To better understand the interaction between 1.1.66 tasminn iti nirdiṣṭe pūrvasya and 1.1.67 tasmād ity uttarasya, let us look at the operational rule 7.1.52 āmi sarvanāmnaḥ suṭ (āt) which the tradition interprets, based on the two paribhāṣās mentioned above, as follows: the augment sUṬ is introduced to affix ām when it occurs after a sarvanāman ‘pronominal base’ ending in a. Even though I think this is indeed the correct interpretation, I disagree with the tradition on the process through which it arrives at this interpretation. Let us first consider the individual parts of this sūtra:
āmi = locative singular form of ām
sarvanāmnaḥ (āt) = ablative singular forms of sarvanāman and a respectively sUṬ = nominative singular form of sUṬ
Since Pāṇini has used the locative singular form āmi, 7.1.52 could potentially be governed by the metarule 1.1.66 tasminn iti nirdiṣṭe pūrvasya which the tradition interprets as follows: if an item is mentioned in the operational rule in the locative, then the item to its left undergoes the operation.2 Similarly, since Pāṇini has used the ablative forms sarvanāmnaḥ and āt, 7.1.52 could potentially be governed by the metarule 1.1.67 tasmād ity uttarasya which the tradition interprets as follows: if an item is mentioned in the operational rule in the ablative, then the item to its right undergoes the operation.3
In sum, according to the tradition, in x + y, if rule K is applicable, then: (i) if y is mentioned in the locative, then, by 1.1.66, x undergoes the operation taught by K. (ii) if x is mentioned in the ablative, then by 1.1.67, y undergoes the operation taught by K.
Consider the derivation of the genitive plural of the pronominal stem sarva ‘everything’4: sarva + ām. Here the pronominal stem sarva ends in a and is followed by ām. So, 7.1.52 āmi sarvanāmnaḥ suṭ (āt) is applicable. By 1.1.66, the augment sUṬ should be attached to sarva
224
but by 1.1.67, the augment sUṬ should be attached to ām. Which of the two metarules should be chosen to govern 7.1.52?
Through his vārttikas on 1.1.67, Kātyāyana offers a solution to this problem. He says that when both locative and ablative forms have been used in a rule like 7.1.52, the ablative prevails (vt. 3: ubhayanirdeśe vipratiṣedhāt pañcamīnirdeśaḥ)5, and the locative should be reinterpreted as a genitive (vt. 14: yathārthaṁ vā ṣaṣṭhīnirdeśaḥ)6. Therefore, according to Kātyāyana, 7.1.52 āmi sarvanāmnaḥ suṭ (āt) means āmaḥ sarvanāmnaḥ suṭ (āt): the augment sUṬ is introduced to affix ām when it occurs after a sarvanāma ‘pronominal base’ ending in a.
By 1.1.46 ādyantau ṭakitau (which, according to the tradition, teaches that items marked with Ṭ and items marked with K should be attached to the beginning and end respectively of items taught in the genitive7), the augment sUṬ is attached at the beginning of ām. The derivation proceeds as follows: sarva + ām 🡪 sarva + sām (7.1.52 āmi sarvanāmnaḥ suṭ) 🡪 sarve + sām
(6.1.97 bahuvacane jhaly et) 🡪 sarveṣām (8.3.59 ādeśapratyayoḥ).
But does Kātyāyana’s solution enable us to correctly interpret all of Pāṇini’s operational rules which teach augments? No, it fails to help us correctly interpret rules which teach the insertion of augments marked with K and contain ablative and / or locative forms e.g., 6.1.75 dīrghāt (che tuk), 6.1.76 padāntād vā (dīrghāt che tuk), 7.2.82 āne muk (ataḥ) and 8.3.31 śi tuk (naś ca). Let us discuss the rule 6.1.76 padāntād vā (dīrghāt che tuk). In order to correctly interpret this rule, let us first analyse its parts. che is a locative form, and dīrghāt and padāntāt are both
ablative forms. Since Pāṇini has used the locative form che, 6.1.76 could potentially be governed by the metarule 1.1.66 tasminn iti nirdiṣṭe pūrvasya, but since Pāṇini has used the ablative forms dīrghāt and padāntāt, 6.1.76 could also be governed by the metarule 1.1.67 tasmād ity uttarasya.
Consider the compound kuṭīcchāyā ‘shade of a hut’. When deriving this form, at step kuṭī + chāyā, since kuṭī ends in a long vowel and since chāyā begins with a ch, 6.1.76 is applicable. By 1.1.66, the augment tUK should be attached to kuṭī but by 1.1.67, the augment tUK should be attached to chāyā. Which of the two metarules should be chosen to govern 6.1.76? By vārttikas 3 and 14, when there is a competition between the ablative and the locative, the
225
ablative prevails and the locative is reinterpreted as a genitive. Thus, according to the aforementioned vārttikas, 6.1.76 padāntād vā (dīrghāt che tuk) means: padāntād vā dīrghāt chaḥ tuk ‘the augment tUK is optionally introduced to the item beginning with cha when it is preceded by a pada ending in a long vowel’. By 1.1.46 ādyantau ṭakitau, the augment tUK is attached at the end of chāyā. However, this gives the incorrect form: *kuṭīchāyāt. To get the correct form, we need to attach the augment tUK at the end of kuṭī: kuṭī-t-chāyā 🡪 kuṭīcchāyā (8.4.40 stoś ścunā ścuḥ). This shows that Kātyāyana’s vārttikas cannot help us correctly interpret augment-insertion rules like 6.1.76.
Let me now expound on how I tackle this problem. In my opinion, Kātyāyana’s interpretation of the metarules 1.1.66 and 1.1.67 is not correct. Kātyāyana interprets pūrvasya and uttarasya in 1.1.66 and 1.1.67 as ‘in the place of the LHS item’ and ‘in the place of the RHS item’ respectively. In my opinion, this is not warranted. I think that that we can infer ‘in the place of X’ only when X has been mentioned (or continued by anuvr̥tti) in the genitive in the operational rule (cf. 1.1.49 ṣaṣṭhī sthāneyogā, which teaches that a genitive ending, which is not otherwise interpretable in its context, signifies the relation ‘in the place of’). Let me explain what I mean by this through examples. In 6.1.77 iko yaṇ aci, iK is mentioned in the genitive and aC in the locative. Thus, by 1.1.49 ṣaṣṭhī sthāneyogā and 1.1.66 tasminn iti nirdiṣṭe pūrvasya
respectively, we can interpret 6.1.77 as:
iK + aC
6.1.77
However, notice that in 6.1.76 padāntād vā (dīrghāt che tuk), Pāṇini has not used a genitive form, so we cannot interpret it as:
padānta dīrgha + cha
6.1.76
I interpret pūrvasya in 1.1.66 merely as an indication of the left-hand side and similarly uttarasya in 1.1.67 merely as an indication of the right-hand side. The best way to offer clarity on this is to summarize the difference between the traditional and my interpretations of 1.1.66 and 1.1.67 with diagrams. In the table below, I have stated the case in which the word is mentioned in the operational rule in round brackets:
226
Traditional interpretation
My interpretation
1.1.66 tasminn iti nirdiṣṭe pūrvasya
x y (locative)
K
x y (locative)
K
1.1.67 tasmād ity uttarasya
x (ablative) y
K
x (ablative) y
K
Let me now explain how I interpret the operational rules 7.1.52 āmi sarvanāmnaḥ suṭ (āt) and 6.1.76 padāntād vā (dīrghāt che tuk), based on my interpretations of 1.1.66 and 1.1.67 respectively. Let us start with 7.1.52.
According to me, there is no competition between metarules 1.1.66 and 1.1.67. In fact, I think that both 1.1.66 and 1.1.67 are required to interpret 7.1.52:
(a) 1.1.66 tells us that the augment sUṬ should be placed to the left of affix ām. sUṬ ām
(b) 1.1.67 tells us that the augment sUṬ should be placed to the right of sarvanāman ‘the pronominal base’.
sarva sUṬ
Now, if we put together the teachings of metarules 1.1.66 and 1.1.67, we get: sarva sUṬ ām
Before we continue, note that there is a difference between Kāśikā’s and my interpretation of 1.1.46 ādyantau ṭakitau. Kāśikā’s interpretation is: ādiḥ ṭit bhavati antaḥ kit bhavati ṣaṣṭhīnirdiṣṭasya ‘items marked with Ṭ and items marked with K should be attached to the beginning and end respectively of items taught in the genitive.’ I do not think that we should take the liberty to read ṣaṣṭhīnirdiṣṭasya ‘taught in the genitive’ into this rule. I think 1.1.46 simply means ‘items marked with Ṭ and items marked with K should be attached to the beginning and end respectively’. Coming back to 7.1.52, we have:
sarva sUṬ ām
sUṬ lies between the end of sarva and the beginning of ām. By my interpretation of 1.1.46 ādyantau ṭakitau, sUṬ should be attached to the beginning of an item. Thus, it is attached to
227
(the beginning of) ām. We get: sarva + sām which, as seen above, leads to the correct form sarveṣām.
Now let us interpret 6.1.76 padāntād vā (dīrghāt che tuk) using my interpretation of 1.1.66 and 1.1.67. As stated above, I do not think that there is any competition between 1.1.66 and 1.1.67. In fact, I think that both 1.1.66 and 1.1.67 are required to interpret 6.1.76.
(a) 1.1.66 tells us that the augment tUK should be placed to the left of ch. tUK chāyā
(b) 1.1.67 tells us that the augment tUK should be placed to the right of the long vowel. kuṭī tUK
Now, if we put together the teachings of metarules 1.1.66 and 1.1.67, we get: kuṭī tUK chāyā
tUK lies between the end of kuṭī and the beginning of chāyā. By my interpretation of 1.1.46 ādyantau ṭakitau, tUK should be attached to the end of an item. Thus, it is attached to (the end of) kuṭī. We get kuṭīt + chāyā which, as seen above, leads to the correct form kuṭīcchāyā.
I have shown that, using my interpretation of 1.1.46, 1.1.66 and 1.1.67, we can correctly interpret Pāṇini’s operational rules which teach the insertion of augments marked with Ṭ or K using ablative and locative forms. Kātyāyana’s vārttikas, on the other hand, are not able to accomplish the same.
228