskrit text.” Studies in the Linguistic Sci- ences 14.1: 167–88. 218 P. SCHARF To classify words: European and Indian grammatical approaches

ÉMILIE AUSSANT

Abstract: This paper aims at briefly recalling the presuppositions the European and Indian grammatical approaches present regarding word-classification. From its very beginning up to the most contemporary trends in linguistics, the European approach knew essentially only one classification of words: the canonical list of eight parts of speech which comes from Dionysius Thrax and which was developed, restructured, sub-divided, etc., throughout the course of history, according to the aims of particular scholars or schools. Within Vyakaran¯ .a, native Sanskrit grammar, the situation is not so different: the Sanskrit grammarians generally alternated between only two classifications (the four-fold Yaskan¯ division of parts of speech and the two-fold division proposed by Pan¯ .ini); some of them like Nage¯ sa´ having even tried to reconcile the two.

Keywords: Europe, India, history of linguistic ideas, episte- mology of language sciences

1 Introduction

Even though the analysis of language into units appears to have been essential in all traditions of language study, the classiﬁcation of words consists in an activity which is neither self-evident nor homogeneous: the classiﬁer (whether he is an individual scholar, a school of thought or a trend) has an epistemological aim (that

219 220 É. AUSSANT is to say, he has something to explain) and one must consider the regularities (hence the categories) he makes exist on this basis. Epistemological aims have varied a lot in history, from one tradition of language study to another, but also within one and the same tradition. The analysis and description of Sanskrit in the perspective of computational linguistics brings two different grammatical traditions, as well as different classifications, face to face. With- out calling into question their legitimacy (my approach is rooted in the perspective of the history of ideas), I would like to recall, al- beit briefly, the presuppositions these theories present. I will consider first the European approach and then the approach of Sanskrit (Vyakaran¯ .a perspective).1

2 The European approach

2.1 Parts of speech in computational linguistics In computational linguistics, the parts of speech which are used come, most of the time, from works realized in the ﬁeld of formal linguistics. Very often indeed, taggers are statistical tools trained on manually or semi-automatically annotated data. These data were mostly annotated under the responsibility of formal linguists and according to the guidelines they elaborated on the basis of their linguistic expertise, as well as on the basis of what results from the confrontation of the system with real data. Hence, at ﬁrst sight, there is no real norm: corpora can be tagged in various ways. However, some tag sets, such as the Brown Corpus

1I wish to thank Aimée Lahaussois, Clément Plancq and Benoît Sagot for their kind help. TOCLASSIFYWORDS 221 tag set,2 the Penn Treebank tag set,3 and, to a lesser extent, the French Treebank developed by the University of Paris Diderot,4 today constitute a reference. If one looks at these tag sets, one observes that the choices made remain mainly traditional — it is even explicitly given on the website of the French Treebank, “For part of speech, we made traditional choices [. . . ]” and, once we sub- tract the numerous categories and sub-categories which divide or complete each part of speech (see Table 1), and which are mainly based on inflectional and lexico-semantic information, we find the well-known list again: noun, verb, article, adjective, preposition, pronoun, adverb, conjunction, and interjection. Even tools developed for languages other than English and French, such as the Nat- ural Language ToolKit (NLTK) tag set for four Indian languages (Bangla, Hindi, Marathi and Telugu),5 and the Stanford Natural Language Processing Group (SNLPG) tag set for Chinese,6 resort to this list. Where does this list come from? On what kind of classification criteria is it based? How can one explain its stability throughout the course of history?

2.2 Parts of speech in Graeco-Latin grammatical tradition The list of eight parts of speech comes from the Graeco-Latin grammatical tradition, and more speciﬁcally from the Τέχνη

2http://www.comp.leeds.ac.uk/ccalas/tagsets/brown. html 3http://www.cst.dk/mulinco/filer/PennTreebankTS. html 4http://www.llf.cnrs.fr/Gens/Abeille/French- Treebank-fr.php 5http://nltk.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/doc/book/ ch05.html#fig-tag-indian 6http://nlp.stanford.edu/projects/chinese-nlp. shtml#pos 222 É. AUSSANT

Table 1 Sub-categories of noun in the Brown Corpus

NN singular or mass noun NN$ possessive singular noun NNS plural noun NNS$ possessive plural noun NP proper noun or part of name phrase NP$ possessive proper noun NPS plural proper noun NPS$ possessive plural proper noun NR adverbial noun (home, today, west)

Γραμματική by Dionysius Thrax (2nd-1st c. BCE). The aim of the Greek scholar was to provide, mainly for writers and poets, an overview of the Alexandrian grammatical tradition, giving a reference list for phonetics (letters-sounds, syllables) as well as the list of eight parts of speech: noun, verb, participle, article, pronoun, preposition, adverb and conjunction. This list itself is the result of developments and restructurings of a more ancient classification: that made by Aristotle (384–322 BCE) in his Poet- ics (chapter XX), which distinguishes four parts of speech: ὄνομα ‘noun’, ῥῆμα ‘verb’, σύνδεσμος ‘link’ (late ‘conjunction’), ἅρθρον ‘articulation’ (late ‘article’) and which is mainly based on notional criteria (semantic, ontological, psychological, and/or logical) (Lal- lot 1988). The four parts of speech list was quickly enlarged and restructured on the basis of formal and semantic criteria. In the Τέχνη Γραμματική by Dionysius Thrax, each part of speech is defined, its ‘accidents’ (e.g. everything which happens to it, that is to say number, gender, inflection, diathesis and tense variations) are listed, defined and illustrated, its morphological and/or seman- TOCLASSIFYWORDS 223 tic sub-classes are listed and illustrated (31 for the noun, 13 for the verb, 26 for the adverb, 9 for the conjunction) (Lallot 1998). What are the criteria used for this classification in eight parts of speech? Notional (see above) and formal (morphological) criteria were used very early; functional criteria (syntactical) appeared a little bit later, with the Greek grammarian Apollonius Dyscolus (2nd c. CE). But from the very beginning, parts of speech were — and are still today — classified according to (a) their meaning and/or their reference, (b) according to their form, and (c) according to their position and/or their relation to other parts of speech in sentences (Lagarde 1988). The hierarchy of these criteria, the number of their sub-categories as well as their relationship, varied greatly in history. For instance, Ramus (Pierre De La Ramée), a 16th c. French grammarian, tried to impose (in his Scholae Gram- maticae) a model with two categories of words (lat. voces), using exclusively formal criteria: ‘mots de nombre’, i.e. nouns and verbs, versus ‘mots sans nombre’, i.e. adverbs and conjunctions.7 For authors of universal grammars (which elaborate their own categories by linking them to cognitive structures), such as Beauzée and Condillac in the case of the “Grammaire générale française”, notional criteria are much more relevant than the others (Auroux 1988: 81). As Lagarde (1988: 93) already highlights, the list of eight parts of speech, though provoking strong debate,8 crossed over the centuries and modeled grammatical consciousnesses. Ev- ery linguist must, explicitly or not, make a stand regarding this model of analysis which has become an unavoidable reference.

7See Colombat 1988, 1998. 8See, for instance, the debate opposing Haspelmath and Dryer, two leaders of linguistic typology. Haspelmath (2010) argues that crosslinguistic grammatical comparison cannot be based on grammatical categories, because these are language speciﬁc, while Brown and Dryer (2008) write, “While there are often ways in which languages differ from each other in terms of what word classes they have, the differences are generally small compared with the similarities.” 224 É. AUSSANT

The judgements made with regard to this model are generally negative. Despite endlessly repeated criticisms and the periodic attempts to develop universal categories or tag sets (such as the one elaborated by Petrov, Das and McDonald in 2011),9 this classification remains. Auroux (1988: 82) observes quite rightly that, as a word-classification tool used in various fields of language study (language description, learning, etc.) which are not always theoretically well mastered, the list of eight parts of speech is stable, much more so than the theoretical variations suggest. Simply for communicability reasons, no theoretical change can lead to a fundamental change in the list of parts of speech. The question of parts of speech cannot be reduced to a mere matter of word classes because it is on the basis of this word-classification that European grammar was elaborated.

3 The Indian approach (Sanskrit Vyakaran¯ . a) If we now move to the Indian side and, more particularly, to the field of Sanskrit Vyakaran¯ .a, what ways of classifying words do we find? Two models were mainly used: the naman-¯ akhy¯ ata-upasa-¯ rga-nipata¯ classification and the Pan¯ .inian classification of padas.

3.1 The naman-¯ akhy¯ ata-upasarga-nip¯ ata¯ classiﬁcation One of the most ancient classiﬁcations of words seems to be the one in four parts: naman¯ , akhy¯ ata¯ , upasarga and nipata¯ , which are traditionally translated as ‘noun’, ‘verb’, ‘preverb’ and ‘particle’. In section 13.9 of the Nirukta (N. hereafter) which is considered to be an appendix (parisis´ ..ta),10 while commenting on the Rg-vedic verse ˚ 9See http://www.petrovi.de/data/lrec.pdf 10Sarup (1920–1929) does not translate this section. TOCLASSIFYWORDS 225

Catvari¯´ vak¯´ parimit´ a¯ padani¯´ tani¯´ vidur brahman¯ . a¯´ ye´ man¯ıs. ´ın. ah. ; Guh´ a¯ tr¯´ın. i n´ıhita¯ neńgayanti˙ tur¯´ıyam˙ vac¯ o´ manus. ya¯` vadanti. (RV. 1.164.45) Speech has been measured in four˚ steps. The Brah- mins who have control over their mind know them. The three of them which are deposited secretly do not stir. The fourth [step] of the speech is that which men speak. (Bhate undated: 2, revised). Yaska¯ mentions different readings of the expression catvari¯ pada-¯ ni among which the following one: Nam¯ akhy¯ ate¯ copasarganipat¯ a¯s´ ceti vaiyakaran¯ . ah¯ . . (N. 13.9, Sarup 1920–1929: 226) Grammarians [consider that these four kinds of pada are]: the noun and the verb, as well as the preverbs and the particles. Yaska¯ himself gives this classification of padas at the very beginning of his Nirukta: Tad yani¯ catvari¯ padajat¯ ani¯ nam¯ akhy¯ ate¯ copasarganipat¯ a¯s´ ca tan¯ ¯ımani¯ bhavanti. (N. 1.1, Sarup 1920– 1929: 27) Now, what (are) the four classes of words? They are the following: noun and verb; prepositions and particles. (Sarup’s translation) This classification, which is found in other texts such as the Ma- habh¯ as¯. ya (Paspasá¯), seems to come directly from the very early grammatical analyses elaborated in India. Such analyses aimed at deconstructing Vedic texts in their continuously recited version (samhit˙ a-p¯ at¯.ha), where sandhis are applied, to result in a word-by- word version (pada-pat¯.ha) of the same texts, where any dissocia- ble sequence was de facto isolated. This kind of analysis implied 226 É. AUSSANT an accurate study of morphology and syntax, and it is most likely during this period that the four-part classification of words was elaborated. The fact is that it is to be found in the Rgveda-Prati¯ sá-¯ khya: ˚

Nama-¯ akhy¯ atam¯ upasargo nipata¯ s´ catvary¯ ahuh¯ . padajat¯ ani¯ s´abd¯ ah¯ . ; tan nama¯ yenabhidadh¯ ati¯ sattvam˙ tad akhy¯ ata¯ m˙ yena bhava¯ m˙ sa dhatuh¯ . . (RPr. 12.5) The noun, the verb, the preverb and the particle,˚ these are the four classes of words say the grammarians. The noun is that by which a substance is denoted; a verb is that by which a process [is denoted]. It is a dhatu¯ . ... kriya-v¯ acakam¯ akhy¯ atam¯ upasargo vises´ . a-krt; ˚ sattva-abhidhayaka¯ m˙ nama¯ nipatah¯ . pada-p¯ uran¯ . ah. . (RPr. 12.8) The˚ verb expresses an action; the preverb speciﬁes it. The noun expresses a substance; the particle com- pletes the verse quater (pada¯ ).

Though we have access to neither the thought nor the method of the authors of pada-pat¯.ha texts, it is nevertheless possible to infer from their works some of the principles they adhered to. For instance, what they meant by pada, according to Bhate (undated: 4) were isolated inflected forms (nominal, verbal), indeclinables, and preverbs. As it appears in the first verse quoted previously, as well as in the Nirukta, the criteria on which the distinction between the noun and the verb is based is notional (ontological) criteria. Re- garding the upasargas, two definitions are given by Yaska:¯

• One, ascribed to S´akat¯ .ayana,¯ says that upasargas do not express meanings (na . . . arthan¯ nirahur¯ ); they simply help the TOCLASSIFYWORDS 227

emergence of the whole meaning by suggesting it (karma- upasamyoga-dyotak˙ a¯ bhavanti)(N. 1.3)

• The other, ascribed to Gargya,¯ presents upasargas as units expressing (vacaka¯ ) diverse meanings, meanings which modify the meaning of verbs and nouns with which the u- pasargas are combined (uccavac¯ ah¯ . padarth¯ a¯ bhavant¯ıti ga-¯ rgyah. . tad — ya es. u padarthah¯ . , prahur¯ ime tam — nama-¯ -akhy¯ atayor¯ artha-vikaran. am)(N. 1.3). The second verse quoted from the Rgveda-Prati¯ s´akhya¯ (upasargo vises´ . a-krt) seems to refer to˚ this conception. ˚

Concerning the particles, only one description is given in the Nirukta: nipatas¯ are said to express numerous meanings (nipat¯ a¯ u- ccavaces¯ . v arthes. u nipatanti): comparative (apy upamarthe¯ ), con- nective (api karma-upasamgrah˙ arthe¯ ), expletive (api pada-p¯ ura-¯ n. ah¯ . )(N. 1.4). We note that the naman-¯ akhy¯ ata-upasarga-nip¯ ata¯ classiﬁca- tion is presented as exclusively based on notional criteria: an ontological criterion for the noun and the verb and a semantic criterion for the preverbs and the particles. This is surprising since, considering the context of the emergence of this classiﬁcation, we would have expected formal criteria.

3.2 The Pan¯ . inian classification of padas On a practical level, the As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı (A. hereafter) provides guidelines for forming words with affixes. These affixes (pratyaya) are directly taught in some of the 4000 sutras,¯ in distinction from most of the bases with which they combine and which are either verbal roots (dhatu¯ ) or nominal bases. These nominal bases are:

• either generally introduced by A. 1.2.45 arthavad adhatu-¯ r apratyayah. pratipadikam¯ (“A meaningful [unit], which 228 É. AUSSANT

is neither a verbal root nor an afﬁx, [is called] pratipadi-¯ ka”), which is completed by A. 1.2.46 krt-taddhita-samas¯ a-¯ s´ ca (“Primary derivatives, secondary derivatives˚ and compounds [are] also [called] pratipadika¯ ”);

• or given in lists which gather together units sharing some derivational features (cf. the Gan. a-pat¯.ha lists (GP. hereafter);

• or directly introduced in some sutras,¯ such as A. 3.1.16 ba-¯ s. pa-us¯. mabhyam¯ udvamane, which states that the (denom- inative) suffix kyan˙ is used after the nominal bases bas¯. pa ‘tear’ and us¯. man ‘heat’ to express ‘to emit’. Verbal and nominal bases constitute the two starting points of the derivational process which occurs over the course of Pan¯ .inian sutras¯ to generate more and more complex units up to sentences (vakya¯ ).11 The steps of this derivational process consist in the application of operations to these units and, generally, it is these very operations which determine the arrangement of the units in classes or categories. For instance, a unit is called pratipadika¯ , that is to say, belongs to the pratipadika¯ class because it undergoes (or must undergo) the application of several operations. Sanskrit morphology being very rich, operations to be applied are numerous, and then, the number of classes Pan¯ .ini distinguishes is particularly high. The main classes are those shown in Figure 1 (based on that made by Bhate (undated: 7)). At the top of the diagram, one finds the term pada:Pan¯ .ini uses it to designate the general class of words, but he also gives a definition of the term (probably the most ancient to have come down to us) which clearly delimits its extension: the sutra¯ A. 1.4.14 states that the units which constitute the pada class are those that end

11The term vakya¯ is used only twice in the As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı, in A. 8.1.8 vakya-¯ ader¯ amantritasya¯ . . . , and in A. 8.2.82 vakyasya¯ . teh. ... ). TOCLASSIFYWORDS 229

Figure 1 The main classes of speech forms distinguished by Pan¯ . ini

in a nominal (sup) or a verbal (tin˙) ending, in other words, the inflected words. One notes that in the Pan¯ .inian system, neither na-¯ man nor akhy¯ ata¯ are used to designate respectively the noun and the verb: neither of these terms is used by Pan¯ .ini in a metalinguistic way. One notes too that there is an empty square on the diagram: it stands for the nominal stems which cannot be derived, such as vrks. a, which are meaningful units but neither a verbal root, nor a suffix,˚ pronoun, indeclinable, primary derivative, secondary derivative, nor compound. As far as I know, Pan¯ .ini does not give a name — other than pratipadika¯ — to this kind of unit. Patañja- li explains (on vt. 5 ad A. 7.1.2) that for Pan¯ .ini, nominal stems 230 É. AUSSANT which cannot be derived are the un. adi¯ s.12 Contrary to naman¯ and akhy¯ ata¯ , upasarga is used in the As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı, and, here too, it designates the preverbs (cf. A. 1.4.59 upasargah¯ . kriya-yoge¯ ). How- ever, it belongs to a larger class called pradi¯ (GP. 154), which itself belongs to the nipata¯ class (the term is also used to designate the particles). And this nipata¯ class belongs to the avyaya class (‘indeclinables’, cf. A. 1.1.37 svaradinip¯ atam¯ avyayam) which includes also the svaradi¯ class (GP. 254). The avyaya class constitutes a sub-category of the pratipadika¯ class, these units being meaningful. If upasarga and nipata¯ are used in the As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı with more or less the same meaning as in the Nirukta, the Pan¯ .inian system nevertheless establishes a difference in the level of analysis between them. However that may be, the Pan¯ .inian classification of padas is firstly based on formal criteria. Semantics plays a role too, but to a lesser extent; it comes as a complement (e.g. the definition of nipata¯ : A. 1.4.56–57 “. . . units which do not designate a substance (asattve)”).

3.3 Some remarks on a few other classiﬁcations

Still within the Vyakaran¯ .a sphere one finds mention of a few other classifications of words. I will not address the classifications which correlate linguistic categories with ontological categories, such as the jati-gun¯ . a-kriya-yadr¯ ccha¯ classification pro- ˚ vided by Patañjali in his Mahabh¯ as¯. ya. This classification, as well as the akr¯ ti-kriya-gun¯ . a-dravya list of padarthas,¯ actually provides a sub-classification˚ of pratipadikas,¯ often illustrated by the sentence gauh. sukla´ s´ calo d. itthah. “[the] white moving cow D. ittha”. At the very beginning of the third kan¯ .d.a of his Vakyapad¯ ¯ı- ya, Bhartrhari mentions three views on the classes of padas. It ˚ 12Pratipadikavijñ¯ an¯ ac¯ ca pan¯ . iner siddham. Pratipadikavijñ¯ an¯ ac¯ ca bhagava- tah. pan¯ . iner ac¯ aryasya¯ siddham. Un. adayo¯ ’vyutpannani¯ pratipadik¯ ani.¯ (A. 7.1.2, vt. 5; MBh. 3.241.19–21) TOCLASSIFYWORDS 231 is very well-known that, according to Bhartrhari, padas exist only on the level of apoddhara¯ ‘[artificial] analysis’;˚ in a philosophical perspective, only the sentence is relevant. But placing himself on the apoddhara¯ level, he says: dvidha¯ kaiscit´ padam˙ bhinnam˙ caturdha¯ pañcadhapi¯ va;¯ apoddhrtyaiva vakyebhyah¯ . prakr˚tipratyayadivat.¯ (VP. 3.1.1) Some˚ distinguish two [kinds] of padas, [some] four [kinds] and [some] five kinds after having artificially isolated them from sentences, just as [one would iso- late] the stem and the suffix, etc. These classifications are: • nama¯ (which includes nipata¯ ): akhy¯ ata¯ (which includes u- pasarga and karmapravacan¯ıya); • naman¯ : akhy¯ ata¯ : upasarga : nipata¯ ; • naman¯ : akhy¯ ata¯ : upasarga : nipata¯ : karmapravacan¯ıya. A very similar classification is mentionned by Durga, in his commentary on Nirukta 1.1:

Naikam˙ padajata¯ m˙ yatharthah¯ . padam aindran¯ . am¯ iti. Napi¯ dve yatha¯ subantah. tinanta˙ s´ ca. Napi¯ tr¯ın. i ni- patopasarg¯ av¯ ekatah. krtva.¯ Napi¯ pañca s. ad. va¯ yatha¯ gatikarmapravacan¯ıyabhedeneti.˚ (Durga on Nirukta 1.1) It is not the case that there is a single class of words as, ‘that which is meaningful is a word for the Ai- ndras’. Nor are there two [classes of words], for instance nouns and verbs. Nor are there three [classes of words] combining in one particles and preverbs [along with the two preceding ones]. Nor ﬁve or six [classes 232 É. AUSSANT

of words], as with the distinction between gati and karmapravacan¯ıya.

These classifications do not really improve upon the previous analyses: they can be seen as variants of the four-fold classification given in the Nirukta and the Rgveda-Prati¯ sákhya¯ . ˚ 4 Concluding remarks

From its very beginning up to the most contemporary trends in linguistics, the European approach knew essentially only one classi- ﬁcation of words: the canonical list of eight parts of speech which comes from Dionysius Thrax. Throughout the course of history, it has been developed, restructured, sub-divided, etc. according to the aims of particular scholars or schools. The heterogeneity of its criteria and its Indo-European focus did not prevent theoreti- cians from analyzing speech and from proposing more and more elaborate descriptive or generative models. Concerning the Sanskrit approach (within the Vyakaran¯ .a sphere), the situation is not so different. I would say — following Deshpande (1992: 14) — that “Sanskrit grammarians care for Pan¯ .ini’s two-fold division of stems into nominal stems and verb roots only as far as the derivational procedures in his grammar are concerned.” When the discussion deals with semantics, “they generally follow the four-fold division mentioned by Yaska¯ . . . .” The inclusion, in the Pan¯ .inian model, of the avyaya class in the prati-¯ padika class seems to have been counter-intuitive for most of the vaiyakaran¯ .as. Some, like Nage¯ sa,´ nevertheless attempted to reconcile the four-fold Yaskan¯ division of parts of speech with the two- fold division proposed by Pan¯ .ini. Commenting on the Mahabh¯ a-¯ s. ya passage catvari¯ sr´ ng˙ an¯ . i — catvari¯ padajat¯ ani¯ nam¯ akhy¯ atopa-¯ sarganipat¯ a¯s´ ca, he˚ says: nama¯ sabdena´ subantam˙ ... akhy¯ ata¯ m˙ REFERENCES 233 tinantam.˙ upasarga-nipatayoh¯ . prthag upad¯ ana¯ m˙ gobal¯ıvardanya-¯ yena. ˚ As far as the tagging of parts of speech is concerned, computational linguists working on Sanskrit are not doing anything different from their predecessors: they try to establish more appropriate models and have to hand a wonderful tool: the Pan¯ .inian grammar, which matches their interests particularly well. More than their 19th-20th c. colleagues who wrote Sanskrit grammars in Eu- ropean languages, “. . . they are in a position to put into practice one of the major insights of structuralist linguistics of the twenti- eth century, namely, that languages are best described in their own terms” (Haspelmath (2010: 664) referring to Boas (1911–1922)). Table 2 Abbreviations

A. As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı. GP. Gan. apat¯.ha. MBh. Mahabh¯ as¯. ya. N. Nirukta. See Sarup 1920–1929. RV. Rgveda. See Sonatakke and Kashikar 1933–1951. ˚RPr.˚ Rgvedaprati¯ s´akhya¯ . See Régnier 1858. ˚ ˚

References

Auroux, Sylvain. 1988. “La grammaire générale et les fondements philosophiques des classements de mots.” Langages 92: 79– 92. Bhate, Saroja. 2006. “Classiﬁcations of terms.” History of Science, Philosophy and Culture in Indian Civilization, general editor D. P. Chattopadhyaya; vol. 3.4, Philosophical Concepts relevant to Sciences in Indian Tradition, ed. by P. K. Sen, pp. 609– 234 É. AUSSANT

30. PHISPC-CONSSAVY Series. New Delhi: Centre for Stud- ies in Civilizations. —. undated. “Classiﬁcation of terms.” Unpublished. Boas, Franz. 1911–1922. Handbook of American Indian languages. 2 vols. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Ofﬁce. Brown, Léa and Matthew S. Dryer. 2008. “The verbs for ‘and’ in Walman, a Torricelli language of Papua New Guinea.” Lan- guage 84: 528–65. Colombat, Bernard. 1988. “Les ‘parties du discours’ (partes orationis) et la reconstruction d’une syntaxe latine au XVIe siè- cle.” Langages 92: 51–64. —. 1998. “Ramus, Petrus.” Corpus représentatif des grammaires et des traditions linguistiques; vol. 1, ed. by Bernard Colombat and Elisabeth Lazcano, pp. 94–96. Paris: Société d’histoire et d’épistémologie des sciences du langage. Colombat, Bernard and Elisabeth Lazcano, eds. 1998. Histoire épistémologie langage; hors-série, vol. 2, Corpus représentatif des grammaires et des traditions linguistiques. 2 vols. Paris: Société d’histoire et d’épistémologie des sciences du langage. Deshpande, Madhav Murlidhar. 1992. The meaning of nouns: semantic theory in classical and medieval India — Nam¯ artha-¯ nirn.aya of Kaun. d. abhat..ta translated and annotated. Studies of Classical India 13. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Haspelmath, Martin. 2010. “Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in cross-linguistic studies.” Language 86.3: 663–87. Lagarde, Jean-Pierre. 1988. “Les parties du discours dans la linguistique moderne et contemporaine.” Langages 92: 93–108. Lallot, Jean. 1988. “Origines et développement de la théorie des parties du discours en grèce.” Langages 92: 11–23. —. 1998. “Denys le thrace.” Corpus représentatif des grammaires et des traditions linguistiques; vol. 1, ed. by Bernard Colombat REFERENCES 235

and Elisabeth Lazcano, pp. 15–16. Paris: Société d’histoire et d’épistémologie des sciences du langage. Régnier, Adolphe. 1858. Études sur la grammaire védique: prâtiçâkhya du Rig-Véda. Paris: Imprimerie impériale. Sarup, Lakshman, ed. and trans. 1920–1929. The Nighan. .tu and the Nirukta: the oldest treatise on etymology, philology and semantics: critical edition, translation, introduction, exegeti- cal and critical notes, indexes and appendices. 1st ed. Lon- don: Oxford University Press; Lahore: University of the Pan- jab. [Reprinted with three parts in one volume: Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1967, 1984, 1998.] Sonatakke, N. S. and C. G. Kashikar, eds. 1933–1951. R. gveda- Samhit˙ a:¯ with the commentary of Sayan¯ . ac¯ arya¯ . 5 vols. Poona: Vaidic Samshodhan Mandal. 236 É. AUSSANT Constituency and cotextual dependence in Classical Sanskrit

BRENDAN S.GILLON

Abstract: While ellipsis and pronominal dependence occur commonly in Classical Sanskrit, they have received attention neither in the Indian grammatical tradition nor by contemporary scholars of Classical Sanskrit. Another phenomenon, distinct from ellipsis but often confused with it, is the phenomenon of optional complementation, or polyadicity. This too is widely attested in Classical San- skrit and it too has received no attention. The aim of the paper is to illustrate these phenomena for Classical San- skrit and to show that they are best characterized in terms of the constituency.

Keywords: anaphora, argument, complement, constituent, context, cotext, ellipsis, lexical class, optional complement, phrase, proforms, pronominal dependence, setting.

1 Introduction

There are two assumptions on which I hope everyone with a seri- ous interest in the grammar of Classical Sanskrit can agree. First, some properties of the grammar of Classical Sanskrit remain unknown and that, not withstanding the superb work done by the In- dian grammatical tradition in bringing to light many, if not most, of the properties of Classical Sanskrit, it may be possible to improve on that work. Second, the only way to investigate rigorously the

237 238 B. GILLON grammatical properties of Classical Sanskrit, or of any dead language for that matter, is through the construction, for the language in question, of a repository of grammatically analyzed sentences, or tree bank. After all, it is only through the study of attested sentences in a language that one can either confirm or disconfirm hypotheses about its grammar. The point of this paper is to show that any tree bank of Clas- sical Sanskrit which seeks to facilitate the investigation of ellipsis and pronominal dependence, two phenomena which, though extremely common in Classical Sanskrit, were not addressed by In- dian grammatical tradition and have hitherto been unaddressed by contemporary scholars, must have some way of identifying constituents, including phrasal constituents, as well as the relationships between them. No one will dispute that both words and clauses are constituents. I shall therefore discuss only briefly both lexical and clausal classification in Classical Sanskrit. I shall take advantage of my brief discussion of lexical classification to make an auxiliary point: choice of grammatical annotation, in this case, lexical classification, may have a crucial impact on the utility of a tree bank for the investigation of the grammatical features of Classical Sanskrit. I shall then proceed to discuss ellipsis and pronominal dependence in Classical Sanskrit, first explaining several relevant concepts and then setting out some of their properties. As we shall see, tracking these properties requires one to acknowledge a variety of constituents, including not only words and clauses but also phrases. Further evidence for phrasal constituents arises from considerations pertaining to optional complements, a topic which I shall also discuss below. I shall conclude with some evidence to support the claim that, as important as semantic roles, or karaka¯ s, might be, they are best viewed as restrictions upon the kinds of the denotation of complements. CONSTITUENCYAND COTEXTUAL DEPENDENCE 239

2 Parts of speech

The most obvious place to start in providing a grammatical analysis of the expressions in a language is to assign to them parts of speech. In the case of Classical Sanskrit, three lexical classifications are available, two from the Classical Indian grammatical tradition and one from the European tradition. (See Aussant’s paper in this volume for detailed discussion of the various forms of lexical classification.) The earliest classification is one which divides words into four notional categories: words for substances (dravya- vacana, also called sattva-vacana, or words for entities), words for qualities (gun. a-vacana), words for actions (kriya-vacana¯ , also called bhava-vacana¯ , or words for changes) and proper names (yadrccha-¯ sabda´ , literally, chance words). This classification an- ˚ tedates Pan¯ .ini and continued long after his grammar became standard. The second classification is Pan¯ .ini’s. It divides words into those which take nominal inflection (subanta, also called naman¯ , or names), those which take verbal inflection (tinanta˙ , also called akhy¯ ata¯ ) and those which take no inflection and so are invariant (avyaya), which subdivide into prefixes (upasarga) and particles (nipata¯ ). Finally, there is the classification, traditional in European grammar and modern linguistics, and dating back to the classical Greek thinkers, which includes: noun, verb, adjective, preposition, adverb, among others. As one can easily see, there are trade-offs. Classifying words in a tree bank with the categories of either of the Classical Indian classifications will render difficult its use by those presupposing in their work the European categories. Inversely, classifying words in a tree bank with the European categories will not be helpful to those who presuppose in their work either of the Classical Indian classification schemes. As we all know, words are constituents which themselves may have constituents. Those constituents may be either derivational 240 B. GILLON suffixes or they may be words. This lexical structure gives rise to ambiguities. Here is an example of a structurally ambiguous compound recently discussed on the Indology listserv: a-dharma-jña. It has two possible meanings, corresponding to two constituent analyses: a-(dharma-jña) (someone who does not know what the dharma is) and (a-dharma)-jña (someone who knows what is not the dharma). (For further details, see Gillon 1987, 1995.)

3 Clausal constituents

How to distinguish clauses from non-clauses is not a trivial matter. For the purposes of this discussion, I shall take clauses to include constituents which, in some rough way, can express a statement, question or command. Such constituents include, on the one hand, finite clauses, and, on the other non-finite clauses, which themselves include gerundial, infinitival and participial clauses as well as genitive and locative absolutes. The classification just given depends, in part, on the occurrence of a verb, since only verbs are distinguished into finite and non-finite and only verbs are either gerunds, infinitives or participles. This means that all clauses have verbs, but, as is well known, there are constituents which behave like clauses — they express statements or questions — but they have no verb. For the most part, such a constituent is well paraphrased by the clause which results from adding a suitable form of the copula to the constituent in question. Henceforth, I shall refer to such constituents as verbless clauses. Clearly, verbless clauses should be identified as such in a tree bank.

4 Supra-lexical and sub-clausal constituents

Do Classical Sanskrit clauses have constituents intermediate between words and clauses? In other words, do Classical Sanskrit CONSTITUENCYAND COTEXTUAL DEPENDENCE 241 clauses contain phrases? The answer is clearly yes. They include, at the very least, noun phrases and prepositional phrases, as we shall see below. They also probably include adjective phrases and adverbial phrases, and they may even include verb phrases. A range of data which requires that one hypothesize phrasal constituents comes from the fact that human languages have words or constructions which are context dependent and the construal of these contextually dependent words or constructions depend on phrasal constituents for their full construal. Words of this kind are known as proforms and constructions are known as ellipsis.

4.1 Context Dependence Before explaining how the existence of proforms and of ellipsis require the identiﬁcation of phrases, let me say something about the nature of context dependence. It is useful to distinguish two kinds of contexts: cotext and setting. The cotext of an utterance is the text either preceding or succeeding the utterance; its setting is the situation in which it is uttered. Two pairs of sentences will make this distinction clear. First, consider this pair of sentences:

(1) a. René DesCartes died here. b. René DesCartes died in Stockholm.

The second sentence is true, as anyone with an adequate knowledge of René DesCartes’s life can judge, whereas even someone with a thorough knowledge of his life cannot judge whether or not the first sentence is true without knowing the circumstances of its utterance. Clearly, then, a complete understanding of the first sentence requires knowledge of the situation in which it is uttered. This is confirmed by the following. Holding the sentence in (1a) fixed and changing the circumstances in which it is uttered, one sees that its truth value can change. Said in Paris, the sentence is 242 B. GILLON false; said in Stockholm, the city to which he moved shortly before he died, the sentence is true. The first sentence, then, is context sensitive insofar as its full understanding requires knowledge of the setting in which it is uttered. Now, consider another pair of sentences:

(2) a. It is even. b. Two is even.

These sentences, though syntactically indistinguishable, differ in one crucial respect. Anyone who knows elementary arithmetic knows that the second sentence is true, but not even the greatest mathematician can say whether or not the ﬁrst sentence is true. To appreciate the point better, consider two other sentences, each of which is true:

(3) a. Two is a prime number. b. Three is a prime number.

Conjoin each of the sentences in (3) with the sentence in (2a), thereby obtaining the following pair of biclausal sentences.

(4) a. Two is a prime number and it is even. b. Three is a prime number and it is even.

Even in the absence of all knowledge of the situation in which they are uttered, one judges the second clause of the first sentence true and one judges the second clause of the second sentence false. But the second clause is the very same for both sentences in (4). Clearly, a complete understanding of the second clause in (4a) depends on an understanding of its preceding text, or cotext. In particular, a full understanding of what the second clause in the sentence in (4a) expresses depends on an understanding that what the third person pronoun it in its second clause denotes is precisely CONSTITUENCYAND COTEXTUAL DEPENDENCE 243 what the noun two in the first clause denotes. Similar considerations apply to the sentence in (4b). The smallest expression in the cotext required for the determi- nation of the value to be associated with the pronoun is the pronoun’s antecedent and the relation which a pronoun bears to its antecedent is the antecedence relation. Whereas in many cases the antecedent of a pronoun does, in fact, antecede the pronoun, it may on occasion succeed the pronoun. Nonetheless, as these terms are now customary, I shall continue to use them. While the etymology of the word pronoun suggests that the pronoun stands for (pro) a noun (noun), in fact, the antecedent for the pronoun it, at least here, is a noun phrase. This is made clear by the fact that, were the word two in the sentence in (4a) replaced by the expression the first positive integer greater than one, clearly a noun phrase, it would be this expression which would serve as the antecedent of the pronoun it. (5) The first positive integer greater than one is a prime number and it is even. The etymology of the word pronoun also suggests that a correct paraphrase of the clause containing the pronoun is given by the clause obtained by replacing the pronoun with its antecedent. As is well known, while this sometimes is true, it is not true in general. Finally, not all words which are context dependent like pronouns are nouns. The adjective such and the adverb so are also context dependent much in the same way. For this reason, early generative grammarians coined the term proforms, thereby recognizing a broader class of expression. I shall indicate the antecedence relation by enclosing the two terms of the relation in square brackets and labelling the left brackets with the label for the appropriate phrasal category and the right brackets with the same indexing numeral. This annotation is illustrated in (6) with respect to the sentences in (4). 244 B. GILLON

(6) a. [NP Two 1] is a prime number and [NP it 1] is even. b. [NP Three 1] is a prime number and [NP it 1] is even.

Not only are there words which are context dependent like proforms, but there are constructions which are too. Such constructions are said to be cases of ellipsis. Before giving a characterization of ellipsis, let us consider a paradigmatic example.

(7) a. Dan a Porche. b. Bill bought a BMW and Dan a Porche. c. Bill sold a BMW and Dan a Porche.

The expression in (7a) is not a constituent of English. Moreover, by itself, it fails to convey either a proposition, a question or a command. Yet, when preceded by a clause which expresses a proposition, say the clause Bill bought a BMW, it too conveys a proposition. Moreover, the proposition which the non-constituent in (7a) conveys when preceded by the clause Bill bought a BMW, is expressed by a clause obtained from the non-constituent by inserting a word from the preceding clause. And ﬁnally, what the non-constituent conveys varies as the preceding clause varies, as illustrated by the sentences in (7b) and (7c) respectively. Generalizing this example, we can characterize ellipsis as follows: An expression is elliptical just in case: (1) it itself is not a constituent; (2) on its own, it fails to convey what any single constituent conveys; (3) yet, in the presence of an appropriate cotextual constituent it does convey the same sort of information as what the cotextual constituent conveys; (4) what it does convey is expressed by a constituent constructed by supplementing the non- constituent with words from the relevant cotextual constituent; and (5) what the non-constituent expression conveys varies as the relevant cotextual constituent varies. CONSTITUENCYAND COTEXTUAL DEPENDENCE 245

Now a clause, such as the one in (2a), and an elliptical expression, such as the one in (7a), are similar, in that, with the appropriate cotext, both are judged to be acceptable and both convey propositions. Yet they differ inasmuch as, when taken in isolation, the former is not judged to be defective, whereas the latter is. I shall call an elliptical expression any expression whose largest constituents fail themselves to form a constituent. Thus, in the example in (7b) above, Dan a Porche is an elliptical expression. It contains two constituents, the noun phrase Dan and the noun phrase a Porche, yet they fail to form a constituent. I shall call the antecedent of the elliptical expression the smallest constituent in the cotext required for the correct construal of the elliptical expression. In the example in (7b), the antecedent of the elliptical expression is the constituent Bill bought a Porche. Both the elliptical expression and its antecedent will be enclosed in square brackets and the right bracket for the elliptical expression will bear the same category label as its antecedent. This is illustrated in the annotation in (8a) below. The largest constituents within the elliptical expression and their counterparts in the antecedent expression will be enclosed in square brackets with the phrasal labels. As we shall see, the constituents from the antecedent expression and the constituents from the elliptical expression are in bijective correspondence and the pairs in correspondence have the same category. Next, the expressions within the antecedent expression which are not counterparts to the largest constituents within the elliptical expression and yet which serve to assist in the construal of the elliptical expression will be put in boldface. In (7b), this is a single word, the verb bought. It is not unusual for the expressions in boldface not to form a constituent. Finally, I shall mark with an underscore the position in the elliptical expression where a copy of the expressions in boldface in the antecedent can be placed, perhaps slightly altered, to yield a constituent of the same kind as the elliptical expression’s antecedent and which expresses what the el- 246 B. GILLON liptical expression conveys relative to its cotext. I shall call this position the point of ellipsis and the expressions in boldface its antecedent. (Notice that both elliptical expressions and points of ellipsis have antecedents.)

(8) a. Bill bought a BMW and Dan a Porche. [S [NP Bill ] bought [NP a BMW ] 1] and [S [NP Dan ] [NP a Porche ] 1]. b. Bill sold a BMW and Dan a Porche. [S [NP Bill ] sold [NP a BMW ] 1] and [S [NP Dan ] [NP a Porche ] 1].

The expression Dan a Porche is defective. It comprises two constituents, the noun phrases Dan and a Porche, with a point of ellipsis between them marked with the underscore. The antecedent is the entire preceding clause, which is enclosed by a pair of square brackets, the left bracket labelled with ‘S’ and the right bracket with the numeral ‘1’. The two constituents comprising the ellipsis and the point of ellipsis are enclosed in square brackets, labelled with the same labels as the antecedent clause. The string from the antecedent which corresponds to the point of ellipsis is in bold.

4.2 Proforms The principal proforms in English are the third person personal pronouns, the relative pronouns, the demonstrative pronouns, the special pronoun one, as well as demonstrative adjectives and the deﬁnite article. Indeed, at least one English adverb so and one English adjective such are also liable to having antecedents. An- tecedents for the personal pronouns are either noun phrases or clauses, while those for the adverb so are either verb phrases or clauses. CONSTITUENCYAND COTEXTUAL DEPENDENCE 247

Classical Sanskrit has a similar range of proforms: the third person personal pronouns, the relative pronouns, the demonstrative pronouns as well as adjectives or adverbs such as evam (so). Although no one has studied what sorts of expressions can serve as antecedents, no one, I think, would dispute the claim that the personal pronouns, like English personal pronouns, have as antecedents noun phrases, that is, constituents whose head is a noun and which may, but need not, include other expressions, typically, modiﬁers and complements. Under what conditions can one expression serve as an antecedent to a proform? This question has been the focus of much of linguistic research since the advent of generative linguistics. As generative linguistics has made clear for languages such as English and French, precedence and constituency play central roles in the formulation of the conditions under which the antecedence relation obtains. This same question has yet to be investigated with respect to Classical Sanskrit.

4.3 Ellipsis English has a variety of forms of ellipsis. It includes gapping, interrogative ellipsis (or sluicing), appended coordination (or stripping), verb phrase ellipsis, copular complement ellipsis, nominal ellipsis, adjectival ellipsis and prepositional ellipsis. As stated above, ellipsis requires an antecedent. And there are constraints in English on what can serve as antecedents to points of ellipsis. Without going into details, sufﬁce the following minimal pair of sentences to illustrate the fact that such constraints exist. (See Kehler and Ward 2004: §3.1 for discussion.) (9) a. Although Bill bought a BMW and Dan a Porche, neither was happy with his purchase. b. Although Bill bought a BMW, he was unhappy with it; *and Dan a Porche. 248 B. GILLON

Classical Sanskrit has various forms of ellipsis, many forms very similar to those found in English, including interrogative ellipsis (sluicing) and appended coordination (stripping), among others. Let us look at the various forms of ellipsis in some detail.

4.3.1 Interrogative ellipsis (sluicing) Consider the following two-person dialogue, where the ﬁrst person makes a statement and the second asks a question about what the ﬁrst person stated. The question typically comprises a single interrogative constituent, which manages to convey the same thing as the single interrogative constituent integrated into the preceding statement, as shown below. The Sanskrit translation of the English sentences equally illustrates interrogative ellipsis. (10)•A:[S Devadatta teaches grammar 1] B: [S Where 1] ? i.e. Where does Devadatta teach grammar?

•A:[S Devadattah. vyak¯ aran¯ . am sásti¯ 1] B:[S kutra 1] ? i.e. kutra Devadattah. vyak¯ aran¯ . am sásti?¯ (For the sake of clarity and simplicity, the sentences in Classical Sanskrit given as examples are not written observing the rules of external sandhi.) I postpone the presentation of a case of interrogative ellipsis involving a single interrogative phrase until later, since the example, taken from Patañjali’s Mahabh¯ as¯. ya, involves other forms of ellipsis which must be explained first. Interrogative ellipsis may also arise with indirect questions, as illustrated by the next sentence. (11)•[S Devadatta teaches grammar 1] but [S Yajñadatta does not know where 1] . CONSTITUENCYAND COTEXTUAL DEPENDENCE 249

i.e. Yajñadatta does not know where Devadatta teaches grammar.

•[S Devadattah. vyak¯ aran¯ . am s´asti¯ 1] kimtu˙ [S Yajñadattah. na jan¯ ati¯ kutra 1] . i.e. Yajñadattah. na jan¯ ati¯ kutra Devadattah. vyak¯ aran¯ . am s´asti.¯

However, I have found no such instances in my repertoire of Clas- sical Sanskrit sentences.

4.3.2 Appended coordination (stripping) Appended coordination is where a non-clausal constituent is appended to a clause, typically with a coordinator. Here are two examples from English.

(12) a.[S Devadatta teaches grammar 1], but [S only in Pat¯.aliputra 1]. i.e. Devadatta does so only in Pat¯.aliputra. b.[S Devadatta goes to Pat¯.aliputra 1], but [S never with friends 1]. i.e. Devadatta does so never with friends.

Here is a case found in Classical Sanskrit.

(13) prajabhih¯ . tu bandhumantah. raj¯ anah¯ . na jñatibhih¯ . . (Apte 30.2.2: HC 79.30) [S [VP 0 [AP1 [NP3 prajabhih¯ . [CNJ tu ]] bandhumantah. ] ] [NP1s raj¯ anah¯ . ] ] [S [ADV na ] [ NP3 jñatibhih¯ . ] ] But kings are bound to their subjects, not to their relatives.

(The numeral appended to the phrasal category NP labelling the left bracket indicates the case of the noun which is the head of the noun phrase. The numeral refers to the Pan¯ .inian numbering of the 250 B. GILLON cases. The letter ‘s’, when appended to the label ‘NP1’ indicates that the ﬁrst case noun phrase is a subject noun phrase.)

4.3.3 Gapping We now turn to gapping, illustrated above for English, in its sim- plest form, by the sentences in (7). To begin with, consider this illustration:

(14) [S The family may be said to be more uniﬁed than the state 1], and [S the individual [PP than the family ] 1]. i.e. the individual may be said to be more uniﬁed than the family. (Benjamin Jowett’s English translation of Aristotle’s Politics 1261a20–22)

Notice that the antecedent for the point of ellipsis, may be said to be more uniﬁed, does not form a constituent. It looks as though gapping may be a form of ellipsis to which constituency is irrel- evant. However, that conclusion would be too hasty. Consider another example:

(15) [S [NP The towns ] they attacked [PP with airplanes ] 1] and [S [NP the villages ] [PP with tanks ] 1] . i.e.: the villages they attacked with tanks. (Quirk et al. 1985: 975)

The unit containing the ellipsis comprises two constituents, namely, the noun phrase, the villages, and prepositional phrase, with tanks. The noun phrase the villages corresponds to the noun phrase the towns in the initial clause and the prepositional phrase with tanks corresponds to the prepositional phrase with airplanes also in the initial clause. The antecedent is the non-constituent expression in the initial clause between the noun phrase the towns CONSTITUENCYAND COTEXTUAL DEPENDENCE 251 and the prepositional phrase with airplanes. In other words, the antecedent expression is the string complement, as it were, of the constituent whose initial subconstituent corresponds to the first constituent in the unit containing the gap and whose final subconstituent corresponds to the final constituent in the unit containing the gap. Though this is not a perfect description of the configura- tion of gapping, it is the best I know of. Classical Sanskrit has many cases of gapping where the antecedent to the point of ellipsis is a simple verb. (16) a. sa¯ utpadyamanena¯ yatha¯ gava¯ sambadhyate tatha¯ mrd- gavakena api. ˚ [S sa¯ ] [NP3 utpadyamanena¯ [ADV yatha¯ ] gava¯ ] [V sambadhyate 1] [S [ADV tatha¯ ] [NP3 mrd-gavakena api ] 1 ] ˚ NS 2.2.63, Varttika¯ thereto Just as it is connected with an existing cow, so (it is connected) with a clay cow. b. yavat¯ uktam anityah. sabdah´ . anityatvat¯ iti tavat¯ anityah. krtatvat¯ iti. ˚ [RC yavat¯ uktam [S anityah. sabdah´ . anityatvat¯ iti ] 1] tavat¯ [S [S anityah. krtatvat¯ iti ] 1] ˚ PVSVT. 108.6–7 Just as it is said that sound is non-eternal because it is non- eternal, so (it is said that it is) non-eternal because it is a product. (‘RC’ labels relative clauses.) I have found no cases in Classical Sanskrit where gapping involves what otherwise would be considered a non-constituent. We now turn to various forms of ellipsis within phrases, beginning with verb phrase ellipsis. English has two forms of ellipsis within verb phrases, one is so-called verb phrase ellipsis, the other is copular complement ellipsis. 252 B. GILLON

4.3.4 Verb phrase ellipsis English verb phrase ellipsis is where an entire verb phrase is ellipted, except for an auxiliary verb. Here is an example. (17) Devadatta [VP likes milk 1] and Yajñadatta [VP does 1] too. I do not recollect ever seeing a case of ellipsis in Classical Sanskrit where the complements of a verb have been ellipted and an auxiliary verb stands in for the verb in the antecedent. What does occur in Classical Sanskrit are cases where the complements of a verb have been ellipted, but the verb, identical with the verb of the antecedent, remains.

4.3.5 Copular complement ellipsis The other form of ellipsis pertaining to English verb phrases is copular complement ellipsis. As the name suggests, the antecedent for the point of ellipsis is a phrasal complement to the copula in the clause containing the antecedent. Here are examples. (18) a. Devadatta [VP is generous 1], but Yajñadatta [VP is 1] too. b. Devadatta [VP is a brahmin 1], but Yajñadatta [VP is 1] too. c. Devadatta [VP is in Pat¯.aliputra 1] and Yajñadatta [VP is 1] too. It is difﬁcult to determine on the basis of only a few examples whether or not Classical Sanskrit has a comparable form of ellipsis. The following example contains a point of ellipsis whose antecedent is a noun phrase, but it also has no copula.

(19) yatha¯ dhumena¯ pratyaks. en. a a-pratyaks. asya vahneh. grahan. am anumanam¯ evam gava¯ pratyaks. en. a a-pratyaks. asya gavayasya CONSTITUENCYAND COTEXTUAL DEPENDENCE 253

grahan. am. NS 2.1.46 Bhas¯. ya yatha¯ dhumena¯ pratyaks. en. a a-pratyaks. asya vahneh. grahan. am [VP anumanam¯ 1] evam gava¯ pratyaks. en. a a-pratyaks. asya gavayasya grahan. am [VP 1] Just as the grasping of a (previously) unperceived ﬁre through (previously) perceived smoke is an inference, so is the grasping of a (previously) unperceived gaval through a (previously) perceived cow (an inference).

4.3.6 Nominal ellipsis Nominal ellipsis in English is fairly complex and has been much less studied than verb phrase ellipsis. In English nominal ellipsis, the head can be ellipted, constituents preceding the head can be ellipted and constituents following the head can also be ellipted. Examples of each are given below.

(20) a. nominal head ellipsis: Carol picked up [NP Bill’s coat 1] and Joan picked up [NP Ed’s 1] . b. nominal prehead ellipsis: Bill will put [NP this knife 1] and [NP fork 1] on the table. c. nominal post head ellipsis: [NP An article on this topic 1] is more likely to be accepted than [NP a book 1] . (Payne and Huddleston 2002: 424)

The sentence next below contains an example both of nominal head ellipsis as well as interrogative ellipsis. Notice that the interrogative constituent which follows the first sentence, kes. am¯ sabd´ an¯ am¯ (in which kinds of words) is a case of nominal head 254 B. GILLON ellipsis and its antecedent is anusásanam¯ (instruction). The En- glish translation exhibits the same form of nominal head ellipsis. What is interesting is that, in the Sanskrit sentence, the antecedent for the point of nominal head ellipsis is the head of a compound sabda-anu´ sásanam¯ (word instruction), whereas, in the case of its English translation, the antecedent is the head of a noun phrase instruction in words. Unlike Classical Sanskrit, English does not permit antecedents either for ellipsis or for proforms to be proper constituents of words. (21) sabda-anu´ sásanam¯ sástram¯ adhikrtam veditavyam. kes. am¯ sabd´ an¯ am?¯ laukikan¯ am¯ vaidikan¯ am¯˚ ca. MBhP 1.1 [S [NP1s sabda´ -(anusásanam¯ ) 1] sástram¯ adhikr.tam veditavyam 2]. [S [NP1s [NP6 kes. am¯ sabd´ an¯ am¯ 3] 1] 2] [S [NP1s [NP6 [AP6 laukikan¯ am¯ vaidikan¯ am¯ ca ] 3] 1] 2] Instruction in words should be understood as the discipline under discussion. In which (kinds of) words? In ordinary ones and Vedic ones. The same example contains a second case of nominal head ellipsis found in the last expression, which serves as an answer to the interrogative constituent. The point of ellipsis is rendered in English by the pronoun one. While English has cases both of ellipsis within adjectival phrases and within prepositional phrases, such cases are cases where the ellipted expression is the head. (22) a. Ptolemy thought that Venus is [AP farther from the Earth 1] and Mercury (is) [AP closer 1] . b. You may buy a car [PP with airbags 1] or (one) [PP without 1] . CONSTITUENCYAND COTEXTUAL DEPENDENCE 255

The situation is unknown in Classical Sanskrit.

5 Further evidence for Phrases

The lesson of the foregoing is that cotextual dependence, the sort accruing to the use of proforms and ellipsis, requires the recogni- tion of constituents intermediate between the word and the clause, typically noun phrases. Every phrase must have a head and may have other phrases as well, distinguished either as modiﬁers or as complements. While modiﬁers are always omissible from a phrase without disturbing the acceptability of the clause in which the phrase occurs, complements are often not omissible. Below, I furnish examples of English sentences containing words of each of the principal lexical categories whose complements are inomissible. I also provide their translations into Classical Sanskrit. (23) a. Adjective complement Devadatta is averse *(to study). Devadattah. adhyayanat¯ apavr¯ ttah. vartate. ˚ b. Noun complement There is a lack *(of water) in the well. Asti jalasya abhavah¯ . kupe.¯ c. Preposition complement Rama¯ left Ayodhya¯ without *(S¯ıta).¯ Ramah¯ . vina¯ S¯ıtam¯ Ayodhyay¯ ah¯ . pray¯ at.¯ d. Verb complement Devadatta placed an offering *(on the altar). Devadattah. balim sthan. d. ile nyadadhat.¯ (The asterisk preceding the left parenthesis indicates that the omission of the portion enclosed in parenthesis results in an unacceptable expression.) 256 B. GILLON

It is easy to identify verb phrases, prepositional phrases and adjective phrases in Classical Sanskrit sentences. Moreover, as illustrated from the following sentences, the subconstituents of any of these kinds of phrases are often found in one contiguous sequence.

(24) a. AP complement (Apte 3.1.4: S´ 3.5.2) es. a¯ [AP1 [NP6 me ] manoratha-priyatama¯ ]. This (woman), most dear to me among my desires. b. NP complement (Apte 1.1.1: V 1.13) [NP1 sa¯ [NP6 nah. ] priya-sakh¯ı ]. [NP This dear friend [PP of ours ] ]. c. PP complement (Apte 24.1.5: Mu 1.5.11) [PP [NP2 (candra-uparagam¯ )] prati ] tu kena api vipral- abdha¯ asi. You have been deceived by someone [PP about [NP the eclipse of the moon ] ]. d. VP complement (Apte 7.1.9: K 219.18) Candrap¯ıd. ah. [VP [NP2 tam¯ ] pran. anama¯ ]. Candrap¯ıd.ah. [VP bowed [PP to her ] ]. And though it is not unusual for a phrase to be discontiguous, when it is, there is a deﬁnite pattern: the part of the discontiguous phrase which is not with the head is found at the end of the clause in which the phrase occurs. (See Gillon 1996 as well as Gillon and Shaer 2005 for details.) One of the confounding factors in distinguishing modiﬁers from complements is that complements are sometimes optional. Here are examples of words with optional complements both from English and from French.

(25) a. Peter ate (something). Pierre a mangé (quelque chose). CONSTITUENCYAND COTEXTUAL DEPENDENCE 257

b. Peter arrived (here) this morning. Pierre est arrivé (ici) ce matin. c. Peter took a plane to Mumbai. He arrived (there) this morning. Pierre a pris l’avion pour Mumbai. Il (y) est arrivé ce matin. d. Peter and I are similar (to each other). Pierre et moi sommes similaires (l’un à l’autre). e. Peter dressed (himself).

(The optional complements in the examples have been placed in parentheses.) There are several kinds of evidence which confirm that such optional constituents are indeed complements and not modifiers. I shall mention only two kinds. First, whether or not a phrase serving as a complement is obligatory depends on the specific lexical item to which it is appended as a complement. Many words with optional complements have near synonyms for which the corresponding constituent is not optional. Here are some examples for the English words with optional complements illustrated by the sentences in (25).

(26) a. Peter ate (something) . Peter devoured *(something) b. Peter arrived (here) this morning. Peter reached *(here) this morning. c. Peter took a plane to Mumbai, He arrived (there) this morning. Peter took a plane to Mumbai. He reached *(there) this morning. d. Peter and I are similar (to each other). Peter and I resemble *(each other). 258 B. GILLON

e. Peter dressed (himself). Peter clothed *(himself). Moreover, when optional complements are omitted, they can be paraphrased with a canonical paraphrase, since the omission of the complement gives rise to a construal characteristic of the omission. For example, when the complement of the verb to eat is omitted, it is construed as to eat something. When the complement of the verb to arrive is omitted, it is construed as to arrive in some deﬁnite place, contextually determined, be it from the setting or from the cotext, as in the sentences in (26b). The adjective similar yields a reciprocal construal when its complement is omitted. On the omission of its complement, the verb to dress yields a reﬂexive construal. (See Gillon 2012 for further discussion of English.) The situation in English is summarized in Table 1. Table 1 English optional complementation

ENGLISH contextual indeﬁnite reciprocal reﬂexive Verbs: yes yes yes yes Adjectives: yes yes yes no Nouns: yes yes yes no Prepositions: yes no no no

This phenomenon of optional complementation is well attested across languages, although little attention has been devoted to what the range of variability of construal is when the complements are omitted. Thus, Chinese and other East Asian languages certainly abound in optional complements whose omission yields a contextual construal. Here is an example of a Chinese (Mandarin) sentence where the cotext determines the relevant construal. (27) Wèntí shì, xiànzài shì bú shì dú [NP laozˇ ˇı 1] de shíhòu. Womenˇ bù néng y¯ınwéi wàiguó dú [NP c 1] jiù juéde gai¯ CONSTITUENCYAND COTEXTUAL DEPENDENCE 259

dú [NP c 1] . Gang¯ 1997, “Ràng womenˇ lái dú laozˇ ˇı,” Jiuˇ Shí Nián Dài v. 7 (cited in Ling 1997: 9). The question is: is now the time for us to read Laozi? It cannot be that because foreigners read *(it) that we feel we ought to read *(it).

(I indicate the omitted complement by putting the letter ‘c’ enclosed in brackets. The left bracket is annotated with the label for the phrasal category to which the complement would belong, were it present. The letter ‘c’ signals that the value of the constituent is determined contextually, that is, it is determined either by the cotext or by the setting. If the value is determined by the cotext, then the right bracket is annotated with the numeral indicating its antecedent in the cotext.) Notice that the English translation would be unacceptable if the pronoun it were omitted. Words in Classical Sanskrit also permit optional complements. The examples below are all instances of nouns whose complements, when omitted, give rise to a contextual construal, where the relevant context is provided by the cotext.

(28) prayojana-abhav¯ at¯ an-upacarah¯ . . Na sarva-dharmi-dharma- pratis. edha-artha-tvat.¯ PVSV 1.12–13 [NP5 [NP6 c 1] (prayojana)-abhav¯ at¯ ] [NP1 (an-(upacarah¯ . 1))]. na [NP5 [NP6 c 1] ((sarva-dharmi)-dharma- pratis. edha-artha)-tvat¯ ]. It might be argued that there is no [NP synecdoche 1] (here) since [NP it 1] would have no point. No, because [NP it 1] has the purpose of prohibiting (from being a ground) a property property-possessors of which are everything (else).

Whereas the ﬁrst English sentence, which translates the ﬁrst Sanskrit sentence, requires the pronoun it to express what it is 260 B. GILLON which has no point, namely, synecdoche, the Sanskrit sentence has no pronoun, yet it conveys no less equivocally that what it is which has no point is synecdoche. In other words, though the complement of prayojana (point) is omitted, nonetheless what would be its complement is clearly understood. The next example shows an instance of an omitted complement whose antecedent is split between the subject noun phrase and the object noun phrase of the main clause.

(29) svabhava-pratibandhe¯ hi sati arthah. artham na vyabhicarati. PVSV 2.19 [AC [NP7 [NP6 c 1,2] svabhava-pratibandhe¯ ] hi [PC7 sati ] ] [NP1s arthah. 1] [VP [NP2 artham 2] na vyabhicarati ]. For, [NP a thing 1] does not deviate from [NP a thing 2], when there is a natural relation *(between [NP them 1,2]).

(‘AC’ denotes absolutive clause. Its counterpart to a subject appears as a seventh case noun phrase and its counterpart of a verb appears as a participle. The splitting of antecedents requires double indexing.) The next sentence is an example of where three complements are omitted, one of the two complements of the noun an-utpatti (non-arising), one of the two of the noun utpatti (arising) and the one complement of the nominalization of the adjective pratibhasin¯ (appearing). The cotextual constituent providing the construal of each of these omitted complements is the subject noun phrase etau dvau anumeya-pratyayau (these two kinds of cognition of what is inferred).

(30) etau dvau anumeya-pratyayau saks¯ . at¯ an-utpatteh. a-tat- pratibhasi-tve¯ api tat-utpatteh. tat-avyabhicarin¯ . au. PVSV 3.5 [S [NP1s etau dvau (anumeya1)-pratyayau 2] [NP5 [AC CONSTITUENCYAND COTEXTUAL DEPENDENCE 261

[NP7 [NP5 [NP6 c 2] [ADV saks¯ . at¯ ] an-utpatteh. ] [NP6 c 2] (a-(tat1)-pratibhasi¯ )-tve api ] [PC7 0 ] ] [NP6 c 2] (tat1)- utpatteh. ] [NP1 (tat1)-avyabhicarin¯ . au ] ]. [NP These two (kinds) of cognitions of [NP what is to be inferred 1] 2] do not deviate *(from [NP it 1]) because [NP they 2] arise from [NP it 1], although, because they do not arise directly *(from [NP it 1]), they do not manifest *([NP it 1]).

It is interesting to note that, in addition, the sentence contains pronouns whose antecedent is the subordinate word anumeya (what is to be inferred) in the compound anumeya-pratyayau (cognition of what is to be inferred), which is the head of the subject noun phrase. So far, I have provided examples of optional complements to nouns, however verbs too admit optional complements whose omission triggers a contextual construal. This observation seems to have ﬁrst been noted by the great philosopher and grammarian Bhartrhari. (See Gillon 2001 for further examples and detailed discussion.)˚ Here is an example.

(31) sadhye¯ pratisandhaya¯ dharmam udaharan¯ . e ca pratisandhaya¯ tasya sadhanat¯ a-vacanam¯ hetuh. . NS 1.1.34 Bhas¯. ya [GC sadhye¯ pratisandhaya¯ [NP2 dharmam 1] ] [GC udaharan¯ . e ca [NP2 c 1] pratisandhaya¯ ] [NP6 tasya 1] sadhanat¯ a-vacanam¯ hetuh. . The ground (of an argument) is the statement of [NP a property 1] as an establisher, having related [NP it 1] to what is to be established and having related [NP it 1] to the corroborat- ing instance.

(‘GC’ denotes gerund clause. Gerund clauses have nothing which corresponds to a subject.) Here, dharma (a property) serves as the 262 B. GILLON complement of the first occurrence of the gerund pratisandhaya¯ (having related) and the cotextual determinant of the second occurrence of the gerund. Whether or not a word takes a complement, and if so, whether the complement is obligatory or optional, is something which must be specified for each word. The past half century of generative linguistics has shown that, at least for languages such as English and French, whose finite clauses in the declarative mood require subjects, the notion of a complement must be broadened to take account of subjects. The term employed, argument, taken from logic, includes complements and subjects. Thus, complements and subjects are all argument positions. The upshot is that a grammar must specify, for each word, which arguments it takes, in other words, to use another term from logic, the word’s adicity. While evidence for the utility of this broader notion has been almost exclusively syntactic, yet semantic considerations are decisive: one can not provide a model for natural language expressions without a specification of each word’s adicity. It might be thought that semantic roles, karaka¯ s, could do the same job of adicity, or argument specification. This is not so. To begin with, some arguments have no semantic role associated with them, while some modifiers do.

(32) a.S ¯ıta¯ bowed to Rama¯ in the courtyard. S¯ıta¯ Rama¯ angane˙ pran. anama.¯ b. Yajakah¯ . hutam agnau nyadadhat.¯ The priest placed an oblation on the ﬁre.

In English, the prepositional phrase in the sentence in (32a) is a modiﬁer, but the one in the sentence in (32b) is a complement. In addition, the complements of various nouns, adjectives, prepositions and verbs often take a complement, but they are not plausibly assigned any semantic role at all. For example, nouns CONSTITUENCYAND COTEXTUAL DEPENDENCE 263 denoting individuals through relations of kinship (mother, father, parent, daughter, son, child, cousin, etc.), nouns denoting individuals in social or institutional roles (husband, wife, neighbor, enemy, etc.), nouns denoting things which bear an informational relation (sign, evidence, picture, etc.), adjectives denoting inten- tionally based states (angry, cross, ready, sure, afraid), adjectives denoting spatial ordering and temporal ordering (close, far, near earlier, later, near), prepositions (before, after, soon, for, against, etc.), verbs denoting states (to stand, to sleep, to remain, etc.). Indeed, it seems that semantic roles are best understood as very general selection restrictions.

6 Conclusion

We have seen that the treatment of the antecedence relation, whether in the case of ellipsis or in the case of proforms, requires the identiﬁcation of constituents, not only constituents within compounds but also constituents within clauses, in particular, noun phrases. Essential to the concept of a phrase are the concepts of a phrase’s head and the head’s modiﬁers and complements. We then saw that, Classical Sanskrit, like many other languages, has optional complements, including ones which have antecedents. We also saw that it is useful to generalize the notion of complement to that of adicity, a concept borrowed from logic. I pointed out that, while the complements of prepositions, those of many nouns and those of some verbs fall within the purview of adicity, such complements are not properly characterized in terms of karaka¯ s, or semantic roles. The point here is not to dispense with karaka¯ s, or semantic roles, rather the point is that the more general notion of adicity is needed within which the notion of karaka¯ , or semantic role, may be subsumed. 264 B. GILLON

Table 2 Abbreviations

Apte Apte 1885. Reference to: chapter . exercise set . example sentence HC Harsacarita´ . Kane 1918. Reference to: page . line KKadambar¯ ¯ı. Peterson 1883. Reference to: page . line MBhP Mahabh¯ as¯. ya Paspas´ahnika¯ . Joshi and Roodbergen 1986. Reference to: page . line Mu Mudrar¯ aks¯ . asam. Telang 1884. Reference to: act . verse . line after verse NS Nyayas¯ utra¯ . Taranatha and Amarendramohan 1936– 1944. Reference to: adhyaya¯ . ahnika¯ . sutra¯ PVSV Praman¯ . avarttika¯ . Gnoli 1960. Reference to: page . line PVSVT. Praman¯ . avarttika¯ .Sam¯ . kr.tyayana¯ 1943. Reference to: page . line S´ Sakuntal´ a¯. Godabole 1905. Reference to: act . verse . line after verse V Vikramorvas´¯ıyam. Pandit 1879. Reference to: act . verse . line after verse

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: The research in this paper was supported in part by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC 412-2010- 1007), whose support I am pleased to acknowledge.

References

Gang,¯ Shé. 1997. “ràng wo-ménˇ lái dú Laoˇ Zˇı (Let us read Laozi).” The independent reader, ed. by Vivian Ling, pp. 9–14. Gillon, Brendan S. 1987. “Two forms of negations in Sanskrit: Prasajyapratis.edha and paryudasapratis¯ .edha.” Lokaprajña¯ 1.1: 81–89. Puri: Lokabhas¯.a¯ Pracara¯ Samitih., Bada Odiya Matha. —. 1995. “Autonomy of word formation: evidence from Classical Sanskrit.” Indian Linguistics 56.1–4: 15–52. —. 1996. “Word order in Classical Sanskrit.” Indian Linguistics 57.1–4: 1–36. —. 2001. “Bhartrhari’s rule for unexpressed karakas: the problem of control in Classical Sanskrit.” Indian linguistic studies: festschrift in honour of George Cardona, ed. by Madhav Desh- pande, pp. 93–111. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. —. 2012. “Exocentric (bahuvrihi) compounds in Classical San- skrit.” Samskrta-sadhuta. Goodness of Sanskrit. Studies in Honour of Professor Ashok N. Aklujkar, ed. by Chika- fumi Watanabe, Michele Desmarais, and Yoshichika Honda, pp. 240–57. D. K. Printworld. Gillon, Brendan S. and Benjamin Shaer. 2005. “Classical Sanskrit, ‘wild trees’ and the properties of free word order languages.” Universal grammar in the reconstruction of ancient languages, ed. by Katalin É. Kiss, pp. 457–94. Berlin: de Gruyter. Gnoli, Raniero, ed. 1960. Praman¯ . avarttikam¯ . Serie Orientale Roma. Rome: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Ori- ente. Godabole, Nar¯ ayan¯ .a Balakr¯ .shn.a, ed. 1905. Sakuntal´ a¯, rev. by Wa- sudeva Laxmana Shastri Pan.s´¯ıkar. 4th ed. Bombay: Nirn.aya Sagara¯ Press. [Reprint: 1960.] Joshi, Shivram Dattatray and J. A. F. Roodbergen, eds. 1986. Patañjali’s Vyakaran¯ . a-Mahabh¯ as¯. ya Paspas´ahnika,¯ introduction, text, translation and notes. Publication of the Centre of Advanced Study in Sanskrit, Class C 15. Pune: The University of Poona. 266 B. GILLON

Kane, Pandurang Vaman, ed. 1918. The Harshacarita of Ban¯ . abhat..ta: text of uchchhvasas¯ I–VIII. Bombay. [Reprint: Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1965.] Kehler, Andrew and Gregory Ward. 2004. “Constraints on ellipsis and event reference.” The handbook of pragmatics, ed. by Laurance R. Horn and Gregory Ward, pp. 383–403. Blackwell. Ling, Vivian, ed. 1997. The independent reader. Taipei: SMC Pub- lishing. Pandit, Shankar Pandurang, ed. 1879. Vikramorvas´¯ıyam, a drama in ﬁve acts by Kalid¯ asa,¯ edited with English notes. Bombay Sanskrit Series 16. 2nd edition, 1889. Bombay: Government Central Book Depot. Payne, John and Rodney Huddleston. 2002. “Nouns and noun phrases.” The Cambridge grammar of the English language, ed. by Rodney Huddleston and Geoffrey K. Pullum, pp. 323– 524. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Peterson, Peter, ed. 1883. Kadambar¯ ¯ı by Bana¯ and his son. Bom- bay Sanskrit Series 24. Bombay: Government Central Book Depot. [Reprint: Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1965.] Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartik. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. 2nd edition (revised). London: Longman. Sam¯ . kr.tyayana,¯ Rahula,¯ ed. 1943. Ac¯ arya-Dharmak¯ ¯ırteh. Praman¯ . a- varttikam¯ (svarth¯ anum¯ ana-paricchedah¯ . ) Svopajñavr. ttya¯ Ka- rn. akagomi-viracitaya¯ tat..t¯ıkaya¯ ca sahitam. Allahabad: Kitab Mahal. Taranatha and Amarendramohan, eds. 1936–1944. Nyaya-¯ darsanam´ with Vatsy¯ ayana’s¯ Bhas¯. ya, Uddyotakara’s Varttika,¯ Vacaspati¯ Misra’s´ Tatparyat¯ .¯ıka¯ and Visvan´ atha’s¯ Vr. tti. Cal- cutta Sanskrit Series 18–19. Calcutta: Metropolitan Printing and Publishing House Limited. [Reprint: Delhi: Munshiram Mahoharlal Publishers Limited.] REFERENCES 267

Telang, Kashinath Trimbak, ed. 1884. Mudrar¯ akshasa¯ written by Vis´akhadatta,¯ with Commentary of D. hund. hiraja¯ (written in 1713 AD) edited with critical and explanatory notes. Bombay Sanskrit Series 27. Bombay: Government Central Book Depot. [Reprint: Delhi: Nirn.aya Sagara Press.] 268 B. GILLON How free is ‘free’ word order in Sanskrit?

AMBA KULKARNI, PREETI SHUKLA, PAVANKUMAR SATULURI and DEVANAND SHUKL

Abstract: Sanskrit being inﬂectionally rich, the conventional wisdom about Sanskrit word order is that it is free. The concept of sannidhi (proximity), one of the necessary factors in the process of verbal cognition, provides a constraint on the word order of Sanskrit. We study the free word order of Sanskrit in the light of the dependency framework. The weak non-projectivity condition on dependency graphs captures the sannidhi constraint. Gillon worked within the framework of phrase-structure syntax and noted that the freeness is constrained by clause boundaries. In an examination of the cases of dislocation observed by Gillon and all verses of the Bhagavadg¯ıta¯, we notice that two relations, viz. adjectival and genitive, are more frequently involved in sannidhi violation. We conclude that the relations involved in sannidhi violation correspond to utthapya-¯ ak¯ a¯nks˙ .a¯ (expectancy which is to be raised) barring a few exceptional cases.

Keywords: word order, ak¯ a¯nks˙ .a,¯ utthita ak¯ a¯nks˙ .a,¯ utthapya¯ ak¯ a¯nks˙ .a,¯ sannidhi, projectivity, dislocation, phrase structure, dependency structure

1 Introduction

Sanskrit being inﬂectionally rich, the conventional wisdom about Sanskrit word order is that it is free. It is also a common understanding among linguists that the free-ness in Sanskrit is conﬁned

269 270 A. KULKARNI by clause boundaries. That is, it is not possible to freely interleave the constituents from subordinate clauses with elements from the main clause or other subordinate clauses. Thus the mixing of elements from different clauses is not allowed. In order to build a parser, this conventional wisdom needs to be formalised. It is necessary to know whether there are any exceptions to it, and if there are what their nature is. The first systematic work on Sanskrit word order is by Staal (1967). He discussed the distinction between sambandha and abhisambandha in the beginning of his monograph. The former indicates grammatical relations while the latter refers to word order or arrangement. Pan¯ .ini was very much aware of the fixed order between certain elements such as the order between a stem and a suffix,1 the order between a prefix and a verb, and the order between the components of a compound. For example he designates a certain component an upasarjana and then specifies the position of the component so labeled in a compound. From the classical Sanskrit literature, we are aware of the cases where the position governs the meaning of the particles such as api. Speijer (1886) lists several of them. Staal concluded that almost all Indian theorists regarded word order as free either implicitly or explicitly while the western San- skritists rejected the free word order theory and classified the types of word order into preferential, traditional, habitual, etc. based on probabilities of occurrence and frequencies. For building a parser, though specifying preferential word order is useful in prioritizing multiple analyses produced, more precise constraints in terms of what is not allowed in grammar would help in pruning out impossible parses.

1pratyayah. A. 3.1.1, and parasca´ A. 3.1.2, a sufﬁx is placed after the root, nominal base, or item ending in a feminine afﬁx in relation to which it is introduced. HOWFREEIS ‘FREE’ WORDORDER? 271

In the same monograph, Staal presented his model of free word order in Sanskrit. He noticed the analogy between the movement of sister nodes in a Calder mobile and the free movement of elements within a phrase in a sentence. Staal called a tree that allowed the free movement of its constituents a ‘wild tree’. In this model, the sisters under each node can be freely transposed provided that such transposition induces no tangling. Although Staal provided a model characterising free word order, still he did not give a precise deﬁnition that can be used to test the model empirically. Gillon’s (1996: 7) empirical study led him to formalise Staal’s notion of wild trees. Based on this empirical study, he noticed a pattern in the discontinuities and hence modiﬁed Staal’s conjecture considering the discontinuity as a movement. He sums up his observations as follows: A moved constituent is either

1. a complement of the verb; 2. a complement or modiﬁer of the subject noun phrase; or 3. a complement or modiﬁer of a complement of the verb.

These observations provide useful relaxations for building a constituency parser. While phrase structure grammar is suitable for understanding the constituency structure of a sentence, dependency grammar helps us in understanding the relations between various components and the semantics associated with the sentence. In the ﬁeld of Natural Language Processing (NLP), recent years have also seen a growing trend towards producing dependency output in addition to constituency trees. The dependency format is preferred over the constituency not only from the point of view of evaluation (Lin 2003) but also because of its suitability for a wide range of NLP 272 A. KULKARNI tasks such as Machine Translation (MT), information extraction, question answering etc. (Marneffe, MacCartney, and Christopher D. Manning 2006). The importance of dependency parsing has been well recognised by computational linguists in the recent past (Culotta and Sorensen 2004; Haghighi, Ng, and C. D. Manning 2005; Quirk, Menezes, and Cherry 2005). Gillon’s observation that discontinuities are clause-bounded, implies that all the dependents of the head of the clause are still within the clause boundary, though they are free to move within a clause. Dependency parsing has an adjacency principle, also known as the projectivity principle, which is similar to this ban on discontinuous structures in phrase structure grammar. We would like to see how various cases of dislocation in phrase structure grammar translate into the dependency framework. While phrase structure analysis reveals extraposition from various positions, the facts observed so far raise some questions which lead us to take up this study further. Does extraposition lead to violation of the adjacency principle? Does it lead to any tangling in the dependency structure? Do poetic constructions bring in any tangling? Is verse more free than prose? In what follows, we explain the concept of ak¯ a¯nks˙ .a¯ (expectancy) and sannidhi (proximity) as discussed in the Indian grammatical tradition. Sannidhi imposes certain restrictions on word order. We compare the concept of sannidhi with the projectivity principle and the weak non-projectivity conditions of dependency trees. We attempt to formalise this notion of sannidhi and the violation of sannidhi with regard to two types of ak¯ a¯nks˙ .a¯ (expectancy), viz., utthita (risen) and utthapya¯ (that which is to be raised) in order to test the constraint empirically. All the examples of dislocation discussed by Gillon are studied from the point of view of sannidhi. Further, we test this constraint on all the verses of the Bhagavadg¯ıta¯ (BhG.). HOWFREEIS ‘FREE’ WORDORDER? 273

2 Word order in Sanskrit

Let us look at a few Sanskrit examples of possible and impossible word orders. For the sentence

(1) ramah¯ . gramam¯ gacchati. Rama{nom.} village{acc.} go{3p. sg.}. Rama goes to a village. with 3 words, we get 3! (= 6) possible word orders as shown below:

(1.1) ramah¯ . gramam¯ gacchati. (1.2) ramah¯ . gacchati gramam.¯ (1.3) gacchati ramah¯ . gramam.¯ (1.4) gramam¯ ramah¯ . gacchati. (1.5) gramam¯ gacchati ramah¯ . . (1.6) gacchati gramam¯ ramah¯ . . These sentences convey the same overall meaning. But they differ from each other with respect to some additional meaning such as topicalisation, focus, etc. In a given context, one of them may be more suitable than the others. Some orders may be less frequent than the others. For example, consider the sentence

(2) svetah´ . asvah´ . dhavati.¯ White{nom.} horse{nom.} run{3p. sg.}. White horse runs. The six possible word orders with the same overall meaning are

(2.1) svetah´ . asvah´ . dhavati.¯ (2.2) svetah´ . dhavati¯ asvah´ . . (2.3) asvah´ . svetah´ . dhavati.¯ (2.4) dhavati¯ svetah´ . asvah´ . . (2.5) asvah´ . dhavati¯ svetah´ . . 274 A. KULKARNI

(2.6) dhavati¯ asvah´ . svetah´ . . Though all these are acceptable, and convey the same overall meaning that ‘a white horse runs’, (2.1) and (2.4) are more probable than others. In (2.2) and (2.5) the modifier or the modified is added as an after-thought. In (2.3) and (2.6) the modifier appears after the modified, as if it is an after-thought. Let us look at another example (3).

(3) ramah¯ . dugdham p¯ıtva¯ s´al¯ am¯ gacchati. Rama{nom.} milk{acc.} drink{absolutive} school{acc.} go{3p. sg.}. Rama goes to school after drinking milk. This sentence has 5 words. Are all the 5! (= 120) combinations meaningful?

(4) *ramah¯ . s´al¯ am¯ dugdham gacchati p¯ıtva.¯ *Rama{nom.} school{acc.} milk{acc.} go{3p. sg.} drink{absolutive}. *Rama to school milk goes drinking. Sentence (4) which is obtained by permuting the words in sentence (3) does not lead to any verbal cognition, and thus it shows that all permutations need not be meaningful. So the question is, which permutations are meaningful and which are not? We look at the Indian grammatical theories that deal with these problems.

3 Indian theories of expectancy and proximity

The process of verbal cognition involves analysis of a sentence, and this analysis typically involves non-determinism. The problem of non-determinism was well recognised by the m¯ıma¯msakas˙ 2

2 Kumarila¯ Bhat.t.a in his Tantravarttika¯ (Sastri 1903: 505–6) mentions 3 factors necessary for the understanding of the correlation between words: HOWFREEIS ‘FREE’ WORDORDER? 275 who proposed three factors, viz., ak¯ a¯nks˙ .a¯ (expectancy), yogyata¯ (mutual compatibility), and sannidhi as necessary conditions for proper verbal cognition. We discuss here ak¯ a¯nks˙ .a¯ and sannidhi, which are relevant for studying the problem of dislocation and word order.

¯ 3.1 Aka¯nks˙ .a¯ (expectancy) We ﬁrst come across the term ak¯ a¯nks˙ . a¯ in the deﬁnition of a sentence in Jaimini’s M¯ıma¯ms˙ as¯ utra¯ 2.1.46.

Arthaikatvat¯ ekam vakyam¯ sak¯ a¯mks˙ . am cet vibhage¯ syat.¯

A group of words forms a sentence i) if when separated the words have mutual expectancy, and ii) the words serve a single purpose. Thus ak¯ a¯nks˙ .a¯ or syntactic expectancy among words is a necessary condition for a group of words to form a sentence. Liter- ally ak¯ a¯nks˙ .a¯ is the desire on the part of a listener to know (jñatum¯ iccha¯) other words in a sentence for complete understanding. Now if ak¯ a¯nks˙ .a¯ is the curiosity (jijñas¯ a¯) on the part of a listener then after listening to a verbal form such as anayati¯ ‘brings’, a listener will have a curiosity to know who brings, what s/he brings, how s/he brings, and so on. Further if the object of bring is, say, a cow, the listener may have further curiosities to know what the color of the cow is, what the purpose of bringing her is, and so on. There is no end to such curiosities. These curiosities are more of a psychological nature than a syntactic one. The Naiyayikas¯ made a clear distinction between psychological and syntactic expectancy. Ak¯ a¯nks˙ .a¯ according to Naiyaikas¯ is the syntactic expectancy a word has in order to correlate with

Ak¯ a¯nks˙ . a¯ sannidhana¯ m˙ ca yogyata¯ ceti ca trayam; sambandhakaran¯ . atvena klptam˙ nanantara¯ srutih´ . . ˚ 276 A. KULKARNI another. For example, in a word dvaram¯ ‘to the door’, the stem dvara¯ ‘door’ denotes an object in the real world, and the am sufﬁx (an accusative marker) marks an expectancy of a verb whose karman (object) can be dvara¯ ‘door’. This expectancy which arises from the knowledge of sufﬁx is a syntactic one, and it allows one to connect the word dvaram¯ with pidhehi ‘close’. This expectancy is not one way, but mutual. It is also not psychological. It is based on the usages of the verbs in a sentence and is thus syntactic in nature. As an another illustration, consider two verbs gaml and va¯. The verb gaml is used in the sense of motion (gaml gatau˚(SK. 982). The verb v˚a¯ is used in two meanings, viz., gati ‘motion’˚ and gandhana ‘pointing out’ (SK. 1050). Though both gaml and va¯ are used in the sense of motion, gaml is sakarmaka (transitive)˚ while va¯ is akarmaka (intransitive). This˚ requirement of a karman (object) for gaml is not psychological but is based on the usage of the verb. The expectancies˚ which are mutual, direct and natural are termed niyata or utthita ak¯ a¯nks˙ . a¯ (restricted or risen expectancy) (Raja 1963). The expectancy between a verb and the words denoting karakas¯ or between relational words falls under this category.3 In contrast to mutual expectancy, the expectancy that is unilateral is called aniyata or utthapya¯ ak¯ a¯nks˙ . a¯ (unrestricted or to be raised). This is aroused only if necessary. So it is potential. For example, in a phrase such as white cow, the ak¯ a¯nks˙ .a¯ of white for a substantive is natural, but the ak¯ a¯nks˙ .a¯ of cow to have an adjective is potential. It gets aroused in the presence of an adjective such as white. Even a noun in apposition may arouse an expectancy. The example discussed in the Ramarudr¯ ¯ı commentary on the Dinakar¯ı commentary on the Nyayasiddh¯ antamukt¯ aval¯ ¯ı is udayati candrah. kumudabandhavah¯ . (Jere 2002) ‘Rises the moon, the friend of a lotus (that opens its petals during night and closes

3Niyatak¯ a¯nks˙ . a:¯ yatha¯ kriyak¯ arakapad¯ an¯ a¯m˙ parasparak¯ a¯nks˙ . a.¯ (Jere 2002: 2–3). HOWFREEIS ‘FREE’ WORDORDER? 277 them in the morning)’. After hearing udayati candrah. ‘the moon rises’ all the expectancies are fulﬁlled. And thus understanding is complete. Now when one hears kumudabandhavah¯ . ‘friend of a lotus’ then this word needs to be related to one of the words uttered earlier because there can not be freely hanging words in a meaningful sentence. This word has an expectancy of a substantive, and thus it gets related to candrah. . Both these cases are examples of unilateral expectancy.

3.2 Sannidhi (proximity) Sannidhi is deﬁned in the Tarkasangraha˙ as ‘an utterance of words without any gap’ (padan¯ am¯ avilambena uccaran¯ . am.), or as ‘the presentation of word meanings without any intervention’ (avyavadhanena¯ padajanya padarthopasthitih¯ . ). From the text processing point of view, the important point is the presentation of word meanings without any intervention. In other words, if the related words are intervened by some unrelated words, then such an utterance does not produce any verbal cognition. To make the point clear, Visvan´ atha¯ Pañcanana¯ in his Nyayasiddh¯ antamukt¯ aval¯ ¯ı (Joshi 1985: 194), gives the following example.

(5) girih. bhuktam agniman¯ devadattena. Hill is eaten ﬁery by Devadatta.

The words girih. ‘hill’ and agniman¯ ‘fiery’ have mutual expectancy so do bhuktam ‘eaten’ and devadattena ‘by Devadatta’. Bhuktam, being a past participle in the neuter, expects a kartr in the instrumental case and a karman in the neuter nominative.˚ But this group of four words does not have a neuter nominative. So we interpret either the verb bhuj ‘to eat’ in this context to be an intransitive, or consider the example as a case of an ellipsis of the karman. In either case, this group of four words corresponds to two 278 A. KULKARNI independent sentences, whose arguments are intertwined. Bhuk- tam intervenes between the words girih. and agniman¯ which have mutual expectancy. Similarly agniman¯ intervenes between the related words bhuktam and devadattena. This intervention forms an obstacle to verbal cognition (sábdabodha¯ ). The condition of not having intervention is only a necessary condition in the process of sábdabodha.¯ For, even the non- intervention may give rise to more than one sábdabodha¯ – one of them as a true cognition (pramatmaka¯ jñana¯ ) and the other one as a false cognition (bhramatmaka¯ jñana¯ ) as explained by Visvan´ atha¯ Pañcanana¯ (Joshi 1985: 194) with the example in (6). Consider the group of words

(6) n¯ılo ghat.ah. dravyam pat.ah. . blue pot thing cloth. This may lead to two cognitions, viz.: 1. The pot is blue, and the cloth is a thing. 2. The cloth is blue, and the pot is a thing. Visvan´ atha¯ Pañcanana¯ argues that the ﬁrst one, in the given situation, leads to a true cognition and the second one to a false cognition. The notion of true cognition and false cognition is thus context dependent. The notion of sannidhi on the other hand depends only on the expectancies and the compatibility of meanings of the words involved. In the next section we compare the notions of sannidhi and ak¯ anks¯ .a¯ with the projectivity principle and the weak non- projectivity conditions.

4 Dependency parsing and word order

Dependency analysis dates back to Pan¯ .ini. The computational implementation of a dependency parser for Indian Languages based HOWFREEIS ‘FREE’ WORDORDER? 279 on Pan¯ .inian grammatical formalism is described by Bharati, Chai- tanya, and Sangal (1994). In the recent years, the seminal work of Tesnière (1959) became the basis for work on dependency grammar. Meaning-text theory (Melcukˆ 1988), Word Grammar (Hudson 1984), and Functional generative description (Segall, Ha- jicová,ˇ and Panevová 1986) are some of the flavours of dependency grammar. Bharati, Bhatia, et al. (1998) extended their Pan¯ .inian grammatical formalism to English. However, the first full-fledged computational implementation of a dependency grammar for En- glish is the Link parser (Sleator and Temperley 1993). The dependency parse of a sentence establishes relations between the morphemes in the form of nominal and verbal bases (pratipadika¯ s and dhatu¯ s), through the morphemes in the form of nominal and verbal suffixes, through positional information, or through concord. In the case of Sanskrit, it is predominantly nominal and verbal suffixes which mark relations. In sentence (1) above, the verbal suffix ti in gacchati establishes the relation between a person whose name is Rama¯ and the activity of going represented by the verbal root gaml. The nominal suffix am represents the relation between the entity˚ denoted by the nominal stem grama¯ and the activity of going denoted by gaml. Dependency structure is also termed governance, since it tells˚ us which words govern which others.

4.1 Tree traversal and possible word orders The dependency structure of a sentence is typically represented as a graph whose nodes correspond to the words and whose edges correspond to the relation between nodes. This structure is char- acterised by two properties: a) the graph is acyclic, and b) every node, except the root node, has exactly one incoming arrow. Thus this structure is best represented in a tree. Tree traversal is the process of visiting each node in a tree structure exactly once in a 280 A. KULKARNI systematic manner. Thus with every tree traversal is associated a word order. The traversal is deﬁned in the context of binary trees by the order in which the nodes are visited. There are three distinct traversals:

1. Post-order traversal, 2. In-order traversal, and 3. Pre-order traversal.

If the root node (or the top node), left node and right node are denoted by T, L, and R respectively, then the post-order traversal is L-R-T, the in-order traversal is L-T-R and the pre-order traversal is T-L-R. At each visit of the node, all the sub-nodes under it are descended recursively till all the leaf nodes under that node are visited. The trees in Figure 1 show these three traversals for sentence (1) in the ﬁrst row and the traversals after the leaf nodes are transposed in the second row.4 The dotted lines show relations between words, while numbered thick lines (in red) show the order of tree traversal. As is clear from the ﬁgures, the tree traversal orders shown correspond to the six possible word orders listed above in (1.1) through (1.6).

4.1.1 Generalising tree traversal For a tree with more than 2 leaf nodes, we generalise the traversal as follows: Let A1 be the root node, and A2, ... , An be the leaf nodes. Let {A2, ... , An} stand for all possible permutations of n − 1 nodes. Then the only possible traversals with n nodes are the following:

1. Pre-Order Traversals A1 {A2, ... , An}.

4For ease of reading, we label the node by a word including the sufﬁx, and not with a stem. HOWFREEIS ‘FREE’ WORDORDER? 281

(a) Post-order (1.1) (b) In-order (1.2) (c) Pre-order (1.3)

(d) Post-order (1.4) (e) In-order (1.5) (f) Pre-order (1.6) Figure 1 Traversals for sentence (1) with and without transposition

2. In-Order Traversals {A2, ... , Ak} A1 {Ak+1, ... , An}, where k varies from 2 to n − 1. 3. Post-Order Traversals {A2, ... , An} A1.

When any of the A2 to An is itself a tree, then at each of these nodes, we recursively traverse the sub-trees in any of these three orders to get possible word orders. Now we look at the example (3) above. The dependency graph for this sentence is shown in Figure 2. We notice that the word order in (4) can not be produced from this dependency tree by any of the above traversal methods. While the different traversals give us a computational device to generate all possible word orders, they do not give an efﬁcient mechanism to decide whether a given word order can be obtained through one of the traversals or not. The governance relation does not capture the word order or the precedence. In dependency structures, the precedence is captured by projecting the nodes of the governance structures onto the linear representation of the words in a sentence form. There have 282 A. KULKARNI

Figure 2 Dependency graph for sentence 3 been several efforts in the domain of dependency framework to study the relation between governance and precedence (Bodirsky, Kuhlmann, and Möhl 2005; Havelka 2005; Nivre 2006). These studies have resulted in various types of constraints on dependency graphs. These constraints ban some word orders. The strongest among these is the projectivity principle. The less stringent ones are weak non-projectivity and well-nestedness.

4.2 Projectivity principle The principle of projectivity states a constraint on the dependency tree which bans certain dependency structures. There have been various characterisations of the projectivity principle. Marcus (1967) has shown the equivalence of some of the earlier characterisations e.g. of the ones by Harper and Hays, Lecerf and Ihm, and Fitialov.

A sentence is projective if and only if we can draw a dependency tree whose every node can be projected HOWFREEIS ‘FREE’ WORDORDER? 283

by a vertical line onto its word form in the surface string without crossing another projection or a dependency edge. Hudson (1984: 98) calls this projectivity principle the ‘adjacency principle’. Figure 3 shows the projections for sentences (1.1) to (1.6). We notice that the projections shown by dotted lines do not cross the dependency relations shown by thick lines. And hence all the 6 sentences in (1.1) through (1.6) follow the projectivity principle.

(a) 1.1 (b) 1.2 (c) 1.3

(d) 1.4 (e) 1.5 (f) 1.6 Figure 3 Dependency structure with projections for sentences 1.1 to 1.6

Figure 4 shows the projections of sentences (2.1) to (2.6). We notice that sentences (2.2) and (2.5) have the projection line crossing the governance relation showing the violation of the projectivity principle. Sentence (4) also violates the projectivity principle. Figure 5 shows the governance relation between p¯ıtva¯ and dugdham being crossed by the projection of gacchati. 284 A. KULKARNI

(a) (2.1) (b) (2.2) (c) (2.3)

(d) (2.4) (e) (2.5) (f) (2.6) Figure 4 Projections for sentences 2.1 to 2.6

Figure 5 Projection for sentence (4) HOWFREEIS ‘FREE’ WORDORDER? 285

Though both sentence (4) as well as sentences (2.2) and (2.5) show violation of the projectivity principle, there is a difference between the violation in (4) and the violation in (2.2) and (2.5). The violation in (4) is an example of sannidhi violation of utthita ak¯ a¯nks˙ .a¯ while (2.2) and (2.5) are examples of sannidhi violation of utthapya¯ ak¯ a¯nks˙ .a.¯ Thus there is a need to distinguish between these two types of violation, the distinction between which is not captured by the projectivity principle.

4.3 Weak non-projectivity (planarity) It is possible to draw the dependency graphs for (2.2) and (2.5) by rearranging the nodes to avoid the crossing of projection lines by the dependency relations. Figure 6 shows possible graphs for (2.2) and (2.5) that avoid crossing. However, there is no rearrangement of the nodes of (4) that will avoid crossing. We capture this differ-

(a) (2.2) (b) (2.5) Figure 6 Projection with Rearrangement of nodes ence by relaxing the projectivity constraint. Instead of considering the crossing between two types of relations, viz., projection and dependency, we consider only the crossing between dependency relations with a further constraint that the nodes of the dependency 286 A. KULKARNI structure be represented in a linear order that reﬂects the surface order of the words in the sentence they represent. Such a depen- cency graph is weakly non-projective if there are no crossing of edges. If all the edges are drawn on the same side of a sentence (either below or above), such a graph results in a planar graph.

• Deﬁnition: A graph is weakly non-projective or planar, if it does not have two edges wi ↔ w j and wk ↔ wl with i < k < j < l.

Thus every projective structure is weakly non-projective, but the reverse is not true. Let us look at the sentences (2.2), (2.5) and (4) above. All these were found to be non-projective. But as we notice from Figure 7, the sentences (2.2) and (2.5) do not have crossing edges in their linear projection. Hence these are weakly non-projective or planar. But Figure 8 shows the crossing of edges making sentence (4) non- planar.

svetah´ . dhavati¯ asvah´ . asvah´ . dhavati¯ svetah´ . (2.2) (2.5)

Figure 7 Planar dependency graph for sentences (2.2) and (2.5)

Planarity (or weak non-projectivity) is the precise characteri- sation of the sannidhi constraint. Sannidhi violation leads to non- planar graphs which correspond to the dislocation of constituents in the phrase structure tree. But the dislocation need not correspond to sannidhi violation, as we shall see below. Consider the following sentence analyzed by Gillon (1996: 12): HOWFREEIS ‘FREE’ WORDORDER? 287

ramah¯ . s´al¯ am¯ dugdham gacchati p¯ıtva¯

Figure 8 Planar dependency graph for sentence (4)

tena ca praman¯ . ena sadhya-dharmasya¯ tat-matra-¯ anubandhah. khyapyate.¯ (PV 18.1) And the dependence of the provable property merely on it (i.e., the proving property) is made known by that epistemic cognition.

In this example, Gillon observes that ‘the third (instrumental) case noun phrase is at the clause’s left periphery, having been extraposed from the passive verb “khyapyate”¯ (“made known”), which is at the right periphery’. Figure 9 shows the dependency graph for this sentence which is a planar (weakly non-projective) one. Here the dislocation does not lead to a sannidhi violation.

tena .. praman¯ .ena ... tat-matra-anubandhah¯ . khyapyate.¯

Figure 9 Dislocation without sannidhi violation 288 A. KULKARNI

5 Empirical evaluation

Now that we have a precise mathematical criterion for evaluating the sannidhi violation, we test it on a real corpus consisting of both prose as well as verse. For prose, we take the same corpus as studied by Gillon. Since sannidhi violation always leads to dislocation, we need not look at the sentences which do not have dislocation. We study only the cases of dislocation discussed by Gillon. For the verse, we chose the Bhagavadg¯ıta¯ (BhG.).

5.1 Cases of sannidhi violation from Gillon’s data Gillon’s corpus consists of about a thousand sentences, approx- imately half of them from the Praman¯ .varttika¯ by the Buddhist philosopher Dharmak¯ırti and the rest from Apte’s (1885) broadly representative selection of examples of classical Sanskrit literature. Gillon observed dislocation in about 160 sentences which he categorised into three classes:

1. extraposition from subject position, 2. extraposition from verb complement position, and 3. verb complement topicalisation.

We noted earlier that not all dislocation leads to sannidhi violation. Only those cases which have crossing edges in their planar dependency graph are cases of sannidhi violation. Almost 75% of the examples discussed by Gillon 1996 do not involve crossing edges, hence do not lead to sannidhi violation. Among the examples of dislocation that involve sannidhi violation, we noted that mainly two relations, viz., those of the adjective and the genitive, are involved in crossing. HOWFREEIS ‘FREE’ WORDORDER? 289

5.1.1 Dislocation of a genitive We give below two examples of dislocation of a genitive discussed by Gillon (1996).

(7) tayoh. baddhayoh. kim-nimittah. ayam moks. ah. (ASG. 14.1.2) What basis does the release of the two prisoners have?

A copulative verb asti is supplied in the dependency stucture. The two Indian schools Vyakaran¯ .a (grammar) and Nyaya¯ (logic) differ in the analysis of sentences with missing copulative verbs. The Vyakaran¯ .a school supplies the missing copulative verb asti5 and then establishes relations between the substantive and its predicative adjective through this verb, while the Nyaya¯ school establishes the relation between the substantive and the predicative adjective directly. We follow the Vyakaran¯ .a school. The non-planar and planar dependency graphs are shown in Figure 10. As one can see, the crossing links involve the verb asti, and the position of this verb is crucial in the planarity of the dependency graph. If the verb asti is placed in juxtaposition with kim-nimittah. then there is no crossing. The verb asti in this sentence has only two arguments. In example (8) (Figure 11) below, where there are more than two arguments, the linear representation of the sentence has crossing of links no matter where the copulative verb is placed.

(8) sarvatra audarikasya abhyavaharyam¯ eva vis. ayah. . (ASG. 1.1.2) In every case, a glutton’s object is only food.

5ast¯ır bhavant¯ıparah. prathamapurus. o ’prayujyamano¯ ’pyasti. (A.2.3.1 vt. 11) 290 A. KULKARNI

tayoh. baddhayoh. kim-nimittah. ayam moks.ah. asti.

Figure 10 Dislocation of a genitive

sarvatra audarikasya abhyavaharyam¯ eva vis.ayah. asti.

Figure 11 Dislocation of a genitive HOWFREEIS ‘FREE’ WORDORDER? 291

5.1.2 Dislocation of a vises´ .an. a Example (9) (Figure 12) shows the evidence of sannidhi violation due to dislocation of an adjective. We supply the missing copulative verb bhavanti following the Vyakaran¯ .a school. (9) ete hi hrdaya-marma-bhidah. sams˙ ara-bh¯ av¯ ah¯ . (ASG. 8.1.3) For, these˚ worldly things are heart breakers. Here the position of the missing copulative verb bhavanti dictates the crossing of links. Certain positions of bhavanti lead to crossing of links; others do not.

ete hi hrdaya-marma-bhidah. sams˙ ara-bh¯ avah¯ . bhavanti. ˚ Figure 12 Dislocation of a vises´ . an. a

5.1.3 Other relations Example (10) is a case where the relations involved in sannidhi violation are other than vises´ .an.a and genitive (Figure 13). (10) aham manda-autsukyah. asmi nagara-gamanam prati (ASG. 3.1.3) I am (one who is) little eager about going to the city. 292 A. KULKARNI

aham manda-autsukhah. asmi nagara-gamanam prati.

Figure 13 Dislocation of an argument

The edge marking the non-karaka¯ relation between the words manda-autsukyah. and prati crosses the edge between the kartr relation between aham and asmi. ˚

5.2 Sannidhi violation in the Bhagavadg¯ıta¯ The word order in verse, though free, is constrained by metrical considerations. In order to study the effect of metrical considerations on sannidhi, we analysed all the verses of the BhG. We did not consider the slokas´ which have either conjunctive or disjunc- tive particles. Among the remaining 344 slokas,´ 300 instances of sannidhi violations were found. Out of these, 193 cases involved either an adjectival or genitive relation. The remaining cases had other non-karaka¯ relations such as negation, vocative, precedence, HOWFREEIS ‘FREE’ WORDORDER? 293 simultaneity, etc. A total of 9 cases of anomalous behaviour were found. Of these, in 7 cases both of the relations involved in crossing are karaka¯ relations. In two cases there is crossing of an adverb with a karaka¯ relation. We discuss all these cases below.

5.2.1 Sannidhi violation involving kartr and karman ˚ Five among the nine anomalous cases had the kartr relation of one verb crossing with the karman relation of another˚ verb. These instances are examined below. ú (11) ..ca:ã*.a;lMÁ ; a;h ma;naH kx +:S¾a :pra;ma;a; a;Ta ba;l+.va;x+Q+m,a Á ta;~ya;a;hM ; a;na;g{a;hM ma;nyea va;a;ya;ea;a:=+va .sua;du;Sk+.=+m,a Á Á cañcalam hi manah. krs. n. a pramathi¯ balavat drd. ham; ˚ ˚ tasya aham nigraham manye vayoh¯ . iva sudus. karam.(BhG. 6.34) O krs.n.a, the mind is fickle, turbulent, obstinate and strong, hence˚ I think it is as difficult as to control the wind. In the second line of this verse the main verb is manye whose kartr is aham. The karman of the verbal noun nigraham is the ˚ pronominal tasya, which refers to manah. in the first sentence. Thus the word sequence tasya aham nigraham manye produces two crossing edges involving the relations of kartr and karman (Figure 14). ˚ (12) ;DUa;ma;ea .=+a; a:a;~ta;Ta;a kx +:S¾aH :Sa;¾ma;a;sa;a d; a:»a;¾a;a;ya;na;m,a Á ta:a ..ca;a;ndÒ +ma;sMa .$ya;ea; a;ta;ya;eRa;ga;a :pra;a;pya ; a;na;va;tRa;tea Á Á dhumah¯ . ratrih¯ . tatha¯ krs. n. ah. s. an. mas¯ ah¯ . daks. in. ayanam¯ ; ˚ tatra candramasam¯ jyotih. yog¯ı prapya¯ nivartate.(BhG. 8.25) The yog¯ı on travelling the path of smoke, night, the dark half of the month and the six months of the southern path (of the sun) after death, obtains the lunar light and returns (to this world). 294 A. KULKARNI

tasya aham nigraham manye vayoh¯ . iva sudus.karam.

Figure 14 Analysis of BhG. 6.34

The second example with similar crossing of kartr and karman was found in verse BhG. 8.25. In this verse, in the word˚ sequence jyotih. yog¯ı prapya¯ nivartate, jyotih. is the karman of the absolutive verb prapya¯ and yog¯ı is the kartr of the verb nivartate resulting in the crossing (Figure 15). ˚

(13) va;u +:m,a º;hR;~ya;Zea;Sea;¾a ; a;d;v.ya;a ; a;h º;a;tma; a;va;BUa;ta;yaH Á ya;a;a;Ba; a;vRa;BUa; a;ta;a;Ba;l+.eRa;k+:a;n,a I+.ma;Ma tvMa v.ya;a;pya ; a;ta;+a;sa Á Á vaktum arhasi ases´ . en. a divyah¯ . hi atmavibh¯ utayah¯ . ; yabhih¯ . vibhutibhih¯ . lokan¯ iman¯ tvam vyapya¯ tis..thasi. (BhG. 10.16) You could tell me about your divine manifestations by which you exist pervading these worlds.

The third example is from the verse BhG. 10.16. Here the word sequence lokan¯ iman¯ tvam vyapya¯ tis..thasi results in crossing edges HOWFREEIS ‘FREE’ WORDORDER? 295

tatra candramasam¯ jyotih. yog¯ı prapya¯ nivartate.

Figure 15 Analysis of BhG. 8.25 with lokan¯ being the karman of vyapya¯ and tvam being the kartr ˚ of tis..thasi (Figure 16). (14) º;(ra;+Da;a;na;aH :pua:+:Sa;a ;Da;mRa;~ya;a;~ya :pa:=+nta;pa Á º;pra;a;pya ma;Ma ; a;na;va;tRa;ntea ma;tyua;sMa;sa;a:=+va;tmRa; a;nax Á Á asraddadh´ an¯ ah¯ . purus¯. ah¯ . dharmasya asya parantapa; aprapya¯ mam¯ nivartante mrtyusams˙ aravartmani¯ .(BhG. 9.3) ˚ O Parantapa, those who have no faith in this dharma return to the circle of death and rebirth without attaining me.

The fourth example is from BhG. 9.3, where the dependency arrow corresponding to the karman of the krdanta a-sraddadh´ an¯ ah¯ . crosses the arrow corresponding to the kartr˚ of the main verb nivartante (Figure 17). ˚

(15) ta;a;n,a .sa;ma;a:»ya .saH k+:Ea;ntea;yaH .sa;va;Ra;n,a ba;nDUa;na;va;//////a;~Ta;ta;a;n,aÁ kx +:pa;ya;a :pa:=+ya;a; a;va;;ea ; a;va;Sa;a;d; a;a;d;ma;b.ra;va;a;t,a Á Á 296 A. KULKARNI

yabhih¯ . vibhutibhih. lokan¯ iman¯ tvam vyapya¯ tis.t.hasi.

Figure 16 Analysis of BhG. 10.16

asraddhadh´ an¯ ah¯ . purus.ah. dharmasya ... nivartante.

Figure 17 Analysis of BhG. 9.3 HOWFREEIS ‘FREE’ WORDORDER? 297

tan¯ sam¯ıks. ya sah. kaunteyah. sarvan¯ bandhun¯ avasthitan¯ . (BhG. 1.27cd) krpaya¯ paraya¯ avis¯ ..tah. vis.¯ıdan idam abrav¯ıt; (BhG. 1.28ab) Seeing˚ all these relatives present there (on the battle-ﬁeld) Kaunteya ﬁlled with compassion uttered these words in de- jection.

In BhG. 1.27–28 also, we ﬁnd the crossing of the dependency arrows pointing to a kartr and a karman. Bandhun¯ is the karman ˚ of the absolutive sam¯ıks. ya and kaunteya is the kartr of the verb abrav¯ıt, and the edges marking these relations cross (Figure˚ 18). In

tan¯ sam¯ıks.ya sah. kaunteyah. ... bandhun¯ ... abrav¯ıt.

Figure 18 Analysis of BhG. 1.27 this example, if we choose tan¯ , which is an adjective of bandhun¯ as the karman of sam¯ıks. ya, then this crossing vanishes! This, in fact, happens to be an example of cataphora, and would be analysed as in Figure 19. 298 A. KULKARNI

tan¯ sam¯ıks.ya sah. kaunteyah. ... bandhun¯ ... abrav¯ıt.

Figure 19 Modiﬁed Analysis of BhG. 1.27

5.2.2 Sannidhi violation involving two kartr relations ˚ Verse BhG. 8.19 has an instance of crossing edges involving two kartr relations. ˚ (16) BUa;ta;g{a;a;maH .sa O;;va;a;yMa BUa;tva;a BUa;tva;a :pra;l+.a;ya;tea Á .=+a:ya;a;ga;mea Y;va;ZaH :pa;a;TRa :pra;Ba;va;tya;h:=+a;ga;mea Á Á bhutagr¯ amah¯ . sah. eva ayam bhutv¯ a¯ bhutv¯ a¯ pral¯ıyate; ratri-¯ agame¯ avasah´ . partha¯ prabhavati ahar-agame¯ .(BhG. 8.19) OPartha,¯ these living beings merge and re-emerge at the onset of night and on the coming of the day.

Here sah. is the kartr of the verb pral¯ıyate and bhutagr¯ amah¯ . is the ˚ kartrsaman¯ adhikaran¯ .a for the absolutive bhutv¯ a¯, and these relations˚ cross (Figure 20). HOWFREEIS ‘FREE’ WORDORDER? 299

bhuta-gr¯ amah¯ . sah. eva ayam bhutv¯ a¯ bhutv¯ a¯ pral¯ıyate ...

Figure 20 Analysis of BhG. 8.19

5.2.3 Sannidhi violation involving karman and kriyavi¯ ses´ .an. a In BhG. 1.37, the relation of karman of the absolutive hatva¯ is crossed by the kriyavi¯ ses´ .an.a of the main verb syama¯ (Figure 21). (17) ta;sma;a;a;a;h;Ra va;yMa h;ntMua ;Da;a;tRa:=+a;";a;n~va;ba;a;nDa;va;a;n,a Á .~va:ja;nMa ; a;h k+:TMa h;tva;a .sua;a;Ka;naH.~ya;a;ma ma;a;Da;va Á Á tasmat¯ na arhah¯ . vayam hantum dhartar¯ as¯..tran¯ svabandhav¯ an¯ ; svajanam hi katham hatva¯ sukhinah. syama¯ madhava¯ .(BhG. 1.37) Therefore O Madhava,¯ it is not suitable on our part to kill our relatives, for by killing our own kinsmen, the sons of Dhrtaras¯.t.ra, how can we remain happy? ˚ A similar example is found in BhG. 11.32 where the relation of kartr crosses with that of the adjective. ˚ 5.2.4 Sannidhi violation involving karman and apad¯ ana¯ The last example is from the last chapter of BhG. Here the karman of the non-ﬁnite verb kathayatah. crosses the relation of apad¯ ana¯ 300 A. KULKARNI

sva-janam katham hatva¯ sukhinah. syam.¯

Figure 21 Analysis of BhG. 1.37 between srutav´ an¯ and krs. n. at¯ (Figure 22). ˚ (18) v.ya;a;sa;pra;sa;a;d;a;.cC"u +.ta;va;a;nea;ta;çuÅ+hùÅ:a;ma;hM :pa:=+m,a Á ya;ea;gMa ya;ea;gea:(õ;a:=+a;tkx +:S¾a;a;tsa;a:»a;a;tk+:Ta;ya;taH .~va;ya;m,a Á Á vyasapras¯ ad¯ at¯ srutav´ an¯ etad guhyam aham param yogam yogesvar´ at¯ krs. n. at¯ saks¯ . at¯ kathayatah. svayam. (BhG. 18.75) ˚ By the grace of Vyasa¯ I have heard this supreme secret yoga directly from the lord of yoga, Krs.n.a. ˚

6 Conclusion

We conclude with two observations. The ﬁrst observation is that the number of violations is much greater in verse than in prose. This may be attributed to metrical considerations. Out of 344 verses, 154 verses had sannidhi violation, while Gillon reported only 160 instances of violations in about 1000 prose sentences. The second observation is with respect to the relations involved. The two major relations involved in sannidhi violation in HOWFREEIS ‘FREE’ WORDORDER? 301

srutav´ an¯ yogam ... krs.n.at¯ ... kathayatah.. ˚ Figure 22 Analysis of BhG. 18.75 both prose and verse are the vises´ .an.a and the genitive. Some of the other relations involved in the sannidhi violation are sambodhana (vocative), negation, precedence, and simultaneity. All these relations have unilateral expectancy and thus correspond to utthapya¯ ak¯ a¯nks˙ .a.¯ Empirical study thus reveals that mutual expectancies are tightly coupled, and the words that have mutual expectancy are always in close proximity (sannidhi). In contrast, a word that has unilateral expectancy (utthapya¯ ak¯ a¯nks˙ . a¯) may be moved away from its relatum and its relational path may be interrupted by one or more words unrelated to them. Table 1 Abbreviations

A. As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı. Reference to: chapter . section . verse ASG. Apte 1885. Reference to: chapter . exercise set . example sentence 302 A. KULKARNI

BhG. Bhagavadg¯ıta¯. Reference to: chapter . verse SK. Siddhantakaumud¯ ¯ı. See Govindacharya 2010. Refer- ence to: dhatusa¯ nkhy˙ a¯

References

Apte, Vaman Shivaram. 1885. The student’s guide to Sanskrit composition: being a treatise on Sanskrit syntax for the use of schools and colleges. Second edition . . . enlarged. Pune: H. N. Gokhale. Printed at Aryabh¯ us¯ .an.a Press. Bharati, Akshar, Medhavi Bhatia, Vineet Chaitanya, and Rajeev Sangal. 1998. “Paninian grammar framework applied to En- glish.” South Asian Language Review 8.1: 1–23. Bharati, Akshar, Vineet Chaitanya, and Rajeev Sangal. 1994. Nat- ural language processing: a Paninian Perspective. New Delhi: Prentice Hall of India Pvt Ltd. Bodirsky, M., M. Kuhlmann, and M. Möhl. 2005. “Well-nested drawings as models of syntactic structure.” Tenth Conference on Formal Grammar and Ninth Meeting on Mathematics of Language, pp. 195–203. University of Edinburgh. Edinburgh. Culotta, A. and J. Sorensen. 2004. “Dependency tree kernels for relation extraction.” 42nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: proceedings of the conference, pp. 423–29. Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania: acl. Gillon, Brendan S. 1996. “Word order in Classical Sanskrit.” In- dian Linguistics 57.1–4: 1–36. Govindacharya. 2010. Vaiyakaran¯ . asiddhantakaumud¯ı. 2 vols. Varanasi: Chaukhambha surabharati prakashan. Haghighi, A. D., A. Y. Ng, and C. D. Manning. 2005. “Robust textual inference via graph matching.” Human Language Tech- nology Conference (HLT) and Conference on Empirical Meth- REFERENCES 303

ods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pp. 387–94. Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania: acl. Havelka, J. 2005. “Projectivity in totally ordered rooted trees.” Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics 84: 13–30. Prague: Charles University. Hudson, R. 1984. Word grammar. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Jere, Atmaram Narayan. 2002. Karik¯ aval¯ ¯ı. Varanasi: Chowkamba Krishnadas Academy. Joshi, K. R. 1985. Nyayasiddh¯ antamukt¯ aval¯ ¯ı. Bhandarkar Oriental Series 21. Pune: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. Kulkarni, Amba. 2013. “A deterministic dependency parser with dynamic programming for Sanskrit.” Proceedings of the Sec- ond International Conference on Dependency Linguistics (DepLing 2013), pp. 157–66. Prague, Czech Republic: Charles University in Prague, Matfyzpress, Prague, Czech Republic. URL: http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W13- 3718. Kulkarni, Amba, Sheetal Pokar, and Devanand Shukl. 2010. “Designing a constraint based parser for Sanskrit.” Sanskrit computational linguistics: 4th International Symposium, New Delhi, India, December 2010, Proceedings, ed. by Girish Nath Jha, pp. 70–90. Lecture Notes in Artiﬁcial Intelligence 6465. Lin, Dekang. 2003. “Dependency-based evaluation of MINIPAR.” Treebanks: building and using parsed corpora, ed. by Anne Abeillé, pp. 317–29. Text, speech, and language technology 20. Berlin; Heidelberg: Springer. Marcus, S. 1967. Algebraic linguistics: analytical models. Math- ematics in Science and Engineering 29. New York: Academic Press. Marneffe, Marie-Catherine de, Bill MacCartney, and Christopher D. Manning. 2006. “Generating typed dependency parses from phrase structure parses.” Proceedings of LREC-06, pp. 449–54. Paris: elra. 304 A. KULKARNI

Melcuk,ˆ I. 1988. Dependency syntax: theory and practice. Albany: State University of New York Press. Nivre, J. 2006. “Constraints on non-projective dependency parsing.” Eleventh Conference of the European Chapter of the As- sociation for Computational Linguistics (EACL), pp. 73–80. Trento, Italy: acl. Quirk, C., A. Menezes, and C. Cherry. 2005. “Dependency treelet translation: syntactically informed phrasal SMT.” 43rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: proceedings of the conference, pp. 271–79. Stroudsburg, Pennsyl- vania: acl. Raja, K. Kunjunni. 1963. Indian theories of meaning. The Adyar Library Series 91. Reprints, 1969, 1977. Madras: The Adyar Library and Research Center. Sastri, Gangadhara. 1903. Tantravartikam¯ . Varanasi: Chowkamba Sanskrit Book Depot. Segall, P., E. Hajicová,ˇ and J. Panevová. 1986. The meaning of the sentence in its semantic and pragmatic aspects. Berlin; Hei- delberg: Springer. Sleator, D. and D. Temperley. 1993. “Parsing English with a link grammar.” Third International Workshop on Parsing Technolo- gies (IWPT), pp. 277–92. Tilburg, The Netherlands; Durbuy, Belgium. Speijer, J. S. 1886. Sanskrit syntax. Leiden: E. J. Brill. [Reprint: Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1973.] Staal, J. F. 1967. Word order in Sanskrit and universal grammar. Foundations of Language, Supplementary Series 5. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Co. Tesnière, L. 1959. Éléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klinksieck. Distinctive features of poetic syntax preliminary results

PETER SCHARF, ANUJA AJOTIKAR, SAMPADA SAVARDEKAR, and PAWAN GOYAL

Abstract: It is well known that the syntax of verse departs from that of prose. Sanskrit commentators generally re- order verse texts by putting them in the more usual order of prose. With the availability now of syntactically tagged texts it is possible to analyse how the features of poetic syntax differ from those of prose in a systematic manner. Ingalls (1991) pioneered the employment of computational techniques in Sanskrit poetic syntax by systematically exploring the polarization of speech forms in the Ma- habh¯ arata¯ . Sellmer (2013) demonstrated the polarization of particular strings in the Mahabh¯ arata¯ . In the current study, we investigate the polarization of certain parts of speech in the Ramop¯ akhy¯ ana¯ (an epic verse text), and Pa- ñcatantra (mixed verse and prose) and explore the significance of different patterns between prose and verse. We tag morphology and dependency relations in each text, use graphing software to create dependency trees, and collect statistics on the position of various parts of speech in their governance structure. Finally we describe the signiﬁcant differences that emerge between prose and poetic syntax.

Keywords: dependency, user interface, prose syntax, poetic syntax, prose-poetry divergence

305 306 SCHARF, AJOTIKAR, SAVARDEKAR, and GOYAL

1 Motivation

For more than three millennia the Vedic traditions of India have passed down large collections of hymns composed in verse. The tradition of oral epic verse composition produced enormous works about two thousand years ago. These strong oral traditions un- doubtedly inspired the perseverance of verse composition in classical Sanskrit even long after the use of writing became widespread. Thus the heritage in the form of verse in Sanskrit is enormous and spans all disciplines from literature and drama to mathematics, medicine, and grammar. Sanskrit commentary on Vedic and classical Sanskrit poetry such as Sayana’s¯ commentary on the Rgveda, and Mallinatha’s¯ commentary on Kalid¯ asa’s¯ plays has˚ for over a thousand years reordered words in verse in a more natural and logical order, an order more typical of Sanskrit prose, while providing glosses of obscure terms and additional explanation. The reordered sentence is typically referred to by the term anvaya. The prevalence of anvaya to help explain verse testifies to the fact that the syntax of verse and the syntax of prose differ markedly. While it is common knowledge that the syntax in verse differs from the syntax in prose and that the former is freer than the latter, only now with the development of computational techniques and the compilation of morphologically and syntactically tagged corpora of Sanskrit texts is it convenient to study these differences systematically, collect statistical data and draw conclusions based upon quantified results. Thus, the research reported in this paper was motivated by the objective to procure sufficient statistical data to support defini- tive conclusions regarding whether, to what extent, and in what respects the syntax of verse departs from the syntax of prose. POETIC SYNTAX 307

2 Expectations

Staal (1967) was the first to deal with Sanksrit syntax in a generative linguistic framework (Gillon and Shaer 2005: 1–2). He argued that Sanskrit word order was free to the extent that the order of constituents that occur as daughters of the same phrasal constituent is unconstrained. He (1967: 15) called governance structures that tolerated such a lack of constraint ‘wild trees’. It is known that Sanskrit and other languages exhibit word orders that violate even the constraints of wild trees. Words intervene between words that are construed together. These discontinuities are attempted to be accounted for by transformations, that is, by motivated movement. Gillon (1996) formalized and tested Staal’s hypothesis against a corpus of Sanskrit sentences and characterized the types of discontinuities found. He argued that discontinuity is confined to the extraposition of elements from subject position and verb complement positions, and to topicalization of verb complements. How- ever, the sentences that violate these constraints, which he clas- sifies as anomalous, demonstrate additional discontinuities which are perfectly acceptable. While there are some obvious limits to word order — like the order of compound elements, particle placement, and clausal integrity as recounted by Gillon (1996: 1–2) — Sanskrit still exhibits a freedom of word order beyond the limits Gillon (1996) describes. Gillon and Shaer (2005) recognize that Staal (1967)’s concept of wild trees supplemented by the extractions Gillon (1996) describe still does not capture all of the attested word orders in San- skrit. They extend the freedom of order not only by allowing leftward and rightward movement but in addition by eliminating the verb phrase as a cohesive constituent in opposition to the subject noun phrase. While including the subject noun phrase as an equal partner among other unordered immediate constituents of the sentence, they permit word order to emerge from information- 308 SCHARF, AJOTIKAR, SAVARDEKAR, and GOYAL packaging functions. Such an approach is more in line with the Pan¯ .inian concept that considers action to be the principal component in relation to which participants in that action are dependent. A. Kulkarni, Pokar, and Shukl (2010) designed a dependency parser that utilizes Pan¯ .inian concepts and the concept of expectancy (ak¯ a¯nks˙ . a¯) to label relations between words in a sentence and employs the concept proximity (sannidhi) as a prioritization criterion. For example, they use the relation of participants in action (karaka¯ s) to label relations between verbs and their complements. In the preceding paper in this volume, A. Kulkarni proposes criteria that improve upon Gillon’s description of the degree of freedom of Sanskrit word order. She (§6) (p. 300) concludes that dislocations involving unilateral expectancy (utthapya-¯ -ak¯ a¯nks˙ . a¯) are permissible while dislocations involving mutual expectancy (utthita-ak¯ a¯nks˙ . a¯) are not. She found that all of the dislocations in Gillon’s prose sample conformed to the permissible type as did 97.4% of her verse sample. These results indicate that the characterization of freely ordered relations and dislocations so far incorporated in her parser are highly accurate. Although Hellwig (2009: 106) is dismissive of the applicabil- ity of grammatical and syntactic rules to real texts and hence deni- grates the utility of descriptive studies of Vedic prose and computational implementations of rule-based taggers, on the opposite pole he (2009) reports the utter failure of taggers based solely on statistical collocations and demonstrates their significant improvement when supplemented with rules. Thus in spite of spurning (2009: 106) Staal’s (1967) concept of wild trees, he demonstrates in its support, by the very fact of showing the failure of the unaided col- location approach, that word-order plays a relatively unimportant role in comparison with morphology in Sanskrit. Despite the fact that the work of Staal, Gillon, Shear, and Kulkarni convincingly argues for the preferability of fundamen- tally unordered syntactic relations and the fact that such an ap- POETIC SYNTAX 309 proach is in consonance with the approach of traditional Indian grammar, and despite the well-known fact of the acceptability of a wide variety of word orders in Sanskrit, still it cannot be denied that some orders are more usual than others. Although Scharf’s article, “Interrogatives and word-order in Sanskrit,” earlier in this volume argues against a rigid application of the serialization principle, it is generally agreed that Sanskrit is a head-final language and that most of the general observations regarding the serialization of parts of speech discussed there (§1) (p. 203) are undoubt- edly accurate. Thus in accordance with the expectations in a head- final language and with the observations of descriptive linguists regarding the syntax of Sanskrit over the past hundred and fifty years — regardless of whether they described Vedic or classical — we firmly expect to find the following word orders in prose in our study: • Words denoting agents, objects, and instruments precede the verbs denoting the actions in which they participate. • Adverbs, qualifiers and genitives precede what they limit. • Agents precede objects of the verbs of which they are agents. To what extent these serializations hold and to what extent they vary in verse this study aims to determine. Thereby the study expects to be able to characterize definitively the difference between the syntax of prose and verse in these respects. While we take inspiration from the pioneering work on polarization of speech forms in the Mahabharata¯ conducted by In- galls (1991) and Sellmer (2013), our work differs markedly in the degree of abstraction. We do not measure statistics on particular speech forms. We do not measure the serialization of specific sandhi variants of particular inflected forms of particular lexical items. Rather we measure the serialization of annotations of parts of speech in a syntactic tree. We describe our methodology in the next section. 310 SCHARF, AJOTIKAR, SAVARDEKAR, and GOYAL

3 Methodology

3.1 Corpus preparation In 2001, Scharf completed preparation of a morphologically tagged database of the Ramop¯ akhy¯ ana¯ which appeared in the San- skrit Library’s digital Kramapat¯.ha reader (Scharf 2000), and in print (Scharf 2002). The episode narrates the story of Rama¯ in 728 verses in Anus.t.ubh meter within the great Indian epic Ma- habh¯ arata¯ . During the year 2012–2013, Ajotikar morphologically tagged two thousand sentences in the Sanskrit Library’s digital edition of the Pañcakhy¯ anaka¯ (Scharf 2011) based on Hertel’s (1908) critical edition, and Sharon Ben-Dor morphologically tagged 623 prose sentences in the Mahabh¯ arata¯ . The morphological tags utilized are published under ‘Tagsets’ on the ‘Reference’ page at sanskritlibrary.org and are a slightly revised version of the morphological tags described by Scharf (2002: 28–31). Morphological tagging of the Pañcakhy¯ anaka¯ proceeded by utilizing a platform developed by Ralph Bunker, Gérard Huet, and Peter Scharf distributed between the Sanskrit Library and the San- skrit Heritage site and described by Goyal et al. (2012: 1023– 24). The platform allows machine-assisted human-validated tagging and can operate on local installations of the two servers. Sen- tences in the Sanskrit Library’s digital editions of the Pañcakhy¯ a-¯ naka and Mahabh¯ arata¯ were fed to the Sanskrit Heritage parser which summarized possible solutions in a user-friendly single- page interface. The interface allows a user to select among words, stems, and morphological tags presented, deprecates solutions in the solutions summary as elements are validated and copies unique tags to the candidate solution. The interface also allows the scholar to edit and resubmit the sentence for re-analysis by the Sanskrit Heritage parser; to edit, add, or delete words, stems, and tags; or to tag the sentence manually. The scholar can construct tags using POETIC SYNTAX 311 a convenient dialogue box to ensure ease and validity of tagging. Results are saved in XML files that can be reviewed with the same interface. The first version of this morphological tagging platform, limited by the practicalities of transferring and summarizing large amounts of HTML output, motivated Huet and Goyal to develop the summary interface, described in their (2013) article, as an in- tegral part of the Sanksrit Heritage Reader. Later versions of the platform coordinate with the summary interface to permit interactive pruning of solutions prior to transfer to the editing interface. Ajotikar, Savardekar, and Ben-Dor used the results of the morphological tagging to tag dependency relations in 98 prose sentences and 170 verses in these three texts. Goyal developed an HTML interface that displays each morphologically tagged word in sequence in a row supplemented by two empty text fields in which the word’s relation and the relation’s target could be added. The interface saves the dependency data in an XML file. We then utilized software previously prepared by Amba Kulkarni to produce dependency graphs of each sentence to allow taggers to as- sess the appropriateness of their tagging visually and to revise tagging as necessary. The XML data of the sentences with their words in sequence along with their tagged morphology and dependency relations was subsequently queried regarding the syntax of various parts of speech in their governance structures. We will describe the parameters of our syntactic analysis after describing the dependency tagset used.

3.2 An Indian cognitive linguistics dependency relations tagset Based upon the fine-grained analysis of speech components undertaken by Pan¯ .ini and presupposed in his grammar, upon discussions in Patañjali’s Mahabh¯ as¯. ya (second century BC), Bhartrhari’s Va-¯ ˚ kyapad¯ıya (fifth century CE), and their commentators, and upon 312 SCHARF, AJOTIKAR, SAVARDEKAR, and GOYAL debates with proponents of Nyaya¯ and M¯ıma¯ms˙ a,¯ Indian cognitive linguists of the seventeenth century summarized conclusions regarding the structure of the cognition that results from understanding speech. These linguists detailed the correspondence between components of verbal cognition, including relations between substantive components, and the speech forms that bring about cognition of them. Using these correspondences, one can transpose the analysis of verbal cognition onto syntactic relations among speech forms to determine categories of syntactic relations. By doing just this, Ramakrishnamacharyulu (2009) described a detailed set of one hundred and three tags labeling categories and subcategories of syntactic relations based upon the Indian cognitive linguistic tradition. Many of the distinctions among these categories require knowledge of the suitability of objects for particular relations. While this sort of information might be built into a detailed lexicon or word-net, it is not presently available to computational linguists. Hence from the comprehensive, fine-grained set of relations described by Ramakrishnamacharyulu (2009), A. Kulkarni and Ramakrishnamacharyulu (2013) distilled a set of thirty-one dependency relations that could be distinguished solely on the basis of visible textual evidence, namely, on the basis of morphology and syntax alone, and developed a tagset to label them. We utilized this tagset to tag dependency relations in our corpus. The principal feature of the structure of verbal cognition as analyzed by the grammatical tradition in India is that the action denoted by the verbal root is the principal element in the cognition and that all participants in the action, including the agent in an active sentence and direct object in a passive sentence, are immediately subordinate to it. Hence, unlike typical phrase structure analysis that recognizes a subject as a sibling of a verb phrase, the subject of the sentence is a sibling of verbal complements. While the school of logic in India (Nyaya)¯ differed from the grammarians POETIC SYNTAX 313 in situating the subject of the sentence as the principal element in its cognition, the school of ritual exegesis sided with the grammarians. Kulkarni’s tagset adopts the convention of the grammarians in this regard.

3.3 Queries Once we tagged a number of sentences in prose and poetry with dependency labels, we collected statistics on the relative position of various pairs of relata, in particular, the following:

1. agent–verb 2. object–verb 3. instrument–verb 4. adverb–verb 5. qualiﬁer–qualiﬁed 6. genitive–what it limits 7. object–absolutive 8. agent–object

These pairs were chosen because the syntax for these pairs is assumed to be rigid in prose but not so in poetry. After collecting statistics of the relative position of relata for each of these pairs, we compared the statistics of the prose and poetry data. Below, we display the results in comparison graphs and discuss the results obtained for each of these pairs. Before discussing these results, let us explain the notations used in these comparison graphs. The statistics for the poetry sentences are drawn in red color, and those for the prose sentences are drawn in blue color. The data points are marked with bold dots. The x − axis labels the various positions in which the dependent relatum is found relative to the relatum on which it is dependent in the dependency tree, and the y − axis shows the probability that 314 SCHARF, AJOTIKAR, SAVARDEKAR, and GOYAL the dependent relatum is found in each such position. For example, the probability that the agent (kartr) is found three words prior to the verb denoting the action of which˚ it is the agent (kriya¯) is shown at position ‘−3’ on the x − axis in Figure 1; the probability of the agent being found there in poetry and prose sentences is ap- proximately 0.08 and 0.17 respectively as shown by the positions of the red and blue lines relative to the y-axis at that point on the x-axis. The graph conveys the fact that for a sentence in our poetry corpus the agent occurs 3 padas before the verb with probability 0.08, while for a sentence in our prose corpus, this probability is 0.17. The number of samples, i.e. the number of pairs (agent, verb) obtained from the data are shown at the top left of the ﬁg- ure. We also show the probability of the agent occurring in any position before the verb at the top right. This probability value corresponds to adding all the probability scores on the left hand side of the y − axis in the graph.

4 Results

4.1 Agent after verb Figure 1 shows the comparison results for the relative position of an agent (kartr) with respect to the verb denoting the action of which it is the˚ agent (kriya¯) in prose and poetry sentences. The comparison results in Figure 1 indicate that the agent occurs after the verb in 63 (34%) of the 187 poetic samples. On the other hand, only 6 (9%) of the 69 prose samples have the agent after the verb. It is clear that the agent occurs after the verb signiﬁcantly more often in poetry than in prose. POETIC SYNTAX 315

4.2 Object after verb Figure 2 shows the comparison results for the relative position of the direct object (karman) with respect to the verb denoting the action of which it is the direct object (kriya¯) in prose and poetry sentences. The probability scores for different positions indicate that the direct object occurs after the verb more often in poetry (40%) than in prose (15%).

4.3 Instrument after verb

Figure 3 compares the relative position of the instrument (karan. a) with respect to the verb denoting the action of which it is the instrument (kriya¯) in prose and poetry sentences. While the number of samples with the usage of an instrument are very few in our corpus (18 and 10 for poetry and prose respectively), nevertheless it is signiﬁcant that only 1 of the 10 prose sentences had the instrument after the verb. On the other hand, 11 of the 18 poetic sentences did.

4.4 Adverb after verb Figure 4 compares the relative position of an adverb (kriyavi¯ se-´ s. an. a) with respect to the verb it qualiﬁes in prose and poetry sentences. Quite strikingly, of the 36 prose samples with the pair verb- adverb, none had the adverb occurring after the verb. On the other hand, 27 (36%) of the 75 poetic samples had the adverb after the verb.

4.5 Qualiﬁer after qualiﬁed

Figure 5 compares the relative position of a qualifier (vises´ . an. a), whether it is an adjective or noun, with respect to the noun it qual- ifies in prose and poetry sentences. A qualifier occurs after what 316 SCHARF, AJOTIKAR, SAVARDEKAR, and GOYAL

Figure 1 Relative position of an agent with respect the verb that governs it: comparison of prose and poetry syntax

Figure 2 Relative position of a direct object with respect to the verb that governs it: comparison of prose and poetry syntax POETIC SYNTAX 317

Figure 3 Relative position of an instrument with respect to the verb that governs it: comparison of prose and poetry syntax

Figure 4 Relative position of an adverb with respect to the verb that governs it: comparison of prose and poetry syntax 318 SCHARF, AJOTIKAR, SAVARDEKAR, and GOYAL it qualiﬁes more often in poetry (54% of the 319 samples) than in prose (only 16% of the 143 samples).

Figure 5 Relative position of a qualiﬁer with respect to what it qualiﬁes in a sentence: comparison of prose and poetry syntax

4.6 Genitive after what it limits Figure 6 compares the relative position of a genitive (word ending in a s. as..th¯ı vibhakti) with respect to what it limits in prose and poetry sentences. The results were quite striking again. Only 1 of the 21 prose samples had the genitive occurring after the nominal it limits. On the other hand, 40% of the poetic samples had the genitive after the nominal.

4.7 Object after absolutive Figure 7 compares the relative position of a direct object (karman) with respect to the absolutive (form ending in the afﬁxes ktva¯ or lyap also called a ‘gerund’) that denotes the action of which it is POETIC SYNTAX 319 the direct object. In prose, the direct object almost always (with probability of 0.84) occurs immediately before the absolutive, and if not there, one or two words before that; it never occurs after the absolutive. In poetry, while the direct object occurs immediately before the absolutive 40% of the time, it also occurs immediately after the absolutive 20% of the time and occurs widely distributed elsewhere a good 40% of the time as well.

4.8 Agent after object Figure 8 compares the relative position of the direct object and agent of the verb that directly governs them both. The agent occurs after the object more often in poetry than in prose. While in prose the agent almost always (with a probability of 0.92) occurs before the direct object, in poetry the most common position of the agent is two words after the direct object.

4.9 Summary Table 1 summarizes the statistics obtained for the positions of various pairs of syntactically related items in poetry and prose sentences. The statistics presented for a pair (x,y) are the probability of x occurring before y in a sentence in poetry and in prose. As is evident from the statistics in Table 1, prose syntax is much more rigid for all these pairs. The probability of x occurring before y in prose is greater than or equal to 0.84 for any of the eight pairs of relata considered. In contrast, in poetry, the probability of x occurring before y is less than or equal to 0.66. Thus, poetic syntax gives more freedom in choosing the location of any element of the pair. In particular, there is at least a 21% greater probability of a dependent relatum occurring after its head in poetry than in prose. Although it is well-known to Sanskrit scholars and linguists in general that the word order in poetry is far more liberal than the word order in prose, the results of our research provide statistical 320 SCHARF, AJOTIKAR, SAVARDEKAR, and GOYAL

Figure 6 Relative position of a genitive with respect to what it limits in a sentence: comparison of prose and poetry syntax

Figure 7 Relative position of a direct object with respect to an absolutive that governs it: comparison of prose and poetry syntax POETIC SYNTAX 321

Figure 8 Relative position of a direct object with respect to an agent of the same action governing them: comparison of prose and poetry syntax

Table 1 Probability of x occurring before y in a relation pair (x,y): comparing poetic sentences with prose

Pair (x–y) Poetry Prose agent–verb 0.66 0.91 object–verb 0.6 0.85 instrument–verb 0.39 0.9 adverb–verb 0.64 1.0 qualiﬁer–qualiﬁed 0.46 0.84 genitive–what it limits 0.6 0.95 object–absolutive 0.64 1.0 agent–object 0.51 0.92 322 SCHARF, AJOTIKAR, SAVARDEKAR, and GOYAL proof of this understanding. The statistics we present not only clar- ify that ordering of the sentence’s constituents is far more liberal in poetry, but also quantify to what extent word order is liberal in prose and poetry and to what extent the positions of constituents vary.

References

Gillon, Brendan S. 1996. “Word order in Classical Sanskrit.” In- dian Linguistics 57.1–4: 1–36. Gillon, Brendan S. and Benjamin Shaer. 2005. “Classical Sanskrit, ‘wild trees’ and the properties of free word order languages.” Universal grammar in the reconstruction of ancient languages, ed. by Katalin É. Kiss, pp. 457–94. Berlin: de Gruyter. Goyal, Pawan, Gérard Huet, Amba Kulkarni, Peter Scharf, and Ralph Bunker. 2012. “A distributed platform for Sanskrit processing.” Proceedings of COLING 2012, pp. 1011–28. Mum- bai: The COLING 2012 Organizing Committee. URL: http: //www.aclweb.org/anthology/C12-1062. Hellwig, Oliver. 2009. “Extracting dependency trees from San- skrit texts.” Sanskrit computational linguistics: third international symposium, Hyderabad, India, January 2009, proceedings, ed. by Gérard Huet and Amba Kulkarni, pp. 106–15. Lec- ture Notes in Artiﬁcial Intelligence 5406. Hertel, Johannes, ed. 1908. The Panchatantra: a collection of ancient Hindu tales in the recension, called Panchakhyanaka, and dated 1199 A.D., of the Jaina monk, Purnabhadra. Har- vard Oriental Series 11. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univer- sity. Huet, Gérard and Pawan Goyal. 2013. “Design of a lean interface for Sanskrit corpus annotation.” Proceedings of ICON 2013, the 10th International Conference on NLP, pp. 177–86. REFERENCES 323

Huet, Gérard and Amba Kulkarni, eds. 2009. Sanskrit computational linguistics: third international symposium, Hyderabad, India, January 2009, proceedings. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 5406. Berlin; Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. Ingalls, David. 1991. “The Mahabh¯ arata:¯ stylistic study, computer analysis, and concordance.” Essays on the Mahabh¯ arata¯ , ed. by Arvind Sharma, pp. 19–56. Leiden: Brill. Kulkarni, Amba, Sheetal Pokar, and Devanand Shukl. 2010. “Designing a constraint based parser for Sanskrit.” Sanskrit computational linguistics: 4th International Symposium, New Delhi, India, December 2010, Proceedings, ed. by Girish Nath Jha, pp. 70–90. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 6465. Kulkarni, Amba and K. V. Ramakrishnamacharyulu. 2013. “Some relation-specific issues.” Proceedings of the Fifth International Sanskrit Computational Linguistics Symposium, ed. by Malhar Kulkarni and Chaitali Dangarikar, pp. 191–212. Kulkarni, Malhar and Chaitali Dangarikar, eds. 2013. Proceedings of the Fifth International Sanskrit Computational Linguistics Symposium. New Delhi: D. K. Printworld. Ramakrishnamacharyulu, K. V. 2009. “Annotating Sanskrit texts based on sábdabodha¯ systems.” Sanskrit computational linguistics: third international symposium, Hyderabad, India, January 2009, proceedings, ed. by Gérard Huet and Amba Kulkarni, pp. 26–39. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 5406. Scharf, Peter M. 2000. Ramop¯ akhyana¯ — the story of Rama¯ in the Mahabh¯ arata¯ : an independent-study reader in Sanskrit. URL: http://sanskritlibrary.org. —. 2002. Ramop¯ akhyana¯ — the story of Rama¯ in the Mahabh¯ a-¯ rata: an independent-study reader in Sanskrit. London: Rout- ledgeCurzon. —. ed. 2011. The Pañcakhy¯ anaka¯ of Purn¯ . abhadra: first XML edition. URL: http://sanskritlibrary.org. 324 SCHARF, AJOTIKAR, SAVARDEKAR, and GOYAL

Sellmer, Sven. 2013. “Words in metrical milieux: a computational approach to a neglected ﬁeld.” Proceedings of the Fifth Inter- national Sanskrit Computational Linguistics Symposium, ed. by Malhar Kulkarni and Chaitali Dangarikar, pp. 301–20. Staal, J. F. 1967. Word order in Sanskrit and universal grammar. Foundations of Language, Supplementary Series 5. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Co. Meter identiﬁcation of Sanskrit verse

KESHAV MELNAD, PAWAN GOYAL, and PETER SCHARF

Abstract: A signiﬁcant portion of Sanskrit literature composed over more than three millennia beginning with the Vedic hymns is composed in metrical verse. Discussion of particular types of Sanskrit meter appears even in the oldest extant Vedic text, the Rgveda, and the science of meter documenting various poetic˚ meters is mentioned in the oldest lists of disciplines. Based on an analysis of the standard classical works of the science of poetics, Velankar (1949) compiled an exhaustive list of more than six hundred different meters which was included by Apte, Gode, and Karve (1957–1959) as an appendix. The present paper presents Web-based software that analyzes Sanskrit metrical patterns and identiﬁes meters. While using a precise phonetic encoding it yet allows numerous input methods and accepts either accented or unaccented text. The software has been successfully tested on a database of 1031 verses in the Pañcakhy¯ anaka¯ , including 291 verses in 23 different types of meters besides Anus.t.ubh. The software should be widely useful to Sanskrit students and scholars, especially those who focus on poetics.

Keywords: prosody, metrics, poetics, Sanskrit meter, meter identiﬁcation, syllable parsing

1 Introduction

A major portion of Sanskrit literature is in the form of poetry. The proportion of Sanskrit literature composed in verse over the period of more than three millennia from which works are extant is

325 326 MELNAD, GOYAL, and SCHARF signiﬁcant. The earliest Vedic works, Rgveda, Samaveda¯ , Atha- rvaveda, and much of the Yajurveda, are˚ composed in verse. The great epics Mahabh¯ arata¯ and Ram¯ ayan¯ . a are composed almost exclusively in verse. Works in every genre of classical Sanskrit literature from mathematics, linguistics, medicine, and philosophy to the dramatic and literary arts are composed in verse. There are two main purposes behind versiﬁcation:

1. Composing a text in verse makes it easy to memorize. 2. Versiﬁed text is suitable for melodic and rhythmic chanting.

Much of Indic verse literature was intended for oral transmission, ritual, and public performance. The large body of Sanskrit poetry is composed in specific metrical patterns. Several metrical patterns are identified and discussed even in the Rgveda itself. Among the six ancillary disciplines called Veda¯nga˙˚ s associated with the study and understanding of the Vedas is the science of metrics (chandas). The Pan¯ . in¯ı- yasiks´ . a¯ calls this science the feet of the Veda, chandah. padau¯ tu vedasya (PS. 41). Identification of meter presents a difficult task for students and scholars of Sanskrit. To offer assistance in this task, the present work develops a software tool to recognize them automatically. Recently Mishra (2007) developed software to analyze metrical patterns. His software, which he deemed a test version, recognizes 1,352 metrical patterns (http://sanskrit.sai.uni- heidelberg.de/Chanda/HTML/). Although the work is prodigious, a few deficiencies detract from it:

1. It recognizes only meters with a ﬁxed number of syllables per verse quarter (pada¯ ) and cannot recognize meters based upon the number of moræ (matr¯ a¯s). 2. It requires special treatment of contiguous vowels since the Kyoto-Harvard encoding which it requires as input fails to POETIC SYNTAX 327

distinguish sequences of the contiguous simple vowels aï and aü from the diphthongs ai and au. 3. It does not handle accented text, again due to limitations of the Kyoto-Harvard encoding.

This paper presents a Sanskrit metrical analyzer, which we call ‘Meter Identifying Tool’ (MIT), that improves upon Mishra’s work in some respects. It analyzes a wide range of meters, uses a precise phonetic encoding that accommodates accented text, and allows numerous input methods. While at present our tool recognizes only 661 metrical patterns, these include several types of meters based upon the number of moræ. Processing is done in the Sanskrit Library Phonetic Basic encoding (SLP1) documented by Scharf and Hyman (2011: 151–58). SLP1 distinguishes diphthongs from sequential simple vowels and provides methods to indicate accented texts. The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 describes the source texts on which this work is based. Section 3 describes the structure of Sanskrit meters. Section 4 describes MIT including our database of metrical forms (§4.1), the form of input and ouput (§4.2), and our algorithm for the identiﬁcation of metrical patterns (§4.3). Section 5 evaluates the results of testing our tool. Conclu- sions and future work are discussed in section 6.

2 Sources describing Sanskrit meters

Ollett (2013) recently summarized the history of the Indian science of poetics. The standard classical works include Pingala’s˙ Cha- ndah. sástra¯ (c. 200 BCE) (Joseph 2011), Jayadeva’s Jayadevacha- ndas (c. 600 CE), Jayak¯ırti’s Chando’nusásana¯ (11th c.), Hemaca- ndra’s Chando’nusásana¯ (12th c.) (Velankar 1949), and Kedara-¯ bhat.t.a’s Vrttaratnakara¯ (11–12th c.) (Kedarabhat¯ .t.a 1942) among ˚ others. Pingala’s˙ Chandah. sástra¯ provides definitions of various 328 MELNAD, GOYAL, and SCHARF kinds of meters in a sutra¯ text consisting of eight chapters. After a general introduction to prosody in the first chapter and before discussing the origin of meters in the closing chapter, Kedarabha-¯ t.t.a describes four types of meters in the central four chapters of his Vrttaratnakara¯ . Jayadeva introduced the brilliant mnemonic technique˚ of composing the definition of a metrical pattern in the very metrical pattern to be defined. For example, the definition of the Indravajra¯ meter given in (2) below (p. 332) consists of a verse quarter in that meter. Such a definition is said to be endowed with the object to be defined as well as its definition and is thus termed in Sanskrit laks. yalaks. an. asamyukta˙ . Later poetic works on Sanskrit meter employ this technique of definition as well. Apte, Gode, and Karve (1957–1959) incorporated in Appendix A ‘Sanskrit prosody’ the list of Sanskrit metrical patterns compiled by Velankar (1949) from several of the classical Sanskrit poetic treatises. The second part of this appendix, called ‘A classified list of Sanskrit meters,’ contains 769 metrical definitions. MIT presently recognizes 661 of these, including all of the fixed- syllable (varn. avrtta) meters except those of the dan.d.aka variety. Although MIT includes˚ several meters based upon the number of moræ, it has yet to include the bulk of these.

3 Sanskrit prosody

Sanskrit prosody is metrical. Numerous metrical patterns of several general types are based upon varying sequences of light and heavy syllables that constitute a verse quarter or a line constituting half a verse. After explaining the factors that determine syllable weight, we describe basic units for the two major types of meter, that based upon numbers of syllables (varn. avrtta) and that based upon number of moræ (matr¯ avr¯ tta). ˚ ˚ POETIC SYNTAX 329

3.1 Syllable weight Phonetically, a syllable consists of a single sonorous peak sur- rounded by less sonorous elements. In Sanskrit, syllables consist of a single vowel or diphthong possibly preceded by up to ﬁve consonants and possibly followed by a coda consisting of one or two consonants. Indic scripts orthographically represent syllables by any initial consonants, the vowel, and possibly an anusvara¯ or visarga. For metrical purposes, syllable weight is determined by vowel length and the presence or absence of a subsequent consonant cluster. There are two weights for a syllable, viz. light (laghu) and heavy (guru). Pan¯ .ini in his As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı dedicated 3 aphorisms to explain the weight of vowels: • A. 1.4.10 :hò ;~vMa l+.Gua Á A short vowel is termed laghu. • A. 1.4.11 .sMa;ya;ea;gea gua: Á (:hò ;~va;m,a 10) A short vowel immediately followed by a consonant cluster is termed guru. • A. 1.4.12 d;a;G a ..ca Á (gua: 11) A long vowel is also termed guru. In classical Sanskrit poetry, the conditions for determining a light or heavy vowel, and a convention for marking them in writing, are described by Kedarabhat¯ .t.a in the following verse: .sa;a;nua;~va;a:=+ea ; a;va;sa;ga;Ra;nta;ea d;a;Ga;eRa yua;+:pa:=+(ãaÉ yaH Á va;a :pa;a;d;a;ntea tva;sa;Ea gva;kÒ+:ea ¼ea;ya;eaY;nya;ea ma;a; a:a;k+:ea lx+juaH Á Á (VR. 1.9 Kedarabhat¯ .t.a 1942: 6) ‘A syllable is heavy if it has an anusvara,¯ a visarga, or a long vowel, or is followed by a consonant cluster, and optionally if it occurs at the end of a pada.¯ A heavy syllable is denoted by a curly symbol (Y) and a light by a straight line ( Á ).’ Apte, Gode, and Karve (1957–1959: Appendix A, p. 1b) adds, “The consonant clusters :pra & :hò , as also b.ra & kÒ are said to be exceptions, before which the vowel may be short by a sort of poetical 330 MELNAD, GOYAL, and SCHARF license.” In this paper, instead of the avagraha and dan.d.a, we use the modern notations macron for heavy and breve for light. We use va¯ in our database to indicate the optional heaviness of the ﬁnal syllable of a pada.¯ For example, consider the Vasantatilaka¯ verse quarter

(1) ; a;na;nd;ntua na;a; a;ta; a;na;pua;¾a;a ya; a;d va;a .~tua;va;ntua.

Here the last syllable u is laghu. But the definition of the Vasanta- tilaka¯ meter requires the final syllable of each verse quarter to be heavy. In accordance with the rule concerning optional heaviness of the final syllable of a pada¯ (va¯ pad¯ ante¯ ), however, it may be considered heavy and thus, the verse quarter matches the Vasanta- tilaka¯ metrical pattern.

3.2 The basic unit of varn. avrtta meter: gan. a ˚ The term gan. a is a technical term in metrics for a sequence of three syllables. Every possible pattern of light and heavy syllables is designated by a compound beginning with a single character and ending in this term. Since there are two possible weights, laghu or guru, for three syllables, there are eight (23 = 8) types of gan.as. A popular verse of unknown origin describes the eight possible tri- syllabic weight patterns, designated by the same number of terms, by indicating where in the sequence of three syllables a light or heavy syllable appears.

º;a; a;d;ma;Dya;a;va;sa;a;nea;Sua ya:=+ta;a ya;a;////a;ntal+.a;Ga;va;m,a Á Ba:ja;sa;a ga;Ea:=+vMa ya;a;////a;ntama;na;Ea tua gua:+:l+.a;Ga;va;m,a Á Á ‘At the beginning, middle, and end respectively, y, r, and t go to lightness; B, j, and s go to heaviness, but m and n go to heaviness and lightness.’ POETIC SYNTAX 331

Table 1 presents the eight patterns described in the verse. Table 1 Gan. a patterns ¯ stands for guru and ˘ for laghu No. ga;¾a gan.a pattern 1 m,a m ¯ ¯ ¯ 2 y,a y ˘ ¯ ¯ 3 .=, r ¯ ˘ ¯ 4 t,a t ¯ ¯ ˘ 5 B,a bh ¯ ˘ ˘ 6 .j,a j ˘ ¯ ˘ 7 .s,a s ˘ ˘ ¯ 8 n,a n ˘ ˘ ˘

3.3 The basic unit of matr¯ avr¯ tta meter: caturmatrika¯ ˚ Groups of syllables measuring four moræ (matr¯ a¯) constitute the basic unit of meters based on the number of moræ. A laghu syllable is counted as one matr¯ a¯ and a guru as two. Four matr¯ as¯ constitute a caturmatrika¯ . There are ﬁve possible patterns of a caturma-¯ trika as shown in Table 2.

3.4 Types of meters

As mentioned above, there are two major types of meters: varn.a- vrtta and matr¯ avr¯ tta, the ﬁrst of which is based upon patterns of ˚ ˚ gan.as and the second of which is based upon patterns of caturma-¯ trikas. The ﬁrst type has three subtypes. Hence the four types of meters are as follows:

1. varn.avrtta ˚ 332 MELNAD, GOYAL, and SCHARF

Table 2 Matr¯ a¯ patterns

No. Caturmatr¯ a¯ Pattern 1 sarvaguru (G) ¯ ¯ 2 bhagan.a (B) ¯ ˘ ˘ 3 jagan.a (j) ˘ ¯ ˘ 4 sagan.a (s) ˘ ˘ ¯ 5 sarvalaghu (L) ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘

a. samavrtta ˚ b. ardhasamavrtta ˚ c. vis.amavrtta ˚ 2.m atr¯ avr¯ tta ˚ A samavrtta meter has the same gan.a pattern in each of its four ˚ padas.¯ An ardhasamavrtta meter has two gan.a patterns, one in ˚ its first and third padas,¯ and a different gan.a pattern in its second and fourth padas.¯ A vis.amavrtta meter may have a different gan.a pattern in each of its four padas.¯ ˚ A matr¯ avr¯ tta meter has a different pattern of caturmatrikas¯ in its first and second˚ lines. Metrical patterns are defined by describing the sequences of gan.as or caturmatrikas¯ in a verse quarter or line. For example, the samavrtta meter Indravajra¯ is defined by stating that each verse ˚ quarter consists of the pattern of gan.as t t j g g. Apte, Gode, and Karve (1957–1959: Appendix A, p. 4a) provides the following laks.yalaks.an.asamyukta˙ definition of the Indravajra¯ meter: (2) .~ya;a; a;d;ndÒ +va:j"a;a ya; a;d ta;Ea .ja;ga;Ea gaH syadindravajr¯ a¯ yadi tau jagau gah. ¯¯ ˘|¯¯ ˘|˘¯ ˘|¯ ¯ ‘That is called indravajra¯ if it consists of t t j g g.’ POETIC SYNTAX 333

We provide additional examples of the patterns of gan.as or caturmatrikas¯ in verses while describing the output of MIT in §5 below.

4 Meter Identifying Tool (MIT)

MIT consists of a database of metrical deﬁnitions and a Java program. We describe the structure of the database, the input and output, and our algorithm for conducting metrical analysis in the following three subsections.

4.1 Meter database Our meter database contains metrical definitions in an easily read- able text file. The meter pattern conforms to a different prototype for each of the four types of meters described in §3.4. Because a samavrtta meter has the same pattern in all four padas,¯ it is sufficient for˚ the database to contain just one pattern for a pada¯ to define all four padas¯ of a verse. Besides the pada¯ pattern, a Boolean variable indicates whether the metrical definition permits optional heaviness of the final syllable of a pada¯ (va¯ pad¯ ante¯ ); the value is indicated as true when it does. Thus, a samavrtta metrical definition is stored in a prototype containing the meter˚ name and a single pattern plus the Boolean value. Because an ardhasamavrtta meter has one pattern for its first and third padas¯ but a different˚ pattern for its second and fourth padas,¯ the database must include two patterns in its metrical definition each of which is followed by the Boolean value. Because each of the four padas¯ of a vis.amavrtta meter may have a different pattern, the database must include in˚ its metrical definition four patterns each with its Boolean value. For matr¯ avr¯ tta meters, the patterns of caturmatrika¯ s for the first and second˚ lines are different. Thus a matr¯ avr¯ tta meter is stored with two patterns each of which is followed by˚ the Boolean value. Ta- ble 3 shows the prototypes of each of the four types of meters and 334 MELNAD, GOYAL, and SCHARF the number of metrical definitions of each type of meter contained in our database as of the date of publication. Table 3 Prototypes of each of the four types of meters and the number of meters of each type in our database

Meter type Prototype Quantity samavrtta 587 ˚ ardhasamavrtta 48 ˚ vis.amavrtta 14 ˚ matr¯ avr¯ tta 12 ˚ Total 661

4.2 Input and output MIT is an interactive program that accepts a full verse, line, or verse quarter in Sanskrit and returns a five-part analysis. If the input consists of a line or verse, the first line must end in a single dan.d.a and the second in a double dan.d.a. While at present the input and display is in SLP1 (the encoding in which processing is performed), the tool will soon be provided with the Sanskrit Library transcoding preferences that include input from and out- POETIC SYNTAX 335 put to popular meta-encodings such as Kyoto-Harvard, ITrans, Ti- tus, Velthuis, and Hyderabad-Tirupati (WX), as well as to Unicode Roman, and the Unicode representation of major Indic scripts De- vanagari, Gurmukhi, Kannada, Bengali, Telugu, Malayalam, Gu- jarati and Oriya. The analysis returned consists of the following five parts:

1. name and type of meter linked to a deﬁnition of the meter 2. the string parsed into orthographic syllables 3. the scansion (prastara¯ ) of the string showing the pattern of light and heavy syllables. 4. the pattern of gan.as or caturmatrikas¯ 5. the number of syllables or matr¯ as¯

4.3 Algorithm After transcoding the input text to SLP1, the first task is to remove any non-phonetic characters, except the periods that represent da- n.d.as at the end of lines. The second step is to divide the string into syllables. The definition of an orthographic syllable is C∗VX?, where C stands for a consonant, V stands for a vowel, X stands for the set {anusvara,¯ visarga, jihvaam¯ ul¯ ¯ıya, upadhman¯ ¯ıya}, and ∗ and ? are regular expression quantifiers representing zero or more and zero or one respectively. The regular expression used to match an orthographic syllable in SLP1 is therefore:

[yvrlYmNRnJBGQDjbgqdKPCWTcwtkpSzsh]* [aAiIuUfFxXeEoO][HMZV]? Consonants final in a line are grouped with the last orthographic syllable. Once the syllables are found, we find the weights of the syllables, and then attempt to determine the pattern of gan.as or caturmatrikas.¯ More restrictive metrical patterns are checked before 336 MELNAD, GOYAL, and SCHARF less restrictive ones. The input verse is checked for the samavr- ˚ tta, ardhasamavrtta and vis.amavrtta metrical patterns in that order. Only when the˚ input verse does˚ not match any of these patterns, do we search for a matr¯ avr¯ tta meter pattern. If the input text lacks˚ line-end markers, it is assumed to be a single pada¯ and to belong to the samavrtta type of meter. If line markers are present then an attempt is˚ made to divide the lines into padas¯ since these are not demarcated in the input. The pada¯ boundary is required for the meters of the varn.avrtta types, not for the matr¯ avr¯ tta meters which are defined according˚ to patterns per line. ˚ We first check the number of syllables per line and proceed to search for the appropiate type of meter based upon the following conditions:

1. If the number of syllables in the first line is the same as in the second line and each line contains an even number of syllables, then we divide the lines in half, generate the gan.a patterns for each pada,¯ and check whether the patterns of all padas¯ are the same. If so, we search for the pattern among the samavrtta meter definitions before proceeding to search ˚ for the pattern among the ardhasamavrtta and vis.amavrtta types. ˚ ˚ 2. If the number of syllables in the first line is the same as in the second line, but each line contains an odd number of syllables, then the verse cannot be of the samavrtta type. In this case, the search for a pattern proceeds directly˚ to those among the ardhasamavrtta type and, if not found, to those ˚ among the vis.amavrtta type. ˚ 3. If the number of syllables in the first line is different from the number in the second line, then the verse cannot be of the samavrtta or ardhasamavrtta types. In this case, the search ˚ ˚ POETIC SYNTAX 337

for a pattern proceeds directly to those among the vis.amavrtta type. ˚

Now, it is easy to find the pada¯ boundaries in samavrtta meters because the number of syllables is the same in each pada¯˚ and we can divide the set of syllables in each line into two equal parts. For the ardhasamavrtta meters containing different numbers of sylla- ˚ bles in each pada,¯ or vis.amavrtta meters, on the other hand, we need a different method because˚ there are numerous possible di- visions of each line into padas.¯ If {x,y} represents the number of syllables in padas¯ one and two respectively, then, for example, for an input line containing 17 syllables, it is possible to divide a line into padas¯ containing various numbers of syllables, {8,9}, {9,8}, {7,10}, {10,7}, etc. In general, for an input line containing x syllables, we will have x − 1 possible pairs. This corresponds to the fact that the first pada¯ can contain any number of syllables from 1 to x − 1, and the second pada¯ will contain the remaining syllables. For each possible division of a meter into padas¯ as described above, we search for matching gan. a patterns of the padas¯ in our database to determine whether there exists a meter definition that matches these patterns. If we find a match, we stop searching and output the result. If the input verse does not match any of the samavrtta, ardha- ˚ samavrtta or vis.amavrtta type meters, we attempt to match it with the matr¯˚ avr¯ tta meters.˚ The patterns for matr¯ avr¯ tta meters can be implemented˚ using a regular expression search.˚ For example, the pattern for the Ary¯ a¯ meter is: J4J4JjJg or J4J4JLJg, where j corresponds to jagan. a as listed in Table 2, g corresponds to a guru syllable, 4 corresponds to any of the caturmatrika¯ patterns, J corresponds to any caturmatrika¯ pattern other than jagan.a, and L corresponds to a sarvalaghu. Hence we first convert each of the meter definitions for matr¯ avr¯ tta meters into an equivalent regular expression automatically. Then,˚ we try to match the input verse 338 MELNAD, GOYAL, and SCHARF with the regular expressions corresponding to the various definitions.

5 Results

In this section, we will discuss one example verse from each meter type and report the output produced by our algorithm when the verse was given as input to MIT. The original verse is shown in De- vanagar¯ ¯ı, the input below it, and the output next in SLP1 encoding.

5.1 A samavrtta verse in Vasantatilaka¯ meter ˚ ; a;na;nd;ntua na;a; a;ta; a;na;pua;¾a;a ya; a;d va;a .~tua;va;ntua l+»ma;aH .sa;ma;a; a;va;Za;tua ga;.cC+.tua va;a ya;Tea;;m,a Á º;dùÅ;aE;va va;a ma:=+¾a;ma;~tua yua;ga;a;nta:=e va;a nya;a;yya;a;tpa;TaH :pra; a;va;.ca;l+.////a;nta:pa;dM na ;Da;a:=+aH Á Á

nindantu nItinipuRA yadi vA stuvantu lakzmIH samAviSatu gacCatu vA yaTezwam. adyEva vA maraRamastu yugAntare vA nyAyyAtpaTaH pravicalanti padaM na DIrAH..

The verse is in vasantatilakA meter which is a samavftta. The metrical patterns are...... pAda 1::::::::: Parsed String : ni nda ntu nI ti ni pu RA ya di vA stu va ntu Syllable weights : g g l g l l l g l l g l g g Gana Pattern : t B j j g g No. of Syllables : 14 ...... pAda 2::::::::: Parsed String : la kzmIH sa mA vi Sa tu ga cCa tu vA ya Te zwam Syllable weights : g g l g l l l g l l g l g g Gana Pattern : t B j j g g No. of Syllables : 14 POETIC SYNTAX 339

...... pAda 3::::::::: Parsed String : a dyE va vA ma ra Ra ma stu yu gA nta re vA Syllable weights : g g l g l l l g l l g l g g Gana Pattern : t B j j g g No. of Syllables : 14 ...... pAda 4::::::::: Parsed String : nyA yyA tpa TaH pra vi ca la nti pa daM na DI rAH Syllable weights : g g l g l l l g l l g l g g Gana Pattern : t B j j g g No. of Syllables : 14

5.2 An ardhasamavr¯ tta verse in Vegavat¯ı meter ˚ .sma:= :vea;ga;va;ta;a v.ra:ja:=+a;ma;a :ke+:Za;va;vMa;Za:=+vEa:=+ a;ta;mua;gDa;a Á .=+Ba;sa;a;a gua:+.nga;¾a;ya;nta;a :ke+: a;l+. a;na;ku+.ê*+;gúÁ a;h;a;yax .ja;ga;a;ma Á Á

smara vegavatI vrajarAmA keSavavaMSaravEratimugDA. raBasAnna gurUngaRayantI kelinikuYjagfhAya jagAma..

The verse is in vegavatI meter which is a arDasama- vftta. The metrical patterns are...... pAda 1::::::::: Parsed String : sma ra ve ga va tI vra ja rA mA Syllable weights : l l g l l g l l g g Gana Pattern : s s s g No. of Syllables : 10 ...... pAda 2::::::::: Parsed String : ke Sa va vaM Sa ra vE ra ti mu gDA Syllable weights : g l l g l l g l l g g Gana Pattern : B B B g g No. of Syllables : 11 ...... pAda 3::::::::: 340 MELNAD, GOYAL, and SCHARF

Parsed String : ra Ba sA nna gu rU nga Ra ya ntI Syllable weights : l l g l l g l l g g Gana Pattern : s s s g No. of Syllables : 10 ...... pAda 4::::::::: Parsed String : ke li ni ku Yja gf hA ya ja gA ma Syllable weights : g l l g l l g l l g g Gana Pattern : B B B g g No. of Syllables : 11

5.3 A vis.amavrtta verse in Lalita meter ˚ na;yua;gMa .sa;k+:a:=+yua;ga;lM ..ca Ba;va; a;ta ..ca:=+¾Ma txa;ta;a;ya;k+:m,a Á ta;du; a;d;ta;mua:+:ma; a;ta;a;Ba;lR+. a;l+.tMa ya; a;d Zea;Sa;ma;~ya Ka;lu :pUa;vRa;tua;ya;k+:m,a Á Á

nayugaM sakArayugalaM ca Bavati caraRaM tftIyakam . taduditamurumatiBirlalitaM yadi Sezamasya Kalu pUrvatulyakam .

The verse is in lalitam meter which is a vizama- vftta. The metrical patterns are...... pAda 1::::::::: Parsed String : na yu gaM sa kA ra yu ga laM ca Syllable weights : l l g l g l l l g g Gana Pattern : s j s g No. of Syllables : 10 ...... pAda 2::::::::: Parsed String : Ba va ti ca ra RaM tf tI ya kam Syllable weights : l l l l l g l g l g Gana Pattern : n s j g No. of Syllables : 10 ...... pAda 3::::::::: POETIC SYNTAX 341

Parsed String : ta du di ta mu ru ma ti Bi rla li taM Syllable weights : l l l l l l l l g l l g Gana Pattern : n n s s No. of Syllables : 12 ...... pAda 4::::::::: Parsed String : ya di Se za ma sya Ka lu pU rva tu lya kam Syllable weights : l l g l g l l l g l g l g Gana Pattern : s j s j g No. of Syllables : 13

5.4 Amatr¯ avr¯ tta verse in Ary¯ a¯ meter ˚ kx +:S¾aH ; a;Za;ZuaH .sua;ta;ea mea va;+:va;ku+:l+.f;a;a;Ba:=+a;&+.ta;ea na ga;hex Á »a;¾a;ma; a;pa va;sa;tya;sa;a; a;va; a;ta .ja;ga;a;d ga;ea;.a;Ma ya;Za;ea;d;a;ya;Ra Á Á

kfzRaH SiSuH suto me vallavakulawABirAhfto na gfhe . kzaRamapi vasatyasAviti jagAda gozWyAM yaSodAryA ..

The verse is in AryA meter which is a mAtrAvftta ...... pUrvArdha::::::::: Parsed string : kf zRaH Si SuH su to me va lla va ku la wA Bi rA hf to na gf he Syllable weight : g g - l g l - g g - g l l - l l g-lgl-gll-g Pattern : J 4 J 4 J j J g No. of morae : 30 ...... uttarArdha::::::::: Parsed String : kza Ra ma pi va sa tya sA vi ti ja gA da go zWyAM ya So dA ryA Syllable weight : l l l l - l g l - g l l - l g l - g g - l - g g - g Pattern : J 4 J 4 J l J g No. of morae : 27 342 MELNAD, GOYAL, and SCHARF

Recall that the pattern shown for matr¯ avr¯ tta meters is differ- ˚ ent from the varn.avrtta meters; the pattern is explained in Table 2 (p. 332) and at the end˚ of §4.3 (p. 332).

5.5 Performance To determine how useful the tool would be on a real dataset, we evaluated the program’s performance on all of the verses in Purn¯ .a- bhadra’s Pañcakhy¯ anaka¯ (Hertel 1908) extracted from the Sanskrit Library’s digital edition of the work (Scharf 2011). The database of these verses consists of 1031 verses, 291 of which contain 23 types of metrical patterns other than Anus.t.ubh. This database, which also includes the name of the meter of each verse, served as the gold standard for our evaluation. We used our tool to identify the metrical pattern corresponding to each verse. MIT correctly recognized 1018 out of the 1031 verses (98.7%) and 287 out of the 291 non-Anus.t.ubh verses (98.6%). There were no cases in which a meter was recognized incorrectly. On the contrary, our tool discovered several data-entry errors in our digital text and in the annotations of meter types that we then corrected by reference to the original printed edition. We analyzed the 13 verses in our database whose meters were not identified to discover the reasons behind the failure. Our gold- standard identified 9 of the 13 verses not recognized as Anus.t.ubh, 3 as Upajati,¯ and 1 as Sárd¯ ulavikr¯ ¯ıd.ita. For the last and for one of the Anus.t.ubh verses, our meter definition did not include the exceptional parameter described in §3.1 that permits syllables to be considered short even if they occur before one of the four conjunct consonants kr, pr, br, or hr (that is, r preceded by k, p, b, or h). Our tool included only the most restrictive definition of Upajati¯ meter Apte, Gode, and Karve (1957–1959: Appendix A, p. 4a) list according to which the meter consists of any combination of pa-¯ das in the two meters Indravajra¯ and Upendravajra.¯ However, other POETIC SYNTAX 343 definitions they mention permit combinations of Indravam˙ sá¯ and Vam˙ sasth´ a,¯ Smrti and Sruti,´ and indeed combinations of any samavrtta meters. Our˚ tool did identify combinations of Indravam˙ sá¯ and Va˚m˙ sasth´ a¯ in two of the unidentified meters, and a combination of three samavrtta meters in one of the unidentified meters. Of the ˚ remaining 8 Anus.t.ubh meters not recognized by our tool, 3 have an extra syllable in one pada,¯ 3 contain a prohibited sagan.a pattern in the 5th through 7th syllables of the first or third pada,¯ 1 contains a prohibited nagan.a pattern in the 2nd through 4th syllables in the first pada,¯ and the last unidentified verse lacks a required jagan.a pattern in its second pada.¯ In every case in which the meter of a verse was not identified, our tool correctly identified the metrical pattern of each pada¯ individually.

6 Conclusions and future work

In this paper, we described a tool for the analysis of Sanskrit prosody and identification of meter type. The tool covers a wide range of meters and has been successfully tested on a considerable number of verses. The evaluation of this tool over a database of 1031 verses from the Pañcakhy¯ anaka¯ gave impressive results with greater than 98.6% accuracy. At present the tool is limited by the ability to recognize just the 661 meters in our database. Future work involves extending our database to cover all kinds of meters and to deal with certain peculiarities. As an example of one such peculiarity, various meter definitions specify restrictions on the position of a caesura (yati) and require that the preceding Sanskrit word end before it. For example, the Sárd¯ ulavikr¯ ¯ıd.ita meter has 19 syllables in each pada.¯ An additional condition is that there is a caesura after 12 syllables and that the preceding Sanskrit word end prior to it. To recognize whether these conditions are satisfied requires a parser able 344 MELNAD, GOYAL, and SCHARF to determine word boundaries. In future work we would like to integrate the output of a text segmentation tool such as the San- skrit Heritage Reader (Huet 2005; Huet and Goyal 2013) with our system in order to check this condition. Among meters not adequately handled in our tool at present are Vedic meters. Generally Vedic meters conform to classical definitions for meters bearing the same names regarding the number of syllables per pada¯ but not regarding the patterns of light and heavy syllables. In other cases, the definition of a meter in Vedic differs from its classical definition. For example, the Gayatr¯ ¯ı meter in Vedic has three padas¯ each of which consists of eight syllables whereas in the classical definition it has four padas¯ of six syllables each. As mentioned in the previous section, our tool is currently over restrictive in the realm of Upajati¯ definitions. Likewise, only a few of the several Ary¯ a¯ meters have been implemented. There are several subdivisions of Ary¯ a¯ meter such as G¯ıti, Vaital¯ ¯ıya, Vaktra and Matr¯ asamaka¯ with different metrical patterns. We plan to include Vedic meters, additional Upajati¯ patterns, Ary¯ a¯ subdivisions and other metrical patterns in future work. Although the Web version of the program currently handles just one verse at a time, a command-line version of the program run locally is able to analyze any number of verses in a file. We intend to provide this facility on the Web as well. At present, if a string of text without line markers is submitted for analysis, it is assumed to be a pada¯ of a samavrtta meter and the program quits if a matching samavrtta metrical˚ pattern is not found. We intend to add procedures to˚ subdivide the string into lines and padas¯ to check for possible matches to other types of meters as well. In this way one could submit any string to discover whether it is metrical or not. After implementing this feature, we plan to test MIT against a known database of non-metrical text to see whether it falsely identifies metrical patterns. We also have REFERENCES 345 plans to extend our tool to highlight probable spelling mistakes in the input verse. The tool has many potential applications other than identifying the metrical pattern of an input verse. The feature of discovering whether an input text contains any metrical pattern could have applications to syntactic parsing. As Scharf, Goyal, Ajotikar, and Savardekar describe in the preceding paper in this volume, poetry and prose differ significantly in their syntax. If a tool could determine whether the input text is prose or poetry, it would improve the performance of dependency parsers if they provide a different set of penalties for poetry than they do for prose.

References

Apte, Vaman Shivaram, Parshuram Krishna Gode, and Cintamana Ganesa Karve. 1957–1959. Revised and enlarged edition of Prin. V. S. Apte’s The practical Sanskrit-English dictionary. 3 vols. Pune: Prasad Prakashan. Hertel, Johannes, ed. 1908. The Panchatantra: a collection of ancient Hindu tales in the recension, called Panchakhyanaka, and dated 1199 A.D., of the Jaina monk, Purnabhadra. Har- vard Oriental Series 11. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univer- sity. Huet, Gérard. 2005. “A functional toolkit for morphological and phonological processing: application to a Sanskrit tagger.” Journal of Functional Programming 15.4: 573–614. URL: yquem.inria.fr/~huet/PUBLIC/tagger.pdf. Huet, Gérard and Pawan Goyal. 2013. “Design of a lean interface for Sanskrit corpus annotation.” Proceedings of ICON 2013, the 10th International Conference on NLP, pp. 177–86. 346 MELNAD, GOYAL, and SCHARF

Joseph, George Gheverghese. 2011. The crest of the peacock: non- European roots of mathematics. Princeton: Princeton Univer- sity Press. Kedarabhat¯ .t.a. 1942. vrttaratnakara:¯ with the gloss Saubhagyavat¯ ¯ı and commentary˚ Ratnaprabha¯, ed. and comm. by Nrsimhade-˙ ˚ va Sástrin.¯ Lahore: Meharacandra Laks.man.adasa.¯ Mishra, Anand. 2007. Sanskrit metre recognizer. URL: http : //sanskrit.sai.uni-heidelberg.de/Chanda/ HTML/. Ollett, Andrew. 2013. “The gan.acchandas in the Indian metrical tradition.” Contributions to current research in Indology: proceedings of the first International Indology Graduate Research Symposium, September 2009, Oxford; vol. 1, Pus. pika:¯ tracing ancient India through texts and traditions, ed. by Nina Mirnig, Péter-Dániel Szántó, and Michael Williams, ch. 15. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Scharf, Peter M., ed. 2011. The Pañcakhy¯ anaka¯ of Purn¯ . abhadra: first XML edition. URL: http : / / sanskritlibrary . org. Scharf, Peter M. and Malcolm D. Hyman. 2011. Linguistic issues in encoding Sanskrit. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Velankar, H. D., ed. 1949. Jayadaman:¯ a collection of ancient texts on Sanskrit prosody and a classical list of Sanskrit meters with an alphabetical index. Haritos.amal¯ a¯ 1. Includes the following texts: Jayadevachandas by Jayadeva, Chando’nusásana¯ by Ja- yak¯ırti, Vrttaratnakara¯ by Kedarabhat¯ .t.a, and Chando’nusása-¯ na by Hemacandra.˚ Bombay: Haritosha Samiti. On concord and government relations in Sanskrit

PRASAD P. JOSHI

Abstract: Syntactic relations are chiefly of two types: concord and government. In concord, both items in a construction are marked for the concerned category of case, number, person, etc., while in government one item is marked for the category and the other governs or assigns it. In Sanskrit, where concord and government relations occupy a prominent place, a noun and an adjective in concord agree in gender, case, and number. A verb and noun (denoting an agent or direct object) in concord agree in person and number. A verb governs a karaka-noun¯ by assigning it a specific karaka-role.¯ Speijer’s Sanskrit Syntax and V. S. Apte’s The Student’s Guide to Sanskrit Compo- sition provide a sufficient account for concord and government relations in Sanskrit. The present paper attempts to glimpse into their treatment in the Pan¯ .inian tradition of Sanskrit grammar. Although rules of concord and government are not explicitly stated by the ancient grammarians, their concept of sam¯ an¯ adhikaran¯ . ya ‘apposition’ provides a basis to explain concord relations, and the concept of a- nabhihita ‘not expressed otherwise’ provides the ground to explain government of a noun by a verb-form.

Keywords: concord, government, syntactic relations, the- matic roles, karaka,¯ Sanskrit

347 348 P. JOSHI

1 Introduction

The study of syntax identiﬁes different relations among constituents of a sentence. Agreement is one such relation. We say that there is grammatical agreement between items when a particular syntactic feature of one item is chosen with reference to that of another in the sentence. The syntactic features are usually the grammatical categories like gender, case, number, voice, aspect, etc. The items in agreement thus show a kind of harmony. Agree- ment relations are chieﬂy of two types: concord and government.1

2 The importance of concord and government

The grammatical categories involved in concord and government have particular importance in the syntax of Sanskrit and other similar languages which do not have fixed word order. In a language like English where the word order is fairly fixed, the relation between items is already indicated by position. An adjective normally appears before or after the English noun, e.g. ‘blue lotus’ (adj.-noun), ‘mission impossible’ (noun-adj.). We do not need a formal marker to indicate its relation with the noun. But in San- skrit, this being a highly inflectional language and fairly free of word ordering rules, the concord-government patterns are all important in establishing syntactic structures. The grammatical categories thus involved in concord and government serve the purpose of indicating syntactic relations. To indicate syntactic relations is part of their function. Palmer (1971: §2.6) refers to government and concord as being two types of linkages “(1) of a word or class of word requiring a particular form of another word, and (2) a form of one word requiring a corresponding form of another.”

1Bloomﬁeld (1935: 193–94) added ‘cross-reference’ as a third type of agreement. ONCONCORDANDGOVERNMENT 349

Speijer’s Sanskrit Syntax and V. S. Apte’s The Student’s Guide to Sanskrit Composition provide a sufﬁcient account of the concord and government relations in Sanskrit. The present paper attempts to glimpse their treatment in the tradition of Sanskrit grammar as represented by Pan¯ .ini (c. 4th BCE) and his followers.

3 Concord

In concord, both the items in the construction are marked for the concerned category of gender, case, number, or person, etc., e.g. in English ‘this book’, where the pronoun ‘this’ and noun ‘book’ both are marked for singularity, and ‘these books’, where both are marked for plurality. In concord, there is a correspondence of categories between items. Concord is alternatively called agreement. In Sanskrit, concord is chieﬂy held between (1) a substantive and adjective, (2) a substantive and another noun, and (3) a predicate verb and noun (of agent and object).

3.1 Concord of substantive and adjective A substantive and adjective in Sanskrit fall in concord and agree in gender, case, and number, e.g. n¯ılam utpalam (‘a blue lotus’). Here both the items are marked for gender (ntr.), case (nom.), and number (sg.). Pan¯ .ini does not recognize adjective and substantive as two different categories as they are perceived by modern linguists. He has used the term vises´ . an. a in the As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı, but this is not an equivalent term for what is called ‘adjective’ in modern grammar. It only means a qualifying word in general and can include an adjective and also a substantive in apposition (Joshi and Roodbergen 1993: 91). In the Pan¯ .inian system of derivation, both noun and adjective are equally termed pratipadika¯ s (A. 1.2.45) and liable of adding case suffixes (termed sup)(A. 4.1.1). Which of the seven triplets consisting of singular, dual, and plural case suffixes is to be 350 P. JOSHI employed after a noun is determined by different criteria like the karaka¯ relation, the adjoining word, expression of other relations, and the sense of the nominal base. A. 2.3.46 and other rules in A. 2.3 sufficiently provide for this. In the sentence

(1) Ba;a;SmMa k+:fM k+.=+ea; a;ta Á ‘One makes a terrible mat.’ the substantive kat.a directly entering into the karaka¯ relation of karman with the verb gets an accusative case suffix according to A. 2.3.2. Now the question is why the adjective bh¯ıs. ma should also get the same accusative suffix as well as the same gender and number as kat.a. No rule in the As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı explains this. Pata- ñjali in his Mahabh¯ as¯. ya on A. 2.3.1 (MBh. 1.442.5) discusses the point. He says a stem cannot be used without a suffix, and a suffix cannot be used without a stem. Some inflection or other has to come after the stem. This being so — and no other case would be able to establish the relation of bh¯ıs. ma with kat.a here — bh¯ı- s. ma is employed with the accusative. Or alternatively, he further says, bh¯ıs. ma is equally a karman and hence can take an accusative suffix. Finally changing on this, he says, º;Ta;va;a k+:f O;;va k+:mRa .~ya;a- ;t,a Á ta;tsa;a;ma;a;na;a; a;Da;k+.=+¾ya;a;;ÂåÅ +a;Sma;a; a;d;Bya;ea ; a;dõ;ta;a;ya;a Ba; a;va;Sya; a;ta Á ‘Otherwise let kat.a only be the karman; bh¯ıs. ma can take the accusative on account of its being saman¯ adhikaran¯ . a with kat.a. Here it is clear that Patañjali regards sam¯ an¯ adhikaran¯ . ya as the basis for agreement of case between a noun and its adjective. The word saman¯ adhika-¯ ran. a means ‘having common reference’. The word bh¯ıs. ma and kat.a are two different lexical items, but they refer to one and the same thing simultaneously and are said in tradition to be sama-¯ nadhikaran¯ . a. The Ka¯sik´ avr¯ tti on A. 2.1.49, explains the term as follows: ;a;Ba;a;pra;va; a:a; a;na;a;ma:a;~yax ˚ O;;k+://///////a;sma;a;TeRava; a:aHx .sa;a;ma;a;na;a; a;Da;k+.=+¾ya;m,a, which means it is a state of two or more words with different senses having common reference. In modern terms these are words in ap- ONCONCORDANDGOVERNMENT 351 position. The agreement of case is thus explained in the tradition on the basis of sam¯ an¯ adhikaran¯ .ya.2 Now, what remains is concord of gender and number. As regards the gender and number of nouns, Pan¯ .ini seems to have very little to say. Some of his rules deal with them.3 His rule • A. 1.2.53 ta;d; a;Za;SyMa .sMa;¼a;a;pra;ma;a;¾a;tva;a;t,a ‘That should not be taught because the authority for it is convention.’ provides an indication that the prescription of gender and number of nouns lies outside the scope of the As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı. Patañjali ñÍ ñÍ on A. 2.1.36 (MBh. 1.190.18) says, ; a;l+.ç*:+.ma; a;Za;SyMaÅ l+.ea;k+:a;(ra;ya;tva;a; a;+:ç*:-Å +.~ya. Patañjali’s discussion on the gender and number of adjectives provides an explanation. On A. 4.1.3 (MBh. 2.200.1) he says, gua- ;¾a;va;.ca;na;a;na;Ma Za;b.d;a;na;a;ma;a;(ra;ya;ta;ea ; a;l+.ç*:+.va;.ca;na;a; a;nañÅÍ Ba;va;////a;ntaÁ ta;dùÅ;a;Ta;a Á Zua;ì*:MëÐÉÅ va;~:a;m,a Á Zua;ì*:+:aëÐÉÅ Za;a;f;a Á Zua;ì*:HëÐÉÅ k+:}ba;lH Á Zua;ì*:+:EaëÐÉÅ k+:}ba;l+.Ea Á Zua;ì*:+:aHëÐÉÅ k+:}ba;l+.aH Á ya;d;sa;Ea dÒ +v.yMa ñÍ ; a;(ra;ta;ea Ba;va; a;ta gua;¾a;~ta;~ya ya; a;+:ç*:MÅ va;.ca;nMa ..ca ta;çuÅ+¾a;~ya;a; a;pa Ba;va; a;ta Á, which means that the words expressive of properties like sukla´ (white) etc. have gender and number like that of their a¯sraya´ (substantive). He has repeated this point more than once in the Mahabh¯ as¯. ya. For other vises´ .an.as (qualifying words) which are not gun.avacanas, Patañjali makes a reference in general while commenting on A. 1.2.51. First he merely observes that they agree with substantives in gender and

2 Pan¯ .ini has used this term saman¯ adhikaran¯ . a eight times in his As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı, but has not deﬁned it. It is supposed to be well known. Patañjali in his Mahabh¯ a-¯ s. ya on A. 2.1.1 discusses the term as follows: ta;tsa;ma;a;na;ma;a;(ra;a;ya;tea ya;tsa;ma;a;nMa Ba;va; a;ta Á º;Ta;va;a ya;a;va;dõâ âU" ;ya;a;tsa;ma;a;na;dÒ +v.yea;¾ea; a;ta ta;a;va;tsa;ma;a;na;a; a;Da;k+.=+¾ea;nea; a;ta Á dÒ +v.yMa ; a;h l+.ea;ke º; a;Da;k+.=+¾a- ;a;ma;tyua;pa;.ca;yRa;tea Á ta;Ta;a v.ya;a;k+.=+¾ea ; a;va;pra; a;ta; a;Sa:;dÄâM ..ca;a;na; a;Da;k+.=+¾a;va;a;.ca;a;tya;dÒ +v.ya;va;a;.ca;a; a;ta ga;}ya;tea Á The term sam¯ an¯ adhikaran¯ . ya then means the state of two or more words referring to the same thing simultaneously, co-referentiality. 3For example, lu+. a;pa yua;+:va;dõùÅ;a; a;+:va;.ca;nea (A. 1.2.51), .=+a:a;a;îå+:a;h;aH :pMua;a;sa (A. 2.4.29), etc. Ghatage (1983: 20) writes, “The necessity of deﬁning a gender in a grammar of Sanskrit can only arise if the usage of a word differs from the gender which is taught for a particular formation, either a compound or a derivative.” 352 P. JOSHI number;4 and provides the ground for it while commenting on the next sutra.¯ There he reads a line .sa;ma;a;na;a; a;Da;k+.=+¾tva;a;//////a;tsa:;dÄâ ;m,a Á .sa;ma;a;na;a- ; a;Da;k+.=+¾a;a; a;dõ;Zea;Sa;¾a;a;na;Ma yua;+:va;;ÂåÅ+a;va;ea Ba; a;va;Sya; a;ta, implying that the gender and number of a visesan´ .a is like that of its substantive because of saman¯ adhikaran¯ .atva (apposition).

3.1.1 Adjectives with taddhita-deletion The adjectives wherein the taddhita termination is deleted in the process of derivation need a separate treatment. A. 4.2.81 etc. pre- scribe the deletion of taddhita suffixes. Another rule, lu+. a;pa yua;+:va- ;d, v.ya; a;+:va;.ca;nea (A. 1.2.51), says that when a taddhita suffix is lup- elided, the word so formed takes the gender and number of the original word to which the taddhita suffix was added, e.g. 2. ñÍ (2) k+: a;l+.ç*:+.aHÅ .ja;na;pa;dH ‘region which is inhabited by the Kalinga˙ ks.atriyas’

Here the word kalinga˙ loses the taddhita sufﬁx an. prescribed in the sense of ‘his residence’ by A. 4.2.81. The sufﬁx an. was added after kalinga˙ which stands as masculine plural in the analytic para- ñÍ phrase k+: a;l+.ç*:+.a;na;MaÅ ; a;na;va;a;saH .ja;na;pa;dH, so assuming the same gender and number of the original, it is to be used in the masculine plural. The adjective kaling˙ ah¯ . is hence plural despite the coreferential substantive janapadah. being singular.

(3) g{a;a;maH ; a;Za:=+a;Sa;aH ‘village which is near Sir´ ¯ıs.a trees’ Likewise in (3) the adjective thus formed with lup-deletion of a taddhita sufﬁx provides an exception to the agreement of gender and number with its substantive. They agree only in the single feature of case. ñÍ ëÐÅ 4º;nya:a;a;a;Ba;Dea;ya;va; a;+:ç*:+.va;.ca;na;a; a;naÅ Ba;va;////a;ntaÁ ë*:+:a;nya:aÁ Á lu+. a;k Á l+.va;¾aH .sUa;paH Á l+.va;¾a;a ya;va;a;guaH Á l+.va;¾Ma Za;a;k+:m,a Á ONCONCORDANDGOVERNMENT 353

Some such adjectives may agree in number and case with their substantives but not in gender. Katy¯ ayana¯ (on A. 1.2.52) gives words such as har¯ıtak¯ı as examples as in 4. (4) h:=+a;ta;k+.aH :P+.l+.a; a;na ‘fruits of the Har¯ıtak¯ı tree’

Here the adjective har¯ıtakyah. (with lup-deletion of a taddhita suf- ﬁx by A. 4.3.167) agrees with its substantive phalani¯ in case and number but not in gender. It is feminine in accordance with its original base har¯ıtak¯ı. In contrast, some adjectives agree in gender but not in number, as in 5. (5) Ka;l+. a;ta;kM va;na;a; a;na ‘forests which are near to the mount Khala- tika’ Here the adjective khalatika (with lup-deletion of a taddhita by A. 4.2.82) agrees with its neuter substantive in gender but not in number. It is used in the singular despite its substantive vanani¯ being in the plural. It agrees in number with the original word khalatika which is singular in the analytic paraphrase Ka;l+. a;ta;k+:~ya :pa;vRa;ta;~ya º;dU:=+Ba;va;a; a;na. On the other hand, the adjective may disagree in both gender and number with its substantive. Consider the expression in 6. ú (6) ..ca:ã*.a;a;a;Ba:+.paHÁ ‘handsome Cañca’¯ The word cañca¯ (with lup-deletion of the taddhita sufﬁx kan by A. 5.3.98) means ‘a man who looks similar to a cañca¯ (grass model)’. Here the adjective abhirupah¯ . (masc.) does not agree with its substantive cañca¯ (fem.). Some other words of this kind are vadhri- ka¯ (fem.) (looking like a eunuch), kharakut.¯ı (fem.) (looking like a barbar’s bag). The words har¯ıtak¯ı, khalatika, and abhirupa¯ , although used adjectively, do not agree with their corresponding substantives in gender, number or both.5

5Cf. the varttikas¯ h:=+a;ta;k+.a;a; a;d;Sua v.ya; a;H and Ka;l+. a;ta;k+:a; a;d;Sua va;.ca;na;m,a on A. 1.2.51 and ma;nua;Sya;lu+. a;pa :pra; a;ta;Sea;Da;ea va;+:v.yaH on A. 1.2.52. 354 P. JOSHI

3.1.2 Nouns in apposition Two or more nouns when they refer to the same object simultaneously fall in apposition (sam¯ an¯ adhikaran¯ . ya). Nouns in apposition agree in case but not necessarily in gender and number. For each noun has its own fixed gender, and its number is determined according to the circumstances. In 7, (7) º;a;mÒa;ea va:»aHx ‘mango tree’ both nouns are in the nominative as well as agreeing in gender and number. Yet consider the description of lord Rama¯ in verses 4.15.15c-17d in the Ram¯ ayan¯ . a passages in 8. çÉ (8) .=+a;maH :pa:=+ba;l+.a;ma;d;Ra yua;ga;a;nta;a; a;+;a;a:=+va;ea;////a;tTa;taHîå Á Á15 Á Á ; a;na;va;a;sa;va:»aHx .sa;a;DUa;na;a;ma;a;pa;a;a;na;Ma :pa:=+a ga; a;taH Á º;a;ta;Ra;na;Ma .sMa;(ra;ya;(ãEa;vaÉ ya;Za;sa;(ãEa;k+:Ba;a:ja;na;m,aÉ Á Á16 Á Á ...... gua;¾a;a;na;a;ma;a;k+.=+ea ma;h;a;n,a Á Á17 Á Á Here ramah¯ . is the chief noun. It is being qualified by other nouns viz. nivasavr¯ ks. ah. (masc.), para¯ gatih. (fem.), sam˙ srayah´ . (masc.) and bhajanam¯ ˚ (ntr.). They all agree in case but disagree in gender. Similarly, a verse in the Saduktikarn. amr¯ ta (1.11) reads ˚ (9) ta;~ya;a;sa;a;t,a ... (ra;a;va;fu;d;a;sa I+.tya;nua;pa;ma;prea;mEa;k+:pa;a:Ma .sa;Ka;a Á ‘Vat.udasa,¯ the only resort of matchless love, was a friend to him.’ Another example of this kind is (10) :vea;d;aH :pra;ma;a;¾a;m,a Á ‘The vedas are the authority.’ Here vedah¯ . (masc. pl.) occurs in apposition with praman¯ . am (ntr. sg.). The words agree in case but not in gender and number.6 The words patram¯ , aspadam¯ , sthanam¯ , padam, praman¯ . am, 6Gadadhara¯ discusses this point in his Vyutpattivada¯ . I am restricting myself here to the Pan¯ .inian system. ONCONCORDANDGOVERNMENT 355 bhajanam¯ , sadhanam¯ , karan¯ . am, ra¯sih´ . , prabhavah. are some of the common nouns occurring as qualifying words of the chief noun that agree with it only in the case suffix. The concord between nouns in apposition can be viewed as partial. For the agreement of case is the only guarantee. Pan¯ .ini’s rule ; a;va;Zea;Sa;¾a;a;na;Ma ..ca;a:ja;a;teaH (A. 1.2.52) has a slender reference to this point. It says that ‘given lup- elision of a taddhita suffix, the gender and number of a vises´ . an. a (qualifying word) which does not refer to a jati¯ (generic property) are like those of the taddhita-derived qualified word’. Here the term vises´ . an. a means a qualifying word in general and can also stand for a substantive in apposition. A substantive in apposition not referring to things in a general way but to a particular item does not have gender and number like that of the qualified word. The example given by the Ka¯sik´ avr¯ tti is shown in 11. ˚ ú (11) :pa:ã*.a;a;l+.aHÁ .ja;na;pa;dH ‘the country Pañcal¯ ah¯ .’ Here according to the tradition, janapada has to be a qualifying word referring to a particular item — a single district — and hence has no agreement of gender and number with the plural pañca-¯ lah¯ . . It is only in the context of taddhita-deleted words, that the disagreement of gender and number is explained in the As..tadhy¯ a-¯ y¯ı.

3.2 Concord of a predicate verb and noun (of agent and object) A verb of Sanskrit agrees with the noun of agent or object in the sentence. In 12,

(12) :de;va;d:aH k+:fM k+.=+ea; a;ta Á ‘Devadatta makes a mat.’ the verb karoti and noun devadattah. have shown a concord relation by the agreement of person and number. Both are marked for third person and singularity. This feature is clearly provided 356 P. JOSHI for by Pan¯ .ini. In his system the l-suffixes stand for the karakas¯ (agent and object). For intransitive roots, they refer to the action instead of an object (A. 3.4.69). For example, in karoti in (12), the verbal ending -ti (substitute of l-suffix) refers to the agent of the action denoted by kr-. In kriyate, -te stands for the object. A. 1.4.105 says: the endings˚ termed madhyama (second person) are to be employed after a verbal root, when the co-occurring pronoun yus. mad (you), explicitly used or unused, is saman¯ adhikaran¯ .a (in apposition) with the l-suffix. The point is that the karaka¯ (agent or object) referred to by the general l-suffix and the karaka¯ referred to by the co-occurring pronoun yus. mad has to be identical. When the agent or object referred to by the l-suffix is same as that referred to by the pronoun asmad (first person pron.), then those termed u- ttama (first person) are employed (A. 1.4.107), and in other cases, the prathama (third person) endings are employed, as in (13).

(13) a. tvMa :pa;.ca;a;sa Á ‘You cook.’ b. º;hM :pa;.ca;a;a;ma Á ‘I cook.’ c. .saH :pa;.ca; a;ta Á ‘He cooks.’

Here the pronouns tvam˙ , aham and sah. and the respective verbal endings fall in sam¯ an¯ adhikaran¯ .ya (apposition) by referring to the same karaka¯ of agent as expressed by the l-sufﬁx. They agree with the verb in person and number. In contrast, in 14

(14) º;hM tva;Ma na;ma;a;a;ma Á ‘I salute you.’ the verbal ending -mi (replacement of an l-sufﬁx) refers to the kartr (agent) and the co-occurring pronoun tvam¯ , accusative singular of˚yusmad, refers to the karman (object). Due to the absence of sam¯ an¯ adhikaran¯ .ya, they disagree in features. The word saman¯ a-¯ dhikaran. e in A. 1.4.105 yua;Sma;dùuÅ;a;pa;pa;de . . . works as a condition. The condition is that the upapada and l-sufﬁx denote the same kara-¯ ka. The upapadas are yus. mad, asmad, or the ses´ .a (others). The ONCONCORDANDGOVERNMENT 357 principle of sam¯ an¯ adhikaran¯ .ya (apposition) thus provides the basis for agreement in person and number of a verb and karaka¯ noun.

4 Government

In the government relation, one of the items in the construction is marked for the feature in question and the other is the assigner of that feature to it. Usually prepositions and verbs are governing elements in any natural language. They govern the case of nouns. In Sanskrit the government relation is shown by (1) a verb and noun, (2) indeclinable and noun.

4.1 Government of a verb and a noun The predicate verb in a Sanskrit sentence governs the case of the nouns in that sentence. Consider the sentence

(15) :de;va;d:aH k+:fM k+.=+ea; a;ta Á ‘Devadatta makes a mat.’

The predicate verb karoti governs the nominative of the noun devadatta and the accusative of the noun kat.a. This phenomenon of government is sufficiently explained by Pan¯ .ini. In his system the verb governs the case of a noun via the assignment of a karaka¯ role to it. The assignment of different karaka¯ roles to the nouns is dealt with in the As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı under the section headed by the rule k+:a:=+ke (A. 1.4.23). Another section of the As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı headed by the rule º;na;a;Ba; a;h;tea (not expressed otherwise) (A. 2.3.1) prescribes the case suffixes of nouns. The karakas¯ are expressed by (1) a finite verb ending (tin˙), (2) a derivational suffix (krt or taddhita), or by (3) a compound. When the karaka¯ notion of a˚ noun is unexpressed by any of these means, then to express that notion a case suffix is added after it by the rules coming under º;na;a;Ba; a;h;tea (not expressed otherwise) (A. 2.3.1). If the karaka¯ notion is already expressed by the mentioned means then the noun is added with a nominative 358 P. JOSHI suffix to denote the mere sense of its nominal base. In (15), the verbal ending -ti stands for the karaka¯ notion kartr. So the noun devadatta whose kartr notion is already expressed,˚ takes the nom- ˚ inative suffix (A. 2.3.46). But the karaka¯ notion karman of kat.a is unexpressed, and hence kat.a is employed with the accusative suffix to express the same. While in 16,

(16) k+:fH ; a;kÒ+:ya;tea Á ‘A mat is being made.’ the notion karman of kat.a is already expressed by the verbal ending -te (A. 3.4.69), hence the accusative cannot be used. The predicate verb thus governs the case sufﬁx of a noun via assigning to it a karaka¯ role. But mere assignment of karaka¯ role is not enough for governing case. The principle of abhihita/anabhihita works in between as a condition. The condition is that the karaka¯ notion has to be unexpressed. If the karaka¯ notion is already expressed then the noun is required to take the nominative, otherwise it is required to take the appropriate case denoting the karaka¯ in question. A. 2.3.1 and the following rules deal with the case afﬁxes and the karaka¯ notions expressed by them.

4.2 Government of an indeclinable and a noun Several indeclinable words in Sanskrit govern case afﬁxes of nouns, e.g.

(17) h:=+yea na;maH Á ‘salutation to Hari.’

The indeclinable word namas governs the dative of the noun hari (A. 2.3.16). The indeclinable antara¯ (between) governs the accusative (A. 2.3.4) as in the following example:

(18) º;nta:=+a tva;Ma ma;Ma ..ca k+:ma;¾q+.luH Á ‘The pot is between you and me.’ ONCONCORDANDGOVERNMENT 359

This case afﬁxation is traditionally called upapadavibhakti, case governed by an adjoining word (usually an indeclinable). It includes the items termed karmapravacan¯ıya, like anu which governs the accusative (A. 2.3.8) as in (19) va:»a;ma;nuax ‘towards a tree’, adhi which governs the locative (A. 2.3.9) as in ú (20) º; a;Da :pa:ã*.a;a;le+.SuaÁ ‘over Pañc¯ ala’,¯ and apa which governs the ablative (A. 2.3.10) as in (21) º;pa ; a:a;ga;teRa;ByaH va;;eax :de;vaH Á ‘It rained except in Trigarta.’ Besides an indeclinable, some adjectives also are found to govern the case of nouns. Consider examples (22) and (23). (22) ma;a;ta;a:= .sa;a;DuaH ‘honest towards his mother’

(23) a. k+:mRa; a;¾a ku+:Za;lH ‘efﬁcient in work’ b. k+:mRa;¾aH ku+:Za;lH ‘efﬁcient in work’

The adjective sadhu¯ requires its constituent member to be in the locative (A. 2.3.43). The adjective kusala´ requires its constituent member to be either in the locative or in the genitive (A. 2.3.40). Similarly the adjective utsuka governs either the locative or instrumental case in accordance with A. 2.3.44, for example, (24) a. :ke+:Zea;Sua o+.tsua;kH ‘concerned about hair.’ b. :ke+:ZEaH o+.tsua;kH ‘concerned with hair.’

5 Conclusions

Concord-government patterns occupy a central place in the syntax of Sanskrit. Concord relations can be viewed as complete or partial. They are complete for a noun and a gun.avacana (expressive of 360 P. JOSHI a property) in the sense that the noun and gun.avacana word agree in all features of gender, case, and number. They are also complete for a verb and noun agreeing in person and number. The concord involving taddhita-deleted words and nouns in apposition may be partial with guarantee only of case. Pan¯ .inian rules of verbal endings provide for the concord between a verb and noun. But there are no rules in this system which make an obvious statement of the concord between an adjective and a noun. The reason seems to be Pan¯ .ini’s lack of treating adjectives as categorically distinct from nouns. Patañjali explains it taking resort to the principle of sam¯ an¯ adhikaran¯ .ya (apposition). Pan¯ .ini sufﬁciently provides for the government relations between a verb and noun, indeclinable and noun, and adjective and noun. The concept of sam¯ an¯ adhika-¯ ran.ya (apposition) provides a basis to explain the concord relation among items. As to the government between a verb and noun, it is the concept of anabhihita (not expressed otherwise) that provides the ground. Understanding these concepts would help in analyzing a Sanskrit sentence.

References

Bloomﬁeld, Leonard. 1935. Language. London: George Allen and Unwin. Ghatage, A. M. 1983. “Systematics of Pan¯ .ini’s As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı.” Pro- ceedings of the International Seminar on Studies in the As.t.a-¯ dhyay¯ ¯ı of Pan¯ . ini, ed. by S. D. Joshi and S. D. Laddu, pp. 17– 21. Pune: University of Poona. Joshi, S. D. and J. A. F. Roodbergen. 1993. The As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı of Pan¯ . ini: with translation and explanatory notes. Vol. 2. New Delhi: Sahitya Akademi. Palmer, F. R. 1971. Grammar. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Parse trees for erroneous sentences

DIPESH KATIRA and MALHAR KULKARNI

Abstract: Many idiomatic peculiarities of Sanskrit have been explicitly noted in the As..tadhyay¯ ¯ı. However, a similar account of others observed in Puran¯ .ic, epic and classical Sanskrit usage is missing. Charudeva Shastri in his book Vagvyavah¯ ar¯ adar¯ sa´ has taken a note of numerous such usages. In the second half of this book, he presents a corpus of six hundred and fifty-five sentences drawn from modern Sanskrit literature which he deems to be erroneous on various grounds. In around fifty-one of those sentences, he points out errors in the usage of sup-suffixes. In this paper, we attempt to comprehend the discussions that explain the errors in a few of these sentences and to fathom the reasoning involved. Based on the discussions, we wish to come up with directive rules for avoiding the errors mentioned and then try to tally them with positive descriptions such as found in Speijer’s (1886) Sanskrit syntax. We also attempt to present karaka¯ trees for these erroneous sentences with a hope that they prove to be valuable to the machine translation systems being developed by various institutions.

Keywords: erroneous sentences, parse trees, dependency trees, karaka,¯ modern Sanskrit literature.

1 Introduction

This work aims to examine the way in which errors in modern Sanskrit usage are viewed by traditional Sanskrit scholarship. The

361 362 D. KATIRA AND M.KULKARNI work is part of a project undertaken by us to edit, annotate and discuss the three main modern works in this regard, namely, the Sa-´ bdapa¯ sabdaviveka´ and Vagvyavah¯ ar¯ adar¯ sa´ by Charudev Shastri (1955, 1976), and the Suddhikaumud´ ¯ı by Janardan Hegde (2004). These three works together give us a collection of more than a thousand sentences that are deemed erroneous by the authors of these works. While listing erroneous sentences, these authors also discuss the causes of errors; these discussions are of particular interest to us. The methodology in analysing these works relies mainly on comprehending the discussions that explain the errors and on fathoming the reasoning involved. The idea is to analyse the reasoning and arguments in as neutral a manner as possible. For the purpose of the present paper, we focus only on the sentences with errors in the usage of sup-sufﬁxes mentioned in one of these three texts, namely the Vagvyavah¯ ar¯ adar¯ sa´ . It is well-known that nominal terminations (sup) in Sanskrit are deployed in the following situations:

• when a certain karaka¯ relation is to be denoted • to denote the same sense as that expressed by the pratipadika¯ • to denote various relations (like servant-served relation etc.) that are not karaka¯ relations • to denote the connection of a word with a karmapravacan¯ıya • when a word cooccurs with another word speciﬁcally listed in the As..tadhyay¯ ¯ı. There cannot be any function-based theoretical explanation for the assignment of the sañjña¯ karman to the substrate (adh¯ ara¯ ) of the action refered to by adhi-s´¯ın˙, adhi-stha¯, and adhi-as¯ by ñÍ • A. 1.4.46 º; a;Da;Za;a;*óéÔ. :a;a;sa;MaÁ k+:mRa and for the consequent second case. The second case is assigned merely to adhere to the idiom of Sanskrit. Many such idiomatic PARSETREESFORERRONEOUSSENTENCES 363 peculiarities of Sanskrit have been explicitly noted in the As..ta-¯ dhyay¯ı. However, a similar account of others observed in Puran¯ .ic, epic and classical Sanskrit usage is missing. Charudev Shastri has taken note of numerous such usages, a few of which have been taken up for discussion in this paper.

2 Modern Sanskrit

Although the term ‘modern Sanskrit literature’ is often used by scholars, the exact period to be referred to by the term ‘modern’ in this context is not standardized. However, writers on modern San- skrit such as Raghunathacarya (2002), Shukla (2002), and Ran- ganath (2003) consider the literature composed from the 19th century onwards as modern Sanskrit literature. Mishra (2000) in the preface of his recently compiled work Vim˙ sa´ sat´ abd¯ ¯ısamskr˙ taka-¯ vyamr¯ tam remarks, ˚ ˚ va;~tua;taH ; a;va;ga;ta d;ea Za;ta;a;//a;b.d;ya;e

3 Error analysis

The word ‘error’ has different meanings and usages relative to how it is conceptually applied. The meaning of the Latin word is ‘wandering’ or ‘straying’. An error is hence a deviation from accuracy 364 D. KATIRA AND M.KULKARNI or correctness. The term ‘error’ is defined in different ways according to the context and the subject in which it is used. In the case of language, an individual language user’s deviations from standard language norms in grammar, syntax, pronunciation and punctuation are referred to as errors. The term ‘error’ is of prime importance in applied linguistics. Johnson and Johnson (1999) define this term as ‘breach of a language code resulting in an unacceptable utterance.’ They also contrast errors with lapse or mis- take. According to them, lapses or mistakes are the result of a failure of performance, while errors are due to an incorrect grasp of the language. Errors have always been a subject of interest not only for linguists but also for researchers from other spheres such as psychol- ogy, mathematics, etc. Error analysis views the errors positively. Errors help teachers to find out how far the pupils have progressed and what remains for them to be learnt. To a researcher in linguistics they provide evidence of how language is learnt and of the strategies and procedures the learners tend to employ. Errors for learners are tools for testing their hypotheses about the nature of the language they are learning. Error analysis is of particular interest in second language learning. Just as the incorrect utterances of children provide important clues regarding child language acquisi- tion, errors committed during learning a second language provide evidence of a built-in syllabus (a definite system of language at every point in the course of its development) of the second language learners. Here an efficient language teaching model may be prescribed based on clues provided by the errors.

4 The standard of correct Sanskrit

Generally, to do error analysis in any language, the speech of the native speakers of that language is considered as standard. Er- PARSETREESFORERRONEOUSSENTENCES 365 rors are determined by contrasting the utterances of those who are learning that language as their second language with this standard. By collecting these contrasting utterances, a corpus of deviations from the target language norms is compiled. The deviations in this corpus are then classified in various ways. Thus, to determine deviations, we have to determine the standard first. To determine the standard, the structure underlying the speech of native speakers (at various levels) is sought to be understood and formally laid down in the form of rules. The utterences of second language learners are tested against these rules. In the present study, all the modern Sanskrit literature that is printed and published comes under the purview of this work. Our focus is on the corpus of six hundred and fifty-five (seemingly erroneous) sentences compiled by Charudev Shastri in general, and on the sentences deemed to be erroneous on the grounds of im- proper use of sup-suffixes in particular. We critically examine various reasons assigned by Shastri for deeming them erroneous and attempt to frame directive rules for avoiding such errors and forming sentences agreeable to the idiom of Sanskrit. We wish to see whether these directive rules throw any light on the positive description of Sanskrit available in works like Speijer (1886). We also wish to trace the new trends in Sanskrit usage current due to various factors and try to see which errors (as per traditional grammarians) can be easily accomodated in the structural framework of Sanskrit. We also take into consideration several usages that have gained currency post Shastri’s works and attempt to deliber- ate upon how they can be accounted for. As discussed above, determining the standard and contrasting the usages with the standard forms the core of error analysis. To- day it cannot be said with reasonable surety about even a single speaker of Sanskrit that a person has acquired Sanskrit as his/her mother tongue through a family tradition that can be traced back to antiquity. It is therefore preferable to stick to Charudev Shas- 366 D. KATIRA AND M.KULKARNI tri’s idea of considering the usages of the learned (sis´ ..ta) as standard. Shastri quotes the famous lines from the Mahabh¯ as¯. ya on A. 6.3.109 to specify his idea of sis´ .t.a: º;a;ya;Ra;va;teRa ; a;na;va;a;sea yea b.ra;a;;¾a;aH ku+:}Ba;a;Da;a;nya;a º;l+.ea;lu+.pa;a º;ga-x ñÍ ;hùÅ:a;ma;a;¾a;k+.=+¾a;aH ; a;k+: a:ã*.a;d;nta:=e+¾aúÁ k+:~ya;a; a;(ãa; a;dÉ õ;dùÅ;a;a;ya;aH :pa;a:=+ç*:+.ta;a-Å ;~ta:a;Ba;va;ntaH ; a;Za;;aH Á

However, one can easily make out from various sources that Shas- tri cites in his work to determine correct usages that many authors post Mahabh¯ as¯. ya also find place in Shastri’s list of sis´ .t.as. For example, Shastri (1976: 94) cited the Amarakosa´ , which is posterior to the Mahabh¯ as¯. ya, to evidence a point discussed below in §5.5. Yet Shastri’s list of sis´ .t.as ends with several authentic writers of Classical Sanskrit. We accept this idea of sis´ .t.as from Shastri and further propose to conceptualize this list as an open-ended one which can include more authentic writers of modern times as well. Language is a flow. An attempt to completely curb this flow with a rigid rule set can lead to its complete ruin. However, language is also a system. An exhaustive discription of a language is equally desirable at all times to serve as banks of this flow regularizing it and determining its domain so that it does not flood and disrupt ordinary behavior (vyavahara¯ ). With the advancement of time, new concepts and situations are created and many old ones become extinct. For a vibrant language,1 which adapts itself to changing situations, the entry of new usages with changing times is inevitable. However, at the same time the inherent system ensures that these new usages are suitable to the idiom of the language. Slowly these new usages get assimilated into the system and then govern the entry of newer

1Details of 34 periodicals in Sanskrit are available on the following page of the popular Sanskrit Documents website: http://sanskritdocuments. org/news/SanskritNewspapersandMagazines.html PARSETREESFORERRONEOUSSENTENCES 367 ones. Holding the usage of sis´ .t.as as standard is indeed appropriate, especially in the absence of native speakers who can validate various usages intuitively. However, we propose an open-ended group (similar to the concept of an akr¯ tigan.a found in Pan¯ .inian grammar) wherein authentic new writers˚ of modern Sanskrit can be assimilated.

5 Discussion of erroneous sentences

5.1 Sentence 1 ú ëÐÅ (1) I+.h Ba;a:=+tea :pa:ã*.a;sa;h;~Á å:a;va;SeRa;ByaHò :pra;a; a;ëÐ*:+:ma; a;paÁ ma;tMa na;a;sa;a;d;nya:a ;vEa; a;d;k+:a;t,a Á (180)2 Here in India, ﬁve thousand years ago, there was no religion other than the Vedic religion.

5.1.1 Shastri’s comments :pa:ã*.a;sa;h;~úÁ å:a;a;ma; a;taò .sa;ma;a;saH :pa:ã*.a;a; a;Da;kMúÁ .sa;h;~å:a;ma;a;hò na tua :pa:ã*.aúÁ .sa- ;h;~å:a;a;¾a;a; a;taò ; a;va; a;d;tMa ; a;va;du;Sa;a;m,a Á .tea;na :pa:ã*.a;Bya;eaúÁ va;SRa;sa;h;~å:ea;Byaò I+. a;ta va;u +:mua; a;.ca;ta;m,a Á ta;d; a;pa .sa;d;ea;SMa ; a;va;va; a:»a;ta;a;Ta;Ra;sa;ma;pRa;¾a;a;t,a Á na ; a;h ta- ;taH :pUa;v a ;vEa; a;d;ke+:ta:=+n}å.a;tMa na;a;sa;a; a;d; a;ta ; a;va;va:»a; a;ta Á .tea;nea;taH :pa:ã*.a;suaúÁ va;SRa;sa;h;~å:ea;/a;Sva; a;tava;+:v.ya;m,aò Á º;sa;kx +:a;a;ya;ma;Ta;eRa ; a;va;va;tax I+. a;ta nea;h ; a;va;ta;nya;tea Á Scholars know well that the compound pañcasaha- sra means one thousand and ﬁve and not ﬁve thousand. Hence it would be appropriate to say pañca- bhyo vars. asahasrebhyah. instead of pañcasahasrava- rs. ebhyah. . This sentence would also be wrong as it does not deliver the expected meaning. The author does not mean that there was no religious belief other

2The numbers in parenthesis written after each sentence hereafter stand for the number of that sentence in Shastri 1976. 368 D. KATIRA AND M.KULKARNI

than belief in Vedic religion before that. Hence, one should paraphrase the sentence as itah. pañcasu vars. asahasres. u. I have already explained this point several times before, so I am not elaborating upon it here again.

There are two issues that Charudev Shastri discusses regarding this sentence.

1. The word pañcasahasra: Elsewhere in his writing (e.g. 1976: 103), he has already clarified that just as in the case of words like ekada¯ sa´ the compound is traditionally analyzed as ekadhik¯ ah¯ . dasa´ to deliver the precise meaning ‘eleven’, so too here the compound pañcasahasra should be analyzed as pañcadhika¯ m˙ sahasram and thereby mean ‘one thousand and five’ and not ‘five thousand’ as intended by the author of the sentence under consideration. To mean ‘five thousand’ the speaker would have to say pañca sahasran¯ . i without compounding the two words.

2. Shastri also finds a problem in the phrase pañcasahasrava- rs. ebhyah. prak¯ . Interpreted literally, it does not refer to the situation five thousand years ago; instead it refers to the situation before five thousand years.

Hence Shastri suggests a different and a more apt way of conveying the meaning intended. ú (10) I+.taH :pa:ã*.a;suaÁ va;SRa;sa;h;~å:ea;Suaò I+.h Ba;a:=+tea ; a;k+:ma; a;pa ma;tMa na;a;sa;a;d;nya:a ;vEa; a;d- ;k+:a;t,a Á

5.1.2 Discussion According to Charudeva Shastry one should use the uncom- pounded phrase pañca sat´ ani¯ to mean ‘five hundred’. However, the PARSETREESFORERRONEOUSSENTENCES 369 question then arises, how do we make this whole number an adjective? The phrase pañca sat´ ani¯ rupyak¯ an¯ . i is not correct because the word sat´ ani¯ , does not denote the enumerated object (samkhyeya˙ ). Hence, it cannot qualify rupyak¯ an¯ . i. Shastri in his comments on the sentence under consideration provides us with one solution for this. The compound rupyaka¯ satam´ should be formed equivalent to the phrase rupyak¯ an¯ . a¯m˙ satam´ . Now rupyaka¯ satam´ is a tatpurus.a compound with the subsequent component sata´ as the principal element. Hence, its neuter gender and singular number are retained even in the compounded state. Rupyaka¯ satam´ can be deemed to be denoting the number (samkhy˙ a¯). The compound as a whole is now qualifiable by pañca. Thus we can say pañca rupyaka¯ sat´ ani¯ . This is the basis of using the phrase pañcasu vars. asahasres. u suggested by Charudev Shastri. Another way of expressing the same can be rupyak¯ an¯ . a¯m˙ pa- ñcasat´ ¯ı in accordance with the usage observed in the Pañcatantra, ú ú (1a) º:a ..ca ma;;a;Ma va; a:Max Bua:ê*+;a;na;a;na;MaÁ :pa;////a;¾q+.ta;a;na;Ma:pa:ã*.a;Za;ta;aÁ ; a;ta;+ a;ta Á (Jha 1994: 3). Here, the compound is derived in the following manner: pañca-¯ na¯m˙ sat´ an¯ a¯m˙ samah¯ arah¯ . = pañcasata´ + n˙¯ıp → pañcasat´ ¯ı.3 The compound when thus derived denotes a samkhy˙ a.¯ The samkhyeya˙ has to be connected to it with the sixth case. In the sentence under consideration, we may alternatively use this method and say ú (1b) I+.taH va;Sa;Ra;¾a;Ma :pa:ã*.a;sa;h;~Á å:ya;Maò I+.h Ba;a:=+tea ; a;k+:ma; a;pa ma;tMa na;a;sa;a;d;nya:a ;vEa; a;d;k+:a;t,a Á Both methods though grammatically correct are quite complex. Instead of saying ‘five thousand years’, had the author wanted to say ‘five thousand five hundred and fifty five years’, he would have to say, either (1c) or (1d).

3A. 2.4.30 varttika:¯ º;k+:a:=+a;nta;ea:a:=+pa;d;ea ; a;dõ;guaH ;///a;~:a;ya;MaBa;a;Sya;tea (MBh. I.480.1) and A. 4.1.21 ; a;dõ;ga;eaH. 370 D. KATIRA AND M.KULKARNI

ú ú ú ú (1c) I+.taH :pa:ã*.a;pa:Á ã*.a;a;Za;du:a:=e+SuaÁ :pa:ã*.a;suaÁ va;SRa;Za;ta;a; a;Da;ke+:Sua :pa:ã*.a;suaÁ va;SRa;sa;h;~å:ea;Suaò I+.h Ba;a:=+tea ; a;k+:ma; a;pa ma;tMa na;a;sa;a;d;nya:a ;vEa; a;d;k+:a;t,a Á ú ú ú ú (1d) I+.taH va;Sa;Ra;¾a;Ma :pa:ã*.a;pa:Á ã*.a;a;Za;du:a:=+a;ya;MaÁ :pa:ã*.a;Za;tya; a;Da;k+:a;ya;MaÁ :pa:ã*.a;sa;h;~Á å:ya;Maò I+.h Ba;a:=+tea ; a;k+:ma; a;pa ma;tMa na;a;sa;a;d;nya:a ;vEa; a;d;k+:a;t,a Á

Either is a verbose expression. Modern languages permit the use of ﬁgures instead. (2007: 127) justiﬁes the expression pañcasaha- sravars. ebhyah. saying the following: ; a;dõ;gua; a;¾a;tMa Za;ta;m,a = ; a;dõ;Za;ta;m,a, ; a:a;gua; a;¾a;tMa Za;ta;m,a = ; a:a;Za;ta;m,a I+.tyea- ;vMa va;yMa ; a;va;g{a;h;va;a;k+.aM va;d;a;maH Á ma;Dya;ma;pa;d;l+.ea;pa;a .sa;ma;a;saH º:a va;+:v.yaH Á .sa ..ca ta;tpua:+:Sa;Bea;dH Á

This is perhaps the only way to justify the use of the expression pa- ñcasata´ m˙ rupyak¯ an¯ . i found on the Indian currency notes of rupees 500. However, the question as to how more complex numbers may be represented with convenience still remains unanswered. Just as one would say pañcasatam´ , should it be also permitted to say pa- ñcasahasrapañcasatapañcapañc´ a¯sat´ or pañcapañca¯sadadhikapa-´ ñcasat´ adhikapañcasahasram¯ ? Moreover, for ease of writing, if a modern writer wishes to write numbers in ﬁgures then questions like the following may arise:

• How is he supposed to use it in various cases, e.g. 5555su vars. es. u? • What would be a uniform method for representing dates like 5/4/2013?4

• How to write ordinals, e.g. 555tame vars.e? 4It should be noted that Shastri (1976: 165) rules out even the use of the word ñÍ dina¯nka˙ . The following are his comments: ..ca;tua;dR;Za; a;d;na;a;öÐÅ*:eÅ I+. a;ta k+://////a;pa;ta;eanUa;ta;na;ea v.ya- ;va;h;a:=H :pa:=+}å.pa:=+a;¾ea;na v.ya;va;h;a:=e+¾a ; a;va;sMa;va;d;ta;a; a;ta na;a;dx;tyaH Á ‘..ca;tua;dR;Zea ; a;d;nea’ I+.tyea;va :pa;ya;Ra;p~ya; a;ta Á º;öÐÅ*:+.Za;b.de;nañÅ Í na;a;TRaH Á PARSETREESFORERRONEOUSSENTENCES 371

The construction pañcasahasravars. ebhyah. prak¯ is a clear imitation of constructions prevalent in Hindi and other North-Indian languages. In Hindi a sentence like (1e)

(1e) :pa;

ba;hu ;ByaH .sMa;va;tsa:=e+ByaH :pUa;v a .sUa; a;+.=+a;a;k+.=H na;a;ma ma;h;a;Ba;a;Sya;f;a- ;k+:a h;~ta; a;l+.a;Ka;ta:+.pa;ama;ya;a .sa;ma; a;Da;ga;ta;a Á

Another problem with this usage is that two words, itah. (which is implied) and pañcasahasravars. ebhyah. present themselves to fulfill the expectancy of prak¯ leading to ambiguity. It would be difficult to know whether the author means before now or before five thousand years ago. Hence, a more correct way to construct a sentence that would deliver the intended meaning accurately would be (1f). ú (1f) I+.taH :pa:ã*.a;a;BaHÁ va;SRa;sa;h;~å:EaHò :pUa;v a I+.h Ba;a:=+tea ; a;k+:ma; a;pa ma;tMa na;a;sa;a;d;nya:a ;vEa; a;d;k+:a;t,a Á Å • A. 2.1.31 :pUa;vRa;sa;dx;Za;sa;ma;ea;na;a;TRa;k+:l+.h; a;na;pua;¾a;a;ma;(ra:(ì;;»¾EaHÉ supports the use of the third case in relation to the word purva¯ . Also, with such a construction there would be just one word itah. 372 D. KATIRA AND M.KULKARNI in the ablative case to fulfil the expectancy of purva¯ . Thus, this kind of a construction would be the most efficient in conveying the intended meaning. However, Shastri (1976: 40) rules out the use of such a sentence, though perfect, on the grounds that such a construction has never been used by the sis´ .t.as. Shastri remarks: .sa;vRa;Ta;a ; a;na:=+va;dùÅ;a;ea Y;pya;yMa :pra;k+:a:=+ea na ta;a;va;tpra;ma;a;¾a;k+:ea; a;fM ; a;na; a;va- ;Za;tea ya;a;va;a ; a;Za;EH .sa;ma;TRa;na;Ma l+.Ba;tea Á

Such a construction is also not seen in modern Sanskrit writings. Hence it does not deserve much attention. Shastri suggests two other ways of communicating the intended meaning accurately. One is to make a sentence such as ú (1g) º;dùÅ;a :pa:ã*.aÁ va;SRa;sa;h;~å:a;a;¾a;a;hò Ba;a:=+tea ;vEa; a;d;ke+:ta:=e+Sa;Ma ma;ta;a;na;a;ma; a;va;dùÅ;a;ma;a;na;a- ;na;a;m,a Á

Another is the way it has been demonstrated above in (10). Both usages are acceptable to the sis´ .t.as; however Shastri (1976: 39) explains the exact difference in the expression and the sensibility to select the appropriate one of them in different situations in the following words: ëÐÅ ñÍ :pra;Ta;maH :pra;k+:a:=+~tua ë*:+: a;.ca;de;vaÁ .sa;ç*:+.taHÅ .~ya;a;t,a Á ta:a ; a;h k+:a;l- +. a;va;Zea;Sa;~ya;a; a;ta;kÒ+:a;nta;~ya ; a;va;Zea;Sa;¾a;a;BUa;ta;a ; a;kÒ+:ya;a kx +:tpra;tya;ya;a;ntea;na :Sa;.a;ntea;na;ea;.cya;ta I+. a;ta k+:a;l+.a;pea:»a;ya;a :pra;v.ya;+:a ta;~ya;a ga;Ea;¾a;ta;a Á ta- ;sma;a;dùÅ;a:Ea;vMa; a;va;DaH ; a;kÒ+:ya;a;k+:a;l+.ea Y;a;Ba;prea;ya;tea ta:Ea;vEa;Sa :pra;k+:a:= º;Ea;pa- ; a;ya;k+:ea nea;ta:=;a Á ya:a tua ; a;kÒ+:ya;a :pra;a;Da;a;nyea;na ; a;va;va:»ya;tea ; a;ta;z+.a ..ca;ea;.cya;tea ta:a k+:a;l+. a;na;deR;ZaH .sa;a;}yEa;va yua; I+. a;ta ; a;dõ;ta;a;ya O;;va :pra;k+:a:=+~ta:a yua;+.+.pa I+. a;ta :pa;Zya;a;maH Á

The ﬁrst type (1g) should be employed when the time that has passed away is intended to be emphasized. The action is expressed by words ending in a krt sufﬁx. The second type (10) is used when ˚ PARSETREESFORERRONEOUSSENTENCES 373 the action is to be given more focus by employing verbal terminations (tin˙) and the time is indicated in the locative case in a subordinate manner. Figure 1 summarizes the discussion above.

Figure 1 Sentence 1

Iha bharate¯ pañcasahasravars. ebhyah. prak¯ kimapi matam˙ nas¯ ¯ıd anyatra vaidikat.¯

5.1.3 Directive rules 1. A compound with numerals used for denoting numbers larger than one hundred should be such that the thing counted comes as the ﬁrst component followed by numbers like sata´ , sahasra, etc. Additional numbers should be indicated by separate words that indicate samkhyeyas˙ and qualify these compounds.5

5Editor: Adjectival compounds of the type pañcasahasra in the sense of 5,000 are not only common but are justiﬁed by Pan¯ .inian grammar. Whitney (1889: 374 D. KATIRA AND M.KULKARNI

2. To indicate a particular period in the past, words like adya and itah. should be used in the sentence. The words denoting years should be put in the locative case.6

5.2 Sentence 2 (2) gua:+:¾a;a ku+:Za;l+.pra:(îéae kx +:tea .sa; a;ta ta;a;ma;tTa;mua:a:=+ya; a;ta ; a;d;l+.a;paH Á (95) A question regarding his welfare having been posed by his teacher, Dil¯ıpa answers it in this way. 179–81) §477c, d . . . §481 cites several and specifically provides examples of s. at.sat´ ani¯ in the sense of 600 not 106. Bohtlingk and Roth provide examples with citations, e.g. of dvisata´ in the sense of 200 as well as 102. The Ka¯si-´ ka¯ provides examples of adjectival compounds whose meaning is the product of two numbers. Under A. 2.2.25, for example, the example dvidasáh¯ . is provided of a bahuvr¯ıhi compound in the sense of a counted object (sankhyeya˙ ). On this Jine- ndrabuddhi specifically describes the sense as multiplicative rather than additive writing: ; a;dõ;d;Za;aH I+. a;ta Á ; a;dõ;dR;Zea; a;ta ; a;va;g{a;hH Á .sua:ja;TeRa Y;yMa .sa;ma;a;saH Á d;Za;sa;}ba;////a;nDa;na;a ya;a- ;va; a;ta:=,x d;Za;Za;b.de;na l+»ya;ma;a;¾a;a .sa;a ; a;dõ;Za;b.de;na;a;K.ya;a;ya;tea Á Under A. 5.4.73 Jinendrabu- ñÍ ddhi gives the examples dvisat´ ah¯ . and trisat´ ah¯ . and comments: ta;Ea;va; a;pa .sa;*ËÉ +;ae;yeaùÁ va;teRa- ñÍ ;ta O;;va, .sa;*ËÉ +;ae;ya;ta;yEa;vaùÁ va;a;tRa;~ya .sua:ja;TRa;~ya ..ca;a;a;Ba;Da;a;na;a;t,a Á Such compounds are therefore adjectives meaning 2 x 10 = 20, 3 x 10 = 30. Therefore pañcasahasra is a valid bahuvr¯ıhi compound in the sense of 5,000 years and the phrase pañcasahasre- s. u vars. es. u is just as good as Shastri’s recommended pañcasu vars. asahasres. u. Nevertheless, the compounding of such numeric adjectives with nouns denoting the counted objects is restricted. Although such compounds would be permitted by the general rule A. 2.1.57 ; a;va;Zea;Sa;¾Ma ; a;va;Zea;Syea;na ba;hu ;l+.m,a, A. 2.1.50 (p. 383) serves to restrict such compounds to sañjñas¯ such as saptars. ayah. . The compound pa- ñcasahasravars. a would be in violation of that restriction. The same issue arrises in §5.5. 6Editor: Usages such as navame ’hani and saptadase´ ’hani mean on the ninth day or seventeenth day from now. They use an ordinal rather than a cardinal number. To indicate similarly a time in the past 5,000 years ago, one would say itah. purvam¯ pañcame vars. asahasre or pañcasahasratame vars. e ‘in the fifth millenium’ or ‘in the five-thousandth year before now’ rather than itah. pañca- su vars. asahasres. u ‘in five millenia’. However, the usage Sastri proposed but deemed not used to indicate a time prior to now by 5,000 years (1f) should be sought further before being dismissed. PARSETREESFORERRONEOUSSENTENCES 375

5.2.1 Shastri’s comments gua:+:¾a;a kx +:tMa ku+:Za;l+.pra:(îéa;mua:a:=+ya;ta;a; a;ta va;+:v.ya;m,a Á Ba;a;va;l+»a;¾a;a;ya;aH .sa;a;}ya;a .nEa;Sa ; a;va;Sa;ya I+. a;ta :pUa;va;Ra:;dÄâeR .sa; a;va;~ta:=M ; a;na;ga; a;d;ta;a;ma; a;ta ta;ta O;;va;a;va;Da;a;yRa;m,a Á One should rather say gurun. a¯ krtam˙ kusalapra´ snam´ uttarayati. It has already been clearly˚ explained in the ﬁrst section that the use of the seventh case indica- tive of action (bhavalaks¯ . an. a¯ saptam¯ı) is inappropriate here. The ﬁrst section may be referred to for details.

Shastri engages in an elaborate discussion in the ﬁrst section of the Vagvyavah¯ ar¯ adar¯ sa´ regarding the locative absolute construction, the interpretation of • A. 2.3.37 ya;~ya ..ca Ba;a;vea;na Ba;a;va;l+»a;¾a;m,a (.sa;a;ma;a 36) The seventh vibhakti occurs after a nominal base the action of which characterizes another action. and the opinions of various grammarians regarding it. He (1976: 35) concludes as follows: ya;~ya k+:tRuaH k+:mRa;¾a;ea va;a ; a;kÒ+:ya;a ; a;kÒ+:ya;a;nta:=+~ya l+»a;¾Ma Ba;va; a;ta .sa ..cea;t,a k+:ta;Ra k+:mRa va;a ; a;kÒ+:ya;a;nta:=+a;(ra;ya;a;t,a k+:tRuaH k+:mRa;¾a;ea va;a ;a;Ba;dùÅ;ae;ta ta:Ea;va .sa;a;ma;a .~ya;a;t,a, º;Bea;de tua ma;a BUa; a;d; a;ta.

The kartr or karman bringing about the indicating (laks. aka) action should be˚ different from the kartr or karman participating in the ˚ action indicated (laks. ya). Only then is such a use of the seventh case appropriate. In (2), the indicating action of posing (karan. a) and the indicated action of answering (uttaran. a) both belong to the same object, namely the question (prasna´ ). Hence Shastri deems this sentence erroneous and prefers (20) instead.

(20) gua:+:¾a;a kx +:tMa ku+:Za;l+.pra:(îéa;mua:a:=+ya; a;ta ; a;d;l+.a;paH Á ‘Dil¯ıpa answers the question regarding his welfare posed by his teacher.’ 376 D. KATIRA AND M.KULKARNI

5.2.2 Discussion Whether the subjects of the two actions (i.e., the one that indicates and the one that is indicated) must be different or may be the same is not clear either from the statement of A. 2.3.37 or from the various discussions available on the rule in the tradition. Shastri quotes the following words from the Bhas¯. avr¯ tti of Purus.ottamadeva: ˚ ya;~ya ; a;kÒ+:ya;ya;aY;nya;~ya ; a;kÒ+:ya;a;nta:=M l+»ya;tea ta;taH .sa;a;ma;a ‘The seventh (vibhakti) occurs after that by the action of which another action is characterized.’ Consider the following sentence: ú (2a) .=+a;mea va;nMa :pra; a;ta;+ma;a;nea .sa ; a;pa;tuaH :pra; a;ta;¼a;a;mea;va ma;na;~ya;k+.=+ea;a;a;nya;//a;tk+: a:ã*.a-Á ;t,a Á (Shastri 1976: 35) ‘Rama setting out for the forest, he kept in his mind just his father’s oath and nothing else.’ According to Shastri’s conclusion, (2a) would not be correct. Here the kartr of both the indicating action of setting out (prasthana¯ ) ˚ and the indicated action of keeping (karan. a) is Rama.¯ The case of the following sentence is a little different: ñÍ (2b) h;tea d;Za;a;~yea ; a;va;Ba;a;Sa;¾a;ea l+.öÐÅ*:+.a:=+a:$yeaÅ Y;a;Ba; a;Sa; a;Sa;.cea .=+a;mea;¾a Á (Shastri 1976: 35) ‘The ten-headed one (Ravan¯ .a) having been slain, Vibh¯ıs.an.a t.as consecrated in the rulership or Lank˙ a¯ by Rama.’¯ ˚ Here also the kartr of both the indicating action of slaying (ha- ˚ nana) and indicated action of consecrating (abhis. ecana) is Rama.¯ However, the use of the bhavalaks¯ .an.a¯ saptam¯ı would be appropriate here. In the previous sentence, both words indicating action were in agreement with the kartr. Here although the kartr is the same, the words indicating action˚ are in agreement with˚ the karman and not with the kartr. Hence, the identity of kartr in this ˚ ˚ case does not restrict the use of the bhavalaks¯ .an.a¯ saptam¯ı. PARSETREESFORERRONEOUSSENTENCES 377

The case of (2) is different from that of both (2a) and (2b). In (2), there are two actions involved, namely posing (karan. a) and answering (uttaran. a). The word indicating the ﬁrst action (krta) is in agreement with the word indicating the karman (prasna´ ).˚ Though the question is also the karman of the second action (uttaran. a), the word indicating that action is not in agreement with prasna´ . Rather, it is in agreement with the word indicating the kartr (dil¯ı- pa). Shastri has provided no explanation for deeming the sentence˚ as erroneous in this situation. Based on the discussions above we therefore form the directive rule as in §5.2.3. Moreover, if tam be considered as referring to the teacher (guru) of the previous clause, then the sentence would also have to be considered as correct. The tree in Figure 2 summarizes the discussion above. Figure 2 Sentence 2

Gurun. a¯ kusalapra´ sne´ krte sati tam ittham uttarayati dil¯ıpah. . ˚ 378 D. KATIRA AND M.KULKARNI

5.2.3 Directive rule

In the case of a bhavalaks¯ .an.a¯ saptam¯ı, the kartr or karman of the indicated action should not be same as that of the˚ kartr or karman with which the indicating action is in agreement.7 ˚

5.3 Sentence 3 (3) ya; a;d na;a;ma ta:a;ç"Å+nTa;a;Dya;a;pa;nMa .sMa;~kx +:ta O;;va Ba;vea:a;d;a ..cC+.a:a;a ba;hU ;pa;kx +:ta;aH .~yuaH Á (93) If the relevant books were taught in Sanskrit only, the students would be beneﬁted a lot.

5.3.1 Shastri’s comments .sMa;~kx +:tea;na Ba;vea; a;d;tyea;va .sa;a;Dua Á va;a;///a;gGak+.=+¾Ma dõ;a:=+ma;Dya;a;pa;na;~yea; a;ta txa;ta;a;yEa;va yua;+:a ya;dõ;a;.ca;aY;na;Byua; a;d;ta;a;ma;tya;a; a;d;Sua ta;Ta;a d;ZRa;na;a;t,a Á Saying samskr˙ tena bhavet (instead of samskr˙ te) would be correct,˚ since language is an instrument˚ or a means of teaching. The same is observed to be so in the usages such as

7Editor: In (2), the participles krta and sat refer to and characterize the ques- ˚ tion which is the karman of the action of answering (uttaran. a) which conditions the dvit¯ıya¯ vibhakti by A. 2.3.2. In (2b), A. 3.4.21 would require the use of an absolutive after the root denoting the action that takes place in prior time. Rama¯ is the agent of both the indicating action of slaying (hanana) and the indicated action of consecrating (abhis. ecana). Because the slaying occurs previously, A. 3.4.21 provides the afﬁx ktva¯ after the root han.Ravan¯ .a, as the karman of the action of slaying, would condition the dvit¯ıya.¯ The result would be in a sentence ñÍ such as (??) .=+a;mea;¾a d;Za;a;~yMa h;tva;a ; a;va;Ba;a;Sa;¾a;ea l+.öÐÅ*:+.a:=+a:$yeaÅ Y;a;Ba; a;Sa; a;Sa;.cea Á The sentence might pass if Rama’s¯ agency in the prior act of slaying is not desired to be expressed (avivaks. ita). Similarly by not (2) might pass by not intending the identity of the prasna´ as the karman of the action denoted by kr and as the karman of u- ˚ ttaran.a. PARSETREESFORERRONEOUSSENTENCES 379

(3a) ya;dõ;a;.ca;aY;na;Byua; a;d;ta;m,a Kena Upanis. ad 1.4a ‘which has not been expressed by speech’.

(30) ya; a;d na;a;ma ta:a;ç"Å+nTa;a;Dya;a;pa;nMa .sMa;~kx +:tea;nEa;va Ba;vea:a;d;a ..cC+.a:a;a ba;hU ;pa;kx +:ta;aH .~yuaH Á

5.3.2 Discussion Sentence (3) seems to be a faithful imitation of the case usage in Hindi, Marathi, etc. in such a context. The name of the language of instruction or communication is used with the preposition meMa in Hindi. The above sentence is a direct translation of the following Hindi sentence: . . . .sMa;~kx +:ta meMa h;a h;ea . . . . There is no such convention found in Sanskrit. Hence going by the literal meaning, the language being a medium or instrument of instruction should be represented in the instrumental case as in (30). Shastri substanti- ates his opinion by providing (3a). Many modern Sanskrit writers are tempted to use the locative instead. This very error can be shown with the help of Figure 3.

Figure 3 Sentence 3 Yadi nama¯ tattadgranthadhy¯ apana¯ m˙ samskr˙ ta eva bhavet tada¯ ˚ chatr¯ a¯ bahupakr¯ tah¯ . syuh. . ˚ 380 D. KATIRA AND M.KULKARNI

5.3.3 Directive rule The medium of communication (usually the name of a language) should be linked to the verb related to communication by the third case.

5.4 Sentence 4 (4) na;va;ea;Q+eaY;yMa yua;va;aY; a;ta;ma;a:a;ma;nua:=;$ya;tea va;Dva;a;m,a Á (17) This youth who has just married loves his wife excessively.

5.4.1 Shastri’s comments .~:a;a na;va;ea;Q+a Ba;va; a;ta Á :pua:+:Sa;~tua va;ea;Q+a Á va;h;na; a;kÒ+:ya;a;ya;Ma :pua:+:Sa;~ya k+:tRxa;tvMa ;///a;~:a;ya;a;(ãaÉ k+:mRa;tvMa :pra;a;sa:;dÄâ ;m,a Á :pa;a:=+vea:a;a;nua:ja;ea Y;nUa;Qe .$yea;e d;a:=+pa;a:=+g{a;h;a; a;d;tya:a;a;nUa;Qe I+.tya:a o+a:=+pa;d;l+.ea;pa;ea dÒ +;v.yaH Á º;nUa- ;Q+ea Y;nUa;Q+d;a:= I+.tya;TRaH Á O;;vMa :pa;a:=+¾a;ya; a;kÒ+:ya;a;ya;a;ma; a;pa dÒ +;v.ya;m,a Á .tea;na .sa;dùÅ;aH kx +:ta;d;a:=H º; a;.ca:=+kx +:ta; a;va;va;a;hH I+. a;ta va;a va;+:v.ya;m,a Á ta:a;a; a;.ca:=M kx +:ta;ea ; a;va;va;a;h;ea yea;nea; a;ta ; a;va;g{aH Á A woman is called navod. ha¯ ‘newly brought (home)’. A man is called vod. ha¯ ‘one who brings her’. It is well-known that a man is the subject and a woman is an object with reference to the action of bringing (home), i.e. getting married. In the sentence,

(4a) :pa;a:=+vea:a;a;nua:ja;ea Y;nUa;Qe .$yea;e d;a:=+pa;a:=+g{a;h;a;t,a Á ‘When an elder son is unwed, a younger son will marry after (the elder’s) taking of a wife.’

there is an elision of the subsequent component of the compound. anud¯ . ha ‘the one who is not brought (home)’ means anud¯ . hadara¯ ‘the one who has not brought his wife (home)’. The same is the case with the verb pari + n. ¯ı. Hence one should use either sa- dyah. krtadarah¯ . or acirakrtavivahah¯ . (to mean ‘just ˚ ˚ PARSETREESFORERRONEOUSSENTENCES 381

married’). The explanation of acirakrtavivaha¯ is the one who has married recently. ˚

The adjective navod. ha is usable only for a woman and not for a man. The reason is that it is the man who performs the function of bringing along (vahana), and it is the woman who is brought along by the man.

(40) .sa;dùÅ;aH kx +:ta;d;a:=H ... º; a;.ca:=+kx +:ta; a;va;va;a;h;ea Y;yMa yua;va;a; a;ta;ma;a:a;ma;nua:=;$ya;tea va;Dva;a;m,a Á

5.4.2 Discussion Words referring to the ubiquitous institution of marriage differ in different languages. The word in English is ‘marriage’ while that in Sanskrit is vivaha¯ . The primary meaning of the word ‘marriage’ is ‘an act of bringing about union’. In Sanskrit, one has to look at it as the act merely of a man. A woman is passive in this ritual. Thus the man is the kartr of the action referred to by vi + vah, while a woman is the karman.˚ The same is the case with other Sanskrit words denoting the ritual of marriage namely pari + n¯ı, upa + ya- m, pan¯ . igrahan. a etc. The differences in the constructions used to describe marriage are a classic example of how cultural contexts affect not only the vocabulary of a language but also syntactic relations, in this case karaka¯ relations. Figure 4 summarizes the discussion above.

5.4.3 Directive rule When roots concerning marriage such as vi + vah, pari + n¯ı, etc. are used, the man should be placed in the role of the kartr and a woman should be placed in the role of the karman. ˚ 382 D. KATIRA AND M.KULKARNI

Figure 4 Sentence 4

Navod. ho ’yam˙ yuvatim¯ atram¯ anurajyate vadhvam.¯

5.5 Sentence 5 (5) .sa;h;~å:a; a;d;v.ya;yua;ga;a;na;a;mea;kMò b.ra;a;M ; a;d;nMa Ba;va; a;ta Á (20) One day of brahman is equal to a thousand divine yugas.

5.5.1 Shastri’s comments .sa;h;~å:Maò ; a;d;v.ya;yua;ga;a;na;a; a;ta va;+:v.ya;m,a Á º;;a;d;Za ; a;na;mea;Sa;a;~tua k+:a;+a ; a:Ma;Za:ua ta;aH k+:l+.a I+.tya;a; a;d;Sua .sMa;¼a;a;sMa; a;¼a;na;eaH .sa;a;ma;a;na;a; a;Da;k+.=- ëÐÅ +¾yea;na :pra;ya;ea;ga;d;ZRa;na;a;t,a Á :Sa;+a tua du:+:pa;pa;a;d;a Á ë*:+: a;.ca;t,aÁ .sMa;¼a;a;sMa; a;¼a- ;Ba;a;va;ma; a;va;va; a:»a;tva;a k+.=+¾ea txa;ta;a;ya;a :pra;yua:ê*+;teaúÁ va;a; a;.ca k+:ea; a;va;d;aH Á dõ;Ea dõ;Ea ma;a;ga;Ra; a;d;ma;a;sa;Ea .~ya;a;dx;tua;~tEa:=+ya;nMa ; a:a;a;Ba;a:=+tya;ma:=e ya;Ta;a Á º:a Ba;va;ta;a; a;ta Zea;SaH Á One should say sahasram˙ divyayugani¯ instead, since the usage of the same case for the name and the thing named can be seen in the sentence PARSETREESFORERRONEOUSSENTENCES 383

(5a) º;;a;d;Za ; a;na;mea;Sa;a;~tua k+:a;+a ; a:Ma;Za:ua ta;aH k+:l+.aH Á (Ama- rakosa´ 1.4.11) ‘Eighteen nimes. as make one kas¯..tha¯ and thirty kas¯.t.has¯ make one kala¯.’ It is difﬁcult to substantiate the use of the sixth case here. At times, unwilling to express the relationship of name and the thing named, the experts of speech use the third case in the sense of instrument as can be observed in

(5b) dõ;Ea dõ;Ea ma;a;ga;Ra; a;d;ma;a;sa;Ea .~ya;a;dx;tua;~tEa:=+ya;nMa ; a:a;a;BaH Á (Ama- rakosa´ 1.4.13) ‘Each of the two months beginning with Marga¯ is a season (rtu). A course (of the sun) (ayana) (is constituted)˚ by three of these.’

In this construction the word bhavati ‘becomes’ is implied.

5.5.2 Discussion Shastri sees two problems with (5): 1. Compounding is not acceptable between sahasra and divya- yuga due to the constraint that such compounds are limited to conventional nouns by ñÍ • A. 2.1.50 ; a;d;#sa;*ËÉ +;aeùÁ .sa;V¼a;a;ya;a;m,a Á8 2. The sixth case in sahasradivyayugan¯ am¯ is inappropriate. He therefore suggests the following two possible revisions: (50) .sa;h;~å:Maò ; a;d;v.ya;yua;ga;a; a;na ... .sa;h;~å:ea;¾aò ; a;d;v.ya;yua;gEaH b.ra;a;M ; a;d;nMa Ba;va; a;ta Á

8Compare §5.1 and note 5. 384 D. KATIRA AND M.KULKARNI

What would have led the author of (5) to use the sixth case? The author of must have assumed a ses´ .a relation between the yugas and a day of brahman and deployed the sixth case in accordance with A. 2.3.50.9 One may say that yugas are the components (ava- yava) and a day of brahman is the whole possessed of them (ava- yav¯ı). But then the idea that a thousand divine yugas completely exhaust a day of brahman is not tapped. One may alternatively think of yugas as the original material (prakrti) and a day of brahman as its modiﬁcation (vikrti). But there is˚ no processing of the yugas in order to make a brahma˚¯ dina similar to the way one has to process gold to prepare ornaments. A thousand divine yugas are the components that make one brahma¯ dina. While neither of these two relations seems appropriate, the author must have conceived of some such relation to justify the use of the sixth case. Is there any rule ordaining the use of a particular case or prohibiting the use of the sixth case in such a usage? There is no particular rule in Pan¯ .ini ordaining any case or prohibiting the use of the sixth case in this situation. So the sixth case may be com- fortably used without violating any of Pan¯ .ini’s rules. Mere un- availability of any particular rule in Pan¯ .ini for a particular situation cannot be the basis for deployment of the sixth case according to Shastri. One has to look for the usages by the sis´ .t.as in similar situations. Accordingly Shastri advocates two other ways of expressing this idea drawing support from the usage found in the Amarakosa´ . Shastri conceptualizes two ways of looking at the relationship between a thousand divine ages (sahasradivyayugas) and a day of brahman (brahma¯ dina). One way is to look at them as two notions. Further, the notion of brahma¯ dina is based upon the notion of divya yugas. He thus rightly sees a nameable-name relationship between the two. The nameable and name have been used in the 9See Cardona Extension rules §2.2.2 (p. 61). PARSETREESFORERRONEOUSSENTENCES 385 same case (though their gender and/or number may be different at times) at numerable places in the classical literature. The following are a couple of examples:

(5c) Za;Ea;.ca;sa;nta;ea;Sa;ta;pa;s~va;a;Dya;a;yea:(õ;a:=+pra; a;¾a;Da;a;na;a; a;na ; a;na;ya;ma;aH Á (Patañjali Yogasutra¯ 2.32)

(5d) +:+:va;tUa ; a;na;+a Á (A. 1.1.26)

In (5c) the number of both the nameable and the name is the same. However, while the nameable is in neuter gender, the name is in masculine gender. In (5d) the nameables are used in the dual number while the name is used in the singular. One can neglect the nameable-name aspect existing between a thousand divine ages and a day of brahman and merely say that the former lead to the formation of the latter. However, as discussed above, both yuga and a day of brahman are notions. There is no actual process of formation of a day of brahman with yugas. Hence the use of the third case as per A. 2.3.18 is not completely justiﬁed. However, such a use is still valid as per Shasrti it is admitted by 10 the sis´ .t.as. Figure 5 summarises the above discussion.

5.5.3 Directive rule Several homogenous individual components constituting a whole are not to be represented in the sixth case assuming that they are the material causes of the whole. Instead nameable-named relation between the two should be expressed by representing both of them

10Editor: The use of the instrumental tribhih. in Amarakosa´ 1.4.13 is accounted for by A. 2.3.23 hetau. If, on the other hand, one supplies the verb as ‘to be’, then the three months are termed karana by A. 1.4.42 and the trt¯ıya¯ is provided by A. 2.3.18. In either case, the use is provided for by the astadhyayi¯ ˚ . 386 D. KATIRA AND M.KULKARNI

Figure 5 Sentence 5 Sahasradivyayugan¯ am¯ ekam˙ brahma¯ m˙ dinam˙ bhavati.

in the ﬁrst case. Alternatively such individual components should be deemed as instruments triggering the action and represented in the instrumental case.

5.6 Sentence 6 (6) ma;h;a;tma;a;Ba:=+ a;pa .sa;ma;ma;na;TRa;kM ; a;dõ;Sa;////a;ntama;l+.a;ma;sa; a;Da;yaH Á (36) The wicked-hearted nurture hatred even for great men.

5.6.1 Shastri’s comments ; a;dõ;Sa º;pra;ta;a;ta;a; a;va; a;ta .sa;k+:mRa;kH Á ta;Ta;a ..ca ku+:ma;a:=e :pra;ya;ea;gaH Á ; a;dõ;Sa- ;////a;ntama;nd;a;(ãa;a:=+tMaÉ ma;h;a;tma;na;a;a;ma; a;ta Á .tea;na ma;h;a;tma;na;ea ; a;dõ;Sa;nta;a; a;ta va;+:v.ya;m,a Á The root dvis. a aprat¯ıtau is transitive. The same is supported by the following usage in the Kumarasa-¯ mbhava: PARSETREESFORERRONEOUSSENTENCES 387

(6a) ; a;dõ;Sa;////a;ntama;nd;a;(ãa;a:=+tMaÉ ma;h;a;tma;na;a;m,a Á ‘The idle hate the deeds of the great.’

Hence one should use mahatmano¯ dvis. anti.

5.6.2 Discussion It is apt to make a construction like

(6b) .=+a;maH .sua;g{a;a;vea;¾a (.sa;h) ;a;ma;l+. a;ta Á but saying sugr¯ıvam˙ milati* would not be appropriate because the root mil is intransitive according to Pan¯ .ini’s dhatup¯ at¯.ha. Shastri suspects the same error by the author of (5). The fact is however that the root dvis. in (5) is transitive; great men (mahatman¯ ) are the 0 karman of dvis. . The correct construction is shown in (6 ). Shastri in his corpus of 655 sentences has incorporated numerous such examples where transitive roots have been dealt with as if they were intransitive and vice versa. Figure 6 summarizes the discussion.

(60) ma;h;a;tma;na;ea Y;pya;na;TRa;kM ; a;dõ;Sa;////a;ntama;l+.a;ma;sa; a;Da;yaH Á

5.6.3 Directive rule

The root dvis. ‘hate’ is transitive in Sanskrit. Hence, the object of hatred should be expressed in the second case.

5.7 Sentence 7 (7) :ke+: a;.ca;n}å.a;nd;a;~tva;a:=+ta;ta:=+ma;Dya;ya;na;a;tpa;a:=+gl+.a;na;a gua:+:ku+:l+.a;t,a .sa;ma;a;va;tRa- ;ntea Á (37) Some lazy ones return from the gurukula as they get bored with studying very quickly. 388 D. KATIRA AND M.KULKARNI

Figure 6 Sentence 6

Mahatmabhir¯ api samam anarthakam˙ dvis. anti mal¯ımasadhiyah. .

5.7.1 Shastri’s comments :pa;ya;Ra;d;ya;ea gl+.a;na;a;dùÅ;a;TeRa ..ca;tua;TyeRa; a;ta va;.ca;na;a; a;+:ç*:+.a;d,ñÅÍ gl+.a;ya; a;ta;na;a ya;ea- ;gea ..ca;tua;Ta;Ra v.ya;va;h;a:=+a;nua;pa;a; a;ta;na;a Ba;va; a;ta Á .tea;na;a;Dya;ya;na;a;ya :pa;a:=+gl+.a- ;na;a I+. a;ta va;+:v.ya;m,a Á From the indication of the varttika¯ :pa;ya;Ra;d;ya;ea gl+.a;na;a;dùÅ;a;TeRa ..ca;tua;Tya;Ra the fourth case in connection with the root gla¯ is in accordance with correct usage. Hence one should use adhyayanaya¯ parigalan¯ ah¯ . .

5.7.2 Discussion

Though Pan¯ .ini has speciﬁed the use of a speciﬁc case in relation to the root glai either under the adhikara¯ karake¯ or under the adhika-¯ ra anabhinite,Katyayana¯ has indicated the use of the fourth case for the object towards which glani¯ ‘disinterest’ is expressed in the following varttika¯ related to the formation of pradi¯ compounds:

• :pa;ya;Ra;d;ya;ea gl+.a;na;a;dùÅ;a;TeRa ..ca;tua;Tya;Ra (A. 2.2.18 vt. 4, MBh. I.417.1), PARSETREESFORERRONEOUSSENTENCES 389

According to Shastri, the same should be followed while making sentences using the root glai. Hence the correct formulation of (7) is shown in (70). Figure 7 summarizes the discussion. (70) :ke+: a;.ca;n}å.a;nd;a;~tva;a:=+ta;ta:=+ma;Dya;ya;na;a;ya :pa;a:=+gl+.a;na;a gua:+:ku+:l+.a;tsa;ma;a;va;tRa- ;ntea Á

Figure 7 Sentence 7 Kecin mandas¯ tvaritataram adhyayanat¯ pariglan¯ a¯ gurukulat¯ sa- mavartante.¯

5.7.3 Directive rule The tiresome activity is to be represented in the fourth case when the root glai is used. 390 D. KATIRA AND M.KULKARNI

5.8 Sentence 8 (8) ya;Ta;a ; a;dõ;=e+P+.ea Y;nta:=+a:=+a;mea;Sua Bra;a;}ya;npua;Spa;a;¾a;Ma ma;Dva;va; a;.ca;na;ea; a;ta ta;Ta;a .sa;tyMa ma;a; a;gRa;ta;a .ja;naH .sa;}å.pra;d;a;ya;a;na;Ma .sa;tya;ma;a;d:ea Á (66) Just as a honeybee wandering about in the grove sucks the nectar from the ﬂowers, a person investigating truth imbibes truth from various sects.

5.8.1 Shastri’s comments º;/////a;~tak+:a:=+k+:tva; a;va;va:»ea; a;ta :pua;Spa;a; a;¾a :pua;Spea;Bya I+. a;ta va;a va;- +:v.yMa .sa;}å.pra;d;a;ya;a;n,a .sa;}å.pra;d;a;yea;Bya I+. a;ta ..ca Á .sa;}ba;nDa;a; a;.ca;K.ya;a;sa;a tua na;a;ta;a;va yua;e+: a;ta :Sa;+a na;ea;pa;pa;dùÅ;a;tea Á gua:+:pUa;va;Ra;nua;kÒ+:mea;¾a ; a;Za;Sya- ;pra; a;Za;Syea;Bya;ea d;a;ya;ma;a;na o+.pa;de;ZaH .sa;}å.pra;d;a;ya;ea Ba;va; a;ta Á :pra;kx +:tea tua ma;ta; a;va;Zea;Sa;a;a;Ba; a;na; a;va;;a;na;Ma .sa;mua;d;a;ya;ea ; a;va;va; a:»a;taH, .tea;na .sa;}å.pra;d;a- ;ya;Za;b.d;eaY;~Ta;a;nea Á Here there is a deﬁnite karaka¯ relation to be expressed. Hence, one may use pus. pan¯ . i or pus. pebhya and sa- mprad¯ ay¯ an¯ or sampradayebhyah¯ . . Mere relation is not desired to be expressed. Hence, the use of sixth case is inappropriate. The word sampradaya¯ means the preaching that a disciple gets through the tradition of gurus. In the present context, the meaning intended to be expressed is ‘a group of people adhering to a particular belief system’. Hence, the use of the word sampradaya¯ is inappropriate.

5.8.2 Discussion Charudev Shastri has two issues with this sentence. Firstly, he doesn’t agree with the use of the sixth case in pus. pa and samprada-¯ ya. Indeed, nectar (madhu) is a part of a flower (pus. pa), so the part- whole relationship can be expressed using the sixth case. However, here, with the use of the root ci, the emphasis is not on the part- PARSETREESFORERRONEOUSSENTENCES 391 whole relationship. Rather it is on the process of separation of the part, i.e. the nectar from the fixed (dhruva) whole, i.e. the flower. Hence, the use of fifth case is appropriate. Since, the root ci has been included among roots that govern two direct objects (dvika- rmaka roots) listed in the verse cited under A. 1.4.51 º;k+: a;Ta;tMa ..ca , (first at MBh. I.329.19) the second case may also be optionally used. These alternatives are shown in (80). Figure 8 summarizes this discussion. (80) ya;Ta;a ; a;dõ;=e+P+.ea Y;nta:=+a:=+a;mea;Sua Bra;a;}ya;npua;Spa;a; a;¾a :pua;Spea;Bya;ea ma;Dva;va; a;.ca;na;ea; a;ta ta;Ta;a .sa;tyMa ma;a; a;gRa;ta;a .sa;}å.pra;a;d;a;ya;a;nsa;}å.pra;d;a;yea;ByaH .sa;tya;ma;a;d:ea Á

Figure 8 Sentence 8

Yatha¯ dvirepho ’ntarar¯ ames¯ . u bhramyan¯ pus. pan¯ . a¯m˙ madhv avaci- noti tatha¯ satyam˙ margit¯ a¯ janah. sampraday¯ an¯ a¯m˙ satyam adatte.¯

Secondly, Shastri points out that the word sampradaya¯ is not used in Sanskrit in the sense in which it is being put to use in modern Indian languages. It doesn’t mean ‘group of people adhering 392 D. KATIRA AND M.KULKARNI to a particular belief system’. Numerous words have been borrowed from Sanskrit by modern Indian languages where they have changed their meanings. They now seem to be re-entering modern Sanskrit with their new connotations. A list of just a few such words found in Charudev Shastri’s corpus appears in Table 1.

5.8.3 Directive rule A part-whole relationship is not to be expressed if such a part is being separated from the whole. Instead, separation is to be represented by using the ﬁfth case in the word denoting the whole. In the case of the roots duh, yac¯ , math, mus. , ci, and ji the second case is also permitted there.

5.9 Sentence 9 (9) º;nDMa ta;maH :pra; a;va;H :pua;ma;a;npa:=e+ZMa :pra;k+:a;Za;a;ya ya;a;.cea;ta Á (72) A person who has entered heavy darkness should pray to God for light.

5.9.1 Shastri’s comments :pra;k+:a;ZMa ya;a;.cea;tea;tyea;vMa nya;a;sa;ea ; a;na;d;eRa;SaH .~ya;a;t,a Á praka¯sa´ m˙ yaceta¯ only is correct.

5.9.2 Discussion The root yac¯ has also been incorporated in the list of dvikarma- ka roots under A. 1.4.51. Hence it can have two karmans. One candidate for the post of karman here is paresa´ while the other is praka¯sa.´ So one may either say, paresa´ m˙ praka¯sa´ m˙ yaceta¯ or pa- res´at¯ praka¯sa´ m˙ yaceta¯ . The author of (8) has used the subordinate karman correctly in the second case, while he has surprisingly used PARSETREESFORERRONEOUSSENTENCES 393

Table 1 Word sense in Sanskrit versus in modern Indian languages

Word Modern meaning Sanskrit meaning º;a;d;ZRa ideal mirror ;a;ma;l, to get to meet Ba;a;vua;k connoisseur wellbeing .ja;a; a;va;ta living/live life .ja;a;va;na life = span of life life = sentience º;a;yua;s,a age total span of life :pra;kx +: a;ta nature/creation unmanifest cause of the world (mahat) :pra; a;ta;Za;ea;Da revenge use not found in this sense in classical Sanskrit :pa:=+ma;a;TRa offering help to others an account of what has happened in the past (bhu-¯ tartha)¯ :pra;a;nta region border ; a;.ca;////a;nta;ta worried it was thought (by someone) .sMa;k +:a;¾Ra;ta;a narrowness state of being mixed .sa:a;a power existence, goodness o+.pa;yua; useful used k+:a; a;F+.nya difﬁculty (in understanding) toughness, cruelty ma;a;l+.a necklace garland .sMa;ya;ea;gea;na by chance union, joining ma;a;Dya;ma medium relating to the middle :pa;a;F+.k reader teacher 394 D. KATIRA AND M.KULKARNI the candidate for the position of the main karman in the fourth case. Perhaps there is some different idea behind this usage. One may compare the part praka¯s´aya¯ yaceta¯ in the above sentence with vanaya¯ mumoca in

(9a) va;na;a;ya :pa;a;ta;pra; a;ta;ba:;dÄâ ;va;tsa;Ma ya;Za;ea;Da;na;ea ;Dea;nua;ma;Sea;mRua;ma;ea;.cax Á (Raghuvam˙ sa´ 2.1).

Mallinatha¯ quotes

• A. 2.3.14 ; a;kÒ+:ya;a;Ta;eRa;pa;pa;d;~ya ..ca k+:mRa; a;¾a .~Ta;a; a;na;naH The fourth case-afﬁx is employed in denoting the object (karma) of that verb, which is suppressed (sthanin)¯ in a sentence, and which has in construction (upapada) therewith another verb, denoting an action, performed for the sake of the future action. (Vasu 1909) and comments on the word sthaninah¯ . as follows: º;pra;yua:$ya;ma;a;na;~ya ; a;kÒ+:ya;a;Ta;eRa;pa;pa;d;~ya ;Da;a;ta;eaH º;na;a;Ba; a;h;tea k+:mRa- ; a;¾a k+:a:=+ke ..ca;tua;Ta;Ra ; a;va;Ba; a;+:BRa;va; a;ta (Jijnasu 1964: 212).

Just as vanaya¯ mumoca can be paraphrased as vanam˙ gantum˙ mumoca, it is also possible to paraphrase praka¯s´aya¯ yaceta¯ as praka-¯ sa´ m˙ praptu¯ m˙ yaceta¯ . The only difference between the two examples is that vana in (9a) denotes the karman of gantum whereas it is not related to the action of the verb mumoca in any way. In (9) however, the light denoted by praka¯sa´ qualiﬁes to be the karma- n of both praptu¯ m˙ as well as yaceta¯ . Shastri’s opinion about the sentence implies that A. 2.3.14 does not apply in such a situation.

(90) º;nDMa ta;maH :pra; a;va;H :pua;ma;a;npa:=e+ZMa (or :pa:=e+Za;a;t,a) prakASaM yAc- eta. PARSETREESFORERRONEOUSSENTENCES 395

Figure 9 Sentence 9

Andham˙ tamah. pravis..tah. puman¯ paresa´ m˙ praka¯s´aya¯ yaceta.¯

5.9.3 Directive rule When the object of the kriyarthakriy¯ a¯ and the aprayujyamana¯ dha-¯ tu is one and the same, then such an object should be written in the second case.

5.10 Sentence 10 (10) :pra;a;tya;Ma ..ca .sa;h;ya;ea;gea ..ca .=+a;";~ya .sMa;(ra;ya;ea Ba;va; a;ta Á (82) Betterment of a country lies in affection and cooperation.

5.10.1 Shastri’s comments .sMa;(ra;ya;¾Ma .sMa;(ra;a;ya;ta I+. a;ta va;a .sMa;(ra;yaH Á o+.Ba;ya;Ta;a; a;pa :pra;a;tya;a;a;ma; a;ta .sa;h;ya;ea;ga I+. a;ta ..ca .sa;a;}ya;Ea na;ea;pa;pa;dùÅ;ae;tea Á :pra;a; a;taH .sa;h;ya;ea;ga;(ãaÉ .=+a;"- ;~ya .sMa;(ra;ya I+.tyea;vMa v.ya;va;h:=+¾a;a;ya;m,a Á Sam˙ sraya´ may be understood either as the process of taking refuge (sam˙ srayan´ . a) or the one who is resorted 396 D. KATIRA AND M.KULKARNI

to (sam˙ sr´ ¯ıyate). In both situations the seventh case of the words pr¯ıti and sahayoga would be inappropriate. One should paraphrase the sentence in the following way instead: pr¯ıtih. sahayogasca´ ras¯..trasya sam˙ srayo´ .

(100) :pra;a; a;taH .sa;h;ya;ea;ga;(ãaÉ .=+a;";~ya .sMa;(ra;ya;ea Ba;va; a;ta Á

Figure 10 Sentence 10

Pr¯ıtya¯m˙ ca sahayoge ca ras¯..trasya sam˙ srayo´ bhavati.

5.10.2 Directive rule The thing resorted to should be represented in the ﬁrst case as a complement of the subject. REFERENCES 397

6 Conclusion

Various aspects regarding ten sentences from Shastri’s corpus have been discussed in detail above. New insights related to the correct use of karakas¯ have been listed as derivative rules. The tree charts for erroneous sentences have also been presented. The paper aims at drawing the attention of scholars towards the need to investigate more aspects of the karaka¯ system that are left undescribed or undetailed by Pan¯ .ini through the survey of Sanskrit literature and to formalize them in order to bring more completeness to the description of the karaka¯ system in Sanskrit. It was also an attempt to trace new trends in modern Sanskrit writings with a view to invoke discussions about the need either to alter them or to accept and account for them. The parse trees are also expected to be of some assistance for improving the efﬁciency of machine translation systems.

References

Bhagvat,¯ V. S., ed. 1999. Sukti-ratn¯ akara¯ (Commentary on Pata- ñjali’s Mahabh¯ as¯. ya) by Ses´ . a Nar¯ ayan¯ . a: fascicule I: ahnikas¯ 1 and 2. Pune: Anand¯ a¯srama´ Samsth˙ a.¯ Hegde, Janardan. 2004. Suddhikaumud´ ¯ı. Bangalore: Samskrita Bharati. —. ed. 2007. Bhas¯. ap¯ akah¯ . . Bangalore: Samskrita Bharati. Jha, R., ed. 1994. Sr´ ¯ıvis. n. usarmapran´ . ¯ıtam˙ Pañcatantram. Varanasi: Chaukhamba Vidyabhavan. Jijnasu, B., ed. 1964. As..tadhyay¯ ¯ı-bhas¯. ya-prathamavr¯ tti [prathama-trt¯ıyadhy¯ ay¯ atmaka¯ prathama bhaga]¯ . Tenth edition,˚ 2008. Sonipat:˚ Ramlal Kapoor Trust. Johnson, Keith and Helen Johnson. 1999. Encyclopedic dictionary of applied linguistics: a handbook for language teaching. Ox- ford, UK; Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell Publishers. 398 D. KATIRA AND M.KULKARNI

Mishra, A., ed. 2000. Vim˙ sa´ sat´ abd¯ ¯ısamskr˙ takavy¯ amr¯ tam. Delhi: Delhi Sanskrit Academy. ˚ ˚ Raghunathacarya, E. B., ed. 2002. Modern Sanskrit literature, tradition & innovations. Delhi: Sahitya academy. Ranganath, S., ed. 2003. Studies in Rgveda and Modern Sanskrit Literature. Delhi: Eastern Book˚ Linkers. Shastri, Charudev., ed. 1955. Sabd´ apa¯ sabdaviveka´ . Delhi: Motilal Banarasidass. [Vikram 2011.] —. ed. 1976. Vagvyavah¯ ar¯ adar¯ sa´ . Delhi: Motilal Banarasidass. Shukla, H. L., ed. 2002. Modern Sanskrit Literature. Delhi: New Bharatiya Book Corp. Speijer, J. S. 1886. Sanskrit syntax. Leiden: E. J. Brill. [Reprint: Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1973.] Vasu, S. C., ed. 1909. The Siddhanta¯ Kaumud¯ı of Bhhat..toji D¯ıks. ita. Vol. 1. Reprint: Delhi: Motilal Banarasidass, 2003. Allahabad: The Pan¯ .ini Ofﬁce. Whitney, William Dwight. 1889. Sanskrit grammar: including both the Classical language, and the older dialects, of Veda and Brahmana. 2nd ed. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univer- sity Press. [Reprint: 1971.] A bibliography of Sanskrit syntax

The following bibliography of works on Sanskrit syntax consolidates the combined bibliographies of Madhav M. Deshpande and Hans Henrich Hock, entitled A bibliography of writings on San- skrit syntax, published in Hock 1991c and the bibliography of works on Sanskrit syntax published since then compiled by Hans Henrich Hock for presentation at the Seminar on Sanskrit Syntax and Discourse Structures held in Paris, 13–15 June 2013.

Aalto, Pentti. 1979. “On the absolute instrumental in Sanskrit.” Dr. Ludwik Sternbach felicitation volume, ed. by J. P. Sinha, vol. 1, pp. 47–55. Indologica Taurinensia 7. Torino: Edizioni Jollygraﬁca; Lukhnow: Akhila Bharatiya Sanskrit Parishad. Aklujkar, Ashok. 1969. “Two textual studies of Bhartr-hari.” Jour- nal of the American Oriental Society 89: 547–63.˚ Albino, Marcos. 2000. “Finale Dative auf -ya¯ im Rgveda.” His- torische Sprachwissenschaft 113: 117–31. ˚ Ananthanarayana, H. S. 1970. “The karaka¯ theory and case grammar.” Indian Linguistics 31: 14–27. Andersen, Paul Kent. 1979. “Word order typology and prepositions in Old Indic.” Festschrift for Oswald Szemerényi, ed. by B. Brogyanyi, pp. 23–34. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. —. 1980. “Typological and functional aspects of word order in A- soka.”´ General Linguistics 20: 1–22. —. 1982–1983. “Ampliﬁed sentences in Asoka.”´ Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 96: 17–29. —. 1982a. “Means of expressing a comparison of inequality in Old Indic.” General Linguistics 22: 172–84. —. 1982b. “On the word order typology of the Satapathabr´ ahma-¯ n.a.” Journal of Indo-European Studies 10: 37–42.

399 400 SANSKRIT SYNTAX

—. 1983. Word order typology and comparative constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. —. 1985a. “Die grammatische Kategorie Passiv im Altindischen: ihre Funktion.” Grammatische Kategorien: Funktion und Geschichte: Akten der VII. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Berlin, 20.-25. Februar 1983, ed. by Bernfried Schlerath, in collab. with Veronica Rittner, pp. 47–57. Wies- baden: L. Reichert. —. 1985b. “Means of expressing a comparison of inequality in Old Indic.” Proceedings of the Fifth World Sanskrit Confer- ence, ed. by R. N. Dandekar and P. D. Navathe, pp. 11–15. New Delhi: Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan. —. 1986. “The genitive agent in Rigvedic passive constructions.” Collectanea linguistica, pp. 9–13. Prace Komisji Je¸zykoznawstwa 53. Apte, Vaman Shivaram. 1885. The student’s guide to Sanskrit composition: being a treatise on Sanskrit syntax for the use of schools and colleges. Second edition . . . enlarged. Pune: H. N. Gokhale. Printed at Aryabh¯ us¯ .an.a Press. Aralikatti, R. N. 1982. “A study of modern spoken Sanskrit with reference to sentence patterns.” Ph.D. dissertation. Tirupati: S. V. University. —. 1985. “A note on the complement structures in sentences in modern spoken Sanskrit as recorded on tapes.” Proceedings of the Fifth World Sanskrit Conference, ed. by R. N. Dandekar and P. D. Navathe, pp. 16–26. New Delhi: Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan. [Reprinted as Aralikatti 1986.] —. 1986. “A note on the complement structures in sentences in modern spoken Sanskrit as recorded on tapes.” Samskr˙ ta-vi- ˚ marsah´ . 4.2: 1–8. [Reprint of Aralikatti 1985.] —. 1991. “A note on word order in modern spoken Sanskrit and some positive constraints.” Studies in Sanskrit syntax: a vol- BIBLIOGRAPHY 401

ume in honour of the centennial of Speijer’s Sanskrit syntax (1886–1986), ed. by Hans Henrich Hock, pp. 13–18. Arnold, Edward V. 1897. “Outline of the historical grammar of the Vedas.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 18: 203–52. Avery, John. 1880. “Contributions to the history of verb inﬂec- tion in Sanskrit.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 10: 219–324. —. 1885a. “On modes in relative clauses in the Rig-Veda.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 11: cxlviii–clxi. Proceedings at Boston, May 2nd, 1883. —. 1885b. “On relative clauses in the Rig-Veda.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 11: lxiv–lxvi. Proceedings at Boston, May 18th, 1881. Bader, Françoise. 1987. “Structure de l’énoncé en indo-européen.” Papers from the 7th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, ed. by Anna Giacalone Ramat, Onofrio Carruba, and Giuliano Bernini, pp. 13–34. Amsterdam studies in the theory and history of linguistic science; series IV, Current issues in linguistic theory 48. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Baldi, Philip. 1979. “Typology and the Indo-European prepositions.” Indogermanische Forschungen 84: 49–61. Balles, Irene. 2000. “Die altindische Cvi-Konstruktion: alte Deu- tungen und neue Wege.” Indoarisch, Iranisch und die Indoger- manistik, ed. by Bernhard Forssman and Robert Plath, pp. 25– 36. Wiesbaden: L. Reichert. —. 2006. Die altindische Cvi-Konstruktion: Form, Funktion, Ur- sprung. Münchner Forschungen zur historischen Sprachwis- senschaft 4. Bremen: Ute Hempen Verlag. —. 2008. “Principles of syntactic reconstruction and ‘morphology as paleosyntax’: the case of some Indo-European secondary verbal formations.” Principles of syntactic reconstruction, ed. by Gisella Ferraresi and Maria Goldbach, pp. 161–86. Amster- dam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 402 SANSKRIT SYNTAX

Barðdal, Jóhanna and Thórhallur Eythórsson. 2009. “The origin of the oblique subject construction: an Indo-European comparison.” Grammatical change in Indo-European languages, ed. by Vit Bubenik, John Hewson, and Sarah Rose, pp. 179–93. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Barth, A. 1875. “Le gérondif sanscrit en tva¯.” Mémoires de la So- ciété de Linguistique de Paris 2: 238–40. Bartholomae, Christian. 1889. “Der sogenannte genitivus temporis im Veda.” Zeitschrift für die Kunde der indogermanischen Sprachen 15: 200–21. —. 1892. “Altindische Inﬁnitive auf -man und -mani.” Indoger- manische Forschungen 1: 495–500. —. 1907. “Zur Gerundivbildung im Arischen.” Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 41: 319–35. Basu, D. N. 1983. “A case for the genitive case.” Proceedings of the International Seminar on Studies in the As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı of Pa-¯ n. ini, ed. by S. D. Joshi and S. D. Laddu, pp. 105–9. Pune: Centre for Advanced Study in Sanskrit, University of Poona. Behaghel, Otto. 1929. “Zur Stellung des Verbs im Germanischen und Indogermanischen.” Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprach- forschung 56: 276–81. Benfey, Theodor. 1872. “Über die Entstehung des indogermanischen Vokativs.” Abhandlungen der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen 17.4: 3–92. Vorgelegt in der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften den 14. Februar 1872. Benigny, Julius. 1929. “Zum indogermanischen Nominalsatz.” In- dogermanische Forschungen 47: 124–44. Benveniste, Émile. 1935. Les inﬁnitifs avestiques. Paris: Adrien- Maisonneuve. —. 1948. Noms d’agent et noms d’action en indo-européen. Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve. BIBLIOGRAPHY 403

—. 1950. “La phrase nominale.” Bulletin de la Société de Linguis- tique de Paris 46.1: 19–36. —. 1951. “Prétérit et optatif en indo-européen.” Bulletin de la So- ciété de Linguistique de Paris 47.1: 11–20. Bergaigne, Abel. 1879. “Essai sur la construction grammaticale considérée dans son développement historique en sanskrit, en grec, en latin, dans les langues romanes et dans les langues germaniques.” Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 3: 1–51, 124–54, 169–86. —. 1887. “La syntaxe des comparaisons védiques.” Mélanges Re- nier, pp. 75–101. Paris: Vieweg. Bhandarkar, Ramkrishna Gopal. 1914. On Sanskrit and the derived languages: Wilson Philological Lectures, delivered in 1877. Bombay: Radhabai Atmaram Sagoon. Bharadwaj, Sudhi Kant. 1982. Linguistic study of dharmasutras¯ . Rohtak: Manthan Publications. Bhatnagar, V. 1995. “Un-Pan¯ .inian syntax (concord) in the Ram¯ a-¯ yan.a and the Mahabh¯ arata.”¯ Modern evaluation of the Maha-¯ bharata:¯ Prof. R. K. Sharma felicitation volume, ed. by Satya Pal Narang, pp. 328–44. Delhi: Nag Publishers. Bhatt, V. M. 2000. “Pragmatics of absolute locative in Sanskrit.” Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Institute 81: 279–82. Bichlmeier, Harald. 1999. “Zur Syntax der ablativischen Adver- bien im Rgveda.” Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 60: 7–66.˚ Biese, Yrjö Moses Jalmari. 1931. “Der Gebrauch von as- und bhu-¯ im Aitareya-Brahman¯ .a.” Arctos 2: 44–65. Bloch, Jules. 1906–1908. “La phrase nominale en sanskrit.” Mé- moires de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 14: 27–96. —. 1934. L’indo-aryen du veda´ aux temps modernes. Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve. [English translation by A. Master 1965.] 404 SANSKRIT SYNTAX

—. 1965. Indo-Aryan from the Vedas to modern times, ed. by A. Master. Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve. [Translation of Bloch 1934.] Bloomfield, Maurice. 1884. “On certain irregular Vedic subjunctives or imperatives.” American Journal of Philology 5: 1–15. —. 1912a. “On instability in the use of moods in earliest Sanskrit.” American Journal of Philology 33.1: 1–29. —. 1912b. “On the variable position of the finite verb in oldest Sanskrit.” Indogermanische Forschungen 31: 156–77. Bloomfield, Maurice and Franklin Edgerton. 1930. Vedic variants. 3 vols. Philadelphia: Linguistic Society of America. Bodewitz, H. W. 2001. “A Vedic example of ‘no doubt’ used as parenthetic clause.” Indo-Iranian Journal 44: 17–20. Böhtlingk, Otto. 1888. “Ueber den impersonalen Gebrauch der Participia necess. im Sanskrit.” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Mor- genländischen Gesellschaft 42: 366–69. Borooah, Anundoram. 1879. A higher Sanskrit grammar: or, gender and syntax, with copious illustrations from standard San- skrit authors and references to Latin and Greek grammars. Calcutta: Mukherjea; London: Trübner. Brereton, Joel P. 1982. “The particle iva in Vedic Prose.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 102: 443–50. —. 1986. “Tat tvam asi in context.” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Mor- genländischen Gesellschaft 136: 98–109. Brereton, Joel P. and Stephanie W. Jamison, eds. 1991. Panels of the VIIth World Sanskrit Conference, Kern Institute, Leiden, August 23–29, 1987, ed. by Johannes Bronkhorst; vol. 4, Sense and syntax in Vedic. Breunis, Andries. 1990. The nominal sentence in Sanskrit and Middle Indo-Aryan. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Brockington, J. L. 1968. “The syntax and style of the Ram¯ ayan¯ .a.” Ph.D. dissertation. Oxford: Oxford University. BIBLIOGRAPHY 405

Bronkhorst, Johannes, ed. 1990–1992. Panels of the VIIth World Sanskrit Conference, Kern Institute, Leiden, August 23–29, 1987. 11 vols. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Brugmann, Karl. 1883. “Altind. pura¯ und griech. páros mit dem Indikativ des Präsens.” Abhandlungen der Königlich- Sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, philosophisch- historische Classe 35: 169–73. —. 1904. Die Demonstrativpronomina der indogermanischen Sprachen: eine bedeutungsgeschichtliche Untersuchung. Ab- handlungen der philosophisch-historischen Klasse der Kön- iglich-Sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften 22.6. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner. —. 1925. Die Syntax des einfachen Satzes im Indogermanischen. Berlin: de Gruyter. Bubenik, Vit. 1983. “Impersonal constructions in functional grammar.” Advances in functional grammar, ed. by S. C. Dik, pp. 183–204. Dordrecht: Foris. —. 1987a. “Jussive sentences in Sanskrit syntax.” Select Papers from SALA-7, ed. by E. Bashir et al., pp. 31–48. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club. —. 1987b. “Passivized causatives in Sanskrit and Prakrits.”¯ Lin- guistics 25: 687–704. —. 1991. “Nominal and pronominal objects in Sanskrit and Prakrit.” Studies in Sanskrit syntax: a volume in honour of the centennial of Speijer’s Sanskrit syntax (1886–1986), ed. by Hans Henrich Hock, pp. 19–30. —. 2006a. “Cases and prepositions in Indo-Aryan.” From case to adposition: the development of conﬁgurational syntax in Indo- European languages, ed. by John Hewson and Vit Bubenik, pp. 102–30. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins. —. 2006b. “On the evolutionary changes in the Old and Middle Indo-Aryan systems of case and adpositions.” Papers of the 12th World Sanskrit Conference, held in Helsinki, Finland, 13– 406 SANSKRIT SYNTAX

18 July, 2003; vol. 5, Themes and tasks in Old and Middle Indo-Aryan linguistics, ed. by Bertil Tikkanen and Heinrich Hettrich, pp. 65–88. Delhi. Burnouf, Eugène. 1824. “Sur un usage remarquable de l’inﬁnitif samscrit.” Journal asiatique 5: 120–24. Butt, Miriam. 2003. “The light verb jungle.” Harvard Working Pa- pers in Linguistics 9: 1–49. Caland, W. 1891. Zur Syntax der Pronomina im Avesta. Verhan- delingen der Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afd. Letterkunde 20. Amsterdam: Johannes Müller. —. 1897. “Eine übereinstimmung zwischen Vedischem und Avestischem sprachgebrauch.” Zeitschrit für vergleichende Sprachforschung 34: 456–7. —. 1912–1913. “Syntaktisch-exegetische Miszellen.” Indoger- manische Forschungen 31: 105–7. —. 1927. “On a paragraph of Vaidic syntax.” Acta Orientalia 5: 49–51. Leiden. Canedo, José. 1937. Zur Wort- und Satzstellung in der alt- und mittelindischen Prosa. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. Cardona, George. 1970c. “The Indo-Iranian construction mana (mama) krtam.” Language 46: 1–12. ˚ —. 1974c. “Pan¯ .ini’s karakas:¯ agency, animation, and identity.” Journal of Indian Philosophy 2: 231–306. —. 1976b. “Subject in Pan¯ .ini.” The notion of subject in South Asian languages, ed. by M. K. Verma, pp. 1–38. South Asian Studies Publications Series 2. Madison: University of Wiscon- sin. —. 1978a. “A note on Indo-Iranian dha¯ (IE *dhe¯).” Indian Lin- guistics 39; Professor P. B. Pandit memorial volume, pp. 209– 24. Pune: Linguistic Society of India. —. 1978b. “Relations between causatives and passives in Indo- Iranian.” Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 8.2: 1–42. BIBLIOGRAPHY 407

—. 1978c. “Review of Haudry 1977.” Kratylos 23: 71–81. [Ap- peared 1979.] —. 1981. “Vedic causatives.” Golden Jubilee volume, pp. 17–38. Pune: Vaidika sam˙ sodhana´ man.d.ala. —. 1990. “A note on ‘dative agents’ in Sanskrit.” Experiencer Subjects in South Asian Languages: proceedings of the Con- ference on the Experiencer Subject in South Asian Languages, November 1988, Madison, Wisconsin, ed. by Manindra K. Verma and K. P. Mohanan, pp. 141–45. —. 1993. “On comparatives and superlatives formed to ﬁnite verbs in Sanskrit.” Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research In- stitute 72-73: 409–22. —. 1998. “kim˙ tarhi in the Mahabh¯ as¯.ya.” Mír Curad: studies in honor of Calvert Watkins, ed. by Jay Jasonoff, H. Craig Melchert, and Lisi Olivier, pp. 63–73. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft. —. 2002. “The Old Indo-Aryan tense system.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 122: 235–43. —. 2012b. “On the construction type nat.asya sr´ n. oti.” Samskr˙ ta- ˚ ˚ Vimarsah´ . 6: 65–84. Casaretto, Antje. 2010a. “Syntax und Wortarten der Lokalpar- tikeln des Rgveda IX: anu´ .” Münchener Studien zur Sprach- wissenschaft˚ 65: 7–64. —. 2010b. “Syntax und Wortarten der Lokalpartikeln des Rgveda VI: prati´ .” International Journal of Diachronic Linguistics˚ and Linguistic Reconstruction 7: 1–53. —. 2010c. “Syntax und Wortarten der Lokalpartikeln des Rgve- da XXI: puras´ , purast´ at¯ und pura¯´.” Münchener Studien˚ zur Sprachwissenschaft 66: 11–53. —. 2011. “Syntax und Wortarten der Lokalpartikeln des Rgveda VIII: abhi´ .” Historische Sprachforschung 123: 97–156.˚ —. 2012a. “Lokalpartikeln im Rgveda XIV: accha´ .” Zeitschrift für Indologie und Südasienstudien˚ 28: 1–27. 408 SANSKRIT SYNTAX

—. 2012b. “Syntax und Wortarten der Lokalpartikeln des Rgveda XII: v´ı.” Historische Sprachforschung 124: 134–77. ˚ —. 2012c. “Syntax und Wortarten der Lokalpartikeln des Rgve- da XVI: ati´ und tiras´ .” International Journal of Diachronic˚ Linguistics and Linguistic Reconstruction 8: 173–216. Channing, Eva. 1887. “On negative clauses in the Rigveda.” Jour- nal of the American Oriental Society 13: xcix–cii. Charpentier, Jarl. 1912. Die Desiderativbildungen der indoiranischen Sprachen. Uppsala: Appelberg. Chen, Shu-Fen and Benjamin Slade, eds. 2014. Grammatica et verba — Glamour and verve: studies in South Asian, historical, and Indo-European linguistics in honor of Hans Henrich Hock on the occasion of his seventy-ﬁfth birthday. Ann Arbor; New York: Beech Stave Press. Costello, John R. 1982. “The absolute construction in Indo- European: a syntagmemic reconstruction.” Journal of Indo- European Studies 10: 235–52. Cuny, Albert. 1906–1908. “Les préverbes dans le Çatapathabra-¯ hman.a.” Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 14: 289–331. Paris: Librairie Honore Champion. [Reprinted as Cuny 1907.] —. 1907. Les préverbes dans le Çatapathabrahman¯ . a. Thèse pour le doctorat, présentée à la Faculté des lettres de l’Université de Paris. Paris: Impr. nationale. [Reprint of Cuny 1906–1908.] Dahl, Eystein. 2008. “Performative sentences in Vedic.” Journal of South Asian Linguistics 1.1: 5–25. —. 2009a. “Semantische und pragmatisch-kontextuelle Faktoren in der Entwicklung des altindoarischen Perfekts.” Pragmatis- che Kategorien: Form, Funktion und Diachronie, ed. by E. Rieken and P. Widmer, pp. 35–50. Wiesbaden: L. Reichert. —. 2009b. “Some semantic and pragmatic aspects of object alternation in early Vedic.” The role of semantics and pragmatics BIBLIOGRAPHY 409

in the development of case, ed. by J. Barðdal and Sh. Chelliah, pp. 23–55. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins. —. 2009c. “Time, tense and aspect in early Vedic grammar.” Ph.D. dissertation. Oslo: University of Oslo. —. 2010. Time, tense and aspect in Early Vedic grammar. Leiden: E. J. Brill. —. 2012. “Evidence for evidentiality in Late Vedic.” Indic across the millennia: from the Rigveda to Modern Indo-Aryan: 14th World Sanskrit Conference, Kyoto, Japan, September 1st–5th, 2009, proceedings of the Linguistic Section, ed. by Jared S. Klein and Kazuhiko Yoshida, pp. 9–22. Dahl, Eystein and Chiara Fedriani. 2012. “The argument structure of experience: experiential constructions in Early Vedic, Homeric Greek and Early Latin.” Transactions of the Philo- logical Society 110.3: 342–62. Dash, Siniruddha and Brendan Gillon. 1995. “Adjectives in San- skrit.” Adyar Library Bulletin 59: 285–94. Davison, Alice. 2009. “Adjunction, features, and locality in Sanskrit and Hindi-Urdu correlatives.” Correlatives cross- linguistically, ed. by Anikó Lipták, pp. 223–62. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Debrunner, Albert. 1928. “Zeitadverbia als Nominative.” Indoger- manische Forschungen 46: 182. —. 1948. “Indirekte Rede im Altindischen.” Acta Orientalia 20: 120–32. Delbrück, Bertold. 1867. Ablativ, localis, instrumentalis im altindischen, lateinischen, griechischen und deutschen. Berlin: Dümmler. —. 1869. “Ueber den indogermanischen, speciell den vedischen Dativ.” Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 18: 81– 106. 410 SANSKRIT SYNTAX

—. 1871. Syntaktische Forschungen; vol. 1, Der Gebrauch des Conjunctivs und Optativs im Sanskrit und Griechischen. Halle: Waisenhaus. —. 1876. Syntaktische Forschungen; vol. 2, Altindische Tem- puslehre. Halle: Waisenhaus. —. 1878. Syntaktische Forschungen; vol. 3, Die altindische Wort- folge aus dem Satapathabr´ ahman¯ . a dargestellt. Halle: Waisen- haus. —. 1888. Syntaktische Forschungen; vol. 5, Altindische Syntax. Halle: Waisenhaus. [Reprint: Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1968.] —. 1900. Grundriß der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen, by K. Brugmann and B. Delbrück; vol. 5, Vergleichende Syntax der indogermanischen Sprachen. Straßburg: Trübner. Deshpande, Madhav Murlidhar. 1980. Evolution of syntactic theory in Sanskrit grammar: syntax of the Sanskrit inﬁnitive tu- mUN. Ann Arbor: Karoma. —. 1981a. “Pan¯ .ini and the Vedic evidence: a peep into the ‘past’.” Golden Jubilee volume, pp. 52–65. Pune: Vaidika Sam˙ sodhana´ Man.d.ala. —. 1981b. “Sanskrit gerund constructions: syntactic disputations.” Indo-Iranian Journal 23: 167–85. —. 1983. “Pan¯ .ini as a frontier grammarian.” Papers from the 19th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 110– 16. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. —. 1985. Ellipsis and syntactic overlapping: current issues in Pa-¯ n. inian syntactic theory. Pune: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. —. 1987a. “From uttarapadalopa to madhyamapadalopa: implications for theoretical change.” Annals of the Bhandarkar Orien- tal Research Institute 67: 251–57. BIBLIOGRAPHY 411

—. 1987b. “Pan¯ .inian reflections on Vedic infinitives: On infinitives with -tosUN and -KasUN.” Paper presented at the VIIth World Sanskrit Conference, Kern Institute, Leiden, 23–29 Au- gust 1987. Unpublished. —. 1987c. “Pan¯ .inian syntax and the changing notion of sentence.” R. G. Bhandarkar 150th birth-anniversary volume, pp. 55–98. Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute 68. Pune: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. —. 1987d. “Pan¯ .inian syntax of gerund constructions: an alternative view.” Adyar Library Bulletin; Supplement, Ludo Rocher felicitation volume, pp. 242–66. Madras: Adyar Library. —. 1988a. “Ellipsis in Pan¯ .inian grammar: a justifiable gap?” Pa- per presented at the Third Sanskrit Syntax Symposium, South Asian Languages Analysis Roundtable, Seattle, WA, 1988. Unpublished. —. 1988b. “Pan¯ .ini and the northwestern dialect: some suggestions on sutra¯ 3.3.10.” Languages and cultures: studies in honor of Edgar C. Polomé, ed. by Mohammad Ali Jazayery and Werner Winter, pp. 111–22. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. —. 1988c. “Prototypes in Pan¯ .inian syntax.” Paper presented at the 198th annual meeting of the American Oriental Society, Chicago, 1988. Unpublished. —. 1989. “Vedic syntax: a select bibliography.” New horizons of research in Indology: silver jubilee volume, ed. by V. N. Jha, pp. 29–48. Publication of the Centre of Advanced Study in Sanskrit, class E 10. Pune: Centre for Advanced Study of San- skrit, University of Poona. —. 1990. “Some features of the sampradana¯ karaka¯ in Pan¯ .ini.” Ex- periencer Subjects in South Asian Languages: proceedings of the Conference on the Experiencer Subject in South Asian Lan- guages, November 1988, Madison, Wisconsin, ed. by Manin- dra K. Verma and K. P. Mohanan, pp. 147–60. 412 SANSKRIT SYNTAX

—. 1991a. “Ditransitive passive in Pan¯ .ini.” Indo-Iranian Journal 34.1: 19–35. —. ed. 1991b. Panels of the VIIth World Sanskrit Conference, Kern Institute, Leiden, August 23–29, 1987, ed. by Johannes Bronkhorst; vol. 5, Pan¯ . ini and the Veda. —. 1991c. “Pan¯ .inian reflections on Vedic infinitives: on the meaning of tumartha.” Studies in Sanskrit syntax: a volume in honour of the centennial of Speijer’s Sanskrit syntax (1886–1986), ed. by Hans Henrich Hock, pp. 45–54. —. 1991d. “Pan¯ .inian syntax and changing notion of sentence.” Studies in Sanskrit syntax: a volume in honour of the centennial of Speijer’s Sanskrit syntax (1886–1986), ed. by Hans Henrich Hock, pp. 31–44. Deshpande, Madhav Murlidhar and Hans Henrich Hock. 1991. “A bibliography of writings on Sanskrit syntax.” Studies in San- skrit syntax: a volume in honour of the centennial of Spei- jer’s Sanskrit syntax (1886–1986), ed. by Hans Henrich Hock, pp. 219–41. Devasthali, G. V. 1974. “Vakya¯ according to the munitraya of Sanskrit grammar.” Charudeva Shastri felicitation volume, pp. 206–15. Delhi: Charudeva Shastri Felicitation Committee. Disterheft (Haas), Dorothy. 1976. “The voice of the infinitive in the RigVeda.” Current progress in historical linguistics: proceedings of the Second International Conference on Histor- ical Linguistics, Tucson, Arizona, 12–16 January 1976, ed. by William M. Christie, pp. 107–27. Amsterdam; New York: North-Holland. Disterheft, Dorothy. 1980. The syntactic development of the infinitive in Indo-European. Columbus, Ohio: Slavica. —. 1981. “The Indo-Iranian predicate infinitive.” Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 95: 110–21. Dressler, Wolfgang. 1968. “Ved. dive-dive und die idg. Iter- ativkomposita.” Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft und Kul- BIBLIOGRAPHY 413

turkunde: Gedenkschrift für Wilhelm Brandenstein, pp. 39–47. Innsbruck: Institut für Vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft der Leopold-Franzens-Universität. —. 1969. “Eine textsyntaktische Regel der idg. Wortstellung.” Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 83: 1–25. —. 1971. “Über die Rekonstruktion der idg. Syntax.” Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 85: 5–22. Dunkel, George E. 1976. “Repetition and deletion of preverbs and verbs in early Indic and Greek.” Ph.D. dissertation. Philadel- phia: Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania. —. 1979. “Preverb repetition.” Münchener Studien zur Sprachwis- senschaft 38: 41–82. —. 1981. “Amred¯ .ita and iteration of preverbs in Vedic and Hit- tite.” Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 95: 214– 26. —. 1982a. “Autour de a¯ rg-védique.” Indo-Iranian Journal 24: 89–102. ˚ —. 1982b. “The original syntax of conjunctive *-kwe.” Die Sprache 28: 129–43. —. 1985. “IE hortatory *ey, *eyte: Ved. eta´ ... stav´ ama¯ , Hitt. ehu=wa it, Hom. ei d’áge.” Münchener Studien zur Sprach- ˘ wissenschaft 46: 47–79. —. 1990. “J. Wackernagel und die idg. Partikeln *so´,*ke,*kem und *an.” Sprachwissenschaft und Philologie: Jacob Wacker- nagel und die Indogermanistik heute: Kolloquium der Indoger- manischen Gesellschaft . . . 1988, ed. by H. Eichner and H. Rix, pp. 100–30. Wiesbaden: L. Reichert. —. 1992. “Die Grammatik der Partikeln.” Grammatische Kat- egorien: Akten der 8. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Leiden, ed. by R. Beekes et al., pp. 153–77. Inns- bruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität. —. 1997. “Conjunctive u and invariable sa´ in the Rgveda.” In- dogermanische Forschungen 102: 156–78. ˚ 414 SANSKRIT SYNTAX

Durkin, Desmond. 1991. Konditionalsätze im Satapathabr´ ahma-¯ n. a. Freiburger Beiträge zur Indologie 26. Wiesbaden: Harras- sowitz. Eaton, A. J. 1884. “The atmanepada¯ in the Rigveda.” Ph.D. dissertation. Leipzig: Universität Leipzig. Elizarenkova, Tatyana J. 1960a. Aorist v Rigvede. [The aorist in the Rig-Veda]. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Vostokhnoj Literatury. —. 1960b. On the problem of the development of tenses in Old- Indo-Aryan (the R. gveda). Vol. 4. Moscow: Oriental Literature Publishing House. —. 1982. “Review of Haudry 1977.” Indo-Iranian Journal 23: 43– 53. —. 1995. Language and style of the Vedic rs. is. New York: State University of New York Press. ˚ Elizarenkova, Tatyana J. and V. N. Toporov. 1976. The Pali¯ language. Moscow: Nauka. Emeneau, Murray B. 1969. “Sanskrit syntactic particles: kila, kha- lu, nunam¯ .” Indo-Iranian Journal 11: 241–68. [Reprinted in Nooten 1988: 129–47.] —. 1971. “Dravidian and Indo-Aryan: the Indian linguistic area.” Symposium on Dravidian civilization, ed. by Andrée F. Sjoberg, pp. 33–68. Austin; New York: Jenkins. [Reprinted in Emeneau 1980: 167–96.] —. 1980. “Language and linguistic area.” Essays collected, ed. by A. S. Dil. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Etter, Annemarie. 1985. Die Fragesätze im Rgveda. Berlin: de Gruyter. ˚ Fahs, A. 1963. “Beiträge zur Syntax der Palisprache.”¯ Ph.D. dissertation. Rostock: Universität Rostock. Fahs, Achim. 1989. Grammatik des Pali. Leipzig: Verlag Enzyk- lopädie. Filliozat, Pierre. 1983. “The Pan¯ .inian conception of karmakartr.” Proceedings of the International Seminar on Studies in the˚ A- BIBLIOGRAPHY 415

s..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı of Pan¯ . ini, ed. by S. D. Joshi and S. D. Laddu, pp. 11– 16. Pune: Centre for Advanced Study in Sanskrit, University of Poona. Forssman, Bernhard. 1981. “Zur altpersischen Syntax: DB I 50.” Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 40: 35–47. —. 1985. “Fortführung von Relativsätzen im Avestischen.” Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 45: 55–67. Franke, Otto. 1890. “Die casuslehre des Pan¯ .ini verglichen mit dem gebrauch der casus im Pali und in den Asoka-inschriften.”´ Beiträge zur Kunde der indogermanischen Sprachen 16: 64– 120. Friedrich, Paul. 1975. Proto-Indo-European syntax: the order of meaningful elements. Journal of Indo-European Studies; monograph 1. Fürst, Alfons. 1916. “Der Sprachgebrauch der älteren Upani- s.ads verglichen mit dem der früheren vedischen Perioden und dem des klassischen Sanskrit.” Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 47: 1–82. Gaedicke, Carl. 1880. Der Accusativ im Veda. Breslau: Koebner. García-Ramón and José Luis. 1995. “Zum Akkusativ der Richtung im Vedischen und im Indogermanischen.” Verba et structurae: Festschrift für Klaus Strunk zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. by Hein- rich Hettrich et al., pp. 33–52. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprach- wissenschaft. —. 1997. “Inﬁnitivos y abstractos verbales en indoiranio.” Syn- taxe des langues indo-iraniennes anciennes, ed. by E. Pirart, pp. 29–49. Barcelona: Editorial Ausa. Ghosal, S. N. 1966–1967. “The genitive in the role of the non- genitive.” Journal of the Oriental Institute 16: 296–314. Gillon, Brendan S. 1987a. “A GB approach to the syntax of classical Sanskrit.” Paper read at the 9th South Asian Languages Analysis Roundtable, Cornell and Syracuse Universities, June 1987. Unpublished. 416 SANSKRIT SYNTAX

—. 1987b. “Two forms of negations in Sanskrit: Prasajyapratis.e- dha and paryudasapratis¯ .edha.” Lokaprajña¯ 1.1: 81–89. Puri: Lokabhas¯.a¯ Pracara¯ Samitih., Bada Odiya Matha. —. 1993. “Bhartrhari’s solution to the problem of asamartha compounds.” Bhartr˚ hari: philosopher and grammarian: proceedings of the First˚ International Conference on Bhartrhari, ed. by Saroja Bhate and Johannes Bronkhorst, pp. 117–33.˚ Bern: Peter Lang. [Reprint: Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1994.] —. 1995. “Autonomy of word formation: evidence from Classical Sanskrit.” Indian Linguistics 56.1–4: 15–52. —. 1996. “Word order in Classical Sanskrit.” Indian Linguistics 57.1–4: 1–36. —. 2004. “Subject predicate order in Classical Sanskrit.” Lan- guage and grammar: studies in mathematical linguistics and natural language, ed. by Philip Scott, Claudia Casadio, and Robert Seely, pp. 211–25. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University. —. 2007a. “Exocentric (bahuvr¯ıhi) compounds in Classical San- skrit.” Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Sanskrit Computational Linguistics, ed. by Gérard Huet and Amba Kulkarni, pp. 1–12. Rocquencourt: Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique. URL: http : / / sanskrit . inria . fr / Symposium / Proceedings.pdf. —. 2010a. “Linguistic investigations into ellipsis in Classical San- skrit.” Sanskrit computational linguistics: 4th International Symposium, New Delhi, India, December 2010, Proceedings, ed. by Girish Nath Jha, pp. 218–30. Lecture Notes in Artiﬁcial Intelligence 6465. Gillon, Brendan S. and Benjamin Shaer. 2005. “Classical Sanskrit, ‘wild trees’ and the properties of free word order languages.” Universal grammar in the reconstruction of ancient languages, ed. by Katalin É. Kiss, pp. 457–94. Berlin: de Gruyter. BIBLIOGRAPHY 417

Gippert, Jost. 1978. Zur Syntax der infinitivischen Bildungen in den indogermanischen Sprachen. Europäische Hochschul- schriften, Reihe 21, Linguistik 3. Frankfurt: Lang. [Originally presented as the author’s thesis, Freie Universität Berlin.] —. 1984. “Zum ‘prädikativen’ Infinitiv.” Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 97: 205–20. —. 1985. “Verbum dicendi + Infinitiv im Indoiranischen.” Münch- ener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 44: 29–57. —. 1995. “Zur Syntax des Infinitivs auf -tum im Altindischen.” Kuryłowicz memorial volume, ed. by Wojciech Smoczynski,´ vol. 1, pp. 255–77. Analecta Indoevropaea Cracoviensia 2. Kraków: Universitas. —. 2004. “Indo-European word order in main and subordinate clauses in a diachronic perspective.” Analecta homini univer- sali dicata: Arbeiten zur Indogermanistik, Linguistik, Philolo- gie, Politik, Musik und Dichtung: Festschrift für Oswald Panagl zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. by Thomas Krisch, Thomas Lindner, and Ulrich Müller, vol. 1, pp. 48–68. Stuttgarter Ar- beiten zur Germanistik 421. Stuttgart: Heinz. Gonda, Jan. 1942. “Bemerkungen zum Gebrauch der Pronomina der 1. und 2. Person als Subjekt im Altindischen.” Acta Orien- talia 19: 211–79. [Reprinted in Gonda 1975b: 111–79.] —. 1948. “Quelques observations sur l’emploi du verb simple ‘au lieu d’un composé’ etc. dans la langue sanskrite.” Acta Orien- talia 20: 167–205. —. 1951a. La place de la particule négative na dans la phrase en vieil indien. Leiden: E. J. Brill. —. 1951b. Remarks on the Sanskrit passive. Leiden: E. J. Brill. —. 1952. Remarques sur la place du verbe dans la phrase active et moyenne en langue sanscrite. Utrecht: Oosthoek. —. 1954. “The original character of the Indo-European relative pronoun io-.” Lingua 4: 1–41. [Reprinted in Gonda 1975a: 164–204.]“ 418 SANSKRIT SYNTAX

—. 1955. “Two notes on Sanskrit syntax.” Journal of Oriental Re- search, Madras 24: 1–8. —. 1956a. “Deﬁning the nominative.” Lingua 5: 288–97. —. 1956b. The character of the Indo-European moods. Wies- baden: Harrassowitz. —. 1957a. “A critical survey of the publications on the periphrastic future in Sanskrit.” Lingua 6: 158–79. —. 1957b. “A note on the functions of the accusative.” S. K. Bel- valkar felicitation volume, pp. 72–80. Banaras: Motilal Banar- sidass. —. 1957c. “‘Attraction’ and coordination in the Veda.” Bulletin of the School of African and Oriental Studies 20: 279–89. [Reprinted in Gonda 1975b: 227–37.] —. 1957d. “The character of the Sanskrit accusative.” Miscelánea homenaje a André Martinet, ed. by D. Catalán, pp. 47–65. Ca- narias. [Reprinted in Gonda 1975a: 44–62.] —. 1957e. “The use of the particle ca.” Vak 5: 1–73. [Reprinted in Gonda 1975a: 320–92.] —. 1958. “Syntax and verse structure in the Veda.” Indian Lin- guistics 20: 35–43. [Reprinted in Gonda 1975b: 259–67.] —. 1959a. Four studies in the language of the Veda. The Hague: Mouton. —. 1959b. “On amplifed sentences and similar structures in the Veda.” Four studies in the language of the Veda, pp. 7–70. The Hague: Mouton. —. 1959c. Stylistic repetition in the Veda. Verhandelingen der Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afdeeling Letterkunde, Verhandelingen, nieuwe reeks 65.3. Amsterdam: Noord-Hollandsche Uitgevers Maatschappij. —. 1960a. Ellipsis, brachylogy, and other forms of brevity in speech in the Rgveda. Verhandelingen der Koninklijke Neder- landse Akademie˚ van Wetenschappen, Afdeeling Letterkunde, BIBLIOGRAPHY 419

Verhandelingen, nieuwe reeks 67.4. Amsterdam: Noord- Hollandsche Uitgevers Maatschappij. —. 1960b. “Reﬂections on the Indo-European medium.” Lingua 9: 30–67, 175–93. —. 1960c. “Some notes on the position of the attributive adjective in early Indian prose.” Bulletin of the Deccan College Research Institute 20: 303–18. [Reprinted in Gonda 1975b: 95–110.] —. 1962a. The aspectual functions of the R. gvedic present and aorist. The Hague: Mouton. —. 1962b. “The unity of the Vedic dative.” Lingua 11: 141–50. [Reprinted in Gonda 1975a: 34–43.] —. 1967. “On the use of the absolutive in Sanskrit.” Kaviraj¯ Abhi- nandana Grantha, ed. by B. Saksena, pp. 262–65. Lucknow: Akhil Bharatiy Sanskrit Parishad. [Reprinted in Gonda 1975b: 91–94.] —. 1968. “The Sanskrit particle api.” Lingua. —. 1971. Old Indian. Handbuch der Orientalistik 2.1.1. Leiden: E. J. Brill. —. 1975a. Selected studies / J. Gonda; vol. 1, Indo-European linguistics. —. 1975b. Selected studies / J. Gonda; vol. 3, Sanskrit, grammatical and philological studies. —. 1975c. Selected studies / J. Gonda: presented to the author by the staff of the Oriental Institute, Utrecht University, on the occasion of his 70th birthday. 5 vols. Leiden: E. J. Brill. —. 1979. The medium in the Rgveda. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Goto,¯ Toshifumi. 2002. “Funktionen˚ des Akkusativs und Rektions- arten des Verbums anhand des Altindoarischen.” Indogerman- ische Syntax: Fragen und Perspektiven, ed. by Heinrich Het- trich and Jeong-Soo Kim, pp. 21–42. Wiesbaden: L. Reichert. —. 2012. “Grammatical irregularities in the R. gveda, book IV.” Indic across the millennia: from the Rigveda to Modern Indo-Aryan: 14th World Sanskrit Conference, Kyoto, Japan, 420 SANSKRIT SYNTAX

September 1st–5th, 2009, proceedings of the Linguistic Sec- tion, ed. by Jared S. Klein and Kazuhiko Yoshida, pp. 23–36. Grace E. C., Jr. 1971. “The order of constituents in Indo- European.” Ph.D. dissertation. Austin: University of Texas. Green, Alexander. 1966. The dative of agency: a chapter of Indo- European case syntax. New York: AMS Press. Grégoire, A. 1899. “Les infinitifs de l’Avesta.” Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 35: 79–140. Gren-Eklund, Gunilla. 1978. “A study of nominal sentences in the oldest Upanis.ads.” Ph.D. dissertation. Uppsala: Uppsala Uni- versity. Gune, Pandurang D. 1913. Die altindischen Absolutiva, besonders im Rgveda, Aitareya- und Satapatha-br´ ahman¯ . a: ein Beitrag zur˚ altindischen Syntax. Leipzig: Kreysing. Hackstein, Olav. 2003. “Apposition and word-order typology in Indo-European.” Festschrift for Werner Winter, ed. by Brigitte Bauer and Georges-Jean Pinault, pp. 131–52. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter. —. 2010. Apposition and nominal classification in Indo-European and beyond. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philophisch-Historische Klasse, Sitzungsberichte 798. Wien: Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Hahn, E. Adelaide. 1950. “The infinitive with subject accusative.” Transactions of the American Philological Association 81: 117–29. —. 1953a. “Some Hittite-Sanskrit parallels.” Language 29: 242– 54. —. 1953b. Subjunctive and optative: their origin as futures. Philo- logical Monographs 16. New York: American Philological As- sociation. —. 1964. “Relative and antecedent.” Transactions of the American Philological Association 95: 111–41. BIBLIOGRAPHY 421

Hale, Mark Robert. 1987a. “Deictic fronting in Vedic Prose.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Linguistic Society, San Francisco, December 1987. Unpublished. —. 1987b. “Studies in the comparative syntax of the oldest Indo- Iranian languages.” Ph.D. dissertation. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University. —. 1987c. “Wackernagel’s law and the language of the Rig Veda.” Studies in memory of Warren Cowgill, ed. by C. Watkins, pp. 38–50. Berlin: de Gruyter. —. 1988. “The phonology-syntax interface in the language of the Rig Veda.” Paper presented at the Third Sanskrit Syntax Sym- posium, South Asian Languages Analysis Roundtable, Seattle, WA, 1988. Unpublished. —. 1990. “Preliminaries to the study of the relationship between syntax and sandhi in Rigvedic Sanskrit.” Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 51: 77–96. —. 1991. “Some observations on intersentential pronominalization in the language of the Taittir¯ıya Samhit˙ a.”¯ Panels of the VIIth World Sanskrit Conference, Kern Institute, Leiden, Au- gust 23–29, 1987; vol. 4, Sense and syntax in Vedic, ed. by Joel P. Brereton and Stephanie W. Jamison, pp. 2–21. —. 1996. “Deriving Wackernagel’s Law: prosodic and syntactic factors determining clitic placement in the language of the Rigveda.” Approaching second: second position clitics and related phenomena, ed. by A. Halpern and A. Zwicky, pp. 165– 97. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Informa- tion, Stanford University. Hamp, Eric P. 1976. “Why syntax needs phonology.” Papers from the Parasession on Diachronic Syntax, pp. 348–64. Chicago: Linguistic Society. —. 1984. “The reconstruction of particles and syntax.” Historical syntax, ed. by J. Fisiak, pp. 173–82. Berlin: Mouton. 422 SANSKRIT SYNTAX

—. 1985. “Transitive and causative in Indo-European.” Papers from the Parasession on Causatives and Agentivity, ed. by W. E. Eilfort et al., pp. 64–66. Chicago: Linguistic Society. Hartman, C. G. 1966. Emphasizing and connecting particles in the thirteen principal upanishads. Suomalaisen Tiedeakatemian Toimituksia. Annales Academiæ Scientiarum Fennicæ, Sarja- Ser. B 143.2. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Helsinki, 1966. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia. Hartmann, P. 1955. Nominale Ausdrucksformen im wissenschaftlichen Sanskrit. Heidelberg: Winter. Harweg, Roland. 1964. Kompositum und Katalysationstext vornehmlich im späten Sanskrit. The Hague: Mouton. Haudry, Jean. 1973. “Parataxe, hypotaxe et corrélation dans la phrase latine.” Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 68.1: 147–86. —. 1977. L’emploi des cas en védique: introduction à l’étude des cas en indo-européen. Les Hommes et les lettres 5. Lyon: L’Hermes. —. 1980. “Review of Klein 1978.” Kratylos 25: 122–5. Havers, Wilhelm. 1911. Untersuchungen zur Kasussyntax der indogermanischen Sprachen. Untersuchungen zur indogermanischen sprach-und kulturwissenschaft 3. Straßburg: Trübner. —. 1926. “Der sog. ‘Nominativus pendens’.” Indogermanische Forschungen 43: 207–57. Hejib, Alaka and Arvind Sharma. 1976. “The prohibitive use of na in lieu of ma¯ with the augmentless aorist in the RgVeda.” Adyar Library Bulletin 40: 108–14. ˚ —. 1977. “The negative particle na´ when used with the aorist system in the Rg-Veda.” Folia Linguistica 11: 277–80. Hendriksen, Hans.˚ 1944. Syntax of the inﬁnite verb-forms of Pali. Thesis of the faculty of philosophy of the University of Copen- hagen. Copenhagen: Munksgaard. BIBLIOGRAPHY 423

—. 1947. “A syntactic rule in Pali¯ and Ardhamagadh¯ ¯ı.” Acta Ori- entalia 20: 81–106. —. 1948. “On the meaning of Sanskrit bhavati.” Acta Orientalia 20: 206–15. Hermann, Eduard. 1895. “Gab es im Indogermanischen Neben- sätze?” Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 33: 481–535. Herzog, E. 1873. “Die Syntax des Inﬁnitivs.” Jahrbücher für klas- sische Philologie: 1–33. Hettrich, Heinrich. 1984. “Zur historischen Syntax der nomina actionis im R. gveda: der ‘doppelte Dativ’.” Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 43: 55–106. —. 1985. “Review of Ch. Lehmann 1984.” Kratylos 30: 42–52. —. 1987. “Zur Entwicklung der Finalsätze altindogermanischer Sprachen.” Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 100: 221–37. —. 1988. Untersuchungen zur Hypotaxe im Vedischen. Unter- suchungen zur indogermanischen Sprach- und Kulturwis- senschaft 4. Berlin; New York: de Gruyter. —. 1990. Der Agens in passivischen Sätzen altindogermanischer Sprachen. Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Philologisch-historische Klasse 2. Göttingen: Akademie der Wissenschaften. —. 1991. “Syntax und Wortarten der Lokalpartikeln des R. gveda, I: adhi´ .” Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 52: 27– 76. —. 1993. “Syntax und Wortarten der Lokalpartikeln des R. gveda. II: antar´ .” Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 54: 147–76. Appeared 1994. —. 1994. “Semantische und syntaktische Betrachtungen zum doppelten Akkusativ.” Früh-, Mittel-, Spätindogermanisch: Akten der IX. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, ed. by George E. Dunkel et al., pp. 111–34. Wiesbaden: L. Reichert. 424 SANSKRIT SYNTAX

—. 1995. “Zur funktionalen Variationsbreite altindogermanischer Kasus.” Verba et structurae: Festschrift für Klaus Strunk zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. by Heinrich Hettrich et al., pp. 53–72. Inns- bruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft. —. 2002a. “Das Projekt einer Kasussyntax des Rgveda. Der In- strumental.” Indogermanische Syntax: Fragen˚ und Perspek- tiven, ed. by Heinrich Hettrich and Jeong-Soo Kim, pp. 43– 63. Wiesbaden: L. Reichert. —. 2002b. “Syntax und Wortarten der Lokalpartikeln des R. gveda. III: pari´ .” Novalis Indogermanica: Festschrift für Günter Neu- mann zum 80. Geburtstag, ed. by Matthias Fritz and Susanne Zeilfelder, pp. 215–42. Grazer Vergleichende Arbeiten 17. Graz: Leykam. —. 2007. Materialien zu einer Kasussyntax des Rgveda. Würzburg: Institut für Altertumswissenschaften. ˚ —. 2011. “Konkurrierender Gebrauch obliquer Kasus im Rgve- da.” Indogermanistik und Linguistik im Dialog: Akten der˚ XIII. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, ed. by Th. Krisch and Th. Lindner, pp. 223–31. Wiesbaden: L. Reichert. Hettrich, Heinrich, Antje Casaretto, and Carolin Schneider. 2010. “Syntax und Wortarten der Lokalpartikeln des Rgveda IV: All- gemeines, II: upa´ , III: ava´ .” Münchener Studien˚ zur Sprach- wissenschaft 64: 17–130. Hiersche, Rolf. 1976. “Zu ai. ed´ (aid) + Akk. ‘siehe (da)’ in den Brahman¯ .as.” Die Sprache 22: 131–36. Hinüber, Oskar von. 1968. Studien zur Kasussyntax des Pali,¯ besonders des Vinaya-Pit.aka. Münchener Studien zur Sprach- wissenschaft Beihefte 2. Issued also as thesis, Mainz, 1966. München. Hirt, Hermann. 1937. Indogermanische Grammatik; vol. 7, Syn- tax. Indogermanische bibliothek. 1. Abt. Sammlung indogermanischer Lehr- und Handbücher. 1. Reihe: Grammatiken 13. Heidelberg: Winter. BIBLIOGRAPHY 425

Hock, Hans Henrich. 1975. “Substratum inﬂuence on (Rig-Vedic) Sanskrit?” Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 5.2: 76–125. —. 1981. “Sanskrit causative syntax: a diachronic study.” Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 11.2: 9–33. —. 1982a. “Clitic verbs in PIE or discourse-based verb fronting?: Sanskrit sa´ hovaca¯ gargyah¯´ . and congeners in Avestan and Homeric Greek.” Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 12.2: 1– 38. —. 1982b. “The Sanskrit passive: synchronic behavior and diachronic development.” Studies in South Asian languages and linguistics, ed. by P. J. Mistry, pp. 127–37. South Asian Review 6. —. 1982c. “The Sanskrit quotative: a historical and comparative study.” Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 12.2: 39–85. —. 1983a. “Language-death phenomena in Sanskrit: grammatical evidence for attrition in contemporary spoken Sanskrit.” Stud- ies in the Linguistic Sciences 13.2: 21–35. —. 1983b. “Pronominal reﬂexivization in Sanskrit.” Paper presented at the South Asian Languages Analysis Roundtable, 1983, Syracuse, NY. —. 1984. “(Pre-)Rig-Vedic convergence of Indo-Aryan with Dra- vidian? Another look at the evidence.” Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 14.1: 89–108. —. 1985a. “Pronoun fronting and the notion ‘verb-second’ position in Beowulf.” Germanic linguistics: papers from a symposium at the University of Chicago, April 24, 1985, ed. by J. T. Faarlund, pp. 70–86. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club. —. 1985b. “Sanskrit double-object constructions: Will the real object please stand up?” Prac¯ ¯ı-Bhas¯. a-Vijñ¯ ana:¯ Indian Journal of Linguistics 12: 50–70. Calcutta: West Bengal Institute of Lin- guistics. 426 SANSKRIT SYNTAX

—. 1985c. “Transitivity as a gradient feature? Evidence from Indo-Aryan, especially Sanskrit and Hindi.” Proceedings of the Conference on Participant Roles: South Asia and adjacent areas, ed. by A. R. K. Zide et al., pp. 247–63. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club. —. 1986a. “‘P-oriented’ constructions in Sanskrit.” South Asian languages: Structure, convergence, and diglossia, ed. by Bh. Krishnamurti et al., pp. 15–26. MLBD series in linguistics 3. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. —. 1986b. Principles of historical linguistics. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter. —. 1986c. Review of Meenakshi 1983. Journal of the American Oriental Society 106.2: pp. 345–346. —. 1987. “Reduced-clause and clause-union absolutives and participles in Vedic Prose.” Select papers from SALA-7, ed. by Elena Bashir et al., pp. 182–98. Bloomington: Indiana Univer- sity Linguistics Club. —. 1988. “Voice, mood, and the gerundive (krtya) in Sanskrit.” In- dologica Taurinensia 13: 81–102. Torino:˚ Istituto di indologia. —. 1989a. “Conjoined we stand: Theoretical implications of San- skrit relative clauses.” Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 19.1: 93–126. —. 1989b. “Research on Sanskrit syntax: a status report.” New horizons of research in Indology: silver jubilee volume, ed. by Vashishtha Narayan Jha, pp. 90–107. 1st ed. Publications of the Centre of Advanced Study in Sanskrit, Class E 10. Pune: Centre for Advanced Study in Sanskrit, University of Pune. —. 1990. “Oblique subjects in Sanskrit?” Experiencer Subjects in South Asian Languages: proceedings of the Conference on the Experiencer Subject in South Asian Languages, Novem- ber 1988, Madison, Wisconsin, ed. by Manindra K. Verma and K. P. Mohanan, pp. 119–39. BIBLIOGRAPHY 427

—. 1991a. “Causees, passive agents, or instruments? Instrumental NPs with causatives in early and later Vedic Prose.” Studies in Sanskrit syntax: a volume in honour of the centennial of Speijer’s Sanskrit syntax (1886–1986), ed. by Hans Henrich Hock, pp. 71–94. —. 1991b. “Possessive agents in Sanskrit?” Studies in Sanskrit syntax: a volume in honour of the centennial of Speijer’s San- skrit syntax (1886–1986), ed. by Hans Henrich Hock, pp. 55– 70. —. ed. 1991c. Studies in Sanskrit syntax: a volume in honour of the centennial of Speijer’s Sanskrit syntax (1886–1986). Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. —. 1993. “Some peculiarities of Vedic-prose relative clauses.” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens 35; Supplement 1993, pp. 9–29. —. 1994a. “Discourse linkage in Sanskrit narratives with special emphasis on the story of Nala.” Papers from the Fifteenth South Asian Language Analysis Roundtable, 1993, ed. by Al- ice Davison and Frederick M. Smith, pp. 117–39. Iowa City, IA: South Asian Studies Program. —. 1994b. “Narrative linkage in the Mahabh¯ arata.”¯ Modern evaluation of the Mahabh¯ arata:¯ Prof. R. K. Sharma felicitation volume, ed. by S. P. Narang, pp. 295–313. Delhi: Nag Publishers. —. 1996. “Who’s On First: toward a prosodic account of P2 clitics.” Approaching second: second position clitics and related phenomena, ed. by A. Halpern and A. Zwicky, pp. 199–270. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University. —. 1997a. “Chronology or genre? Problems in Vedic syntax.” In- side the texts — beyond the texts: new approaches to the study of the Vedas, ed. by Michael Witzel, pp. 103–26. Harvard Ori- ental Series, Opera Minora 2. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Uni- versity. 428 SANSKRIT SYNTAX

—. 1997b. “Nexus and ‘extraclausality’ in Vedic, or ‘sa-figé’ all over again: a historical (re)examination.” Historical, Indo-European, and lexicographical studies: a festschrift for Ladislav Zgusta on the occasion of his 70th birthday, ed. by Hans Henrich Hock, pp. 49–78. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter. —. 2000. “Genre, discourse, and syntax in Sanskrit.” Textual parameters in older languages, ed. by S. Herring, P. van Reenen, and L. Schøsler, pp. 163–95. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins. —. 2002. “Vedic eta´ . . . stav´ ama¯ : subordinate, coordinate, or what?” Indo-European perspectives, ed. by Mark R. V. South- ern, vol. 43, pp. 89–102. Journal of Indo-European Studies; monograph. Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man. —. 2005. “How strict is Strict OV?: a family of typological constraints with focus on South Asia.” Yearbook of South Asian Languages and Linguistics 2005, ed. by Rajendra Singh and Tanmoy Bhattacharya, pp. 145–63. New Delhi; Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. —. 2006a. “Reflexivization in the Rig-Veda (and beyond).” Pa- pers of the 12th World Sanskrit Conference, held in Helsinki, Finland, 13–18 July, 2003; vol. 5, Themes and tasks in Old and Middle Indo-Aryan linguistics, ed. by Bertil Tikkanen and Heinrich Hettrich, pp. 19–44. —. 2006b. “Ta-participles with genitive agents in Vedic Sanskrit: Was Pan¯ .ini right?” Sanskrit Studies Centre Journal 2: 24–49. Bangkok: Silpakorn University. —. 2007. “A short history of Vedic prefix-verb compound accentuation.” Paper presented at the Texas Vedic Workshop 2007. Unpublished. —. 2009a. “Some aspects of Sanskrit agreement.” Paper presented at the 28th South Asian Languages Analysis Roundtable, 9–11 October 2009, University of North Texas. Unpublished. BIBLIOGRAPHY 429

—. 2009b. “Stämme oder Wurzeln im Sanskrit? Primäre vs. sekundäre Verbalstammbildung und das Kausativ.” Interna- tional Conference on Morphology and Digitisation, ed. by Jost Gippert, pp. 63–80. Ústav srovnávací jazykovedyˇ Chatreššar 2009. Prague. —. 2012a. “Issues in Sanskrit agreement.” Indic across the millennia: from the Rigveda to Modern Indo-Aryan: 14th World Sanskrit Conference, Kyoto, Japan, September 1st–5th, 2009, proceedings of the Linguistic Section, ed. by Jared S. Klein and Kazuhiko Yoshida, pp. 49–58. —. 2012b. “Sanskrit and Pan¯ .ini — Core and periphery.” Samskr˙ ta Vimarsa´ , new series 6; World Sanskrit Conference Special,˚ pp. 85–102. New Delhi: Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan. —. 2012c. “Some notes on Indo-European double direct-object constructions.” Historische Sprachforschung 125; Von Fall zu Fall: Studien zur indogermanischen Syntax, ed. by Alfred Bammesberger, Olav Hackstein, and Sabine Ziegler, pp. 151– 64. Appeared 2014. —. 2013. “Proto-Indo-European verb-ﬁnality: reconstruction, typology, validation.” Journal of Historical Linguistics 3; Proto- Indo-European syntax and its development: proceedings of the Workshop on Proto-Indo-European Syntax and its Develop- ment, ed. by Leonid. I. Kulikov and Nikolas Lavidas, pp. 49– 76. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins. —. 2014a. “Predicate order in Vedic Prose.” Proceedings of the 15th World Sanskrit Conference; vol. 1, Vedic studies: language, texts, culture, and philosophy: proceedings of the Veda Section, 15th World Sanskrit Conference, New Delhi, 2012, ed. by Hans Henrich Hock, pp. 5–17. —. ed. 2014b. Proceedings of the 15th World Sanskrit Confer- ence; vol. 1, Vedic studies: language, texts, culture, and philosophy: proceedings of the Veda Section, 15th World Sanskrit 430 SANSKRIT SYNTAX

Conference, New Delhi, 2012. New Delhi: Rashriya Sanskrit Sansthan and D. K. Printworld. —. 2014c. “Vedic verb accent revisited.” Papers of the 13th World Sanskrit Conference, Edinburgh, 10–14 July 2006; vol. 3, Vedic and Sanskrit historical linguistics, ed. by Jared S. Klein and Elizabeth Tucker, pp. 153–78. —. Forthcoming(a). “Narrative linkage in Sanskrit.” To be submitted to a festschrift (2014). In preparation. —. Forthcoming(b). “The relation of the Indian grammatical tradition to modern linguistics.” Bulletin d’Études Indiennes; Pro- ceedings of the Panels on the History of Indian Grammatical Traditions, Potsdam, 2008, ed. by Emilie Aussant and Jean- Luc Chevillard, pp. Forthcoming. Hoenigswald, Henry M. 1980. “Notes on reconstruction, word order, and stress.” Linguistic reconstruction and Indo-European syntax: proceedings of the colloquium of the Indogermanische Gesellschaft, University of Pavia, ed. by Paolo Ramat, Onofrio Carruba, Anna Giacalone Ramat, and Giorgio Grafﬁ, pp. 609– 87. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Höfer, K. 1840. Vom Inﬁnitiv, besonders im Sanskrit: eine etymologisch-syntactische abhandlung als probe einer sanskrit- syntax. Berlin: Vof. Hoffmann, Karl. 1952–1956. “Zum prädikativen Adverb.” Münch- ener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 1: 54–60. [Reprinted in Hoffmann 1975–1976.] —. 1956. “Zur Parenthese im Altpersischen.” Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 9: 79–86. [Reprinted in Hoffmann 1975–1976.] —. 1961. “Die Ortsnamen-Parenthese im Altpersischen und Vedischen.” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 110: 64–73. Wiesbaden: Kommissionsverlag F. Steiner. [Reprinted in Hoffmann 1975–1976.] BIBLIOGRAPHY 431

—. 1967. Der Injunktiv im Veda: eine synchronische Funktionsun- tersuchung. Indogermanische Bibliothek, Dritte Reihe, Unter- suchungen. Heidelberg: Winter. —. 1975–1976. Aufsätze zur Indoiranistik. 3 vols. Vol. 3 published as a festschrift for Karl Hoffmann’s 75th birthday, and edited by Sonja Glauch, Robert Plath, and Sabine Ziegler. Wies- baden: L. Reichert. Holland, Gary B. 1984. “Subordination and relativization in Early Indo-European.” Proceedings of the tenth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, February 17–20, 1984, ed. by Claudia Brugman, pp. 609–22. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. —. 1986a. “A constraint on the position of the relative in Vedic Sanskrit.” Paper presented at the First Sanskrit Syntax Sympo- sium, South Asian Languages Analysis Roundtable, Urbana, IL. —. 1986b. “Nominal sentences and the origin of absolute constructions in Indo-European.” Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 99.2: 163–93. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. —. 1991. “Deﬁniteness and relativization in the Rigveda.” Panels of the VIIth World Sanskrit Conference, Kern Institute, Leiden, August 23–29, 1987; vol. 4, Sense and syntax in Vedic, ed. by Joel P. Brereton and Stephanie W. Jamison, pp. 22–32. —. 1996. “Relativization and word order in Old Irish and Vedic Sanskrit.” Journal of Indo-European Studies 24: 323–29. Holland, Gary B. and Nancy Ickler. 1978. “Some observations on relatives and demonstratives in Greek and Sanskrit.” Proceed- ings of the fourth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, ed. by Jeri J. Jaeger, pp. 432–45. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. Holtzmann, Adolf. 1884. Grammatisches aus dem Mahabh¯ arata¯ . Leipzig: Breitkopf and Härtel. 432 SANSKRIT SYNTAX

Hook, Peter Edwin. 1976. “As.t.adhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı 3.4.21 and the role of semantics in Paninian linguistics.” Papers from the twelfth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, ed. by Sa- likoko S. Mufwene, Carol A. Walker, and Sanford B. Steever, pp. 302–12. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. —. 1980. “As.t.adhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı 3.3.158 and the notion of subject in Pan¯ .ini.” Revue Roumaine de Linguistique 25: 79–87. —. 1984a. “Kasm´ ¯ırasabd´ amr¯ ta 8.3.3: an account of the ergative in the Paninian linguistic tradition.”˚ Indian Linguistics 44: 39–42. —. 1984b. “Panini’s as.t.adhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı: a two-storey house for a three- storey language?” Paper presented at the VIth World Sanskrit Conference, 13–20 October 1984, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. —. 1985. “Coexistent analyses and participant roles in Indo- Aryan.” Proceedings of the Conference on Participant Roles: South Asia and adjacent areas, ed. by A. R. K. Zide et al., pp. 264–83. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club. —. 1991. “On identifying the conceptual restructuring of passive as ergative in Indo-Aryan.” Pan¯ . inian studies: S. D. Joshi felicitation volume, ed. by Madhav Murlidhar Deshpande and Saroja Bhate, pp. 177–99. Ann Arbor: Center for South and Southeast Asian Studies, University of Michigan. —. 1995. “Covert absolutivity in Vedic.” Sthapaka¯ sr´ addha:¯ a commemorative volume for Prof. Georgij A. Zograph, ed. by N. V. Gurov and Y. V. Vasilkov, pp. 82–93. St. Petersburg: Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Oriental Studies. Hopkins, E. W. 1892. “The Aryan future.” American Journal of Philology 13: 1–50. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. —. 1906. “The Vedic dative reconsidered.” Transactions and Pro- ceedings of the American Philological Association 37: 87–120. —. 1907. “Aspects of the Vedic dative.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 28: 360–406. BIBLIOGRAPHY 433

—. 1918. “The origin of the ablative case.” Journal of the Ameri- can Oriental Society 38: 47–59. Humbach, Helmut. 1982. “Vedic indrasca´ vayo¯ ∼ Old Aves- tan mazdåsca¯ ahuråNho¯.” Münchener Studien zur Sprachwis- senschaft 41: 95–102. Ickler, Ingeborg. 1973. Untersuchungen zur Wortstellung und Syn- tax der Chandogyopanis¯ . ad. Göppinger Akademische Beiträge 75. Göppingen: Kümmerle. —. 1976. “Die vedische Partikel kila.” Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 90: 50–86. Insler, Stanley. “The origin of the Sanskrit passive aorist.” Indoger- manische Forschungen 73: 312–46. —. 1998. “Mitrav¯´ arun´ . a¯ or mitra¯´ varun´ . a¯?” Mír Curad: Festschrift for Calvert Watkins, ed. by J. Jasonoff, C. Melchert, and L. Oliver, pp. 285–90. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft. Jacobi, Hermann. 1895. “Die Inversion von Subjekt und Prädikat im Indischen.” Indogermanische Forschungen 5: 335–8. —. 1896. “Zur Entwicklung des indischen Satzbaus.” Indoger- manischen Forschungen 6: 152–56. Abstract in A. Thumb’s report on ‘Die indogermanische Sektion auf der Kölner Philolo- genversammlung.’ Anzeiger für indogermanische Sprach- und Altertumskunde, Beiblatt zu den Indogermanischen Forschun- gen. —. 1897. Compositum und Nebensatz. Bonn: Cohen. —. 1899. “Über das periphrastische perfect im Sanskrit.” Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 35: 578–87. —. 1903. “Über den nominalen Stil des wissenschaftlichen San- skrit.” Indogermanische Forschungen 14: 236–51. Jamison, Stephanie W. 1976. “Functional ambiguity and syntactic change: the Sanskrit accusative.” Papers from the Parasession on Diachronic Syntax, pp. 126–35. Chicago: Linguistic Soci- ety. 434 SANSKRIT SYNTAX

—. 1977. “Function and form in the -aya-formations of the Rigveda and Atharvaveda.” Ph.D. dissertation. New Haven: Yale University. [Revised as Jamison 1983.] —. 1979a. “Remarks on the expression of agency with the passive in Vedic and Indo-European.” Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 93: 196–219. —. 1979b. “The case of the agent in Indo-European.” Die Sprache 25: 129–43. —. 1982. “Case disharmony in R. gvedic similes.” Indo-Iranian Journal 24: 251–71. —. 1983. Function and form in the -aya-formations of the Rigveda and Atharvaveda. Ergänzungshefte zur Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 13. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. [Revision of Jamison 1977.] —. 1984. “The Vedic passive optative and its functional equivalents: a study of the syntax of the gerundive.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 104: 609–20. —. 1988. “Some intersections of semantics and syntax in Vedic.” Paper presented at the Third Sanskrit Syntax Symposium, South Asian Languages Analysis Roundtable, Seattle, WA, 1988. Unpublished. —. 1991a. “The syntax of direct speech in Vedic.” Studies in San- skrit syntax: a volume in honour of the centennial of Spei- jer’s Sanskrit syntax (1886–1986), ed. by Hans Henrich Hock, pp. 95–112. [Also published as Jamison 1991b.] —. 1991b. “The syntax of direct speech in Vedic.” Panels of the VIIth World Sanskrit Conference, Kern Institute, Leiden, Au- gust 23–29, 1987; vol. 4, Sense and syntax in Vedic, ed. by Joel P. Brereton and Stephanie W. Jamison, pp. 40–61. [Also published as Jamison 1991a.] —. 1997. “Conjunctive u and invariable sa´ in the Rgveda: questions of method (with a note on Greek dialectal ˚῎ονυ and ῎ονε).” Indogermanische Forschungen 102: 156–78. BIBLIOGRAPHY 435

Jeffers, R. 1972. “The infinitives of the Indo-European languages.” Ph.D. dissertation. Ithaca, NY: Department of Linguistics, Cornell University. —. 1975. “Remarks on Indo-European infinitives.” Language 51: 133–48. —. 1987. “On methodology in syntactic reconstruction: reconstructing inter-clause syntax in prehistoric Indo-European.” Papers from the 7th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, ed. by A. G. Ramat et al., pp. 305–23. Amster- dam: John Benjamins. Jeffers, R. and R. Kantor. 1984. “A history of the Sanskrit gerund.” Indogermanische Forschungen 89: 89–103. Jeffers, R. and W. J. Pepicello. 1979. “The expression of purpose in Indo-European.” Indogermanische Forschungen 84: 1–18. Job, Michael. 1994. “Zur Funktion des Perfekts im Rgveda.” In- dogermanica et caucasica: Festschrift für Karl Horst˚ Schmidt zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. by Roland Bielmeier and Reinhard Stempel, pp. 41–62. Berlin; New York: de Gruyter. Johnson, David E. 1974. “Towards a relationally based grammar.” Ph.D. dissertation. Urbana: University of Illinois. Jolly, Julius. 1872. Ein Kapitel vergleichender Syntax: der Con- junctiv und Optativ und die Nebensätze im Zend und Altper- sischen in Vergleich mit dem Sanskrit und Griechischen. Mün- chen: T. Ackermann. —. 1873. Geschichte des Infinitivs im Indogermanischen. Mün- chen: Ackermann. Joseph, Brian D. 1981. “Hittite iwar, wa(r) and Sanskrit iva.” Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 95: 93–98. —. 1991. “A diachronic phonological solution to the syntax of Vedic negative particles.” Studies in Sanskrit syntax: a volume in honour of the centennial of Speijer’s Sanskrit syntax (1886– 1986), ed. by Hans Henrich Hock, pp. 113–22. 436 SANSKRIT SYNTAX

Joshi, S. D. 1969. “Sentence structure according to Pan¯ .ini.” Indian Antiquary, 3rd ser. 3: 13–26. Kale, Moreshwar Ramchandra. 1894. A higher Sanskrit grammar: for the use of schools and colleges. 1st edition. Bombay: Gopal¯ Nar¯ ayen¯ & Co. [Revised as Kale 1898.] —. 1898. A higher Sanskrit grammar. Bombay: Gopal¯ Nar¯ ayen¯ & Co. [Revision of Kale 1894. Reprinted with different pagination: Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1961.] Keith, A. Berriedale. 1906. “The use of the gerund as passive in Sanskrit.” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 38.3: 693–95. —. 1907. “The use of the passive gerund in Sanskrit.” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 39.1: 164–66. —. 1908. “An unusual use of the nominative.” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 40.4: 1124–27. —. 1909a. “Notes on syntax.” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 41.2: 428–32. —. 1909b. “Participles as ﬁnite verbs.” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 63: 346–49. —. 1909c. “Tenses and moods in the Kat¯.haka Samhit˙ a.”¯ Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 1909: 149–54. —. 1910a. “Grammatical notes.” Journal of the Royal Asiatic So- ciety 42.1: 151–59. —. 1910b. “Peculiarities in the use of iti.” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 42.4: 1317–21. —. 1912. “Notes on Vedic syntax.” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 44.3: 721–26. Keydana, Götz. 1997. Absolute Konstruktionen in altindogermanischen Sprachen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. —. 2000. “Prädikativa im Altindischen.” Vividharatnakaran. d. aka: Festgabe für Adelheid Mette, ed. by Ch. Chojnacki et al., pp. 369–78. Swisttal-Odendorf: Indica et Tibetica Verlag. —. 2009. “Latente Objekte und altindische Diskursgrammatik.” Pragmatische Kategorien: Form, Funktion und Diachronie, BIBLIOGRAPHY 437

ed. by E. Rieken and P. Widmer, pp. 125–42. Wiesbaden: L. Reichert. —. 2011. “Wackernagel in the language of the Rigveda: a re- assessment.” Historische Sprachforschung 124: 80–107. Kieckers, Ernst. 1915–1916a. “Zur oratio recta in den indogermanischen Sprachen 1.” Indogermanische Forschungen 35: 1–93. —. 1915–1916b. “Zur oratio recta in den indogermanischen Spra- chen 2.” Indogermanische Forschungen 36: 1–70. Kiparsky, Paul. 1968. “Tense and mood in Indo-European syntax.” Foundations of Language 4: 30–57. —. 1982. Some theoretical problems in Pan¯ . ini’s grammar. Post- graduate and Research Department series 16. Pune: Bhan- darkar Oriental Research Institute. —. 1995. “Indo-European origins of Germanic syntax.” Clause structure and language change, ed. by A. Battye and I. Roberts, pp. 140–69. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. —. 1998. “Aspect and event structure in Vedic.” Yearbook of South Asian Languages and Linguistics 1: 29–61. URL: http : / / www . stanford . edu / ~kiparsky / Papers / semanticsfest.pdf. —. 2005. “The Vedic injunctive: historical and synchronic implications.” The Yearbook of South Asian Languages and Linguis- tics 2005, ed. by Tanmoy Bhattacharya, pp. 219–36. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter. —. 2009. “On the architecture of Pan¯ .ini’s grammar.” Sanskrit computational linguistics: ﬁrst and second international symposia, Rocquencourt, France, October 2007; Providence, RI, USA, May 2008; Revised selected and invited papers, ed. by Gérard Huet, Amba Kulkarni, and Peter M. Scharf, pp. 33–94. Lecture Notes in Artiﬁcial Intelligence 5402. —. 2010. “Dvandvas, blocking, and the associative: the bumpy ride from phrase to word.” Language 86: 302–31. 438 SANSKRIT SYNTAX

Kiparsky, Paul and J. F. Staal. 1969. “Syntactic and semantic relations in Panini.” Foundations of Language 5: 83–117. Klaiman, M. H. 1976. “Correlative clauses and IE syntactic reconstruction.” Papers from the Parasession on Diachronic Syntax, pp. 159–68. Chicago: Linguistic Society. —. 1978. “Arguments against a passive origin of the IA ergative.” Papers from the 4th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguis- tic Society, pp. 204–16. —. 1981. “The diachronic relationship of the IA ergative and passive constructions.” Syntactic change, ed. by B. B. Johns and D. R. Strong, pp. 135–57. Ann Arbor: Department of Linguis- tics, University of Michigan. —. 1987. “The Sanskrit passive in lexical-functional grammar.” Papers from the 23rd Regional Meeting of the Chicago Lin- guistic Society, pp. 196–214. Klein, Jared S. 1978a. “The diachronic syntax of the particle u in the Rigveda.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 98: 266–76. —. 1978b. The particle u in the Rigveda: a synchronic and diachronic study. Ergänzungshefte zur Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 27. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. —. 1978c. “The system of coordinate conjunctions in the Rigveda.” Indo-Iranian Journal 20: 1–23. —. 1980. “Ath´ a¯, adha´ , and a typology of Rigvedic conjunction.” Indo-Iranian Journal 22: 195–219. —. 1981. “The origin of the Rigvedic vayav¯´ ´ındras´ ca construction.” Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 40: 73–91. —. 1982a. “Rigvedic tu´ and su´.” Die Sprache 28: 1–26. —. 1982b. “Sanskrit ca, Indo-European *kwe, and the semantics of coordinate conjoined structures in the Rigveda.” Studies in South Asian languages and linguistics, ed. by P. J. Mistry, pp. 65–77. South Asian Review 6. BIBLIOGRAPHY 439

—. 1985a. Toward a discourse grammar of the Rigveda; vol. 1, Coordinate conjunction. 2 parts. Indogermanische Bibliothek 1. Heidelberg: Winter. —. 1985b. “The origin and syntax of the Rigvedic construction ya-´ (. . . ) ka´/´ı/u-´ ca.” Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 44: 105–21. —. 1987. “The two senses of the term ‘anaphora’ and their functional unity: evidence from the Rigveda.” Festschrift for Henry Hoenigswald on the occasion of his seventieth birthday, ed. by George Cardona and N. H. Zide, pp. 192–99. Tübingen: Narr. —. 1991a. “Syntactic and discourse correlates of verb-initial sentences in the Rigveda.” Studies in Sanskrit syntax: a volume in honour of the centennial of Speijer’s Sanskrit syntax (1886– 1986), ed. by Hans Henrich Hock, pp. 123–43. [Also published as Klein 1991b.] —. 1991b. “Syntactic and discourse correlates of verb-initial sentences in the Rigveda.” Panels of the VIIth World Sanskrit Conference, Kern Institute, Leiden, August 23–29, 1987; vol. 4, Sense and syntax in Vedic, ed. by Joel P. Brereton and Stephanie W. Jamison, pp. 66–80. [Also published as Klein 1991a.] —. 1992. On verbal accentuation in the Rigveda. American Ori- ental Society Essay 11. New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society. —. 1996. “Sa ﬁgé and Indo-European deixis.” Historische Sprach- forschung 109: 21–39. —. 1999. “A triadic structural feature of nominal Anaphora in the Rigveda.” Gering und doch von Herzen: 25 Indogermanisti- sche Beiträge, Bernhard Forssman zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. by J. Habisreitinger, R. Plath, and S. Ziegler, pp. 119–34. Wies- baden: L. Reichert. 440 SANSKRIT SYNTAX

—. 2000. “Polyptoton and paronomasia in the Rigveda.” Anusan- tatyai: Festschrift für Johanna Narten zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. by Almut Hintze and Eva Tichy, pp. 135–55. Dettelbach: Röll. —. 2002a. “Homoioteleuton in the Rigveda.” Indo-European perspectives, ed. by Mark R. V. Southern, vol. 43, pp. 199–222. Journal of Indo-European Studies; monograph. Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man. —. 2002b. “Responsion in the Rigveda.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 122: 311–17. —. 2002c. “The syntax of style: a typology of word and morpheme-level repetition in the Rigveda.” Indogermanische Syntax: Fragen und Perspektiven, ed. by Heinrich Hettrich and Jeong-Soo Kim, pp. 231–48. Wiesbaden: L. Reichert. —. 2004a. “Amreditas and related constellations in the Rigveda.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 123: 773–802. —. 2004b. “Nominal and adverbial amreditas and the etymology of Rgvedic nana.” The Vedas: text, language & ritual: proceedings of the Third International Vedic Workshop, Leiden 2002, ed. by Arlo Grifﬁths and Jan E. M. Houben, pp. 251–60. Groningen: Egbert Fortsen. —. 2004c. “Patterns of verb repetition in the Rigveda.” General Linguistics 41: 222–56. —. 2004d. “Phrasal repetition in the Rigveda.” Bulletin d’études indiennes 21: 7–45. —. 2006. “Aspects of the rhetorical poetics of the Rigveda.” La langue poétique indo-européenne: Actes du Colloque de tra- vail de la Société des Études Indo-Européennes, Paris, 22–24 octobre 2003, ed. by Georges-Jean Pinault and Daniel Petit, pp. 195–211. Leuven-Paris: Peeters. —. 2007a. “On the nature and function of preverb repetition in the Rigveda.” Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik 24: 91–103. BIBLIOGRAPHY 441

—. 2007b. “Relative pronoun sequences in the Rigveda: a syntactic, rhetorical-poetic, and discourse-level study.” Bulletin d’études indiennes 22-23: 495–536. —. 2007c. “Sequential negation in the Rigveda.” Verba docenti: studies in historical and Indo-European linguistics presented to Jay H. Jasanoff by students, colleagues, and friends, ed. by Alan Nussbaum, pp. 213–29. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave Press. —. 2008a. “Adverbial repetition in the Rigveda.” Indologica: T. Ya. Elizarenkova memorial volume, ed. by L. Kulikov and M. Rusanov, vol. 1, pp. 167–82. Orientalia et Classica: Papers of the Institute of Oriental and Classical Studies 20. Moscow: Russian State University for the Humanities. —. 2008b. “Interrogative sequences in the Rigveda.” Evidence and counter-evidence: essays in honour of F. Kortlandt, ed. by Alexander Lubotsky et al., vol. 1, pp. 297–308. Studies in Slavic and general linguistics 32. Amsterdam; New York: Rodopi. —. 2008c. “Numeral repetition in the Rigveda.” Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference, ed. by Karlene Jones-Bley et al., vol. 54, pp. 171–91. Journal of Indo-European Studies; monograph. Washington: Institute for the Study of Man. —. 2010. “Personal pronoun sequences in the Rigveda.” Ex Ana- tolia lux: Anatolian and Indo-European studies in honor of H. Craig Melchert on the occasion of his sixty-ﬁfth birthday, ed. by Ronald Kim et al., pp. 204–16. Ann Arbor; New York: Beech Stave Press. —. 2012. “Deictic pronoun repetition in the Rigveda.” Indic across the millennia: from the Rigveda to Modern Indo-Aryan: 14th World Sanskrit Conference, Kyoto, Japan, September 1st–5th, 2009, proceedings of the Linguistic Section, ed. by Jared S. Klein and Kazuhiko Yoshida, pp. 59–76. 442 SANSKRIT SYNTAX

—. 2014a. “Conjunctive sequences in the Rigveda.” Papers of the 13th World Sanskrit Conference, Edinburgh, 10–14 July 2006; vol. 3, Vedic and Sanskrit historical linguistics, ed. by Jared S. Klein and Elizabeth Tucker, pp. 265–92. —. 2014b. “Interstanzaic repetition in the Rigveda.” Proceedings of the 15th World Sanskrit Conference; vol. 1, Vedic studies: language, texts, culture, and philosophy: proceedings of the Veda Section, 15th World Sanskrit Conference, New Delhi, 2012, ed. by Hans Henrich Hock, pp. 18–38. —. 2014c. “Some rhetorical aspects of adjacent interstanzaic phrasal repetition in the Rigveda.” Grammatica et verba — Glamour and verve: studies in South Asian, historical, and Indo-European linguistics in honor of Hans Henrich Hock on the occasion of his seventy-ﬁfth birthday, ed. by Shu-Fen Chen and Benjamin Slade, pp. 128–44. Klein, Jared S. and Elizabeth Tucker, eds. 2014. Papers of the 13th World Sanskrit Conference, Edinburgh, 10–14 July 2006; vol. 3, Vedic and Sanskrit historical linguistics. Delhi: Motilal Ba- narsidass. Klein, Jared S. and Kazuhiko Yoshida, eds. 2012. Indic across the millennia: from the Rigveda to Modern Indo-Aryan: 14th World Sanskrit Conference, Kyoto, Japan, September 1st–5th, 2009, proceedings of the Linguistic Section. Bremen: Ute Hempen Verlag. Knobl, Werner. 2006. “Studies on the present participle, 1: the present participle expressive of intentionality.” Journal of In- dological Studies 16–17: 65–108. Kobayashi, Masato. 2012. “Information structure and the particles va´ı and eva´ in Vedic Prose.” Indic across the millennia: from the Rigveda to Modern Indo-Aryan: 14th World Sanskrit Con- ference, Kyoto, Japan, September 1st–5th, 2009, proceedings of the Linguistic Section, ed. by Jared S. Klein and Kazuhiko Yoshida, pp. 77–92. BIBLIOGRAPHY 443

Krisch, Thomas. 1990. “Das Wackernagelsche Gesetz aus heutiger Sicht.” Sprachwissenschaft und Philologie: Jacob Wacker- nagel und die Indogermanistik heute: Kolloquium der Indoger- manischen Gesellschaft, Basel, 1988, ed. by Heiner Eichner and Helmut Rix, pp. 64–81. Wiesbaden: L. Reichert. —. 1994. “Betrachtungen zur Wortstellung im Altindischen.” Früh-, Mittel-, Spätindogermanisch: Akten der IX. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, ed. by George E. Dunkel et al., pp. 169–83. Wiesbaden: L. Reichert. —. 1996. Zur Genese und Funktion der altindischen Perfekta mit langem Reduplikationsvokal: mit kommentierter Material- sammlung. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft. —. 1997. “B. Delbrücks Arbeiten zur Wortstellung aus heutiger Sicht.” Berthold Delbrück y la sintaxis indoeuropea hoy: actas del coloquio de la Indogermanische Gesellschaft 1994, Madrid, ed. by E. Crespo and J.-L. García-Ramón, pp. 283– 309. Wiesbaden: L. Reichert. —. 2002. “Indogermanische Wortstellung.” Indogermanische Syn- tax: Fragen und Perspektiven, ed. by Heinrich Hettrich and Jeong-Soo Kim, pp. 249–61. Wiesbaden: L. Reichert. —. 2009. “On the ‘syntax of silence’ in Proto-Indo-European.” Information theory and language change: new approaches to word order variation, ed. by R. Hinterhölzl and Svetlana Petrova, pp. 191–220. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter. —. 2011. “Some remarks on the position of adverbials in Greek and Vedic sentences.” Indogermanistik und Linguistik im Dialog: Akten der XIII. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, ed. by Th. Krisch and Th. Lindner, pp. 300–9. Wiesbaden: L. Reichert. Kuiper, F. B. J. 1974. “The genesis of a linguistic area.” Interna- tional Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 3: 135–53. Kulikov, Leonid. 1997. “Vedic mriyate´ and other pseudo-passives: note on an accent shift.” Indo-European, Nostratic, and be- 444 SANSKRIT SYNTAX

yond: Festschrift for V. V. Shevoroshkin, ed. by I. Heged˝us et al., pp. 198–205. Journal of Indo-European Studies; monograph 22. Washington: Institute for the Study of Man. —. 1998. “Passive, anticausative, and classification of verbs: the case of Vedic.” Typology of verbal categories: papers presented to Vladimir Nedjalkov on the occasion of his 70th birthday, ed. by L. Kulikov and H. Vater, pp. 139–53. Tübingen: Niemeyer. —. 2001. “The Vedic -ya-presents.” Proefschrift. Leiden: Univer- siteit Leiden. —. 2006a. “Passive and middle in Indo-European: reconstructing the early Vedic passive paradigm.” Passivization and typology: Form and function, ed. by Werner Abraham and Larisa Leislö, pp. 62–81. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins. —. 2006b. “The Sanskrit -yet-optative: a formation not yet recorded in Sanskrit grammars.” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens 50: 27–68. —. 2006c. “The Vedic medio-passive aorists, statives and their participles: reconsidering the paradigm.” Papers of the 12th World Sanskrit Conference, held in Helsinki, Finland, 13–18 July, 2003; vol. 5, Themes and tasks in Old and Middle Indo- Aryan linguistics, ed. by Bertil Tikkanen and Heinrich Het- trich, pp. 45–64. —. 2007a. “Reciprocal constructions in Vedic.” Reciprocal constructions, ed. by V. P. Nedjalkov et al., vol. 2, pp. 709–38. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins. —. 2007b. “The reflexive pronouns in Vedic: a diachronic and typological perspective.” Lingua 117–118: 1412–33. —. 2008. “The Vedic causative samkhy˙ apayati¯ / samk˙ sápayati¯ reconsidered.” Indologica: T. Ya. Elizarenkova memorial volume, ed. by L. Kulikov and M. Rusanov, vol. 1, pp. 245–61. Orientalia et Classica: Papers of the Institute of Oriental and BIBLIOGRAPHY 445

Classical Studies 20. Moscow: Russian State University for the Humanities. —. 2009. “Valency-changing categories in Indo-Aryan and Indo- European: reconstructing the early Vedic paradigm.” Multilin- gualism: proceedings of the 23rd Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, ed. by Anju Saxena and Åke Viberg, pp. 75–92. Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet. —. 2010. “Nominal composition, noun incorporation and non- ﬁnite formations in Sanskrit: delimiting the boundaries of the verbal paradigm.” Anantam S´astram:¯ Indological and linguistic studies in honour of Bertil Tikkanen, ed. by Klaus Kart- tunen, pp. 111–31. Studia Orientalia 108. Helsinki: Finnish Oriental Society. —. 2012a. The Vedic -ya-presents: passives and intransitivity in Old Indo-Aryan. Amsterdam: Rodopi. —. 2012b. “Vedic preverbs as markers of valency-changing derivations: transitivity and objecthood in Indo-European (evidence from Old Indo-Aryan).” Studies in Language 36.4: 721– 46. —. 2013. “Language vs. grammatical tradition in Ancient India: How real was Pan¯ .inian Sanskrit? Evidence from the history of late Sanskrit passives and pseudo-passives.” Folia Linguistica Historica 34: 59–92. Kumar, B. S. 1976. Sanskrit syntax and the grammar of case. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Kümmel, Martin Joachim. 1996. Stativ und Passivaorist im In- doiranischen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. —. 2000. Das Perfekt im Indoiranischen. Wiesbaden: L. Reichert. —. 2014. “Pan¯ .ini 5.3.5 and the function of Sanskrit etad´ .” Pro- ceedings of the 15th World Sanskrit Conference; vol. 1, Vedic studies: language, texts, culture, and philosophy: proceedings of the Veda Section, 15th World Sanskrit Conference, New Delhi, 2012, ed. by Hans Henrich Hock, pp. 39–56. 446 SANSKRIT SYNTAX

Kupfer, Katharina. 2000. Die Demonstrativpronomina im Rigveda. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Kurzová, Helena. 1981. Der Relativsatz in den indoeuropäischen Sprachen. Hamburg: H. Buske; Praha: Academia, Verlag der Tschechoslowakischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Lahiri, P. C. 1933. “Studies in the word order of Sanskrit prose.” Ph.D. dissertation. London: University of London. Lanman, C. R. 1880. “Noun inﬂection in the Veda.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 10: 325–601. Lazzeroni, Romano. 2004. “Inaccusatività indoeuropea e alternanza causative vedica.” Archivio Glottologico Italiano 89.2: 139–64. Lehmann, Christian. 1984. Der Relativsatz: Typologie seiner Strukturen, Theorie seiner Funktionen, Kompendium seiner Grammatik. Language Universals Series 3. Tübingen: Narr. Lehmann, Winfred P. 1969. “Proto-Indo-European compounds in relation to other Proto-Indo-European syntactic patterns.” Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 12: 1–20. —. 1973. “Explanations for some syntactic phenomena of Proto- Indo-European.” Glossa 7: 81–90. —. 1974. Proto-Indo-European syntax. Austin: University of Texas Press. —. 1976. “From topic to subject in Indo-European.” Subject and topic, ed. by C. N. Li, pp. 446–56. New York: Academic Press. —. 1980. “The reconstruction of non-simple sentences in Proto- Indo-European.” Linguistic reconstruction and Indo-European syntax, ed. by P. Ramat et al., pp. 113–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. —. 1985. “Development of conditional clauses in early Sanskrit.” Sprachwissenschaftliche Forschungen: Festschrift für Johann Knobloch, ed. by H. M. Ölberg et al., pp. 231–6. Innsbruck. BIBLIOGRAPHY 447

Lehmann, Winfred P. and Undirapola Ratanajoti. 1975. “Typo- logical syntactical characteristics of the Satapathabr´ ahman¯ .a.” Journal of Indo-European Studies 3: 147–59. Liebert, Gösta. 1951. “Über die Partikeln su´ und tu´ im Vedischen.” Studia Linguistica 5: 53–88. —. 1954. Zum Gebrauch der w-Demonstrativa im ältesten In- doiranischen. Lunds Universitets Årsskrift, Afd. 1, n.F. 50.9. Lund: Gleerup. Liebich, Bruno. 1886. “Die casuslehre der indischen grammatiker verglichen mit dem gebrauch der casus im Aitareya- Brâhman.a.” Beiträge zur Kunde der indogermanischen Spra- chen 10: 205–34. Continued in 11: 273-315. Lindner, Bruno. 1878. Altindische Nominalbildung nach den Sam-˙ hitas¯ . Jena: Costenoble. Longobardi, Giuseppe. 1980. “Les relatives nominales indoeu- ropénnes.” Linguistic reconstruction and Indo-European syntax: proceedings of the colloquium of the Indogermanische Gesellschaft, University of Pavia, 6-7 September 1979, ed. by Paolo Ramat, pp. 171–82. Amsterdam studies in the theory and history of linguistic science, series IV, Current issues in linguistic theory 19. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Lowe, John J. 2011a. “Negated participles in R. gvedic Sanskrit and Proto-Indo-European.” Indo-Iranian Journal 54: 19–38. —. 2011b. “Rgvedic clitics and ‘prosodic movement’.” Proceed- ings of˚ the LFG11 conference, ed. by Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King, pp. 360–80. Stanford: CSLI Publica- tions. URL: http : / / web . stanford . edu / group / cslipublications/cslipublications/LFG/16/ lfg11.html. —. 2013. “Indo-European Caland adjectives in *-nt- and participles in Sanskrit.” Historische Sprachforschung 126. Ludwig, Alfred. 1871. Der Inﬁnitiv im Veda. Prague: Calve. 448 SANSKRIT SYNTAX

—. 1898. “Über die absoluten verbalformen des Samskr˙ .t und den praedicatsauszdruck im allgemeinen.” Sitzungsberichte der Königlichen Böhmischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, Classe für Philosophie, Geschichte und Philologie 1897.7: 1– 92. Prague. Lühr, Rosemarie. 1997. “Zur ‘Kasusattraktion’ in altindischen dativischen Inﬁnitivkonstruktionen: ein Fall von syntaktischer Analogie?” Sound law and analogy: papers in honor of Robert S. P. Beekes on the occasion of his 60th birthday, ed. by Alexander Lubotsky, pp. 155–70. Leiden Studies in Indo- European 9. Leiden: Rodopi. —. 2000a. “Der Nebensatz und seine Konkurrenten in der In- dogermania: der altindische Relativsatz.” Historische Sprach- forschung 113: 71–87. —. 2000b. “Zum Modalfeld im Altindischen.” Indoarisch, Iranisch und die Indogermanistik: Arbeitstagung der Indoger- manischen Gesellschaft vom 2. bis 5. Oktober 1997 in Erlan- gen, ed. by Bernhard Forssman and Robert Plath, pp. 327–38. Wiesbaden: L. Reichert. —. 2004a. “Nominalkomposition im Altindischen und Alt- griechischen.” Komplexe Wortstrukturen: Komposition, Inkor- poration, Polysynthese, ed. by E. Nowak, pp. 107–214. Berlin: Technische Universität Berlin, Institut für Sprache und Kom- munikation. —. 2004b. “Thematische Rollen und Kasus: zu Agens und Patiens beim Passiv im Altindischen.” Linguistische Arbeitsberichte 81: 99–126. —. 2008a. “Competitive Indo-European syntax.” Principles of syntactic reconstruction, ed. by Gisella Ferraresi and Maria Goldbach, pp. 121–60. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Ben- jamins. —. 2008b. “Old Indic clauses between subordination and coordination.” ‘Subordination’ versus ‘coordination’ in sentence BIBLIOGRAPHY 449

and text, ed. by Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen and Wiebke Ramm, pp. 307–27. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Macdonell, Arthur Anthony. 1916. A Vedic grammar for students. London: Oxford University Press. [Reprint: Bombay; Cal- cutta; Madras: Oxford University Press, 1955.] —. 1927. A Sanskrit grammar for students. 3rd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Matilal, Bimal Krishna. 1966. “Indian theorists on the nature of the sentence.” Foundations of Language 2: 377–93. —. 1985. Logic, language, and reality. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Mayr, Aurel. 1871. Beiträge aus dem Rgveda zur Accentuirung des Verbum finitum. Wien: Gerold’s Sohn.˚ Meenakshi, K. 1983. Epic syntax. Delhi: Meharchand Lacch- mandas. [Revision of Ph.D. dissertation, University of Poona, 1963.] —. 1986. “The quotative in Indo-Aryan.” South Asian languages: structure, convergence, and diglossia, ed. by Bh. Krishnamurti et al., pp. 209–18. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. —. 1991a. “The genitive in Pan¯ .ini and in Epic Sanskrit.” Studies in Sanskrit syntax: a volume in honour of the centennial of Speijer’s Sanskrit syntax (1886–1986), ed. by Hans Henrich Hock, pp. 145–52. —. 1991b. “Vedic infinitive and Pan¯ .ini.” Panels of the VIIth World Sanskrit Conference, Kern Institute, Leiden, August 23–29, 1987; vol. 5, Pan¯ . ini and the Veda, ed. by Madhav Murlidhar Deshpande, pp. 46–54. Meillet, Antoine. 1906–1908. “La phrase nominale en indo- européen.” Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 14: 1–26. —. 1931. “Le cas employés à l’infinitif en indo-européen.” Bul- letin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 32.2: 188–93. Melazzo, Roberta. 2010. I bahuvr¯ıhi del Rig Veda. Innsbruck: In- stitut für Sprachwissenschaft. 450 SANSKRIT SYNTAX

Michelson, Truman. 1904. “Linguistic archaisms of the Ram¯ aya-¯ n.a.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 25: 89–145. Miehle, Helen Louise. 1974. “Relative constructions in the Rig- Veda, book five.” Journal of Indo-European Studies 2: 407– 34. Migron, Saul. 1985. “The Rgvedic stanza as a syntactical unit: a study of selected trimeter passages.” Ph.D. dissertation. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University. —. 1993. “Catena and climax in Vedic prose.” Die Sprache 35: 71–80. —. 1994. “The cleft sentence in Vedic Prose: a sketch.” Münch- ener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 55: 99–122. Miller, D. Gary. 1975. “Indo-European: VSO, SOV, SVO, or all three?” Lingua 37: 31–52. Minard, Armand. 1936. La subordination dans la prose védique: Études sur le Satapatha-Br´ ahman¯ . a, 1. Annales de l’Université de Lyon, nouvelle série 3 3. Thèse, Paris. Paris: Société d’édition Les Belles Lettres. —. 1949. Trois énigmes sur les cent chemins: recherches sur le Sa-´ tapatha-Brahman¯ . a. Annales de l’Université de Lyon, nouvelle série 3 17. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Molina Muñoz, Adriana. 2009. “A reexamination of the perfect and the imperfect in Vedic Sanskrit.” Qualifying examination paper. Urbana: Department of Linguistics, University of Illi- nois, Urbana-Champaign. —. 2014. “Sanskrit compounds and the architecture of the grammar.” Grammatica et verba — Glamour and verve: studies in South Asian, historical, and Indo-European linguistics in honor of Hans Henrich Hock on the occasion of his seventy- fifth birthday, ed. by Shu-Fen Chen and Benjamin Slade, pp. 181–201. Mumm, Peter Arnold. 1995. “Verbale Definitheit und der vedische Injunktiv.” Verba et structurae: Festschrift für Klaus Strunk BIBLIOGRAPHY 451

zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. by Heinrich Hettrich et al., pp. 169– 93. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft. —. 2002. “Retrospektivität im Rigveda: Aorist und Perfekt.” In- dogermanische Syntax: Fragen und Perspektiven, ed. by Hein- rich Hettrich and Jeong-Soo Kim, pp. 157–88. Wiesbaden: L. Reichert. —. 2004. “Altindisch sma, Teil 1: Rig und Atharvaveda.” Interna- tional Journal of Diachronic Linguistics and Linguistic Recon- struction 1: 19–68. Negelein, Julius von. 1897. Das Verbalsystem des Atharvaveda. Norden: Soltau. Nooten, B. A. van, ed. 1988. Sanskrit studies of M. B. Emeneau. Occasional papers 13. Berkeley: Center for South and South- east Asian Studies, University of California at Berkeley. Oberlies, Thomas. 1999. “ca ‘if, when’, ce(d) ‘and’ — wor(l)ds upside-down?” Vidyopasan¯ a:¯ studies in honour of Harivallabh C. Bhayani, ed. by P. J. Mistry and Bharati Modi, pp. 169–72. Mumbai; Ahmedabad: Image Publications. —. 2003. A grammar of Epic Sanskrit. Indian Philology and South Asian Studies. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Oertel, Hanns. 1923. “Zum disjunkten Gebrauch des Nominativs in der Brahman¯ .aprosa.” Antidoron:¯ Festschrift Jakob Wacker- nagel, pp. 45–50. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. —. 1926. The syntax of cases in the narrative and descriptive prose of the Brahman¯ . as: the disjunct use of cases. Indoger- manische Bibliothek; Abt. 1, Sammlung indogermanischer Lehr- und Handbücher; Reihe 1, Grammatiken 18. Heidelberg: Winter. —. 1935. Syntaktische Äquivalenz des Genitivs und Ablativs bei Verben der Trennung in der altindischen Prosa. Sitzungs- berichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosophisch-historische Abteilung 1935.12. München: Bay- erische Akademie der Wissenschafter. 452 SANSKRIT SYNTAX

—. 1936. “Ai. Gen.-Abl. der Feminina auf -as¯ in dativischer Funk- tion.” Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 63: 206. —. 1937a. Zu den Kasusvariationen in der vedischen Prosa, 1. Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissen- schaften, philosophisch-historische Abteilung 1937.8. Mün- chen: Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschafter. —. 1937b. Zum altindischen Ausdrucksverstärkungstypus satyasya satyam ‘das Wahre des Wahren’ = ‘die Quintessenz des Wahren’. Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosophisch-historische Abteilung 1937.3. München: Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschafter. —. 1938a. “Die Konstruktion von ¯ısvara´ in der vedischen Prosa.” Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 65: 55–77. —. 1938b. Zu den Kasusvariationen in der vedischen Prosa, 2. Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissen- schaften, philosophisch-historische Abteilung 1938.6. Mün- chen: Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschafter. —. 1939a. “The Genitivus personae with verbs of eating . . . and accepting . . . in Vedic Prose.” A volume of Eastern and In- dian studies presented to Professor F. W. Thomas, C.I.E., on his 72nd birth-day, 21st March 1939, ed. by S. M. Katre and P. K. Gode, pp. 160–65. New Indian Antiquary extra series 1. Bombay: Karnatak Publishing. —. 1939b. Zu den Kasusvariationen in der vedischen Prosa, 3. Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissen- schaften, philosophisch-historische Abteilung 1939.6. Mün- chen: Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschafter. —. 1940. Zu den Wortstellungsvarianten der Mantras des A- tharvaveda in der Saunaka-´ und Paipalada-Rezension¯ und des Samaveda¯ in der Kauthuma- und Jaimin¯ıya-Rezension. Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissen- schaften, philosophisch-historische Abteilung 1940.7. Mün- chen: Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschafter. BIBLIOGRAPHY 453

—. 1941. Die Dativi ﬁnales abstrakter Nomina und andere Beispiele nominaler Satzfügung in der vedischen Prosa. Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissen- schaften, philosophisch-historische Abteilung 1941.2, 9. Mün- chen: Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschafter. —. 1942. “Zu den ai. Ellipsen.” Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 67: 129–53. —. 1944. “Zu den ai. Ellipsen.” Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 68: 61–82. Oettinger, Norbert. 1983. “Altavestisch yas . . . cišca¯ ‘jeder, der’.” Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 42: 177–86. —. 1986. “Syntax des Relativsatzes und pluralischer Instrumental im Avestischen.” Indo-Iranian Journal 29: 45–48. Oguibénine, Boris. 2006. “Notes on the instrumental case of the subject/agent vs. other cases in Buddhist Sanskrit.” Papers of the 12th World Sanskrit Conference, held in Helsinki, Finland, 13–18 July, 2003; vol. 5, Themes and tasks in Old and Middle Indo-Aryan linguistics, ed. by Bertil Tikkanen and Heinrich Hettrich, pp. 89–120. Oldenberg, Hermann. 1888. Die Hymnen des Rigveda, 1: metrische und textgeschichtliche Prolegomena. Berlin: Wil- helm Hertz. —. 1906. “Vedische Untersuchungen, 16: die Verbalenklisis im R. gveda.” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 60: 707–40. —. 1907a. “Vedische Untersuchungen, 18: zu den Verbalprä- ﬁxen.” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 61: 803–15. —. 1907b. “Vedische Untersuchungen, 20: die enklitischen For- men des Pronominalstammes a-.” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 61: 825–30. —. 1909–1912. Rgveda: textkritische und exegetische Noten. Ab- handlungen˚ der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften 454 SANSKRIT SYNTAX

zu Göttingen, Philologisch-Historische Klasse. n.F. 11.5; 13.3. Bd. 1: Erstes bis sechstes Buch. Bd. 2: Siebentes bis zehntes Buch. “Zu Grunde gelegt ist [T.] Aufrechts Text, 2. Auflage [Bonn, 1877],” v. 1, p. v. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhand- lung. —. 1917. Zur Geschichte der altindischen Prosa: mit beson- derer Berücksichtigung der prosaisch-poetischen Erzählung. Abhandlungen der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissen- schaften zu Göttingen, Philologisch-Historische Klasse. n.F. 16.6. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung. Oranskaya, T. 1981. “On the realisation of the category of definiteness-indefiniteness in the Vedic Sanskrit.” Summaries of papers presented by Soviet scholars to the 5th World San- skrit Conference, p. 218. Moscow. Örterer, Georg. 1873. Beiträge zur vergleichenden Casuslehre des Zend und Sanskrit. Ph.D. dissertation, Universität München, 1873. München: Straub. Ostler, Nicholas D. M. 1979. “Case-linking: a theory of case and verb diathesis applied to Classical Sanskrit.” Ph.D. dissertation. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT. Papke, Julia Kay Porter. 2010. “Classical Sanskrit preverb ordering: a diachronic study.” Ph.D. dissertation. Columbus: Ohio State University. Patyal, Hukam Chand. 1994. “Linguistic, syntactic, and stylistic peculiarities of the Brahman¯ .as.” Sruti-cint´ aman¯ . ih. : Prof. C. G. Kashikar felicitation volume, ed. by S. S. Bahulkar and S. Paranjpe, pp. 112–21. Pune: Tilak Maharashtra Vidyapeeth. Pinault, Georges-Jean. 1985. “Emploi et analyse des adverbes comparatifs sanskrits en -vat´ .” Grammatische Kategorien: Funktion und Geschichte: Akten der 7. Fachtagung der In- dogermanischen Gesellschaft, Berlin, 10.-25. Februar 1983, ed. by Bernfried Schlerath, pp. 340–69. Wiesbaden: L. Re- ichert. BIBLIOGRAPHY 455

—. 1995–1996. “Distribution des particules comparatives dans la langue de la Rk-Samhit˙ a.”¯ Bulletin d’études indiennes 13–14: 307–67. ˚ —. 1997. “Distribution de la particule negative na´ dans la Rk- Samhit˙ a.”¯ Bulletin d’études indiennes 15: 213–46. ˚ —. 2001. “Védique tanu¯´ et la notion de personne en indo-iranien.” Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 96.1: 181–206. Pisani, Vittore. 1954. “Über die Iniﬁnite auf sanskr. -adhyai.” Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 72: 217–21. Porzig, W. 1923. “Die Hypotaxe im Rigveda, 1.” Indogermanische Forschungen 41: 210–303. —. 1942. Die Namen für Satzinhalte im Griechischen und im In- dogermanischen. Berlin: de Gruyter. Pray, Bruce. 1976. “From passive to ergative in Indo-Aryan.” The notion of subject in South Asian languages, ed. by M. K. Verma, pp. 195–211. South Asian Studies Publications Series 2. Madison: University of Wisconsin. Proferes, Theodore. 2003. “Kuru kings, Tura Kavaseya, and the -tvaya gerund.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 66.2: 210–19. Puhvel, Jaan. 1973. “Nature and means of comparison in Proto- Indo-European.” Journal of Indo-European Studies 1: 145–54. Raja, Kunjunni. 1958. “The elliptical sentence: Indian theories.” Adyar Library Bulletin 22: 25–31. —. 1976. “Pan¯ .ini’s concept of a sentence.” Adyar Library Bulletin 40: 165–70. Raster, Peter. 1993. “Die indische Grammatiktradition.” Syntax: ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung / An international handbook of contemporary research, ed. by Joachim Jacobs et al., pp. 199–207. Berlin; New York: de Gruyter Mouton. 456 SANSKRIT SYNTAX

Reinöhl, Uta. 2013. “Grammaticization and configurationality: the emergence of postpositional phrases in Indo-Aryan.” Doctoral dissertation. Köln: Universität Köln. Renou, Louis. 1925. La valeur du parfait dans les hymns védiques. Collection linguistique 18. Paris: Champion. —. 1928a. “Les formes dites d’injonctif dans le rgveda.” Etrennes de linguistique: offertes par quelques amis à˚ Émile Benveniste: avant-propos de Antoine Meillet, pp. 63–80. Paris: Paul Geuth- ner. —. 1928b. Les maîtres de la philologie védique. Paris. —. 1932. “A propos du subjonctif védique.” Bulletin de la Société Linguistique de Paris 33.1. —. 1933. “La séparation du préverbe et du verbe en védique.” Bul- letin de la Société Linguistique de Paris 34.1: 49–96. —. 1935. “L’absolutif sanskrit en -am.” Mémoires de la Société Linguistique de Paris 23: 359–92. —. 1937a. “Infinitifs et dérivés nominaux dans le r.gveda.” Bulletin de la Société Linguistique de Paris 38.1: 69–87. —. 1937b. La décadence et la disparition du subjonctif. Monogra- phies sanskrites 1. Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve. —. 1937c. Le suffixe -tu et la constitution des infinitifs. Monogra- phies sanskrites 2. Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve. —. 1940. “Notes de grammaire védique, 1.” Bulletin de la Société Linguistique de Paris 41.1: 208–14. —. 1947. “Sur la phrase négative dans le rgveda.” Bulletin de la Société Linguistique de Paris 43.1: 43–49.˚ —. 1952. Grammaire de la langue védique. Collection Les langues du monde, Série Grammaire, philologie, littérature 9. Lyon: IAC. —. 1954. “Le passage du nom d’action à l’infinitif dans le R. gveda.” Sprachgeschichte und Wortbedeutung: Festschrift Albert Debrunner, pp. 383–7. Bern: Francke. BIBLIOGRAPHY 457

—. 1955–1969. Études védiques et pan¯ . inéennes. 17 vols. Paris: Boccard. —. 1956. Histoire de la langue sanskrite. Lyon: IAC. —. 1961. Grammaire sanscrite. 2e édition revue, corrigée et aug- mentée. Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve. —. 1965. “Remarques générales sur la phrase védique.” Symbolae linguisticae in honorem Georgii Kuryłowicz. Polska Akademia Nauk, Komisja Jezykoznawstwa, Prace 5. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolinskich.´ Richter, Oswald. 1897. Die unechten Nominalkomposita des Alt- indischen und Altiranischen. Straßburg: Trübner. Rocher, Ludo. 1979. Review of Verpoorten 1977. Journal of the American Oriental Society 99.2: pp. 348–349. —. 1980. “A note on the Sanskrit gerund.” Recherches de linguistique: hommages à Maurice Leroy, ed. by J. Bingen, André Coupez, and Francine Mawet, pp. 181–88. [Travaux] Univer- sité Libre de Bruxelles, Facultée de Philosphie et Lettres 73. Brussels: Éditions de l’Université de Bruxelles. Rouse, W. H. D. 1906. “The use of the passive gerund in Sanskrit.” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 1906: 992. Ruppel, Antonia. 2012a. Absolute constructions in early Indo- European. Cambridge: University Press. —. 2012b. “The development of the genitive absolute in San- skrit.” Indic across the millennia: from the Rigveda to Modern Indo-Aryan: 14th World Sanskrit Conference, Kyoto, Japan, September 1st–5th, 2009, proceedings of the Linguistic Sec- tion, ed. by Jared S. Klein and Kazuhiko Yoshida, pp. 135–44. Sadovski, Velizar. 2020. Untersuchungen zu Sprache und Stil des ältesten Indo-Iranischen (Veda und Avesta). Wien: Österreichi- sche Akademie der Wissenschaften. Salomon, Richard. 1981. “A linguistic analysis of the Mun.d.aka Upanis.ad.” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens 30: 91– 105. 458 SANSKRIT SYNTAX

—. 1982. “The ukti-vyakti-prakaran.a as a manual of spoken San- skrit.” Indo-Iranian Journal 24: 13–25. —. 1988. “The preterite optative in Indic.” Paper presented at the Third Sanskrit Syntax Symposium, South Asian Languages Analysis Roundtable, Seattle, WA, 1988. Unpublished. Satya Vrat Shastri. 1964. The Ram¯ ayan¯ . a: a linguistic study. Delhi: Munshi Ram Manohar Lal. —. 1977. “Sanskrit usage.” Indologica Taurinensia 3/4: 449–54. Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1881. De l’emploi du génitif absolu en sanscrit. Ph.D. dissertation, Universität Leipzig, 1880. Geneva: Fick. Scharf, Peter M. 1997. “Clause-initial dvayam´ : one less case of an extraposed adverb.” 40: 327–38. —. 2013b. Linguistics in India. The Oxford handbook of the history of linguistics, ed. by Keith Allen, pp. 230–264. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Scharfe, Hartmut. 2006. “Indo-Aryan and Dravidian convergence: gerunds and noun composition.” Papers of the 12th World Sanskrit Conference, held in Helsinki, Finland, 13–18 July, 2003; vol. 5, Themes and tasks in Old and Middle Indo- Aryan linguistics, ed. by Bertil Tikkanen and Heinrich Het- trich, pp. 197–254. Schäufele, Steven. 1988a. “Adpositions authentic and inauthentic: some questions in the syntax of Vedic Sanskrit.” Paper presented at the Third Sanskrit Syntax Symposium, South Asian Languages Analysis Roundtable, Seattle, WA, 1988. Unpub- lished. —. 1988b. “Where’s my NP?: non-transformational analyses of Vedic pronominal fronting.” Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 18.2: 129–62. —. 1990. “Free word-order syntax: the challenge from Vedic San- skrit to contemporary formal syntactic theory.” Ph.D. dissertation. Urbana: University of Illinois. BIBLIOGRAPHY 459

—. 1991a. “Single-word topicalization in Vedic Prose: a challenge to Government & Binding?” Studies in Sanskrit syntax: a volume in honour of the centennial of Speijer’s Sanskrit syntax (1886–1986), ed. by Hans Henrich Hock, pp. 151–73. —. 1991b. “Verb-medial clauses in Vedic: some theoretical implications.” Studies in Sanskrit syntax: a volume in honour of the centennial of Speijer’s Sanskrit syntax (1886–1986), ed. by Hans Henrich Hock, pp. 177–96. —. 1993. “The Vedic clause-initial string and Universal Gram- mar.” Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 23.1: 131–61. Scherer, Anton. 1973. “Die ursprüngliche Funktion des Konjunk- tivs.” Indogermanische und allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft: Akten der IV Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Bern, 28. Juli–1. August 1969, ed. by Georges Redard, pp. 99– 106. Wiesbaden: L. Reichert. Schmidt, Gernot. 1977. “Über indogermanische nominale Rela- tivkonstruktionen.” Indogermanische Forschungen 82: 61–74. Schmitt-Brandt, Robert. 1973. “Vergleich der indogermanischen Nebensatzkonstruktionen.” Indogermanische und allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft: Akten der IV Fachtagung der Indoger- manischen Gesellschaft, Bern, 28. Juli–1. August 1969, ed. by Georges Redard, pp. 125–41. Wiesbaden: L. Reichert. Schneider, Carolin. 2009. “Syntax und Wortarten der Lokalpar- tikeln des R. gveda V: n´ı.” Historische Sprachforschung 122: 118–69. —. 2010a. “Lokalpartikel im R. gveda (Folge 13): apa´ VII: n´ıs.” Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik 27: 1–35. —. 2010b. “Syntax und Wortarten der Lokalpartikeln des R. gveda VII: n´ıs.” International Journal of Diachronic Linguistics and Linguistic Reconstruction 7: 149–93. —. 2011. “Syntax und Wortarten der Lokalpartikeln des R. gveda X: ud´ .” Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 65: 185– 241. 460 SANSKRIT SYNTAX

—. 2012a. “Local particles in the R. gveda, part XVII: para´ .” Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 66: 221–46. —. 2012b. “Syntax und Wortarten der Lokalpartikeln des R. gveda. XV.2: sak¯ am´ , satra¯´, s(u)mad´ und sataso´ .” International Jour- nal of Diachronic Linguistics and Linguistic Reconstruction 9: 101–36. —. 2013. “Syntax und Wortarten der Lokalpartikeln des R. gveda XIX: pra´.” Indogermanische Forschungen 117: 15–74. Seiler, Hansjakob. 1960. Relativsatz, Attribut und Apposition. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. —. 1962. “Zum Verhältnis von Wort und Satz in indogermanischen Sprachen. II.” Fachtagung für indogermanische und allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft. Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Kultur- wissenschaft, Sonderheft 15. Innsbruck. Sen, N. M. 1952a. “On the syntax of cases in the Ram¯ ayan¯ .a.” Jour- nal of the Oriental Institute 2: 311–26. Baroda. —. 1952b. “Syntax of tenses in the Ram¯ ayan¯ .a.” Journal of the Ori- ental Institute 1: 301–7. Baroda. Sen, Sukumar. 1925. “Notes on the use of cases in the Kat¯.haka Samhit˙ a.”¯ Journal and Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 21: 1–8. —. 1926–1930. “The syntax of cases in Vedic prose.” Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute 8: 347–78. Continued in 9:33-48, 91-170; 10:45-76, 219-234. —. 1928. “An outline of syntax of Buddhistic Sanskrit.” Journal of the Department of Letters 17: 1–65. Calcutta University. —. 1953. “Historical syntax of Middle Indo-Aryan.” Indian Lin- guistics 13: 352–473. Sgall, Petr. 1958. “Die Inﬁnitive im Rgveda.” Acta Universitatis Carolinae, Philologica 2: 135–268.˚ Prague. Siecke, Ernst Ludwig. 1869. De genetivi in lingua sanscritica, imprimis vedica usu. Ph.D. dissertation. Berlin: Vogt. BIBLIOGRAPHY 461

Sinha, Anjani C. 1973. “Generative semantics and Pan¯ .ini’s kara-¯ kas.” Journal of the Oriental Institute 23: 27–39. Baroda. Słuszkiewicz, E. 1972. “Some remarks on Sanskrit and Greek absolutive genitives.” India Maior: congratulatory volume presented to J. Gonda, ed. by J. Ensink and Peter Gaeffke, pp. 196–99. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Söhnen, Renate. 1979. Untersuchungen zur Komposition von Re- den und Gesprächen im Ram¯ ayan¯ . a. Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik 6. Reinbeck: Wezler. —. 1985. “Die Konstruktionen des Absolutivs im Sanskrit.” Grammatische Kategorien: Funktion und Geschichte: Akten der VII. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, ed. by Bernfried Schlerath, pp. 478–89. Wiesbaden: L. Reichert. Sommer, Ferdinand. 1977. “estai.” Ferdinand Sommer: Schriften aus dem Nachlaß, ed. by Bernhard Forssman, pp. 154–77. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft Beihefte, n. F. 1. München: Kitzinger. Speijer, J. S. 1886. Sanskrit syntax. Leiden: E. J. Brill. [Reprint: Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1973.] —. 1896. Vedische und Sanskrit-Syntax. Grundriss der Indo- Arischen Philologie und Altertumskunde 1.6. Strassburg: Trübner. [Reprint: Graz, Austria: Akademische Druck- u. Ver- lagsanstalt, 1974.] Staal, J. F. 1967. Word order in Sanskrit and universal grammar. Foundations of Language, Supplementary Series 5. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Co. Stchoupak, Nadine. 1920. “Le complément du nom dans le Sata-´ pathabrahman¯ .a.” Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 21: 1–38. Storck, Frid. Guil. Paul. 1862. Casuum in lingua palica formatio comparata cum sancscritae linguae ratione. Monasterii: Brunn. 462 SANSKRIT SYNTAX

Strunk, Klaus. 1969. “Wortstellung und Univerbierung altpersischer Korrelativverbindungen.” Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 83: 49–58. —. 1980. “Zum indogermanischen Medium und konkurrierenden Kategorien.” Wege zur Universalienforschung: sprachwissenschaftliche Beiträge zum 60. Geburtstag von H. Seiler, ed. by G. Brettschneider and Ch. Lehmann, pp. 321–37. Tübingen: Narr. —. 1983. Typische Merkmale von Fragesätzen und die altindische ‘Pluti’. Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-Hist. Kl., Sitzungsberichte 1983.8. München: Beck. Stump, Gregory T. 1979. “The loss of the subjunctive mood in yadi-conditionals from Vedic to Epic Sanskrit.” Papers of the 1978 Mid-America Linguistics Conference at Oklahoma, ed. by Ralph E. Cooley, Mervin R. Barnes, and John A. Dunn, pp. 242–51. University of Oklahoma. Sturtevant, Edgar H. 1930. “Relatives in Indo-European and Hit- tite.” Language, Language Monograph 6.7; Curme volume of linguistic studies, pp. 141–49. Washington, DC: Linguistic So- ciety of America. URL: http : / / www . jstor . org / stable/521994. Subramaniam, P. S. 1973. “Deep structure and surface structure in Pan¯ .ini.” Proceedings of the third All-India Conference of Lin- guists, Hyderabad, December 29-30, 1972, pp. 20–21. Pune: Linguistic Society of India. Szemerényi, Oswald. 1985. “Syntax, meaning, and origin of the Indo-European particle kwe.” Collectanea philologica: Festschrift für Helmut Gipper zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. by Gün- ther Heintz and Peter Schmitter, vol. 2, pp. 747–75. Saecula spiritalia 15. Baden-Baden: Koerner. Taraporewala, Irach J. S. 1967. Sanskrit syntax. Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal. BIBLIOGRAPHY 463

Thieme, Paul. 1929. Das Plusquamperfektum im Veda. Ergänz- ungshefte zur Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete der indogermanischen Sprachen 7. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. —. 1944. “Zum parenthetischen Nominalsatz im Indischen.” Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 68: 216–17. —. 1949. Untersuchungen zur Wortkunde und Auslegung des Rigveda. Hallische Monographien 7. Halle: Niemeyer. Thomas, E. J. 1921–1922. “Some linguistic superstitions.” Philo- logica: Journal of Comparative Philology 1: 96–101. Thommen, Eduard. 1903. Die Wortstellung im nachvedischen Alt- indischen und im Mittelindischen. Ph.D. dissertation, Georg- August-Universität zu Göttingen. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann. Thornton, Randolph. 1987. “The verbal focus system of Epic San- skrit: South Asian Languages Analysis Roundtable Confer- ence held in Ann Arbor, Mich., May 17–19, 1985.” Select Papers from SALA-7, ed. by Elena Bashir, Madhav M. Desh- pande, and Peter Edwin Hook, pp. 354–63. Bloomington: In- diana University Linguistics Club. Thumb, Albert. 1959. Handbuch des Sanskrit: mit Texten und Glossar: eine Einführung in das sprachwissenschaftliche Studium des Altindischen, rev. by Richard Hauschild; vol. 2, Texte und Glossar. 3rd edition, revised. Indogermanische Bib- liothek. Erste Reihe, Lehr- und Handbücher 1.2. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Thurneysen, Rudolph. 1908. “Altindisch etava´ ´ı.” Mélanges de linguistique: offerts à M. Ferdinand de Saussure, pp. 225–7. Col- lection linguistique 2. Paris: Librarie de la Société de Linguis- tique de Paris. [Reprint: Genève: Slatkine Reprints, 1975.] Tichy, Eva. 1980. “Zum Kasusgebrauch bei Kausativa transitiver Verben.” Die Sprache 26: 1–18. —. 1993. “Transponierte Rollen und Ergänzungen beim vedischen Kausativ.” Indogermanica et Italica: Festschrift für Hel- 464 SANSKRIT SYNTAX

mut Rix zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. by Gerhard Meiser, in collab. with Jón Axel Harðarson und Christiane Schaefer Jadwiga Bendahman, pp. 436–60. Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwis- senschaft der Universität Innsbruck 72. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft. —. 1995a. Die Nomina agentis auf -tar- im Vedischen. Heidelberg: Winter. —. 1995b. “Vedisch ed´ : Funktion, Herkunft und subordinierte Transpositionen.” Verba et structurae: Festschrift für Klaus Strunk zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. by Heinrich Hettrich et al., pp. 319–43. Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck 83. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwis- senschaft. —. 1997. “Vom indogermanischen Tempus/Aspekt-System zum vedischen Zeitstufensystem.” Berthold Delbrück y la sintaxis indoeuropea hoy: actas del coloquio de la Indogermanische Gesellschaft 1994, Madrid, ed. by Emilio Crespo and José L. García-Ramón, pp. 589–609. Madrid: Ediciones de la UAM; Wiesbaden: L. Reichert. —. 2006. Der Konjunktiv und seine Nachbarkategorien: studien zum indogermanischen Verbum, ausgehend von der älteren vedischen Prosa. Bremen: Ute Hempen Verlag. Tikkanen, Bertil. 1984. “On the tense value, functions, and forms of the Sanskrit gerund.” Studia Orientalia 55: 471–97. Helsinki. —. 1987. The Sanskrit gerund: a synchronic, diachronic, and typological analysis. Studia Orientalia 62. Ph.D. dissertation. Helsinki: Societas Orientalis Fennica. —. 1991. “On the syntax of Sanskrit gerund constructions: a functional approach.” Studies in Sanskrit syntax: a volume in honour of the centennial of Speijer’s Sanskrit syntax (1886–1986), ed. by Hans Henrich Hock, pp. 197–208. BIBLIOGRAPHY 465

Tikkanen, Bertil and Heinrich Hettrich, eds. 2006. Papers of the 12th World Sanskrit Conference, held in Helsinki, Finland, 13– 18 July, 2003, general editors Petteri Koskikallio and Asko Parpola; vol. 5, Themes and tasks in Old and Middle Indo- Aryan linguistics. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Tsiang, Sarah. 1988a. “The discourse function of the absolutive in the Pañcatantra.” Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 18.2: 163– 81. —. 1988b. “The syntactic features of speech and context in the Pañcatantra.” Paper presented at the Third Sanskrit Syntax Symposium, South Asian Languages Analysis Roundtable, Seattle, WA, 1988. Unpublished. Tsiang, Sarah and Albert Watanabe. 1987. “The Pañcatantra and Aesop’s Fables: a comparison of rhetorical structure in classical Indian and western literature.” Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 17.1: 137–46. Tsiang-Starcevic, Sarah. 1997. “The discourse functions of subordinate constructions in Classical Sanskrit narrative texts.” Ph.D. dissertation. Urbana: University of Illinois. Tubb, Gary A. and Emery R. Boose. 2007. Scholastic Sanskrit: a manual for students. New York: American Institute for Bud- dhist Studies. Vale, R. N. 1948. Verbal composition in Indo-Aryan. Deccan Col- lege dissertation series 6. Pune: Deccan College. Van de Walle, Lieve. 1987. “Pragmatic motivation of the passive voice in Classical Sanskrit.” 7th World Sanskrit Conference. Leiden. —. 1988. “Semantic functions eligible for subject position: a case study in Classical Sanskrit.” Paper presented at the Third San- skrit Syntax Symposium, South Asian Languages Analysis Roundtable, Seattle, WA, 1988. Unpublished. 466 SANSKRIT SYNTAX

—. 1991. “Pragmatics and Classical Sanskrit: a pilot study in linguistic politeness.” Ph.D. dissertation. Antwerp: University of Antwerp. [Revised as Van de Walle 1993.] —. 1992. “On explaining double object constructions.” Meaning and grammar: cross-linguistic perspectives, ed. by Michel Ke- fer and Johan van der Auwera, pp. 203–22. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter. —. 1993. Pragmatics and Classical Sanskrit: a pilot study in linguistic politeness. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins. [Revision of Van de Walle 1991.] Varma, Siddheshwar. 1937. “Syntax of the dative case in the Rg- veda.” Jha¯ commemoration volume: essays on oriental sub-˚ jects presented to Vidyas¯ agara¯ Mahamahop¯ ady¯ aya¯ Pan. d. ita Gang˙ an¯ atha¯ Jha¯ on his completing the 60th year on 25th september, 1932 by his pupils, friends and admirers, ed. by Surendra Nath Dasgupta and Shripad Krishna Belvalkar, pp. 435–56. Poona oriental series 39. Pune: Oriental Book Agency. Vekerdi, J. 1955. “On past tense and verbal aspect in the Rgveda.” Acta Orientalia 5: 75–99. ˚ Vendryes, J. 1914. “Sur l’emploi de l’inﬁnitf au genitif dans quelques langues indoeuropéennes.” Mémoires de la Société Linguistique de Paris 16: 247–60. Verma, Manindra K. and K. P. Mohanan, eds. 1990. Experiencer Subjects in South Asian Languages: proceedings of the Con- ference on the Experiencer Subject in South Asian Languages, November 1988, Madison, Wisconsin. Palo Alto: Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University. Verpoorten, J.-M. 1977. L’ordre des mots dans l’Aitareya-Bra-¯ hman. a. Bibliothèque de la Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres de l’Université de Liège 216. Ph.D. dissertation, Université de Liége. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. BIBLIOGRAPHY 467

—. 1991. “Iti dans le Jaimin¯ıya-Brahman¯ .a et dans le Sábara-Bh¯ a-¯ s.ya.” Panels of the VIIth World Sanskrit Conference, Kern In- stitute, Leiden, August 23–29, 1987; vol. 4, Sense and syntax in Vedic, ed. by Joel P. Brereton and Stephanie W. Jamison, pp. 86–93. Vine, Brent. 1997. “On the expression of reflexive possession in the Rig-Veda: RV sva´.” Syntaxe des langues indo-iraniennes anciennes: colloque international — Sitges (Barcelona) 4-5 mai 1993 / organisé par l’Institut du Proche-Orient Ancien (Université de Barcelone); actes, ed. by Eric Pirart, pp. 203– 14. Aula orientalis; supplementa 6. Barcelona: Editorial Ausa. Viti, Carlotta. 2004. “Funzioni semantiche e pragmatiche nelle strategie di possesso dell’antico indiano.” Archivio Glotto- logico Italiano 89: 41–83. —. 2007. Strategies of subordination in Vedic. Milano: Francoan- geli. —. 2010. “The information structure of OVS in Vedic.” Di- achronic studies on information structure: language acquisi- tion and change, ed. by Gisella Ferraresi and Rosemarie Lühr, pp. 37–62. Language, context, and cognition 10. Berlin: de Gruyter. Voyles, Joseph B. 1970. “The infinitive and participle in Indo- European: a syntactic reconstruction.” Linguistics 58: 68–91. Wackernagel, Jacob. 1892. “Über ein Gesetz der indogermanischen Wortstellung.” Indogermanische Forschungen 1: 333– 436. [Reprint: Kleine Schriften. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1955–1979.] —. 1926. Vorlesungen über Syntax. Basel: Birkhäuser. u —. 1940. “Indogermanisch -q“ e als alte nebensatzeinleitende Konjunktion.” Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 67: 1–5. Wackernagel, Jacob and Albert Debrunner. 1896–1957. Altindis- che Grammatik. 3 volumes in 4. I. Lautlehre. II. 1. Einleitung 468 SANSKRIT SYNTAX

zur Wortlehre. Nominalkomposition. 2. Die Nominalsuffixe, von A. Debrunner. III. Nominalflexion, Zahlwort, Pronomen, von A. Debrunner und J. Wackernagel. Vol. 1 reissued in 1957 with additions by (Renou and) Debrunner. Göttingen: Vanden- hoeck and Ruprecht. Wallace, William D. 1984. “The interaction of word order and pragmatics in a Sanskrit text.” Studies in the Linguistic Sci- ences 14.1: 167–88. Watkins, Calvert. 1976. “Towards Proto-Indo-European syntax: problems and pseudo-problems.” Papers from the Parases- sion on Diachronic Syntax, April 22, 1976, ed. by Sanford B. Steever, Carol A. Walker, and Salikoko S. Mufwene, pp. 305– 26. Chicago: Linguistic Society. —. 1982. “Aspects of Indo-European poetics.” The Indo- Europeans in the fourth and third millenia, ed. by Edgar C. Polomé, pp. 104–20. Ann Arbor: Karoma. Wecker, Otto. 1906. “Der gebrauch der kasus in der älteren Upani- s.ad-literatur.” Beiträge zur Kunde der indogermanischen Spra- chen 30: 1–61. Wenzel, Heinrich. 1879. Über den Instrumentalis im Rigveda. Tübingen: Laupp. Whitney, William Dwight. 1883. “Remarks upon M. Bloomfield’s paper on certain irregular Vedic subjunctives or imperatives.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 11: clxii–clxiv. —. 1889. Sanskrit grammar: including both the Classical language, and the older dialects, of Veda and Brahmana. 2nd ed. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. [Reprint: 1971.] —. 1892a. “On Delbrück’s Vedic syntax.” American Journal of Philology 13: 271–306. —. 1892b. “On the narrative use of imperfect and perfect in the Brahman¯ .as.” Transactions of the American Philological Asso- ciation 23: 5–34. BIBLIOGRAPHY 469

Wilhelm, Eugen. 1873. De infinitivi linguarum sanscritae, bactricae, persicae, graecae, oscae, umbricae, latinae, goticae forma et usu. Eisenach: Bachmeister. Willman-Grabowska, Helena. 1928. Le locatif dans le Rig-Veda. Thèse complémentaire. Paris: Varsovie. Windisch, Ernst. 1869. “Untersuchungen über den Ursprung des Relativpronomens in den indogermanischen Sprachen.” Stu- dien zur griechischen und lateinischen Grammatik, ed. by Georg Curtius, vol. 2.2, pp. 201–419. Leipzig: S. Hirzel. Witzel, Michael. 1989. “Tracing the Vedic dialects.” Dialectes dans les litteratures indo-aryennes, ed. by Colette Caillat, pp. 97–265. Paris: Institut de Civilisation Indienne. Wolff, Fritz. 1905. Die Infinitive des Indischen und Iranischen, 1: die ablativisch-genetivischen und die accusativischen Infini- tive. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann. —. 1906. “Zur Frage des Akkusativs mit dem Infinitiv.” Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 39: 490–500. Wüst, Walther. 1923. “Der Schaltsatz im Rgveda.” Ph.D. Disserta- tion. München: Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität.˚ —. 1928. Stilgeschichte und Chronologie des Rgveda. Abhandlun- gen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 17.4.˚ Leipzig. Zakharyin, B. A. 1998. “Pa:nini’s ktvá:-type formations in San- skrit and Hindi.” Vagbh¯ arat¯ ¯ı: proceedings of the International Conference on South Asian Languages (July 1–4, 1997), ed. by L. V. Khokhlova and Atul Sawani, pp. 221–34. Moscow: Insti- tute of Asian and African Studies, Moscow State University. Zehnder, Thomas. 2011. “Zur Funktion der Infinitive im Veda.” In- dogermanistik und Linguistik im Dialog: Akten der XIII. Fach- tagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, ed. by Thomas Krisch and Thomas Lindner, pp. 632–38. Wiesbaden: L. Re- ichert. Ziegler, Sabine. 2002. “Zur Entstehung des Locativus Absolu- tus im Altindischen.” Indogermanische Syntax: Fragen und 470 SANSKRIT SYNTAX

Perspektiven, ed. by Heinrich Hettrich and Jeong-Soo Kim, pp. 78–86. Wiesbaden: L. Reichert. Zubatý, Joseph. 1907. “Die man-Sätze.” Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 40: 748–519. Zwolanek, Renée. 1970. Vayav¯´ ´ındrasca´ : Studien zu Anrufungs- formen im Vedischen, Avestischen und Griechischen. Münch- ener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft, Beihefte 5. München: Kitzinger. As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı sutra¯ index

A. 1.1.2, 131 A. 1.2.64, 13, 94 A. 1.1.21, 121 A. 1.2.66, 122, 143 A. 1.1.23, 121 A. 1.2.73, 13 A. 1.1.26, 385 A. 1.3.1, 79 A. 1.1.27, 113 A. 1.3.12, 130, 159, 161, A. 1.1.3, 97 185–188 A. 1.1.37, 89, 131, 230 A. 1.3.13, 161, 182 A. 1.1.46, 93 A. 1.3.14, 162, 185 A. 1.1.49, 89, 91–96, 166 A. 1.3.15, 120, 185, 186 A. 1.1.5, 123 A. 1.3.16, 163, 182, 185 A. 1.1.51, 130 A. 1.3.17, 162, 164 A. 1.1.52, 97 A. 1.3.18, 100 A. 1.1.56, 111, 113, 124, A. 1.3.19, 175, 176 128, 134, 137, 144 A. 1.3.2, 161, 181 A. 1.1.62, 59 A. 1.3.20, 184 A. 1.1.64, 68, 130 A. 1.3.23, 162, 179 A. 1.1.66, 72, 94–96, 99, 166 A. 1.3.4, 178 A. 1.1.67, 94–97, 99, 100, A. 1.3.43, 163 166 A. 1.3.62, 119, 120, 135, 136 A. 1.1.72, 97 A. 1.3.63, 135, 136, 176 A. 1.2.1, 123, 124 A. 1.3.72, 119, 187, 188 A. 1.2.11, 98 A. 1.3.77, 185, 188 A. 1.2.19, 123, 124, 126 A. 1.3.78, 162, 185, 187, 188 A. 1.2.4, 123, 124, 126, 127 A. 1.3.80, 187 A. 1.2.45, 227, 349 A. 1.3.83, 186, 187 A. 1.2.46, 59, 130, 228 A. 1.3.84, 187, 189 A. 1.2.51, 351–353 A. 1.3.85, 163, 165, 188, 189 A. 1.2.52, 353, 355 A. 1.3.9, 161, 181 A. 1.2.53, 351 A. 1.3.93, 159, 161

471 472 SUTRAINDEX¯

A. 1.4.1, 77 A. 2.1.31, 371 A. 1.4.10, 329 A. 2.1.36, 351 A. 1.4.100, 130, 158 A. 2.1.4, 33 A. 1.4.103, 130 A. 2.1.49, 350 A. 1.4.104, 8 A. 2.1.50, 374, 383 A. 1.4.105, 99, 356 A. 2.1.57, 374 A. 1.4.107, 8, 99, 356 A. 2.2.18, 388 A. 1.4.108, 99 A. 2.2.25, 374 A. 1.4.11, 329 A. 2.2.8, 59 A. 1.4.12, 329 A. 2.3.1, 66, 89, 350, 357, A. 1.4.13, 111 358 A. 1.4.14, 60, 228 A. 2.3.10, 359 A. 1.4.2, 77 A. 2.3.14, 394 A. 1.4.21, 58 A. 2.3.16, 358 A. 1.4.22, 58, 129, 130 A. 2.3.18, 66, 385 A. 1.4.23, 357 A. 2.3.2, 350, 378 A. 1.4.24, 78 A. 2.3.23, 385 A. 1.4.42, 66, 77, 385 A. 2.3.29, 95 A. 1.4.46, 362 A. 2.3.36, 70 A. 1.4.49, 27, 129 A. 2.3.37, 70, 98, 99, 375, A. 1.4.50, 27 376 A. 1.4.51, 26, 27, 391, 392 A. 2.3.4, 358 A. 1.4.52, 27, 30, 31 A. 2.3.40, 359 A. 1.4.53, 27, 30 A. 2.3.41, 94 A. 1.4.54, 130 A. 2.3.43, 359 A. 1.4.56, 230 A. 2.3.44, 359 A. 1.4.57, 129, 230 A. 2.3.46, 62, 63, 129, 130, A. 1.4.59, 230 350, 358 A. 1.4.80, 100 A. 2.3.50, 61–63, 91, 149, A. 1.4.99, 158 384 A. 2.1.1, 32, 57, 59, 351 A. 2.3.72, 130 A. 2.1.2, 118 A. 2.3.8, 359 A. 2.1.3, 59 A. 2.3.9, 359 SANSKRIT SYNTAX 473

A. 2.4.26, 146 A. 3.4.20, 21, 23 A. 2.4.29, 351 A. 3.4.21, 20, 23, 378 A. 2.4.30, 369 A. 3.4.69, 125, 126, 130, A. 2.4.64, 122, 143 158, 356, 358 A. 2.4.71, 130 A. 3.4.70, 25 A. 2.4.82, 131 A. 3.4.71, 25 A. 3.1.1, 72, 99, 114, 270 A. 3.4.77, 130, 134 A. 3.1.16, 228 A. 3.4.78, 130, 158, 185 A. 3.1.2, 99, 270 A. 3.4.79, 83, 130 A. 3.1.26, 69–71 A. 3.4.85, 134 A. 3.1.3, 121 A. 4.1.1, 100, 349 A. 3.1.35, 135 A. 4.1.16, 143 A. 3.1.40, 176 A. 4.1.21, 369 A. 3.1.67, 125 A. 4.1.3, 70, 71, 143, 351 A. 3.1.68, 130 A. 4.1.4, 68, 99, 100 A. 3.1.87, 124, 126, 134 A. 4.1.76, 114, 129 A. 3.1.91, 72, 100, 171 A. 4.1.82, 114, 129 A. 3.1.97, 99, 100 A. 4.1.83, 114 A. 3.2.123, 130, 158, 171 A. 4.2.124, 144 A. 3.2.124, 25 A. 4.2.24, 115, 116 A. 3.2.16, 60 A. 4.2.30, 115 A. 3.2.37, 18 A. 4.2.34, 115–117, 144 A. 3.2.97, 60 A. 4.2.46, 144, 147 A. 3.3.1, 171 A. 4.2.81, 352 A. 3.3.132, 147 A. 4.2.82, 353 A. 3.3.139, 10, 71, 72 A. 4.2.92, 113–115 A. 3.3.140, 10, 71 A. 4.3.11, 114, 116 A. 3.3.156, 10, 71, 73 A. 4.3.156, 144 A. 3.3.18, 133 A. 4.3.167, 353 A. 3.4.111, 83 A. 4.3.17, 114 A. 3.4.112, 83 A. 4.3.53, 114–117 A. 3.4.18, 23 A. 4.3.54, 114–116 A. 3.4.19, 23 A. 4.3.80, 144 474 SUTRAINDEX¯

A. 4.4.2, 114 A. 7.1.12, 112, 130 A. 5.1.115, 129, 130, 133– A. 7.1.13, 112 135, 138, 140, 149 A. 7.1.14, 112 A. 5.1.116, 132, 134, 135, A. 7.1.2, 229, 230 137, 139, 149 A. 7.1.33, 67 A. 5.1.96, 144 A. 7.1.41, 83 A. 5.3.98, 353 A. 7.1.46, 82 A. 5.4.22, 144 A. 7.1.5, 83 A. 5.4.73, 374 A. 7.1.52, 67 A. 6.1.103, 143 A. 7.1.8, 83 A. 6.1.107, 130 A. 7.1.85, 92 A. 6.1.125, 148 A. 7.1.86, 92 A. 6.1.129, 148 A. 7.1.87, 92 A. 6.1.162, 173, 181 A. 7.1.88, 92 A. 6.1.198, 118 A. 7.1.9, 112 A. 6.1.72, 96 A. 7.1.91, 124 A. 6.1.77, 95, 96 A. 7.1.95, 137–140 A. 6.1.87, 112, 131 A. 7.1.97, 138, 140 A. 6.1.88, 112 A. 7.2.1, 97, 98 A. 6.1.97, 83, 130 A. 7.2.102, 130 A. 6.2.148, 118 A. 7.2.103, 112 A. 6.2.172, 149 A. 7.2.114, 98 A. 6.2.175, 149 A. 7.2.115, 124 A. 6.3.109, 366 A. 7.2.90, 67 A. 6.3.14, 60 A. 7.3.102, 112 A. 6.3.34, 117, 145 A. 7.3.50, 114 A. 6.3.42, 145 A. 7.3.51, 114 A. 6.4.1, 111 A. 7.3.86, 98, 130 A. 6.4.22, 145, 148 A. 8.1.1, 146, 148 A. 6.4.34, 90, 91 A. 8.1.11, 148 A. 6.4.66, 123 A. 8.1.28, 95, 96 A. 6.4.71, 93 A. 8.1.8, 228 A. 6.4.72, 93 A. 8.1.9, 146 SANSKRIT SYNTAX 475

A. 8.2.39, 131 A. 8.2.7, 60 A. 8.2.82, 228 A. 8.3.18, 93 A. 8.3.19, 93 A. 8.3.22, 93 A. 8.3.23, 131 A. 8.3.59, 175, 176 A. 8.4.1, 97 A. 8.4.2, 98 A. 8.4.58, 131 A. 8.4.59, 131 476 SUTRAINDEX¯ Author index

Aalto, Pentti, 399 Balles, Irene, 401 Abhyankar, Vasudev Kashinath, Barth, A., 402 150, 151 Bartholomae, Christian, 402 Ajotikar, Anuja, 168, 195 Barðdal, Jóhanna, 402 Ajotikar, Tanuja, 168, 195 Basu, D. N., 402 Aklujkar, Ashok, 195, 399 Behaghel, Otto, 402 Albino, Marcos, 399 Behera, Laxmidhar, 170, 196 Amarendramohan, 264, 266 Benfey, Theodor, 402 Ananthanarayana, H. S., 399 Benigny, Julius, 402 Andersen, Paul Kent, 399, Benveniste, Émile, 402, 403 400 Bergaigne, Abel, 403 Andrews Avery Delano, III, Bhagvat,¯ V. S., 371, 397 10, 50 Bhandarkar, Ramkrishna Gopal, Apte, Vaman Shivaram, 7, 403 264, 288, 301, 302, Bharadwaj, Sudhi Kant, 403 325, 328, 329, 332, Bharati, Akshar, 279, 302 342, 345, 400 Bhat.t.anathasw¯ amy,¯ Ach¯ arya,¯ Aralikatti, R. N., 400 150, 152 Arnold, Doug, 15, 50 Bhate, Saroja, 225, 226, 228, Arnold, Edward V., 401 233, 234 Aryavaraguru,¯ Jagannathasw¯ amy,¯ Bhatia, Medhavi, 279, 302 150, 152 Bhatnagar, V., 403 Aufrecht, Theodor, 151, 152 Bhatt, V. M., 403 Auroux, Sylvain, 223, 224, Bichlmeier, Harald, 403 233 Biese, Yrjö Moses Jalmari, Avery, John, 401 403 Bloch, Jules, 40, 50, 403, Bader, Françoise, 401 404 Baldi, Philip, 401

477 478 AUTHORINDEX

Bloomﬁeld, Leonard, 348, 166, 168–170, 195, 360 406, 407 Bloomﬁeld, Maurice, 404 Casaretto, Antje, 407, 408, Boas, Franz, 233, 234 424 Bodewitz, H. W., 404 Chaitanya, Vineet, 279, 302 Bodirsky, M., 282, 302 Channing, Eva, 408 Böhtlingk, Otto von, 157, Charpentier, Jarl, 408 160, 195, 404 Chen, Shu-Fen, 408 Bolkestein, A. Machteld, 5, Cherry, C., 272, 304 50 Chung, Sandra, 205, 206, Boose, Emery R., 465 216 Borooah, Anundoram, 14, Colombat, Bernard, 223, 234 404 Comrie, Bernard, 205, 215, Brereton, Joel P., 2, 404 216 Breunis, Andries, 404 Costello, John R., 408 Brockington, J. L., 404 Culotta, A., 272, 302 Bronkhorst, Johannes, 102, Cuny, Albert, 408 103, 405 Brown, Léa, 223, 234 Dahl, Eystein, 408, 409 Brugmann, Karl, 405 Dangarikar, Chaitali, 197, Bubenik, Vit, 405 323 Bunker, Ralph, 322 Dasgupta, Probal, 10, 50 Burnouf, Eugène, 2, 406 Dash, Siniruddha, 409 Butt, Miriam, 406 Dave, J. H., 150, 152 Davison, Alice, 12, 409 Caland, W., 406 Debrunner, Albert, 409, 467 Canedo, José, 406 Delbrück, Bertold, 4, 10, 24, Cappeller, Carl, 160, 198 38, 44, 207, 216, Cardona, George, 8, 19, 24, 409, 410 50, 54, 61, 70, 76– Deshpande, Khanderao, 150, 78, 89, 91, 94, 98, 154 102–104, 151, 152, Deshpande, Madhav Murlid- har, v, 1–4, 8, 24, SANSKRIT SYNTAX 479

26, 31, 87, 104, Gang,¯ Shé, 259, 265 232, 234, 410–412 García-Ramón, 415 Devasthali, G. V., 412 Ghatage, A. M., 351, 360 Dharurkar, Chinmay, 141, Ghosal, S. N., 415 152 Ghosh, Manomohan, 102, Disterheft (Haas), Dorothy, 104 412 Gillon, Brendan S., 4, 5, 7, Disterheft, Dorothy, 412 32, 33, 167, 196, Dressler, Wolfgang, 412, 413 240, 256, 258, 261, Dryer, Matthew S., 223, 234 265, 271, 286, 288, Dunkel, George E., 413 289, 302, 307, 322, Durkin, Desmond, 414 409, 415, 416 Dwarika Das Shastri, 102, Gippert, Jost, 417 104, 151, 152 Giridharasarm´ a,¯ 151, 152 Gnoli, Raniero, 264, 265 Eaton, A. J., 414 Godabole, Nar¯ ayan¯ .a Balakr¯ .shn.a, Edgerton, Franklin, 404 264, 265 Elizarenkova, Tatyana J., 414 Gode, Parshuram Krishna, Emeneau, Murray B., 40, 325, 328, 329, 332, 414 342, 345 Etter, Annemarie, 414 Gonda, Jan, 35, 43, 417–419 Eythórsson, Thórhallur, 402 Goto,¯ Toshifumi, 419 Fahs, A., 414 Govindacharya, 302 Fahs, Achim, 414 Goyal, Pawan, 164, 170, Farmer, Anne, 5, 51 196, 310, 311, 322, Fedriani, Chiara, 409 344, 345 Filliozat, Pierre, 414 Grace E. C., Jr., 420 Forssman, Bernhard, 415 Green, Alexander, 420 Franke, Otto, 415 Greenbaum, Sidney, 266 Friedrich, Paul, 415 Greenberg, Joseph H., 203, Fürst, Alfons, 415 204, 216 Grégoire, A., 420 Gaedicke, Carl, 415 Gren-Eklund, Gunilla, 420 480 AUTHORINDEX

Grice, H. P, 47, 51 Hinüber, Oskar von, 424 Gune, Pandurang D., 420 Hirt, Hermann, 424 Hock, Hans Henrich, v, 1– Hackstein, Olav, 420 4, 8–10, 12, 14, 16, Haghighi, A. D., 272, 302 19, 20, 24, 25, 27, Hahn, E. Adelaide, 420 30, 31, 35–38, 40, Haiman, John, 40, 51 41, 43, 44, 47, 203, Hajicová,ˇ E., 279, 304 212–214, 216, 399, Hale, Kenneth, 5, 10, 51 412, 425–430 Hale, Mark Robert, 35, 37, Höfer, K., 430 421 Hoenigswald, Henry M., 430 Halle, Morris, 17, 33, 51 Hoffmann, Karl, 430, 431 Hamp, Eric P., 421, 422 Holland, Gary B., 431 Hartman, C. G., 422 Holtzmann, Adolf, 431 Hartmann, P., 422 Hook, Peter Edwin, 24, 432 Harweg, Roland, 422 Hopkins, E. W., 432, 433 Haspelmath, Martin, 223, Houben, Jan E. M., 74–77, 233, 234 80–82, 86, 105 Haudry, Jean, 422 Huddleston, Rodney, 253, Havelka, J., 282, 303 266 Havers, Wilhelm, 422 Hudson, R., 279, 283, 303 Hegde, Janardan, 362, 370, Hueckstedt, Robert, 215, 216 397 Huet, Gérard, 105, 164, 196, Hejib, Alaka, 422 311, 322, 323, 344, Hellwig, Oliver, 308, 322 345 Hendriksen, Hans, 422, 423 Humbach, Helmut, 433 Hermann, Eduard, 423 Hyman, Malcolm D., 166, Hertel, Johannes, 310, 322, 167, 174, 196, 200, 342, 345 327, 346 Herzog, E., 423 Hettrich, Heinrich, 3, 28, 36, Ickler, Ingeborg, 433 423, 424, 465 Ickler, Nancy, 431 Hiersche, Rolf, 424 Ingalls, David, 305, 309, 323 SANSKRIT SYNTAX 481

Insler, Stanley, 433 Kalika Prasad Shukla, 102, 104, 151, 152 Jackendoff, Ray, 205, 206, Kane, Pandurang Vaman, 217 264, 266 Jacobi, Hermann, 433 Kantor, R., 435 Jamison, Stephanie W., 2, Karve, Cintamana Ganesa, 35, 404, 433, 434 325, 328, 329, 332, Jeffers, R., 435 342, 345 Jere, Atmaram Narayan, 276, Kashikar, C. G., 102, 107, 303 233, 235 Jha, Girish Nath, 166, 197 Katira, Dipesh, 141, 152 Jha, R., 369, 397 Katuri, Shivakumari, 166, Jijnasu, B., 394, 397 198 Job, Michael, 435 Kedarabhat¯ .t.a, 327, 329, 346 Johnson, Cynthia, 15, 51 Keenan, Edward L, 10, 51 Johnson, David E., 435 Kehler, Andrew, 247, 266 Johnson, Helen, 364, 397 Keith, A. Berriedale, 436 Johnson, Keith, 364, 397 Keydana, Götz, 37, 436, 437 Jolly, Julius, 435 Kieckers, Ernst, 437 Joseph, Brian D., 435 Kielhorn, Lorenz Franz, 102, Joseph, George Ghevergh- 105, 150, 153 ese, 327, 346 Kiparsky, Paul, 11, 33, 167, Joshi, Ganeshashastri Am- 170, 197, 437, 438 badas, 150, 151 Klaiman, M. H., 438 Joshi, K. R., 277, 278, 303 Klein, Jared S., 438–442 Joshi, S. D., 19, 51, 88, 105, Knobl, Werner, 442 170, 197, 349, 360, Kobayashi, Masato, 442 436 Krisch, Thomas, 443 Joshi, Shivram Dattatray, 264, Kümmel, Martin Joachim, 265 445 Kuhlmann, M., 282, 302 Kale, Moreshwar Ramchan- Kuiper, F. B. J., 443 dra, 436 482 AUTHORINDEX

Kulikov, Leonid, 20, 443– Ludwig, Alfred, 447, 448 445 Lühr, Rosemarie, 448 Kulkarni, Amba, 105, 166, Luis, José, 415 170, 196, 198, 303, 308, 312, 322, 323 MacCartney, Bill, 272, 303 Kulkarni, Malhar, 141, 152, Macdonell, Arthur Anthony, 166, 197, 323 449 Kumar, B. S., 445 Mangal Deva Shastri, 102, Kupfer, Katharina, 446 106 Kurzová, Helena, 446 Manning, C. D., 272, 302 Manning, Christopher D., Lagarde, Jean-Pierre, 223, 272, 303 234 Marantz, Alec, 17, 33, 51 Lahiri, P. C., 4, 38, 446 Marcus, S., 282, 303 Lakshmi Narasimham, S., Marneffe, Marie-Catherine 141, 153 de, 272, 303 Lallot, Jean, 222, 223, 234 Matilal, Bimal Krishna, 449 Lanman, C. R., 446 Mayr, Aurel, 449 Lazcano, Elisabeth, 234 McCloskey, James, 205, 206, Lazzeroni, Romano, 446 216 Leech, Geoffrey, 266 Meenakshi, K., 426, 449, Lehmann, Christian, 10, 446 509 Lehmann, Winfred P., 446, Meillet, Antoine, 449 447 Melazzo, Roberta, 449 Leumann, Ernst, 160, 198 Melcuk,ˆ I., 279, 304 Liebert, Gösta, 447 Menezes, A., 272, 304 Liebich, Bruno, 447 Michelson, Truman, 450 Lin, Dekang, 271, 303 Miehle, Helen Louise, 450 Lindner, Bruno, 447 Migron, Saul, 40, 450 Ling, Vivian, 259, 266 Miller, D. Gary, 450 Longacre, Robert E., 40, 52 Minard, Armand, 10, 450 Longobardi, Giuseppe, 447 Mishra, A., 363, 398 Lowe, John J., 447 SANSKRIT SYNTAX 483

Mishra, Anand, 167, 197, Oranskaya, T., 454 198, 326, 346 Ostler, Nicholas D. M., 27, Mishra, Sudhir K., 166, 197 454 Misra,´ Bankel˙ ala,¯ 150, 153 Misra,´ Mural¯ıdhara, 151, Padhye, D. G., 150, 154 153 Palmer, F. R., 348, 360 Möhl, M., 282, 302 Pandit, Shankar Pandurang, Mohanan, K. P., 19, 466 264, 266 Molina Muñoz, Adriana, 33, Panevová, J., 279, 304 450 Papke, Julia Kay Porter, 454 Monier-Williams, Monier, 160, Paramesvar´ ananda¯ sarm´ a,¯ 151, 198 152 Mumm, Peter Arnold, 450, Patel, Dhaval, 166, 198 451 Patyal, Hukam Chand, 454 Munro, Pamela, 40, 51 Payne, John, 253, 266 Pepicello, W. J., 435 Narasimhacharya, M. S., 102, Petersen, Wiebke, 167, 198 106 Peterson, Peter, 264, 266 Negelein, Julius von, 451 Pinault, Georges-Jean, 454, Ng, A. Y., 272, 302 455 Nivre, J., 282, 304 Pisani, Vittore, 455 Nooten, B. A. van, 414, 451 Pokar, Sheetal, 303, 308, 323 Pontillo, Tiziana, 94, 106 Oberlies, Thomas, 157, 160, Porzig, W., 455 198, 451 Pray, Bruce, 455 Oertel, Hanns, 451–453 Proferes, Theodore, 455 Örterer, Georg, 454 Puhvel, Jaan, 455 Oettinger, Norbert, 453 Pullum, Geoffrey K, 5, 51 Ogawa, Hideyo, 195 Oguibénine, Boris, 453 Quirk, C., 272, 304 Oldenberg, Hermann, 453, Quirk, Randolph, 250, 266 454 Radford, Andrew, 206, 217 Ollett, Andrew, 327, 346 Raghunatha¯ Sarm´ a,¯ 102, 106 484 AUTHORINDEX

Raghunathacarya, E. B., 363, Sastri, Gangadhara, 274, 304 398 Satuluri, Pavan Kumar, 166, Raja, K. Kunjunni, 276, 304 198 Raja, Kunjunni, 455 Satya Vrat Shastri, 458 Ramakrishnamacharyulu, K. Saussure, Ferdinand de, 458 V., 312, 323 Schäufele, Steven, 4, 5, 458, Rangacharya, Rao Bahadur 459 M., 151, 153 Scharf, Peter, 322 Ranganath, S., 363, 398 Scharf, Peter M., 76, 88, 107, Raster, Peter, 455 166–171, 174, 184, Ratanajoti, Undirapola, 447 189, 195, 196, 199, Rau, Wilhelm, 102, 106 200, 310, 323, 327, Régnier, Adolphe, 233, 235 342, 346, 458 Reinöhl, Uta, 456 Scharfe, Hartmut, 458 Renou, Louis, 456, 457 Scherer, Anton, 459 Richter, Oswald, 457 Schmidt, Gernot, 459 Rocher, Ludo, 457 Schmitt-Brandt, Robert, 459 Roodbergen, J. A. F., 19, 51, Schneider, Carolin, 424, 459, 264, 265, 349, 360 460 Ross, John Robert, 5, 51 Segall, P., 279, 304 Roth, Rudolf von, 157, 160, Seiler, Hansjakob, 460 195 Sellmer, Sven, 305, 309, 324 Rouse, W. H. D., 457 Sen, N. M., 460 Ruppel, Antonia, 457 Sen, Sukumar, 460 Sgall, Petr, 460 Sadler, Louisa, 15, 50 Shaer, Benjamin, 5, 7, 256, Sadovski, Velizar, 457 265, 307, 322, 416 Salomon, Richard, 457, 458 Sharma, Arvind, 422 Sam¯ . kr.tyayana,¯ Rahula,¯ 264, Sharma, Aryendra, 150, 154 266 Shastri, Charudev., 362, 366– Sangal, Rajeev, 279, 302 368, 370, 372, 375, Sarup, Lakshman, 151, 153, 376, 398 224, 225, 233, 235 SANSKRIT SYNTAX 485

Shukl, Devanand, 303, 308, Svartik, Jan, 266 323 Swamiji, Shivamurthy, 166, Shukla, H. L., 363, 398 201 Siecke, Ernst Ludwig, 460 Szemerényi, Oswald, 462 Sinha, Anjani C., 461 Słuszkiewicz, E., 461 Sitaram Shastri, 150, 151, 154 Taranatha, 264, 266 Slade, Benjamin, 408 Taraporewala, Irach J. S., Sleator, D., 279, 304 462 Snijders, Liselotte, 5, 52 Telang, Kashinath Trimbak, Söhnen, Renate, 461 264, 267 Sommer, Ferdinand, 461 Temperley, D., 279, 304 Sonatakke, N. S., 102, 107, Tesnière, L., 279, 304 233, 235 Thieme, Paul, 463 Sorensen, J., 272, 302 Thomas, E. J., 463 Speijer, J. S., 4, 10, 14–16, Thommen, Eduard, 463 19–21, 24, 25, 30, Thompson, Sandra A., 40, 52 38, 270, 304, 361, Thornton, Randolph, 463 365, 398, 461 Thumb, Albert, 463 Srivastav, Veneeta, 10, 52 Thurneysen, Rudolph, 463 Staal, J. F., 5, 7, 207, 214, Tichy, Eva, 463, 464 217, 270, 304, 307, Tikkanen, Bertil, 464, 465 308, 324, 438, 461 Toporov, V. N., 414 Staal, J. Frits, 166, 200 Trivedi, Kamlashankar Pranashankar, Stchoupak, Nadine, 461 151, 154 Storck, Frid. Guil. Paul, 461 Tsiang, Sarah, 36, 43, 465 Strunk, Klaus, 462 Tsiang-Starcevic, Sarah, 36, Stump, Gregory T., 462 465 Sturtevant, Edgar H., 462 Tubb, Gary A., 465 Subbanna, Sridhar, 170, 200 Tucker, Elizabeth, 442 Subramania Iyer, K. A., 102, Vale, R. N., 465 107, 129, 151, 154 Subramaniam, P. S., 462 486 AUTHORINDEX

Van de Walle, Lieve, 27, 35, Whitney, William Dwight, 45, 465, 466 32, 157, 201, 373, Varakhedi, Srinivas, 170, 398, 468 200 Wilhelm, Eugen, 469 Varma, Siddheshwar, 466 Willman-Grabowska, Helena, Vasu, S. C., 394, 398 469 Vedavrata, 102, 107, 150, Windisch, Ernst, 469 151, 154 Witzel, Michael, 469 Vekerdi, J., 466 Wolff, Fritz, 469 Velankar, H. D., 325, 327, Wüst, Walther, 469 328, 346 Vendryes, J., 466 Yoon, James Hye Suk, 17, 52 Vennemann, Theo, 204, 217 Yoshida, Kazuhiko, 442 Verma, Manindra K., 19, 466 Zakharyin, B. A., 20, 23, 24, Verpoorten, J.-M., 457, 466, 469 467, 509 Zehnder, Thomas, 469 Vijayapala,¯ 102, 107 Ziegler, Sabine, 469 Villavicencio, Aline, 15, 50 Zubatý, Joseph, 470 Vine, Brent, 20, 25, 467 Zwolanek, Renée, 470 Viti, Carlotta, 467 Voyles, Joseph B., 467

Wackernagel, Jacob, 467 Wallace, William D., 45, 215, 217, 468 Ward, Gregory, 247, 266 Watanabe, Albert, 36, 43, 465 Watkins, Calvert, 468 Wecker, Otto, 468 Wenzel, Heinrich, 468 Title index

A propos du subjonctif védique, 456 Ablativ, localis, instrumentalis im altindischen, lateinischen, griechischen und deutschen, 409 The absolute construction in Indo-European, 408 Absolute constructions in early Indo-European, 457 Absolute Konstruktionen in altindogermanischen Sprachen, 436 L’absolutif sanskrit en -am, 456 Ac¯ arya-Dharmak¯ ¯ırteh. Praman¯ . avarttikam¯ (svarth¯ anum¯ ana-paricchedah¯ . ) Svopajñavr. ttya¯ Karn. akagomi-viracitaya¯ tat..t¯ıkaya¯ ca sahitam, 264, 266 Der Accusativ im Veda, 415 Adhyaya¯ 2 Pada¯ 1–4, 102, 106 Adjectives in Sanskrit, 409 Adjunction, features, and locality in Sanskrit and Hindi-Urdu correlatives, 12, 409 Adpositions authentic and inauthentic, 458 Adverbial clauses, 40, 52 Adverbial repetition in the Rigveda, 441 Der Agens in passivischen Sätzen altindogermanischer Sprachen, 423 Ai. Gen.-Abl. der Feminina auf -as¯ in dativischer Funktion, 452 Algebraic linguistics, 282, 303 Altavestisch yas . . . cišca¯ ‘jeder, der’, 453 Altind. pura¯ und griech. páros mit dem Indikativ des Präsens, 405 Altindisch étava´ı, 463 Altindisch sma, Teil 1, 451 Die altindische Cvi-Konstruktion, 401 Altindische Grammatik, 467 Altindische Inﬁnitive auf -man und -mani, 402

487 488 TITLEINDEX

Altindische Nominalbildung nach den Samhit˙ as¯ , 447 Altindische Syntax, 4, 10, 24, 44, 410 Altindische Tempuslehre, 410 Die altindische Wortfolge aus dem Satapathabr´ ahman¯ . a dargestellt, 4, 38, 207, 216, 410 Die altindischen Absolutiva, besonders im Rgveda, Aitareya- und ˚ Satapatha-br´ ahman¯ . a, 420 Amplified sentences in Asoka´ , 399 Amred¯ . ita and iteration of preverbs in Vedic and Hittite, 413 Amreditas and related constellations in the Rigveda, 440 An analytic database of the As.t.adhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı, 167, 200 An outline of syntax of Buddhistic Sanskrit, 460 An unusual use of the nominative, 436 An XML formalization of the As.t.adhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı, 189, 200 Analogy in generative grammar, 204, 217 Annotating Sanskrit texts based on sábdabodha¯ systems, 312, 323 Aorist v Rigvede, 414 Apposition and nominal classification in Indo-European and beyond, 420 Apposition and word-order typology in Indo-European, 420 Are taddhita affixes provided after pratipadikas¯ or padas?, 168, 200 The argument structure of experience, 409 Arguments against a passive origin of the IA ergative, 438 The Aryan future, 432 Aspect and event structure in Vedic, 437 Aspects of Indo-European poetics, 468 Aspects of the rhetorical poetics of the Rigveda, 440 Aspects of the Vedic dative, 432 The aspectual functions of the R. gvedic present and aorist, 419 As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı 3.3.158 and the notion of subject in Pan¯ . ini, 432 As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı 3.4.21 and the role of semantics in Paninian linguistics, 24, 432 SANSKRIT SYNTAX 489

The As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı of Pan¯ . ini, 349, 360 As..tadhyay¯ ¯ı-bhas¯. ya-prathamavr¯ tti [prathama-trt¯ıyadhy¯ ay¯ atmaka¯ prathama bhaga]¯ , 394, 397˚ ˚ Átha¯, ádha, and a typology of Rigvedic conjunction, 438 The atmanepada¯ in the Rigveda, 414 ‘Attraction’ and coordination in the Veda, 418 Aufsätze zur Indoiranistik, 430, 431 Autonomy of word formation, 33, 240, 265, 416 Autour de a¯ rg-védique, 413 ˚ B. Delbrücks Arbeiten zur Wortstellung aus heutiger Sicht, 443 Background and Introduction, 102, 103, 151, 152, 169, 195 Background of the As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı, 88, 105 Beiträge aus dem Rgveda zur Accentuirung des Verbum ﬁnitum, 449 ˚ Beiträge zur Syntax der Palisprache¯ , 414 Beiträge zur vergleichenden Casuslehre des Zend und Sanskrit, 454 Bemerkungen zum Gebrauch der Pronomina der 1. und 2. Person als Subjekt im Altindischen, 35, 417 Betrachtungen zur Wortstellung im Altindischen, 443 Bhartr. hari as a ‘cognitive linguist’, 74, 105 Bhartr. hari on taddhita formations involving comparison, 129, 154 Bhartrhari’s rule for unexpressed karakas, 261, 265 Bhartrhari’s solution to the problem of asamartha compounds, 32, 33,˚ 416 Bhartr. haris Vakyapad¯ ¯ıya, 102, 106 Bhas¯. ap¯ akah¯ . , 370, 397 Bhat..tikavyam¯ of Sr´ ¯ı Bhat..tikavi, 150, 153 A bibliography of writings on Sanskrit syntax, v, 1–3, 412 Brhat-Sabdendu´ sekhara´ by Nage¯ sa´ Bhat..ta, 150, 154 ˚ ca ‘if, when’, ce(d) ‘and’ — wor(l)ds upside-down?, 451 490 TITLEINDEX

Le cas employés à l’infinitif en indo-européen, 449 Case disharmony in R. gvedic similes, 434 A case for the genitive case, 402 The case of the agent in Indo-European, 434 Case-linking, 27, 454 Cases and prepositions in Indo-Aryan, 405 Die casuslehre der indischen grammatiker verglichen mit dem gebrauch der casus im Aitareya-Brâhman. a, 447 Die casuslehre des Pan¯ . ini verglichen mit dem gebrauch der casus im Pali und in den Asoka-inschriften´ , 415 Casuum in lingua palica formatio comparata cum sancscritae linguae ratione, 461 Catena and climax in Vedic prose, 40, 450 Causees, passive agents, or instruments? Instrumental NPs with causatives in early and later Vedic Prose, 427 The character of the Indo-European moods, 418 The character of the Sanskrit accusative, 418 Chronology or genre? Problems in Vedic syntax, 9, 35, 37, 427 Classical Sanskrit, ‘wild trees’ and the properties of free word order languages, 5, 7, 256, 265, 307, 322, 416 Classical Sanskrit preverb ordering, 454 Classification of terms, 225, 226, 228, 234 Classifications of terms, 233 Clause-initial dvayám, 458 The cleft sentence in Vedic Prose, 450 Clitic verbs in PIE or discourse-based verb fronting?, 35, 37, 425 Coexistent analyses and participant roles in Indo-Aryan, 432 Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in cross- linguistic studies, 223, 233, 234 Competitive Indo-European syntax, 448 Le complément du nom dans le Satapathabr´ ahman¯ . a, 461 Completeness analysis of a Sanskrit reader, 164, 196 A comprehensive grammar of the English language, 250, 266 SANSKRIT SYNTAX 491

Compositum und Nebensatz, 433 Computational structure of the As.t.adhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı and conﬂict resolution techniques, 170, 200 Computer simulation of As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı, 170, 196 Conjoined we stand, 8, 10, 12, 203, 212–214, 216, 426 Conjunctive sequences in the Rigveda, 442 Conjunctive u and invariable sá in the Rgveda, 413, 434 A constraint on the position of the relative˚ in Vedic Sanskrit, 431 Constraints on ellipsis and event reference, 247, 266 Constraints on non-projective dependency parsing, 282, 304 Constraints on variables in syntax, 5, 51 Context-sensitive rules in Pan¯ . ini, 166, 200 Contributions to the history of verb inﬂection in Sanskrit, 401 Coordinate conjunction, 439 Corpus représentatif des grammaires et des traditions linguistiques, 234 Correlative clauses and IE syntactic reconstruction, 438 Covert absolutivity in Vedic, 432 The crest of the peacock, 327, 346 A critical survey of the publications on the periphrastic future in Sanskrit, 418

The dative of agency, 420 Die Dativi finales abstrakter Nomina und andere Beispiele nominaler Satzfügung in der vedischen Prosa, 453 De genetivi in lingua sanscritica, imprimis vedica usu, 460 De infinitivi linguarum sanscritae, bactricae, persicae, graecae, oscae, umbricae, latinae, goticae forma et usu, 469 De l’emploi du génitif absolu en sanscrit, 458 La décadence et la disparition du subjonctif, 456 Deep structure and surface structure in Pan¯ . ini, 462 Defining the nominative, 418 Definiteness and relativization in the Rigveda, 431 492 TITLEINDEX

Deictic fronting in Vedic Prose, 421 Deictic pronoun repetition in the Rigveda, 441 Die Demonstrativpronomina der indogermanischen Sprachen, 405 Die Demonstrativpronomina im Rigveda, 446 Denys le thrace, 223, 234 Dependency syntax, 279, 304 Dependency tree kernels for relation extraction, 272, 302 Dependency treelet translation, 272, 304 Dependency-based evaluation of MINIPAR, 271, 303 Deriving Wackernagel’s Law, 37, 421 Die Desiderativbildungen der indoiranischen Sprachen, 408 Design of a lean interface for Sanskrit corpus annotation, 311, 322, 344, 345 Designing a constraint based parser for Sanskrit, 303, 308, 323 A deterministic dependency parser with dynamic programming for Sanskrit, 303 Development of conditional clauses in early Sanskrit, 446 The development of the genitive absolute in Sanskrit, 457 A diachronic phonological solution to the syntax of Vedic negative particles, 435 The diachronic relationship of the IA ergative and passive constructions, 438 The diachronic syntax of the particle u in the Rigveda, 438 The discourse function of the absolutive in the Pañcatantra, 465 The discourse functions of subordinate constructions in Classical Sanskrit narrative texts, 36, 465 Discourse linkage in Sanskrit narratives with special emphasis on the story of Nala, 41, 427 Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inﬂection, 17, 33, 51 A distributed platform for Sanskrit processing, 310, 322 Distribution de la particule negative ná dans la Rk-Samhit˙ a¯, 455 Distribution des particules comparatives dans la˚ langue de la Rk- Samhit˙ a¯, 455 ˚ SANSKRIT SYNTAX 493

Ditransitive passive in Pan¯ . ini, 412 Dravidian and Indo-Aryan, 40, 414 Dvandvas, blocking, and the associative, 437

Éléments de syntaxe structurale, 279, 304 Ellipsis and syntactic overlapping, 410 Ellipsis, brachylogy, and other forms of brevity in speech in the Rgveda, 418 ˚ Ellipsis in Pan¯ . inian grammar, 411 The elliptical sentence, 455 Emphasizing and connecting particles in the thirteen principal upanishads, 422 L’emploi des cas en védique, 422 Emploi et analyse des adverbes comparatifs sanskrits en -vát, 454 Encyclopedic dictionary of applied linguistics, 364, 397 Epic syntax, 426, 449, 509 Essai sur la construction grammaticale considérée dans son développement historique en sanskrit, en grec, en latin, dans les langues romanes et dans les langues germaniques, 403 estai, 461 Études sur la grammaire védique, 233, 235 Études védiques et pan¯ . inéennes, 457 Evidence for evidentiality in Late Vedic, 409 Evolution of syntactic theory in Sanskrit grammar, 410 Exocentric (bahuvrihi) compounds in Classical Sanskrit, 258, 265 Exocentric (bahuvr¯ıhi) compounds in Classical Sanskrit, 416 Experiencer Subjects in South Asian Languages, 19, 466 Explanations for some syntactic phenomena of Proto-Indo- European, 446 The expression of purpose in Indo-European, 435 The extended siddha-principle, 170, 197 Extracting dependency trees from Sanskrit texts, 308, 322 494 TITLEINDEX

Finale Dative auf -ya¯ im Rgveda, 399 ˚ A formal re-presentation of the As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı, 167, 198 Les formes dites d’injonctif dans le rgveda, 456 Fortführung von Relativsätzen im Avestischen˚ , 415 Four studies in the language of the Veda, 418 Die Fragesätze im Rgveda, 414 Free word order and˚ phrase structure rules, 5, 51 Free word-order syntax, 4, 5, 458 From Pan¯ . inian sandhi to ﬁnite state calculus, 166, 196 From passive to ergative in Indo-Aryan, 455 From topic to subject in Indo-European, 446 From uttarapadalopa to madhyamapadalopa, 410 Function and form in the -aya-formations of the Rigveda and Atharvaveda, 434 Functional ambiguity and syntactic change, 433 A functional toolkit for morphological and phonological processing, 344, 345 Funktionen des Akkusativs und Rektionsarten des Verbums anhand des Altindoarischen, 419 Funzioni semantiche e pragmatiche nelle strategie di possesso dell’antico indiano, 467

Gab es im Indogermanischen Nebensätze?, 423 The gan. acchandas in the Indian metrical tradition, 327, 346 Gan. akas¯..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı, 166, 201 Gaps in grammar and culture, 5, 10, 51 A GB approach to the syntax of classical Sanskrit, 415 Der gebrauch der kasus in der älteren Upanis. ad-literatur, 468 Der Gebrauch des Conjunctivs und Optativs im Sanskrit und Griechischen, 410 Der Gebrauch von as- und bhu-¯ im Aitareya-Brahman¯ . a, 403 Generating typed dependency parses from phrase structure parses, 272, 303 SANSKRIT SYNTAX 495

Generation of Sanskrit compounds, 166, 198 Generative semantics and Pan¯ . ini’s karakas¯ , 461 The genesis of a linguistic area, 443 The genitive agent in Rigvedic passive constructions, 400 The genitive in Pan¯ . ini and in Epic Sanskrit, 449 The genitive in the role of the non-genitive, 415 The Genitivus personae with verbs of eating . . . and accepting . . . in Vedic Prose, 452 Genre, discourse, and syntax in Sanskrit, 35, 428 Le gérondif sanscrit en tva,¯ 402 Geschichte des Inﬁnitivs im Indogermanischen, 435 Government, barriers, and small clauses in modern Irish, 205, 206, 216 Grammaire de la langue védique, 456 La grammaire générale et les fondements philosophiques des classements de mots, 223, 224, 233 Grammaire sanscrite, 457 Grammar, 348, 360 A grammar of Epic Sanskrit, 157, 160, 198, 451 Grammatica et verba — Glamour and verve, 408 Grammatical irregularities in the R. gveda, book IV, 419 Grammatical notes, 436 Grammaticization and conﬁgurationality, 456 Die Grammatik der Partikeln, 413 Grammatik des Pali, 414 Die grammatische Kategorie Passiv im Altindischen, 400 Grammatisches aus dem Mahabh¯ arata¯ , 431

Handbook of American Indian languages, 233, 234 The Harshacarita of Ban¯ . abhat..ta, 264, 266 A higher Sanskrit grammar, 14, 404, 436 Histoire de la langue sanskrite, 457 Historical syntax of Middle Indo-Aryan, 460 496 TITLEINDEX

A history of the Sanskrit gerund, 435 Hittite iwar, wa(r) and Sanskrit iva, 435 Homoioteleuton in the Rigveda, 440 How strict is Strict OV?, 8, 428 Die Hymnen des Rigveda, 1, 453 Die Hypotaxe im Rigveda, 1, 455

I bahuvr¯ıhi del Rig Veda, 449 IE hortatory *ey, *eyte, 413 Impersonal constructions in functional grammar, 405 Inaccusatività indoeuropea e alternanza causative vedica, 446 The independent reader, 259, 266 Indian theories of meaning, 276, 304 Indian theorists on the nature of the sentence, 449 Indic across the millennia, 442 Indirekte Rede im Altindischen, 409 Die indische Grammatiktradition, 455 Indo-Aryan and Dravidian convergence, 458 Indo-Aryan from the Vedas to modern times, 404 L’indo-aryen du véda aux temps modernes, 403 Indo-European, 450 Indo-European Caland adjectives in *-nt- and participles in San- skrit, 447 Indo-European linguistics, 417–419 Indo-European origins of Germanic syntax, 11, 437 Indo-European word order in main and subordinate clauses in a diachronic perspective, 417 u Indogermanisch -q“e als alte nebensatzeinleitende Konjunktion, 467 Indogermanische Wortstellung, 443 The Indo-Iranian construction mana (mama) krtam, 406 The Indo-Iranian predicate inﬁnitive, 412 ˚ Inﬁnite syntax., 5, 51 SANSKRIT SYNTAX 497

Les infinitifs avestiques, 402 Les infinitifs de l’Avesta, 420 Infinitifs et dérivés nominaux dans le r. gveda, 456 Der Infinitiv im Veda, 447 The infinitive and participle in Indo-European, 467 Die Infinitive des Indischen und Iranischen, 1, 469 Die Infinitive im Rgveda, 460 The infinitive with˚ subject accusative, 420 The infinitives of the Indo-European languages, 435 Infinitivos y abstractos verbales en indoiranio, 415 Information structure and the particles va´ı and evá in Vedic Prose, 442 The information structure of OVS in Vedic, 467 Der Injunktiv im Veda, 431 The interaction of word order and pragmatics in a Sanskrit text, 45, 215, 217, 468 Interrogative sequences in the Rigveda, 441 Interstanzaic repetition in the Rigveda, 442 Die Inversion von Subjekt und Prädikat im Indischen, 433 Issues concerning constraints on discontinuous NPs in Latin, 5, 52 Issues in Sanskrit agreement, 14, 429 Iti dans le Jaimin¯ıya-Brahman¯ . a et dans le Sábara-Bh¯ as¯. ya, 467 J. Wackernagel und die idg. Partikeln *só,*ke,*kem und *an, 413 Jayadaman¯ , 325, 327, 328, 346 Jussive sentences in Sanskrit syntax, 405

Kadambar¯ ¯ı by Bana¯ and his son, 264, 266 Ein Kapitel vergleichender Syntax, 435 The karaka¯ theory and case grammar, 399 Karik¯ aval¯ ¯ı, 276, 303 Ka¯sik´ a¯, 150, 154 Kasm´ ¯ırasabd´ amr¯ ta 8.3.3, 432 ˚ 498 TITLEINDEX kim˙ tarhi in the Mahabh¯ as¯. ya, 407 Kompositum und Katalysationstext vornehmlich im späten San- skrit, 422 Konditionalsätze im Satapathabr´ ahman¯ . a, 414 Der Konjunktiv und seine Nachbarkategorien, 464 Konkurrierender Gebrauch obliquer Kasus im Rgveda, 424 Die Konstruktion von ¯ısvara´ in der vedischen Prosa˚ , 452 Die Konstruktionen des Absolutivs im Sanskrit, 461 Kuru kings, Tura Kavaseya, and the -tvaya gerund, 455

Language, 348, 360 Language and linguistic area, 414 Language and style of the Vedic rs. is, 414 Language vs. grammatical tradition˚ in Ancient India, 445 Language-death phenomena in Sanskrit, 425 Latente Objekte und altindische Diskursgrammatik, 436 Levels in Pan¯ . ini’s As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı, 76, 107, 167, 199 The light verb jungle, 406 Linguistic analysis and some Indian traditions, 70, 103 A linguistic analysis of the Mun. d. aka Upanis. ad, 457 Linguistic archaisms of the Ram¯ ayan¯ . a, 450 Linguistic investigations into ellipsis in Classical Sanskrit, 416 Linguistic issues and intelligent technological solutions in encoding Sanskrit, 167, 200 Linguistic issues in encoding Sanskrit, 167, 174, 200, 327, 346 Linguistic study of dharmasutras¯ , 403 Linguistic, syntactic, and stylistic peculiarities of the Brahman¯ . as, 454 Linguistic typology, 205, 216 Linguistics in India, 458 Local particles in the R. gveda, part XVII, 460 Le locatif dans le Rig-Veda, 469 Logic and conversation, 47, 51 SANSKRIT SYNTAX 499

Logic, language, and reality, 449 Lokalpartikel im R. gveda (Folge 13): ápa VII: n´ıs, 459 Lokalpartikeln im Rgveda XIV, 407 The loss of the subjunctive˚ mood in yadi-conditionals from Vedic to Epic Sanskrit, 462

Madhav¯ ¯ıya Dhatuvr¯ tti canonical index, 167, 171, 199 The Mahabh¯ arata¯ ,˚ 305, 309, 323 Mahabh¯ as¯. ya-D¯ıpika¯ of Bhartr. hari, 102, 103 Les maîtres de la philologie védique, 456 Die man-Sätze, 470 Manu-Smriti with Nine Commentaries by Medhatithi,¯ Sarvajñana-¯ rayan¯ . a, Kulluka,¯ Raghav¯ ananda,¯ Nandana, Ramacandra,¯ Ma- n. irama,¯ Govindaraja,¯ and Bharuci¯ , 150, 152 Materialien zu einer Kasussyntax des Rgveda, 3, 424 The meaning of nouns, 87, 104, 232, 234˚ The meaning of the sentence in its semantic and pragmatic aspects, 279, 304 ‘Meaning statements’ in Pan¯ . ini’s grammar: on the purpose and context of the As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı, 74, 76, 77, 80–82, 86, 105 Means of expressing a comparison of inequality in Old Indic, 399, 400 The medium in the Rgveda, 419 ˚ Mitravárun¯´ .a¯ or mitra¯´ várun.a¯?, 433 Mixed-gender antecedent agreement in Latin, 15, 51 Modeling Pan¯ . inian grammar, 166, 167, 171, 184, 199 Modelling As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı, 167, 198 Modelling the grammatical circle of the Pan¯ . inian system of San- skrit grammar, 167, 197 Modern Sanskrit Literature, 363, 398 Modern Sanskrit literature, tradition & innovations, 363, 398 500 TITLEINDEX

Mudrar¯ akshasa¯ written by Vis´akhadatta,¯ with Commentary of D. hund. hiraja¯ (written in 1713 AD) edited with critical and explanatory notes, 264, 267

Die Namen für Satzinhalte im Griechischen und im Indogermanis- chen, 455 Narrative linkage in Sanskrit, 40, 43, 430 Narrative linkage in the Mahabh¯ arata¯ , 41, 427 Natural language processing, 279, 302 Nature and means of comparison in Proto-Indo-European, 455 Der Nebensatz und seine Konkurrenten in der Indogermania, 448 Negated participles in R. gvedic Sanskrit and Proto-Indo-European, 447 The negative particle ná when used with the aorist system in the Rg-Veda, 422 Nexus˚ and ‘extraclausality’ in Vedic, or ‘sa-ﬁgé’ all over again, 428 The Nighan. .tu and the Nirukta, 151, 153, 224, 225, 233, 235 Die Nomina agentis auf -tar- im Vedischen, 464 Nominal and adverbial amreditas and the etymology of Rgvedic nana, 440 Nominal and pronominal objects in Sanskrit and Prakrit, 405 Nominal composition, noun incorporation and non-ﬁnite formations in Sanskrit, 445 The nominal sentence in Sanskrit and Middle Indo-Aryan, 404 Nominal sentences and the origin of absolute constructions in Indo-European, 431 Nominale Ausdrucksformen im wissenschaftlichen Sanskrit, 422 Nominalkomposition im Altindischen und Altgriechischen, 448 Noms d’agent et noms d’action en indo-européen, 402 A note on ‘dative agents’ in Sanskrit, 24, 407 A note on Indo-Iranian dha¯ (IE *dhe¯), 406 SANSKRIT SYNTAX 501

A note on the complement structures in sentences in modern spoken Sanskrit as recorded on tapes, 400 A note on the functions of the accusative, 418 A note on the Sanskrit gerund, 457 A note on Vakyapad¯ ¯ıya 1.45/46: atmabhedas¯ tayoh. kecid . . . , 54, 104 A note on word order in modern spoken Sanskrit and some positive constraints, 400 Notes de grammaire védique, 1, 456 Notes on reconstruction, word order, and stress, 430 Notes on syntax, 436 Notes on the instrumental case of the subject/agent vs. other cases in Buddhist Sanskrit, 453 Notes on the use of cases in the Kat¯.haka Samhit˙ a¯, 460 Notes on Vedic syntax, 436 Noun inﬂection in the Veda, 446 Nouns and noun phrases, 253, 266 Numeral repetition in the Rigveda, 441 Nyasa¯ or Pañcika¯ of Ac¯ arya¯ Jinendrabuddhipada¯ and Padama- ñjar¯ı of Haradatta Misra´ on the Ka¯sik´ avr¯ . tti [Commentary on the As..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı of Pan¯ . ini] of Vamana-Jay¯ aditya¯ , 102, 104, 151, 152 Nyaya-dar¯ sanam´ with Vatsy¯ ayana’s¯ Bhas¯. ya, Uddyotakara’s Varttika,¯ Vacaspati¯ Misra’s´ Tatparyat¯ .¯ıka¯ and Visvan´ atha’s¯ Vr. tti, 264, 266 Nyayasiddh¯ antamukt¯ aval¯ ¯ı, 277, 278, 303

Oblique subjects in Sanskrit?, 19, 20, 24, 426 Old Indian, 419 Old Indic clauses between subordination and coordination, 448 The Old Indo-Aryan tense system, 407 On a paragraph of Vaidic syntax, 406 On amplifed sentences and similar structures in the Veda, 43, 418 502 TITLEINDEX

On certain irregular Vedic subjunctives or imperatives, 404 On comparatives and superlatives formed to finite verbs in San- skrit, 407 On Delbrück’s Vedic syntax, 468 On explaining double object constructions, 27, 466 On identifying the conceptual restructuring of passive as ergative in Indo-Aryan, 432 On instability in the use of moods in earliest Sanskrit, 404 On methodology in syntactic reconstruction, 435 On modes in relative clauses in the Rig-Veda, 401 On negative clauses in the Rigveda, 408 On Pan¯ . ini’s metalinguistic use of cases, 89, 91, 94, 103, 166, 195 On past tense and verbal aspect in the Rgveda, 466 On relative clauses in the Rig-Veda, 401˚ On Sanskrit and the derived languages, 403 On the ‘syntax of silence’ in Proto-Indo-European, 443 On the absolute instrumental in Sanskrit, 399 On the architecture of Pan¯ . ini’s grammar, 33, 167, 197, 437 On the construction type nat.asya sr´ n.oti, 407 On the evolutionary changes in the˚ Old and Middle Indo-Aryan systems of case and adpositions, 405 On the expression of reflexive possession in the Rig-Veda, 20, 25, 467 On the interaction of morphology and syntax, 5, 51 On the meaning of Sanskrit bhavati, 423 On the narrative use of imperfect and perfect in the Brahman¯ . as, 468 On the nature and function of preverb repetition in the Rigveda, 440 On the problem of the development of tenses in Old-Indo-Aryan (the R. gveda), 414 On the realisation of the category of definiteness-indefiniteness in the Vedic Sanskrit, 454 SANSKRIT SYNTAX 503

On the semantic foundation of Pan¯ . inian derivational procedure, 167, 199 On the semantic foundation of Pan¯ . inian derivational procedure: the derivation of kumbhakara¯ , 88, 107 On the structure of Pan¯ . ini’s system, 76, 103 On the syntax of cases in the Ram¯ ayan¯ . a, 460 On the syntax of Sanskrit gerund constructions, 464 On the tense value, functions, and forms of the Sanskrit gerund, 464 On the use of the absolutive in Sanskrit, 419 On the variable position of the ﬁnite verb in oldest Sanskrit, 404 On the word order typology of the Satapathabr´ ahman¯ . a, 399 On translating and formalizing Pan¯ . inian rules, 166, 195 On verbal accentuation in the Rigveda, 439 The order of constituents in Indo-European, 420 L’ordre des mots dans l’Aitareya-Brahman¯ . a, 457, 466, 509 The origin and syntax of the Rigvedic construction yá- (. . . ) ká/´ı/ú- ca, 439 The origin of the ablative case, 433 The origin of the oblique subject construction, 402 The origin of the Rigvedic vayav¯´ ´ındras´ ca construction, 438 The origin of the Sanskrit passive aorist, 433 The original character of the Indo-European relative pronoun io-, 417 “ The original syntax of conjunctive *-kwe, 413 Origines et développement de la théorie des parties du discours en grèce, 222, 234 Die Ortsnamen-Parenthese im Altpersischen und Vedischen, 430 Outline of the historical grammar of the Vedas, 401

The Pali¯ language, 414 The Pañcakhy¯ anaka¯ of Purn¯ . abhadra, 310, 323, 342, 346 The Pañcatantra and Aesop’s Fables, 36, 43, 465 504 TITLEINDEX

The Panchatantra, 310, 322, 342, 345 Panels of the VIIth World Sanskrit Conference, Kern Institute, Lei- den, August 23–29, 1987, 405 Pan¯ . ini 5.3.5 and the function of Sanskrit etád, 445 Pan¯ . ini: A survey of research, 8, 19, 50 Pan¯ . ini and Pan¯ . in¯ıyas on ses´ . a relations, 61, 103, 104 Pan¯ . ini and the northwestern dialect, 411 Pan¯ . ini and the Veda, 412 Pan¯ . ini and the Vedic evidence, 410 Pan¯ . ini as a frontier grammarian, 4, 31, 410 Pan¯ . ini, vivaks. a,¯ and karaka-rule-ordering¯ , 170, 199 Pan¯ . inian accounts of the class eight presents, 168, 199 Pan¯ . inian accounts of the Vedic subjunctive, 168, 199 The Pan¯ . inian conception of karmakartr, 414 Paninian grammar framework applied˚ to English, 279, 302 Pan¯ . inian reflections on Vedic infinitives, 412 Pan¯ . inian reflections on Vedic infinitives: On infinitives with -tosU- N and -KasUN, 411 Pan¯ . inian sutras¯ of the type anyebhyo ’pi drsyate,´ 77, 103 ˚ Pan¯ . inian syntax and changing notion of sentence, 8, 412 Pan¯ . inian syntax and the changing notion of sentence, 26, 411 Pan¯ . inian syntax of gerund constructions, 411 Pan¯ . in¯ıya Siks´ . a¯ or the Siks´ . a¯ Veda¯nga˙ ascribed to Pan¯ . ini (being the most ancient work on Indo-Aryan phonetics), 102, 104 Pan¯ . in¯ıye atidesánu¯ s´¯ılanam, 141, 153 Panini’s as..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı, 24, 432 Pan¯ . ini’s As.t.adhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı and linguistic theory, 167, 196 Pan¯ . ini’s concept of a sentence, 455 Pan¯ . ini’s grammar and its computerization, 74, 75, 105 Pan¯ . ini’s karakas,¯ 78, 103 Pan¯ . ini’s karakas¯ , 406 Pa:nini’s ktvá:-type formations in Sanskrit and Hindi, 20, 23, 24, 469 SANSKRIT SYNTAX 505

Parataxe, hypotaxe et corrélation dans la phrase latine, 422 Parsing English with a link grammar, 279, 304 Participles as finite verbs, 436 The particle iva in Vedic Prose, 404 The particle u in the Rigveda, 438 Les parties du discours dans la linguistique moderne et contemporaine, 223, 234 Les ‘parties du discours’ (partes orationis) et la reconstruction d’une syntaxe latine au XVIe siècle, 223, 234 Le passage du nom d’action à l’infinitif dans le R. gveda, 456 Passive and middle in Indo-European, 444 Passive, anticausative, and classification of verbs, 444 Passivized causatives in Sanskrit and Prakrits¯ , 405 Patañjali’s Vyakaran¯ . a-Mahabh¯ as¯. ya Paspasáhnika,¯ introduction, text, translation and notes, 264, 265 Patañjali’s Vyakaran¯ .a-Mahabh¯ as¯.ya: Vibhaktyahnik¯ a¯ (P. 2.3.18– 2.3.45), 19, 51 Patterns of verb repetition in the Rigveda, 440 Peculiarities in the use of iti, 436 Das Perfekt im Indoiranischen, 445 Performative sentences in Vedic, 408 Personal pronoun sequences in the Rigveda, 441 Phonological overgeneration in Pan¯ . inian system, 166, 197 The phonology-syntax interface in the language of the Rig Veda, 421 Phrasal repetition in the Rigveda, 440 La phrase nominale, 403 La phrase nominale en indo-européen, 449 La phrase nominale en sanskrit, 403 La place de la particule négative na dans la phrase en vieil indien, 417 Das Plusquamperfektum im Veda, 463 Polyptoton and paronomasia in the Rigveda, 440 506 TITLEINDEX

‘P-oriented’ constructions in Sanskrit, 19, 20, 25, 426 Portuguese: Corpora, coordination and agreement, 15, 50 Possessive agents in Sanskrit?, 19, 20, 24, 427 Prädikativa im Altindischen, 436 Pragmatic motivation of the passive voice in Classical Sanskrit, 465 Pragmatics and Classical Sanskrit, 35, 45, 466 Pragmatics of absolute locative in Sanskrit, 403 Prakriyakaumud¯ ¯ı by Ramacandr¯ ac¯ arya¯ , 151, 153 The Prakriyâkaumudî of Râmachandra, 151, 154 Prakriyapradars¯ . in. ¯ı, 166, 198 Praman¯ . avarttikam¯ , 264, 265 Praud. hamanorama¯ of Sr´ ¯ı Bhat..toji D¯ıkshita, 151, 154 Predicate order in Vedic Prose, 8, 44, 429 Preliminaries to the study of the relationship between syntax and sandhi in Rigvedic Sanskrit, 421 (Pre-)Rig-Vedic convergence of Indo-Aryan with Dravidian? An- other look at the evidence, 8, 425 Prétérit et optatif en indo-européen, 403 The preterite optative in Indic, 458 Preverb repetition, 413 Les préverbes dans le Çatapathabrahman¯ . a, 408 The prohibitive use of na in lieu of ma¯ with the augmentless aorist in the RgVeda, 422 Principles˚ of historical linguistics, 426 Principles of syntactic reconstruction and ‘morphology as paleosyntax’, 401 Proceedings of the Fifth International Sanskrit Computational Linguistics Symposium, 197, 323 Projectivity in totally ordered rooted trees, 282, 303 Das Projekt einer Kasussyntax des Rgveda. Der Instrumental, 424 Pronominal reﬂexivization in Sanskrit˚ , 425 SANSKRIT SYNTAX 507

Pronoun fronting and the notion ‘verb-second’ position in Be- owulf, 425 Proto-Indo-European compounds in relation to other Proto-Indo- European syntactic patterns, 446 Proto-Indo-European syntax, 415, 446 Proto-Indo-European verb-ﬁnality, 38, 429 Prototypes in Pan¯ . inian syntax, 411 Purvatr¯ asiddham¯ and a¯sray´ at¯ siddham, 170, 195

Quelques observations sur l’emploi du verb simple ‘au lieu d’un composé’ etc. dans la langue sanskrite, 417 Questions and relative and complement clauses in a Bangla grammar, 10, 50 The quotative in Indo-Aryan, 449

The Ram¯ ayan¯ . a, 458 Ramop¯ akhyana¯ — the story of Rama¯ in the Mahabh¯ arata,¯ 310, 323 Ramus, Petrus, 223, 234 Random scrambling? Constraints on discontinuity in Latin noun phrases, 5, 50 ràng wo-ménˇ lái dú Laoˇ Zˇı (Let us read Laozi), 259, 265 Reciprocal constructions in Vedic, 444 The reconstruction of non-simple sentences in Proto-Indo- European, 446 The reconstruction of particles and syntax, 421 Reduced-clause and clause-union absolutives and participles in Vedic Prose, 19, 20, 24, 25, 426 A reexamination of the perfect and the imperfect in Vedic Sanskrit, 450 Reflections on the Indo-European medium, 419 The reflexive pronouns in Vedic, 20, 444 Reflexivization in the Rig-Veda (and beyond), 20, 428 508 TITLEINDEX

The relation of the Indian grammatical tradition to modern linguistics, 3, 8, 430 Relations between causatives and passives in Indo-Iranian, 406 Relative and antecedent, 420 Relative clauses, 10, 51 Relative clauses in Hindi and learnability, 10, 52 Relative constructions in the Rig-Veda, book five, 450 Relative pronoun sequences in the Rigveda, 441 Relatives in Indo-European and Hittite, 462 Les relatives nominales indoeuropénnes, 447 Der Relativsatz, 10, 446 Der Relativsatz in den indoeuropäischen Sprachen, 446 Relativization and word order in Old Irish and Vedic Sanskrit, 431 Relativsatz, Attribut und Apposition, 460 Remarks on Indo-European infinitives, 435 Remarks on the expression of agency with the passive in Vedic and Indo-European, 434 Remarks on the Sanskrit passive, 417 Remarks upon M. Bloomfield’s paper on certain irregular Vedic subjunctives or imperatives, 468 Remarques générales sur la phrase védique, 457 Remarques sur la place du verbe dans la phrase active et moyenne en langue sanscrite, 417 Repetition and deletion of preverbs and verbs in early Indic and Greek, 413 Research on Sanskrit syntax, 3, 426 Responsion in the Rigveda, 440 Retrospektivität im Rigveda, 451 Review of Ch. Lehmann 1984, 423 Review of Haudry 1977, 407, 414 Review of Meenakshi 1983, 426 Review of Verpoorten 1977, 457 Review of Klein 1978, 422 SANSKRIT SYNTAX 509

Revised and enlarged edition of Prin. V. S. Apte’s The practical Sanskrit-English dictionary, 325, 328, 329, 332, 342, 345 Rgveda, 453 ˚ R. gveda-Samhit˙ a¯, 102, 107, 233, 235 Rgvedic clitics and ‘prosodic movement’, 447 ˚The Rgvedic stanza as a syntactical unit, 450 Rigvedic tú and sú, 438 Robust textual inference via graph matching, 272, 302 The roots, verb-forms, and primary derivatives of the Sanskrit language, 157, 201 Rule selection in the As.t.adhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı or Is Pan¯ . ini’s grammar mechanistic?, 170, 199 Rule-blocking and forward-looking conditions in the computational modeling of Pan¯ . inian derivation, 166, 169, 199 The Rup¯ avat¯ ara¯ of Dharmak¯ırti, 151, 153 Russian, 215, 216

Sa ﬁgé and Indo-European deixis, 439 Sabd´ apa¯ sabdaviveka´ , 362, 398 Sakuntal´ a¯, 264, 265 Sanskrit and Pan¯ . ini — Core and periphery, 4, 31, 429 Sanskrit ca, Indo-European *kwe, and the semantics of coordinate conjoined structures in the Rigveda, 438 Sanskrit causative syntax, 4, 31, 425 Sanskrit compounds and the architecture of the grammar, 33, 450 Sanskrit computational linguistics, 105, 196, 197, 323 Sanskrit double-object constructions, 27, 30, 425 The Sanskrit gerund, 464 Sanskrit gerund constructions, 410 Sanskrit grammar, 32, 373, 398, 468 A Sanskrit grammar for students, 449 Sanskrit, grammatical and philological studies, 417–419 Sanskrit metre recognizer, 326, 346 510 TITLEINDEX

The Sanskrit particle api, 419 The Sanskrit passive, 19, 20, 425 The Sanskrit passive in lexical-functional grammar, 438 The Sanskrit quotative, 425 Sanskrit studies of M. B. Emeneau, 414, 451 Sanskrit syntactic particles, 414 Sanskrit syntax, 4, 10, 14–16, 19–21, 24, 25, 30, 38, 270, 304, 361, 365, 398, 461, 462 Sanskrit syntax and the grammar of case, 445 Sanskrit usage, 458 The Sanskrit -yet-optative, 444 A Sanskrit-English dictionary, 160, 198 Sanskrit-Wörterbuch, 157, 160, 195 Der Schaltsatz im Rgveda, 469 Scholastic Sanskrit˚, 465 Selected studies / J. Gonda, 419 Semantic functions eligible for subject position, 465 Semantic processing in Pan¯ . ini’s karaka¯ system, 166, 197 Semantische und pragmatisch-kontextuelle Faktoren in der En- twicklung des altindoarischen Perfekts, 408 Semantische und syntaktische Betrachtungen zum doppelten Akkusativ, 28, 423 Sense and syntax in Vedic, 2, 404 Sentence structure according to Pan¯ . ini, 436 La séparation du préverbe et du verbe en védique, 456 Sequential negation in the Rigveda, 441 A short history of Vedic preﬁx-verb compound accentuation, 428 The Siddhanta¯ Kaumud¯ı of Bhhat..toji D¯ıks. ita, 394, 398 Simulating the Pan¯ . inian system of Sanskrit grammar, 167, 198 Single-word topicalization in Vedic Prose, 4, 459 Der sog. ‘Nominativus pendens’, 422 Der sogenannte genitivus temporis im Veda, 402 Some aspects of Sanskrit agreement, 16, 428 SANSKRIT SYNTAX 511

Some features of the sampradana¯ karaka¯ in Pan¯ . ini, 24, 411 Some Hittite-Sanskrit parallels, 420 Some intersections of semantics and syntax in Vedic, 434 Some issues in the computational implementation of the As..tadhy¯ a-¯ y¯ı, 168, 195 Some linguistic superstitions, 463 Some notes on Indo-European double direct-object constructions, 27, 30, 31, 429 Some notes on the position of the attributive adjective in early In- dian prose, 419 Some observations on intersentential pronominalization in the language of the Taittir¯ıya Samhit˙ a¯, 35, 421 Some observations on relatives and demonstratives in Greek and Sanskrit, 431 Some peculiarities of Vedic-prose relative clauses, 36, 47, 427 Some principles of Pan¯ . ini’s grammar, 98, 103, 168, 169, 195 Some problems of Indo-Aryan philology, 40, 50 Some relation-speciﬁc issues, 312, 323 Some remarks on Sanskrit and Greek absolutive genitives, 461 Some remarks on the position of adverbials in Greek and Vedic sentences, 443 Some rhetorical aspects of adjacent interstanzaic phrasal repetition in the Rigveda, 442 Some semantic and pragmatic aspects of object alternation in early Vedic, 408 Some theoretical problems in Pan¯ . ini’s grammar, 437 Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements, 203, 204, 216 Der Sprachgebrauch der älteren Upanis. ads verglichen mit dem der früheren vedischen Perioden und dem des klassischen San- skrit, 415 Sr´ ¯ıbhagavatpatañjaliviracitam˙ Vyakaran¯ . a-mahabh¯ as¯. yam, 102, 107, 150, 151, 154 512 TITLEINDEX

Sr´ ¯ımadbhat..tojid¯ıks. itaviracita¯ Vaiyakaran¯ . asiddhantakaumud¯ ¯ı . . . Sr´ ¯ı- madvasudevad¯ ¯ıks. itapran. ¯ıtaya¯ Balamanoram¯ akhyavy¯ akhyay¯ a¯ Srimajjñ´ anendrasarasvat¯ ¯ıviracitaya¯ Tattvabodhinyakhyavy¯ a-¯ khyaya¯ ca sanathit¯ a¯, 151, 152 Sr´ ¯ımajjaiminipran. ¯ıte M¯ıma¯ms˙ adar¯ sane´ . . . , 150, 151 Sr´ ¯ıvamanajay¯ adityaviracit¯ a¯ Pan¯ . in¯ıyas¯..tadhy¯ ay¯ ¯ısutravr¯ ttih. Ka¯sik´ a¯, 102, 107 ˚ Sr´ ¯ıvis. n. usarmapran´ . ¯ıtam˙ Pañcatantram, 369, 397 Stämme oder Wurzeln im Sanskrit? Primäre vs. sekundäre Verbal- stammbildung und das Kausativ, 3, 429 Stativ und Passivaorist im Indoiranischen, 445 Stilgeschichte und Chronologie des Rgveda, 469 Strategies of subordination in Vedic˚, 467 Structure and implementation of a digital edition of the As..tadhy¯ a-¯ y¯ı, 167, 198 Structure de l’énoncé en indo-européen, 401 The student’s guide to Sanskrit composition, 7, 264, 288, 301, 302, 400 Studien zur Kasussyntax des Pali,¯ besonders des Vinaya-Pit.aka, 424 Studies in India’s Vedic grammarians, 1, 82, 105 Studies in Indian grammarians I, 166, 195 Studies in Rgveda and Modern Sanskrit Literature, 363, 398 Studies in˚ Sanskrit grammars, 195 Studies in Sanskrit syntax, v, 2, 399, 427 Studies in the comparative syntax of the oldest Indo-Iranian languages, 421 Studies in the syntax of relative and comparative clauses, 10, 50 Studies in the word order of Sanskrit prose, 4, 38, 446 Studies on the present participle, 1, 442 A study of modern spoken Sanskrit with reference to sentence patterns, 400 A study of nominal sentences in the oldest Upanis. ads, 420 SANSKRIT SYNTAX 513

The style of Ban¯ . a, 215, 216 Stylistic repetition in the Veda, 418 Subject in Pan¯ . ini, 406 Subject predicate order in Classical Sanskrit, 416 Subjunctive and optative, 420 Subordination and relativization in Early Indo-European, 431 La subordination dans la prose védique, 10, 450 Substratum influence on (Rig-Vedic) Sanskrit?, 425 Suddhikaumud´ ¯ı, 362, 397 Le suffixe -tu et la constitution des infinitifs, 456 Sukti-ratn¯ akara¯ (Commentary on Patañjali’s Mahabh¯ as¯. ya) by Se-´ s. a Nar¯ ayan¯ . a, 371, 397 Sur l’emploi de l’infinitf au genitif dans quelques langues indoeu- ropéennes, 466 Sur la phrase négative dans le rgveda, 456 Sur un usage remarquable de l’infinitif˚ samscrit, 2, 406 Switch reference and universal grammar, 40, 51 Syntactic and discourse correlates of verb-initial sentences in the Rigveda, 439 Syntactic and semantic relations in Panini, 438 A syntactic approach to category-changing phrasal morphology: Nominalizations in Korean and English, 17, 52 The syntactic development of the infinitive in Indo-European, 412 The syntactic features of speech and context in the Pañcatantra, 465 A syntactic rule in Pali¯ and Ardhamagadh¯ ¯ı, 423 Syntaktische Äquivalenz des Genitivs und Ablativs bei Verben der Trennung in der altindischen Prosa, 451 Syntaktisch-exegetische Miszellen, 406 Syntax, 424 Syntax: a minimalist introduction, 206, 217 The syntax and style of the Ram¯ ayan¯ . a, 404 Syntax and verse structure in the Veda, 418 514 TITLEINDEX

Die Syntax des einfachen Satzes im Indogermanischen, 405 Die Syntax des Inﬁnitivs, 423 Syntax des Relativsatzes und pluralischer Instrumental im Avestis- chen, 453 Syntax, meaning, and origin of the Indo-European particle kwe, 462 The syntax of cases in the narrative and descriptive prose of the Brahman¯ . as, 451 The syntax of cases in Vedic prose, 460 The syntax of direct speech in Vedic, 35, 434 The syntax of style, 440 Syntax of tenses in the Ram¯ ayan¯ . a, 460 Syntax of the dative case in the Rgveda, 466 Syntax of the inﬁnite verb-forms˚ of Pali, 422 Syntax und Wortarten der Lokalpartikeln des R. gveda, I, 423 Syntax und Wortarten der Lokalpartikeln des R. gveda. II, 423 Syntax und Wortarten der Lokalpartikeln des R. gveda. III, 424 Syntax und Wortarten der Lokalpartikeln des Rgveda IV: Allge- meines, II: úpa, III: áva, 424 ˚ Syntax und Wortarten der Lokalpartikeln des Rgveda IX, 407 ˚ Syntax und Wortarten der Lokalpartikeln des R. gveda V, 459 Syntax und Wortarten der Lokalpartikeln des Rgveda VI, 407 ˚ Syntax und Wortarten der Lokalpartikeln des R. gveda VII, 459 Syntax und Wortarten der Lokalpartikeln des Rgveda VIII, 407 ˚ Syntax und Wortarten der Lokalpartikeln des R. gveda X, 459 Syntax und Wortarten der Lokalpartikeln des Rgveda XII, 408 ˚ Syntax und Wortarten der Lokalpartikeln des R. gveda XIX, 460 Syntax und Wortarten der Lokalpartikeln des R. gveda. XV.2, 460 Syntax und Wortarten der Lokalpartikeln des Rgveda XVI, 408 Syntax und Wortarten der Lokalpartikeln des˚ Rgveda XXI, 407 La syntaxe des comparaisons védiques, 403 ˚ The system of coordinate conjunctions in the Rigveda, 438 Systematics of Pan¯ . ini’s As.t.adhy¯ ay¯ ¯ı, 351, 360 SANSKRIT SYNTAX 515

Tantravartikam¯ , 274, 304 Ta-participles with genitive agents in Vedic Sanskrit, 428 Tat tvam asi in context, 404 Teleology and the simpliﬁcation of accentuation in Pan¯ . inian derivation, 169, 200 Tense and mood in Indo-European syntax, 437 Tenses and moods in the Kat¯.haka Samhit˙ a¯, 436 Text in Sutra-form¯ , 102, 106 Texte und Glossar, 463 Eine textsyntaktische Regel der idg. Wortstellung, 413 Thematische Rollen und Kasus, 448 Themes and tasks in Old and Middle Indo-Aryan linguistics, 465 Three myths in modern Pan¯ . inian studies, 74, 75, 82, 105 Time, tense and aspect in Early Vedic grammar, 409 Time, tense and aspect in early Vedic grammar, 409 Towards a relationally based grammar, 435 Towards Proto-Indo-European syntax, 468 Tracing the Vedic dialects, 469 Transitive and causative in Indo-European, 422 Transitivity as a gradient feature? Evidence from Indo-Aryan, especially Sanskrit and Hindi, 426 Transponierte Rollen und Ergänzungen beim vedischen Kausativ, 463 A triadic structural feature of nominal Anaphora in the Rigveda, 439 Trois énigmes sur les cent chemins, 450 Two forms of negations in Sanskrit, 240, 265, 416 Two notes on Sanskrit syntax, 418 The two senses of the term ‘anaphora’ and their functional unity, 439 Two textual studies of Bhartr-hari, 399 Typische Merkmale von Fragesätzen˚ und die altindische ‘Pluti’, 462 516 TITLEINDEX

Typological and functional aspects of word order in Asoka´ , 399 Typological syntactical characteristics of the Satapathabr´ ahman¯ . a, 447 Typology and the Indo-European prepositions, 401

Über das periphrastische perfect im Sanskrit, 433 Ueber den impersonalen Gebrauch der Participia necess. im San- skrit, 404 Ueber den indogermanischen, speciell den vedischen Dativ, 409 Über den Instrumentalis im Rigveda, 468 Über den nominalen Stil des wissenschaftlichen Sanskrit, 433 Über die Entstehung des indogermanischen Vokativs, 402 Über die Iniﬁnite auf sanskr. -adhyai, 455 Über die Partikeln sú und tú im Vedischen, 447 Über die Rekonstruktion der idg. Syntax, 413 Über die absoluten verbalformen des Samskr˙ . t und den praedicatsauszdruck im allgemeinen, 448 Über ein Gesetz der indogermanischen Wortstellung, 467 Über indogermanische nominale Relativkonstruktionen, 459 Eine übereinstimmung zwischen Vedischem und Avestischem sprachgebrauch, 406 Ujjvaladatta’s Commentary on the Un. adis¯ utras¯ , 151, 152 The ukti-vyakti-prakaran. a as a manual of spoken Sanskrit, 458 Die unechten Nominalkomposita des Altindischen und Altiranis- chen, 457 The unity of the Vedic dative, 419 Un-Pan¯ . inian syntax (concord) in the Ram¯ ayan¯ . a and the Maha-¯ bharata¯ , 403 Untersuchungen über den Ursprung des Relativpronomens in den indogermanischen Sprachen, 469 Untersuchungen zu Sprache und Stil des ältesten Indo-Iranischen (Veda und Avesta), 457 Untersuchungen zur Hypotaxe im Vedischen, 36, 423 SANSKRIT SYNTAX 517

Untersuchungen zur Kasussyntax der indogermanischen Spra- chen, 422 Untersuchungen zur Komposition von Reden und Gesprächen im Ram¯ ayan¯ . a, 461 Untersuchungen zur Wortkunde und Auslegung des Rigveda, 463 Untersuchungen zur Wortstellung und Syntax der Chandogyopa-¯ nis. ad, 433 Die ursprüngliche Funktion des Konjunktivs, 459 The use of the gerund as passive in Sanskrit, 436 The use of the particle ca, 418 The use of the passive gerund in Sanskrit, 436, 457

Vagvyavah¯ ar¯ adar¯ sa´ , 362, 366–368, 370, 372, 375, 376, 398 Vaiyakaran¯ . asiddhantakaumud¯ı, 302 Vakya¯ according to the munitraya of Sanskrit grammar, 412 Vakyapad¯ ¯ıya of Bhartr. hari (An ancient Treatise on the Philosophy of Sanskrit Grammar) Containing the T. ¯ıka¯ of Pun. yaraja¯ and the Ancient Vr. tti, 102, 107, 151, 154 Vakyapad¯ ¯ıya of Bhartr. hari with the Commentary of Helar¯ aja¯ , 102, 107 Vakyapad¯ ¯ıya of Bhartr. hari with the Vr. tti and the Paddhati of Vr. s. abhadeva, 102, 107 Vakyapad¯ ¯ıyam [Part III, Vol. II] [Bhuyodravya-Gun¯ . a-Dik-Sa-¯ dhana-Kriya-K¯ ala-Purus¯ . a-Sankhya-Upagraha¯ and Lingasa-˙ muddesa]´ , 102, 106 Valency-changing categories in Indo-Aryan and Indo-European, 445 La valeur du parfait dans les hymns védiques, 456 Vat, 141, 152 Vayav¯´ ´ındrasca,´ 470 Ved. dive-dive und die idg. Iterativkomposita, 412 Vedic and Sanskrit historical linguistics, 442 518 TITLEINDEX

The Vedic causative samkhy˙ apayati¯ / samk˙ sápayati¯ reconsidered, 444 Vedic causatives, 407 The Vedic clause-initial string and Universal Grammar, 459 The Vedic dative reconsidered, 432 Vedic éta . . . stávama,¯ 428 A Vedic example of ‘no doubt’ used as parenthetic clause, 404 A Vedic grammar for students, 449 Vedic indrasca´ vayo¯ ∼ Old Avestan mazdåsca¯ ahuråNho,¯ 433 Vedic infinitive and Pan¯ . ini, 449 The Vedic injunctive, 437 The Vedic medio-passive aorists, statives and their participles, 444 Vedic mriyáte and other pseudo-passives, 443 The Vedic passive optative and its functional equivalents, 434 Vedic preverbs as markers of valency-changing derivations, 445 Vedic studies, 429 Vedic syntax, 411 Vedic variants, 404 Vedic verb accent revisited, 430 The Vedic -ya-presents, 444 The Vedic -ya-presents, 445 Védique tanu¯´ et la notion de personne en indo-iranien, 455 Vedisch éd, 464 Die vedische Partikel kila, 433 Vedische und Sanskrit-Syntax, 4, 10, 38, 461 Vedische Untersuchungen, 20, 453 Vedische Untersuchungen, 16, 453 Vedische Untersuchungen, 18, 453 Verbal composition in Indo-Aryan, 465 The verbal focus system of Epic Sanskrit, 463 Verbale Definitheit und der vedische Injunktiv, 450 Das Verbalsystem des Atharvaveda, 451 Verb-medial clauses in Vedic, 4, 459 SANSKRIT SYNTAX 519

The verbs for ‘and’ in Walman, a Torricelli language of Papua New Guinea, 223, 234 Verbum dicendi + Infinitiv im Indoiranischen, 417 Vergleich der indogermanischen Nebensatzkonstruktionen, 459 Vergleichende Syntax der indogermanischen Sprachen, 410 Vikramorvas´¯ıyam, a drama in five acts by Kalid¯ asa,¯ edited with English notes, 264, 266 Vim˙ sa´ sat´ abd¯ ¯ısamskr˙ takavy¯ amr¯ tam, 363, 398 Voice, mood, and the˚ gerundive˚ (krtya) in Sanskrit, 426 The voice of the infinitive in the RigVeda˚ , 412 Vom indogermanischen Tempus/Aspekt-System zum vedischen Zeitstufensystem, 464 Vom Infinitiv, besonders im Sanskrit, 430 Vorlesungen über Syntax, 467 vrttaratnakara¯ , 327, 329, 346 ˚ The Vyakaran¯ . a = Mahabh¯ as¯. ya of Patañjali, 102, 105, 150, 153 Vyakaran¯ . amitakshar¯ a,¯ a Gloss on Pan¯ . ini’s Grammatical Apho- risms by Sr´ ¯ı Annambhat..ta, 150, 152 Wackernagel in the language of the Rigveda, 37, 437 Wackernagel’s law and the language of the Rig Veda, 37, 421 Das Wackernagelsche Gesetz aus heutiger Sicht, 443 Warlpiri and the grammar of non-configurational languages, 5, 51 Well-nested drawings as models of syntactic structure, 282, 302 Where the sense is intended although the corresponding speech unit is not employed, 94, 106 Where’s my NP?, 458 Who’s On First, 37, 427 Why syntax needs phonology, 421 Word grammar, 279, 283, 303 Word order in Classical Sanskrit, 4, 7, 256, 265, 271, 286, 288, 289, 302, 307, 322, 416 520 TITLEINDEX

Word order in Sanskrit and universal grammar, 5, 7, 207, 214, 217, 270, 304, 307, 308, 324, 461 Word order typology and comparative constructions, 400 Word order typology and prepositions in Old Indic, 399 Words in metrical milieux, 305, 309, 324 Die Wortstellung im nachvedischen Altindischen und im Mit- telindischen, 463 Wortstellung und Univerbierung altpersischer Korrelativverbindun- gen, 462

X¯ syntax: a study of phrase structure, 205, 206, 217

Zeitadverbia als Nominative, 409 Zu ai. éd (aid) + Akk. ‘siehe (da)’ in den Brahman¯ . as, 424 Zu den ai. Ellipsen, 453 Zu den Kasusvariationen in der vedischen Prosa, 1, 452 Zu den Kasusvariationen in der vedischen Prosa, 2, 452 Zu den Kasusvariationen in der vedischen Prosa, 3, 452 Zu den Wortstellungsvarianten der Mantras des Atharvaveda in der Saunaka-´ und Paipalada-Rezension¯ und des Samaveda¯ in der Kauthuma- und Jaimin¯ıya-Rezension, 452 Zum ‘prädikativen’ Inﬁnitiv, 417 Zum Akkusativ der Richtung im Vedischen und im Indogermanis- chen, 415 Zum altindischen Ausdrucksverstärkungstypus satyasya satyam ‘das Wahre des Wahren’ = ‘die Quintessenz des Wahren’, 452 Zum disjunkten Gebrauch des Nominativs in der Brahman¯ . aprosa, 451 Zum Gebrauch der w-Demonstrativa im ältesten Indoiranischen, 447 Zum indogermanischen Medium und konkurrierenden Kategorien, 462 Zum indogermanischen Nominalsatz, 402 SANSKRIT SYNTAX 521

Zum Kasusgebrauch bei Kausativa transitiver Verben, 463 Zum Modalfeld im Altindischen, 448 Zum parenthetischen Nominalsatz im Indischen, 463 Zum prädikativen Adverb, 430 Zum Verhältnis von Wort und Satz in indogermanischen Sprachen. II., 460 Zur ‘Kasusattraktion’ in altindischen dativischen Infinitivkon- struktionen, 448 Zur altpersischen Syntax, 415 Zur Entstehung des Locativus Absolutus im Altindischen, 469 Zur Entwicklung der Finalsätze altindogermanischer Sprachen, 423 Zur Entwicklung des indischen Satzbaus, 433 Zur Frage des Akkusativs mit dem Infinitiv, 469 Zur Funktion der Infinitive im Veda, 469 Zur Funktion des Perfekts im Rgveda, 435 Zur funktionalen Variationsbreite˚ altindogermanischer Kasus, 424 Zur Genese und Funktion der altindischen Perfekta mit langem Reduplikationsvokal, 443 Zur Gerundivbildung im Arischen, 402 Zur Geschichte der altindischen Prosa, 454 Zur historischen Syntax der nomina actionis im R. gveda, 423 Zur oratio recta in den indogermanischen Sprachen 1, 437 Zur oratio recta in den indogermanischen Sprachen 2, 437 Zur Parenthese im Altpersischen, 430 Zur Stellung des Verbs im Germanischen und Indogermanischen, 402 Zur Syntax der ablativischen Adverbien im Rgveda, 403 Zur Syntax der infinitivischen Bildungen in˚ den indogermanischen Sprachen, 417 Zur Syntax der Pronomina im Avesta, 406 Zur Syntax des Infinitivs auf -tum im Altindischen, 417 522 TITLEINDEX

Zur Wort- und Satzstellung in der alt- und mittelindischen Prosa, 406