B M D21 775 * .i%^ ,^m '^^ *' ^%!* V . -•^^^^- '•.-^>» BIBLIOTHEK INDOGERMANISCHER GRAMMATIKEN BEARBEITET VON P. BtJOHELEE, H. HUBSOHMANN, A. LESKIEN, G. MEYEE, E. SIEVERS, H. WEBEK, W. D. WHITNEY, E. WINDISOH. BAND II. ANHANG II. THE KOOTS, VERB-FORMS, AND PRIMARY DERITATIVES OF THE SANSKRIT LANGUAGE. A SirppLEMENT TO HIS SANSKRIT grammar; by William Dwight Whitney. -•m 1 •- LEIPZIG, DRUCK UND VERLAG VON BREITKOPF UND HARTEL. 1885. THE EOOTS, VEEB-FOEMS, AND * » , *- > . PRIMARY DERIVATtVES OF THE SANSKRIT LANGUAGE. A SUPPLE]\IENT TO HIS SANSKRIT GRAMMAR, BY WILLIAM DWIGHT WHITNEY, PROFESSOR OF SANSKRIT AND COMPARATIVE PHILOLOGY IN YALE COLLEGE. THIS WORK IS COPYRIGHT. LEIPZIG, BREITKOPF AND HARTEL. LONDON, TRUBNER & Co. 57 AND 59, LUDGATE HILL, E. C. 8. ENTD STA. HALL. 1885. ; • •• •. * • • •......: ' . • • • • •• (The Right of Translation and Reproduction is reserved.) JO^ /O Printers: Lreitkopf it Kartel, Leipzig. PREFACE. ihis work is intended especially as a Supplement to my Sanskrit Grammar (Leipzig, 1879), giving, with a ful- ness of detail that was not then practicable, nor admissible as part of the grammar itself, all the quotable roots of the language, with the tense and conjugation-systems made from them, and with the noun and adjective (infinitival and par- ticipial) formations that attach themselves most closely to the verb ; and further, with the other derivative noun and adjective-stems usually classed as primary: since these also are needed, if one would have a comprehensive view of the value of a given root in the language. And everything given is dated, with such accuracy as the information thus far in hand allows — whether found in the language throughout its whole history, or limited to a certain period. My leading authority has necessarily been that magni- ficent thesaurus of authentic information respecting the Sanskrit language of every period, the great St. Peters- burg Lexicon of Bohtlingk and Roth, i This I have gone carefully over , excerpting all the material needed for my purpose. So far, indeed, as concerns the epic and clas- sical literature, the Lexicon has been almost my sole source, since my own collections , for verification or of additional material , though not wholly wanting , have yet been al- together insignificant as compared with it. But in the older language, of Veda and Brahman a and Upanishad and Sutra, I have done much more independent work. I have, namely, 1 With its abbreviation and supplement , the minor lexicon of Boht- lingk, so far as this has yet appeared: namely, in the hody of the work, to rajaka; in the Additions and Corrections, to the end of 1. vi Preface. gone over all the texts of the earlier period accessible to me. including- (by the kindness of Professor Weber) the as yet unpublished Kausitaki-Brahmana and Kathaka, and by the kindness of the late Dr. Burnell) the immense Jaiminiya or Talavakara - Brahmana , which has as yet hardly been ^ accessible to any one else ; and from them I have ex- cerpted all the noteworthy verl)al forms and (less completely) the primary derivatives; thus verifying and occasionally correcting the material of the Lexicon, supplying chance omissions, and especially filling in not a few details which it had not lain in the design of that work to present in their entirety. As a matter of course , no such work as the present can pretend to completeness, especially at its first appearance. The only important texts of which we have exhaustive verbal indexes are the Kig-Veda and the Atharva-Veda. nor is it known that any other is in preparation: and only where such indexes exist can the inclusion of all that a text contains be assured. But I trust it will be found that the measure of completeness here attained is in general proportioned to the importance of the material: that it is the more indifferent forms and derivatives which, having been passed over by the Lexicon, have escaped my glean- ing also. I expect to continue the work of verification and addition, and to make an eventual future edition perceptibly nearer to perfection in its details, and possessing such im- provements in plan as my own experience and the criticisms of others may suggest. ^ It is unnecessary to add that 1 The extant texts of which I have most painfully felt the lack are: The (Cashmere) Paippalada Atharva-Veda, which is in Professor PiOth's hands alone; the latter half of the Maitrayaiii-Samhita, as yet -wanting in Schroder's edition, and the Kapisthala-Samhita; and the unpublished Sutras, as the Apastamha (every new number of Garhe's edition of which brings valuable additional items of material) and the Qankhayana. 2 A conspectus of the work , with specimens , and with invitation of criticisms and suggestions, was published in the Proceedings of the American Oriental Society for May, 1882 (Journ. Am. Or. Soc, vol. xi.. pp. cxvii ff.); and a leaf of specimens, with certain improvements, was sent out somewhat later to many Sanskrit scholars; but nothing was received in return. Preface. vii corrections and aclditious of any kind will be welcomed by me. and dnly acknowledged. Of tlie verb-forms wliicli, tlioug-li not yet found — and. for the most part, destined never to be found — in recorded use, are prescribed or authorized by the Hindu grammarians, a liberal presentation is made under the different roots: such material being always distinguished from the other by being put in square brackets. It is in no part given at first hand, but only as reported by Western authorities: the Lexicon , Westergaard's Radices and the various , Euro- pean grammars: all of these supplement rather than con- tradict one another : and an}^ occasional disagreement among them is passed over, as relating to a matter of too little consequence to be worth reporting. The periods in the life of the language which are acknowledged and distinguished by appropriate notation are six: the Veda (marked with v.), the Brahmana (with b.), the earlier or more genuine Upanishads (with u.) . the Sutras (with s.) . the epics, Mahabharata and Ramaj^ana (with E.), and the classical or common Sanskrit (with c). This classification, however, is by no means an absolute one, and calls for certain explanations and limitations, as follows. Under 'Veda' (v.) are included only the indexed texts of the Rig-Veda. Sama-Veda. and Atharva-Veda. In strict- ness, certain passages of the Atharva-Veda should have been excluded, as being in prose and Brahmana-like ; and, what is of much more importance, the older and better part of the maw^ra-material in the various samliitaB of the Yajur- Veda , in the Brahmanas , and even in the Siitras , is quite as good Veda as most of the Atharvan, some of it even as parts of the Rik. In the present condition of things, how- ever, it did not seem to me practicable to draw the divis- ion-line otherwise than in the partly arbitrary way in wliich I have drawn it. When the mantra-msiterial is col- lected from all places and compared (as it by all means ought soon to be) , it will be possible to use the term •Veda' in a more exact sense, both inclusively and exclus- ively — though between what is genuinely old and what Vlll Preface. is in au artificially antique style a definite separation will probably never admit of being made. It is further to be stated that in the following lists nothing is intended to be marked with simple v., as 'Vedic', that does not occur in the Rig-Veda; what is not Rig- Vedic, though it may be found in both the other collections, is marked av., or sv., or both, as the case may be. On the other hand, if anything occurring only in the Rik among the three Vedas is found also in later periods, the fact that it does not chance to be met with in the Atharvan or Sa- man is too unimportant to notice, and (save perhaps in exceptional cases) it is marked v.b. or the like. Between Brahmana, Aranyaka, and Upanishad, again, the line of division is an evanescent one , and perhaps hardly worth the attempt at drawing. But I have followed the method of distinguishing by a u. the small number of these treatises that have an existence separate from Brahmana or Aranyaka, while not distinguishing the two latter from one another. The sign u. is the one of least importance and least frequency in the system adopted. The division of Sutras (s.) is a plainer one , except so far as these treatises contain maw?'ra-material in their quoted verses (as already intimated) — and brahmana -muteYinl also in their quoted formulas. The proper language of the Sutras themselves is a true continuator of that of the Brahmanas. As epic (e.) are reckoned only the two great poems, the Mahabharata and Ramayana. And in these it has. of course, been impossible to distinguish between the older and the more recent parts; although, beyond a question, a con- siderable part of both is in no manner distinguishable from the general later literature , except by a degree of archaizing neglect of the strict requirements of the native grammar. Everything else that is Sanskrit falls under the head of classical (c.) , or of the language as written under the domination of the native system of grammar. Here the only subdivision which one is tempted to make is to mark Preface. ix separately those forms and words whieli are foimd used only in the commentaries, and which are therefore open to a heightened suspicion of artificiality: but this I have not tried to do. A pins -sign (+) indicates that the given formation is found to occur from the specified period onward, even to the latest or classical period.