Fluidity of early grammatical categories in Sanskrit.

• Author: Deshpande, Madhav M.

OUR RELIANCE ON THE GRAMMATICAL TRADITIONS such as the one formulated in Panini's Astadhyayi often leads us to assume that grammatical categories are fully defined and are beyond confusion. However, a study of the Vedic padapatha and the pratisakhyas, in addition to Panini, convinces us of the fluidity of the early grammatical categories. In this paper, I shall discuss the category of samasa in relation to the works mentioned above. I shall discuss the fluid scope of this term, its application to diverse phenomena in Vedic texts, and the gray areas indicated by the divisions or lack of divisions seen in the padapatha. This gives us some understanding of the formative phase of grammatical concepts in ancient India. A good example of this fluidity is the so-called iva-samasa. I shall discuss the treatment of this phenomenon in the padapathas and grammatical traditions.

For the past several years, I have been engaged in editing and translating the text of the Saunakiya-Caturadhyayika, a pratisakhya related to the Saunakiya Atharvaveda. After its publication some time ago, I have been working on the edition of the Jatapatha and Kramapatha for several kandas of the Saunakiya Atharvaveda. This has given me an opportunity to view closely the grammatical analyses as they are presented in the padapatha and the related recitational permutations and the traditions represented in the pratisakhyas and Panini. Here I would like to present some comparative thoughts about these materials as representing a spectrum of efforts in grammatical understanding and analysis.

Consider rule 4.2.5 (sodasi sandehat) of the Saunakiya Caturadhyayika (=CA). The rule says that due to confusion about its constituents and their fusion, the word sodasi has not been split up with an avagraha in the padapatha. While the statement of the CA truthfully reflects the state of affairs in the padapatha, i.e., that there is no analysis of this word given there, the reason offered for it is a reflection of the thinking of the author of the CA, and does not tell us precisely why the padapatha does not split the word. It is an effort to read into the mind of the author of the padapatha, but we have to admit that we have no direct access to the mind of the author of the padapatha. The facts of the padapatha could be explained in a number of possible ways, but we cannot be sure. In addition to suggesting "confusion" about parts of this word, the author of the CA himself offers an analysis for this word (CA 1.3.l: sat-purasor ukaro 'ntyasya dasadasayor ades ca murdhanyah): "The final consonants of sat and puras are replaced with u before the words dasa and dasa, respectively, and the initial d of these two words is replaced with a cerebral d." The author of the CA feels free to offer his own analysis for the words sodasa and purodasa, but not free to alter the received text of the padapatha. This fortunately provides us with glimpses of the early fluidity of grammatical...