Compositional History of Panini s Karaka

7/26/2019 Compositional History of Panini s Karaka

1/16

"

" #$%

"

#$%#& #'$' (

))

*

#'$'


2/16

+',+$ +$(#

-'

*.)/ 0( ( 1( * " #$%#& #'$' ( , ( ( ( ( #((2 " #'$'( % 344 ()567 48+*9*'#*'#9-'#*-

2

( ( 0(1:( ( ( ( ( " ( ( (" ( ( ( "

( ( ( ( ( " ( ( ( ( ( "( ( ( ( ( (

*; " #'$'


3/16

A. Keidan &&

Artemij Keidan

COMPOSITIONAL HISTORY OF PINIS KRAKATHEORY

. . -, , - , ( kraka, -). ,

,

.

: ,, , .

1. Introductory remarks

The question of philology, textual analysis and compo-sitional history of the Adhyy has provoked long-standing

debates among Pinian scholars in the last decades. For along time the opinion prevailed that Pinis grammar has

been perfectly preserved in its original shape, while anyconjecture of textual stratification or interpolation hypothesiswas rejected in advance. Though a critical analysis of theextant manuscripts is still lacking, many authoritative scholarshave claimed that the received text is virtually identical withthe original one, and that the manuscripts do not exhibitrelevant variations (e.g. Renou 1969: 484). This uncritical

philological approach falls perfectly within the myths ofPinian studies recently discussed in an insightful paper by

J. Houben (2003). However, already from a general point ofview, the claim for textual integrity cannot be accepted: no textof Antiquitynot even in Indiahas preserved exactly itsoriginal wording, and Pinis grammar would hardly be anexception. Moreover, from very ancient times many instancesof textual corruption in the official text of the Adhyyhave

been observed by the indigenous grammarians (see Iyer 1983

for a collection of such cases), though this fact was scarcely


4/16

Compositional history of Pinis krakatheory&3

considered significant for the preservation of the grammar.The traditional scholars, indeed, have always been confidentof their capacity to restore the original wording of the

Adhyyon the ground only of the knowledge of what wasdescribed in iti.e., the Sanskrit languageand how thedescription would be shaped in order to describe it perfectly.Since every change in the text of the grammar would lead tomistakes in the description of Sanskrit, it seemed to them asimple task to emend the possible errors and to restore theright description.

At the beginning of modern Pinian studies only very fewphilologists (primarily F. Kielhorn) dealt with textual

problems, mainly, but not only, from a methodological pointof view; however, the common traditionalist view remained.Unfortunately, the most reliable edition of theAdhyyuntilnow remains Bhtlingks translated edition, and little, if any,textual criticism has been made on the manuscripts. Therefore,scholars can mostly postulate secondary hypotheses regardingthe compositional history of the Adhyy based on someextra-textual ground (cf. Aklujkar 1983: 1). More recently, insuch papers as Bahulikar (1973), Birw (1955, 1958), Butzen-

berger (1995), Joshi, Roodbergen (1983), Iyer (1983) andKeidan (2007) the dogma of textual integrity has been ques-tioned, and several interpolations have been hypothesized; seealso the criticism by Cardona (1999: 2.1.2.3).

In the present paper I wish to apply the principleselaborated by preceding scholars (especially by Joshi, Rood-

bergen 1983). I shall attempt to reconstruct the compositionalhistory of the syntactic sections of the Adhyy, corres-

ponding to the s

tras describing the formation of the simplesentence starting from basic semantic categories and themorphological inflectional classes expressing them, namelythe stras 1.4.23 to 1.4.55 dealing with the definitions of krakacategories, and the stras 2.3.1 to 2.3.73 dealing with vibhaktiscase-from categories. My main claim is that these sections ofthe grammar must be considered heavily interpolated, sinceseveral parts of them are so strongly inconsistent with oneanother from a theoretical point of view that they must be

considered mutually exclusive.


5/16

A. Keidan &9

2. On methodology

As a general principle, I have considered (followingBahulikar 1973: 80) the text of theAdhyyper se as the onlyrelevant data, getting rid of all what we know from laterdiscussions and comments made by ancient commentatorsand grammarians (which can serve, at most, as indirectevidence). Furthermore, I assume that Joshi and Roodbergens(1983) criteria for the individuation of textual interpolations inthe Adhyy are correct in essence, at least as a generalguideline. These criteria are listed below in a lightly modifiedand expanded form. Thus, a rule may be considered possibly

interpolated if:(a) it presents theoretical inconsistencies with other parts of

the grammar;

(b)it interrupts the logical order of the stras, insertingunrelated material in an otherwise homogenous thematicsection;

(c) it shows an inconsistent use of metalinguistic markers andterminology;

(d)it presents discrepancies in phrasing, style and mutualdisposition of the stras;

(e) it is formally or theoretically paralleled by other ancientIndian texts and/or schools, e.g. parallelism between themmmskatradition and certain stras of the krakasectionsuggested by Butzenberger (1995);

(f) it prescribes unattested Sanskrit forms, e.g. the stras

2.3.5760 dealing with case government rules that areunattested in Classical Sanskrit and found only in Prakrits,see Speijer (1886: 90);

(g)it mentions unattested lexical meaningsand ones eventotally unintelligible without the purport of latercommentariesas a condition for the application of a rule;

(h)it is a paribh metarule of the grammar: such kinds ofrules are mostly provided by later commentators, and onlysome of them entered the received text of the Adhyy;


6/16

Compositional history of Pinis krakatheory&-

(i) it is considered, by the ancient scholarship, as a quotationfrom a prvcrya preceding author or as an emendablerule;

(j)

it lacks a direct or indirect mention in PatajalisMahbhya, being a later interpolation still unknown tothis commentator when he composed his glosses; however,this argument is considered insufficient or totallyinconsistent by some more traditional scholars (seeCardona 1976: 158).

For my concern here, the most important criterion of thoselisted above is the first one. My claim is that the theoretical

contradictions within the sections dealing with krakasvibhaktis are so strong that we are forced to hypothesize amanifold authorship for them. This approach is notunprecedented. The most known example of the application ofthis criterion is Joshi and Roodbergens (1983) hypothesis onthe interpolated nature of the taddhita secondary derivationand samsa compounding sections of the Adhyy, both ofwhich would have been added to the main text in a laterperiod (at least later than the ktprimary derivation section,which is claimed to pertain to the original version of thegrammar). The major evidence for such a hypothesis is atheoretical one, namely a difference in the way the semanticconditions for the application of morphological rules arestated (see below for a detailed analysis).

3. The functioning of the kraka-device

Generally speaking, kraka categories roughly correspondto what todays linguists call semantic rolesor, to some extent,even to the macro-roles (for these notions see Van Valin andLapolla 1997: chap. 4). The krakas are six in number and haveessentially semantic definitions, though the most importantkraka, i.e. the so-called kart agent, could be considered,from a certain point of view, more similar to a syntactic entity,namely the subject, since it is defined as svatantra theindependent one (for a detailed discussion of possible modern

equivalents for P

inian syntactic categories in the light ofmodern Functionalism see Keidan forthcoming b). Besides the


7/16

A. Keidan &8

kart, the other krakacategories, listed in the traditional order,are: apdnasource, sapradnareceiver, karaainstrument,adhikaraa location and karman patient. Each kraka, it is

taught, has many possible morphological expressions.Interestingly, the finite verbal terminations are considered onesuch possibility, but we are more interested here in the otherpossible expression, namely the nominal case-form endingscalled vibhakti. The latter are similar to our grammatical cases,except for the fact that their nomenclature is purely formal andavoids any semantic reference. The vibhaktiterms are based ontheir serial number within the standard sequence of cases:

pratham first, dvity second, tty third, caturth fourth,

pacam fifth, a sixth and saptam seventh, corres-ponding, respectively, to nominative, accusative, instrumental,dative, ablative,genitiveand locative. Each krakahas a standardor canonical vibhakti realization: thus, the kart is taught to

be primarily expressed by the instrumental case, the karmanbythe accusative, etc. Notice, however, that, besides a certainprivileged status of krakas canonical vibhakti realizations,there is no one-to-one relationship between kraka roles andthe vibhaktis: each krakamay be expressed by more than onecase-form; similarly, each vibhakti expresses several semanticfunctions, not even limited to krakas.

Thus, Pinis most brilliant achievement in the field ofsyntax amounts exactly to this treatment of semanticcategories as separate entities with respect to theirmorphological realization. Such a clear-cut differentiation ofthe two sides of the languagethe plane of forms and theplane of functionsremains unparalleled in any other ancient

grammatical tradition, and has been fully attained by westernlinguistics only in the last few decades, particularly, as far asthe sentence arguments realization is concerned, after theformulation of the Deep Case theory by Ch. Fillmore (1968).

However, if we take into account not only the definitionsof the krakacategories, but also the other rules of this section,where the primary definitions are emended and enlarged, thesituation changes: the separation between the forms and thefunctions becomes far less accurate and rigid. The general

tendency in this respect was to identify the krakas with theircanonical vibhakti realization and, eventually, to replace


8/16

Compositional history of Pinis krakatheory&+

completely the former with the latter. This is what happened,according to Joshi and Roodbergens (1983) analysis, to thetaddhita section where the vibhakti terms are used as if they

were equivalent to the krakas semantic roles, in order toindicate the semantic constraints on compound formation. Inthe taddhita section even the vibhakti terms seem to bedisclaimed: instead, inflected pronouns are used in order todenote their own case-form category, and therefore the relatedsemantic role, as a constraint to the application of certainsecondary nominal suffixes.

It must be stressed that the abovementioned approaches toone and the same linguistic materialnamely, the

morphological coding of sentence argumentsare soantithetical as to induce the hypothesis of a possible differencein the authorship. The separation of the forms and thefunctions represents a revolutionary paradigm change inlinguistics that should not be underestimated. A suddenabdication of this principle must be considered strongevidence for textual interpolation. Thus, my claim is that thepresent text of the Adhyy is to be analyzed in differenttheoretical strata put together only in a later period lying

between Pinis time and the earliest extant ancientcommentary, namely the Mahbhya of Patajali. Indeed, itseems impossible for one and the same author to haveadopted so many contradictory positions inside one and thesame grammatical treatise.

4. Theoretical layers in the syntactic rules of the Adhyy

What follows is a mere listing of the relevant theoreticallayers. The listing itself does not imply very much regardingthe relative chronology of the corresponding textual strata.However, the succession of the list entries is obviously notrandom, and could be taken as a preliminary approximation ofthe historical development of the Adhyy.

The first and most primitive layer, which can be calledthe proto-kraka layer, corresponds to the kraka terms intheir etymological or everyday meaning. Already the

ancient tradition considers them borrowings that P

iniinherited from someprvcryas preceding authors of whom


9/16

A. Keidan &4

we know little. Genuine Pinian terminology, indeed, isusually made of meaningless marks and abbreviations. Theetymological meanings of kraka terms vaguely recall the

semantic definition of the relating krakas. Hypothetically, in apre-Pinian period, the kraka terms were conceived as self-explanatory (as similarly the European case nomenclature),and were probably used for both semantic and morphologicalcategories, i.e. semantic roles and grammatical cases, with noclear distinction yet between the two planes of the language.

The secondlayer corresponds to the standard kraka/vibhaktiframework. Pini takes the pre-existing krakaterms, gets ridof their etymological interpretation, gives them some

abstract, clear-cut, but still semantic definitions, and puts theminto correlation with vibhaktis. The latter are given theirnumbering names, and put into a special section of thegrammar where all their uses are listed. Thus, the opposition

between semantics and morphology is, for the first time inhistory, clearly stated and observed (notice that such level ofsophistication has been reached by western linguists only inthe second half of the 20thcentury).

Let us take as an example the definition of kart agent (oractor, if we accept the view of krakas as macro-roles), whichis qualified as svatantra self-standing, independent. Thisdefinition has generated long-standing debates amongtraditional Indian grammarians, but could simply be anattempt to provide a more general definition of this semanticrole, going beyond the literal meaning of doer. Only withsuch a broadened definition could some peripheral semanticroles, such as experiencer (i.e., the one who experiences a

feeling), be subsumed into the greater category of the macro-role. The kart is expressed by either kt primary suffixes,such as the suffix -aka, or finite verb endings, such as the 3rdperson singular active -ti, or some vibhaktinominal case-form,primarily the tty third one, i.e. the instrumental case, butsometimes also by the ahsixth one, i.e. the genitive case.

Soon after the establishment of the kraka/vibhakti devicethe definitions of kraka started to be emended and enlarged,partly because the original general and abstract sense of the

primary definitions was not understood anymore. Thus, thedegradation of the theory of krakas began. Initially this


10/16

Compositional history of Pinis krakatheory3'

process did not result in a change of the theoretical approach,since the krakas were still conceived as semantic categories,not yet fused with morphological ones. However, already

Patajali noticed that such rules were useless, since theadditional semantic definitions could be metaphoricallydeduced from the primary ones. For example, at some point,the ancient commentators disregarded the real sense ofPinis definition of karman as psitatama the most desired(which, in its original formulation, was probably intended assomething similar to what modern linguistics calls undergoermacro-role). They started to interpret this stra in its literalsense, thus implying an excessively restrictive characterization

of this macro-role. Therefore two stras were added (1.4.5051), in order to provide a better definition thereof (it wasstated, e.g., that the undergoer happens also to be undesired).It has been convincingly suggested by Butzenberger (1995)that this interpolation was made under the influence of themmmskatradition and its terminology.

The thirdtheoretical layer surfaces in those rules where thekraka categories are identified with corresponding canonicalvibhakti realizations. At the beginning it was only an implicittendency, and the kraka terms were still in use, though thedistinction between semantics and morphology was being

blurred. At this stage, given a certain primary semanticdefinition of a kraka, some rules were added where thesemantic definition of a krakawas changed and/or the krakacategory assignments underwent a modification depending ona certain case-form governed by some verb that had to beaccounted for. On the contrary, within the standard

kraka/vibhakti framework, all such cases would have beentreated in the vibhaktisection, simply as alternative expressions

of a given kraka.Let us analyze the stra1.4.43 divakarma caas an example.

It describes the fact that the verb divto gamble can optionallycode with the accusativeinstead of instrumentaltheargument corresponding to what is gambled with. In theview of the standard kraka/vibhakti framework, it would besimply a case of alternative coding of a kraka, to be taught in

the vibhakti section. According to the commentators, instead,the stra means that, with the verb div, what seems a karaa


11/16

A. Keidan 3$

may also be optionally classified as karman. The implicitreasoning here seems to have been the following. a) Theinstrument of an action is primarily classified as karaa by

1.4.42 sdhakatama karaam; b) the verb div exhibits anargument matching the semantics of the karaacategory; c) thecanonical vibhakti realization of the karaa is the instrumentalcase by 2.3.18 kartkaraayos tty; d) the karaa argument ofthe verb in question, however, may also be coded by theaccusative; e) the accusative case is taught to be the canonicalrealization of another krakacategory, namely karmanby 2.3.2karmai dvity; f) ergo, the semantics of an instrumentalargument must be classified, limited to the verb div, as

belonging to the category of karmaninstead of karaa. In otherwords, according to this new approach, whatever stands in theaccusative case-form must be automatically considered akarman. Therefore, the privileged one-to-one relationship

between a krakaand its canonical realization brought about acomplete fusion of these two planes of the language.

It may be noted that many of the stras pertaining to thistheoretical layer also exhibit some of the features listed at 2above that substantiate their interpolated origin. Thus, exactlyhalf of them are not mentioned in Patajalis Mahbhya. Thestra 1.4.38 uses a non-standard terminology: only here thetermupasais used to denote a prefixed verb (Sharma 1990:249). Stras 1.4.34, 1.4.39 and 1.4.40 rely completely onotherwise unattested verbal meanings.

The fourth layer is the one to be found in the sectionsdevoted to samsa compounding, and in some other rules,where the kraka/vibhakti distinction seems to be completely

abandoned. While krakas are not mentioned at all, the vibhaktiterms are used here in order to express semantic functions

totally undistinguishable from the correspondingmorphological classes. Effectively, every krakais indicated byits canonical vibhaktirealization. The vibhaktiterms are used assuch, or in composition with the word arthe in the meaningof. Thus, the stra 2.1.37 pacam bhayena teaches theformation of compounds whose first member is intended inthe sense conveyed by the pacam fifth case (i.e. ablative),

hence the apdnasource semantic role (e.g. caurabhayamfearof thieves).


12/16

Compositional history of Pinis krakatheory3#

The fifth layer is the one attested in the taddhita section aswell as in some of the paribhatras meta-rules of thegrammar. Here, even the vibhaktiterms are no longer in use. In

order to refer to both semantic roles and case categoriesinflected pronouns are used: they indicate iconically theirown case category, which, in its turn, refers to the correspon-ding semantic role (as in the preceding layer). A good exampleis that of the paribhatras defining the metalinguistic case-forms. Thus, stra 1.1.67 tasmd ity uttarasya defines the leftcontext ablative (referred to as tasmd from that); stra1.1.66tasminn iti nirdie prvasyadefines the right context locative(referred to as tasmin in that).

Interestingly, this layer is paralleled in the westerngrammatical tradition. Inflected indicative or interrogativepronouns symbolizing the corresponding case-forms have

been used as a descriptive and didactic means starting fromAncient Greek and Latin grammarians (see Belardi, Cipriano1990: chap. III) up to modern times. Even today, the case-forms are sometimes taught as answers to some questions,which the pupils are supposed to know by heart. Thus,B. Liebich (1886: 209, 215) glossed the kraka categoriesprecisely in this way: Das karman antwortet daher auf diefragen wen oder was und bei der bewegung auf die fragewohin; Das sampradna antwortet daher auf die fragenwem oder fr wen, etc.

Regarding the post-Pinian developments, it must benoted that the idea of a radical kraka/vibhaktidistinction wasoften partly or completely disregarded within the grammaticalschools which arose outside the strictly Pinian tradition (see

Butzenberger 1995: 54). For instance, in Candragominsgrammar, the vibhakticategories and terminology prevailed forboth morphology and semantics (as in our fourth layer). Onthe other hand, in the Ktantra tradition a more etymologicalinterpretation of kraka terms was restored (similarly to ourfirst layer). For example, the karman is defined here by thestra 2.4.13 yat kriyate tat karma what is being done that iskarman (since the latter is a passive formation from the root kto do). Eventually, an intelligent synthesis of Pinis

kraka/vibhakti device is to be found in the Saddanti, anindigenous grammar of Pli. Thus, the stra 551 defines the


13/16

A. Keidan 3&

patient role as follows: yakurute yavpassati takammawhat is done or seen is karman. Here, the semantic definitionof this meta-role is demystified, resulting simply in a

summation of its most frequent components: the patient andthe so-called stimulus (something that is perceived by oursenses).

The question of authorship may arise regarding thedifferent theoretical layers listed above. It must be noted thattheir theoretical quality is varying: the second layer seems to

be the most complex and sophisticated, while the subsequentones represent a continuous degradation of the originaltheory. So where should we collocate Pini in this respect?

Since we do not know much about Pinis dates (which is stillan open question, notwithstanding all the hypotheses thus farproposed in this regard, see the Introduction chapter to

Joshi, Roodbergen 1976), I feel justified in arbitrarily identi-fying his authorship with the abovementioned secondtheoretical layer, as homage to the great prestige Pini hashad through many centuries in Indian grammatical thought.

5. Possible causes of the interpolationsA grammar can change mainly for two reasons: the

evolution of the language that it describes, or the evolution ofthe theoretical ideas regarding the description itself. Boththese circumstances may have appeared in the case underconsideration.

Thus, on the one hand, the passage from the first to thesecond layer, when the kraka/vibhakti framework had beenestablished presumably by Pini, represented a revolutionaryadvance in the description. The subsequent layers might be atleast partly explainable by an increasing misunderstanding ofPinis original ideas (already starting, for instance, with thesupplementary semantic qualifications added to the secondlayer in order to clarify some krakadefinitions that no longerappeared intelligible).

On the other hand, the evolution of some important factsof language may also have played a role. Some grammatical

phenomena that could be inexistent or excessively peripheraland therefore irrelevant in Pinis time, became more


14/16

Compositional history of Pinis krakatheory33

pertinent in the subsequent periods. One such feature thatstrongly challenged the standard kraka/vibhaktidevice was therise in Sanskrit of many subject-related phenomena, namely

voice transformations and valency derivation. Now, anexplicit delineation of the grammatical relations is completelylacking in the original krakatheory. However, the subsequenttheoretical layers within the Adhyy, and even more sometheories of ancient commentators, went clearly in the directionof a gradual and tacit rejection of the semantic-based krakacategory in favour of a more syntacto-centric categorizationsimilar, though not identical, to that of the grammaticalrelations (for a detailed account of how voice and derivation

phenomena can explain grammarians theory of theagentness of all krakas see Keidan forthcoming a).Furthermore, the later origin of the taddhita and samsasections of the Adhyy, claimed by Joshi and Roodbergen(1983), may be substantiated if we think of the increasingimportance assumed by compounding and secondaryaffixation in Latei.e. post-VedicSanskrit.

5. Concluding remarksAs pointed out by A. A. Zaliznjak (2007), the linguistic

evidence can easily be underestimated or disregarded by non-specialists. Indeed, the hypotheses I suggest in the presentpaper might not seem persuasive to many traditionalindologists and specialists in Pinis grammar (as Cardonascritique against Joshi and Roodbergens hypothesis shows).However, no linguist would deny that the distinction betweensemantic roles and case-form categories is such arevolutionary approach that a backwards trip would bevirtually unimaginable for one and the same author.Therefore, I think that a theoretical stratification inside thereceived Adhyy must be considered, unless a possiblecritical edition of its text, based on the collation of the extantmanuscripts, would disallow such a hypothesis.


15/16

A. Keidan 39

Reference

Aklujkar 1983 Aklujkar A. N. The Adhyy as a case in textualcriticism. Part 2 // Proceedings of the International Seminar onStudies in the Adhyyof Pini / ed. by S. D. Joshi and S. D.Laddu. Pune: University of Poona. P. 110.

Bahulikar 1973 Bahulikar S. Concerning the structure of PinisAdhyy// Indian Linguistics. Vol. 34. P. 7599.

Belardi, Cipriano 1990 Belardi W., Cipriano P. Casus interrogandi.Nigidio Figulo e la teoria stoica della lingua. Roma, Viterbo: IlCalamo.

Birw 1955 Birw R. Interpolationen in Pinis Adhyy // StudiaIndologica. Festschrift fr Willibald Kirfel zur Vollendung seines70. Lebensjahres / ed. by O. Spies. Bonn: Selbstverlag desOrientalistiches Seminars der Universitt Bonn. P. 2752. (BonnerOrientalistische Studien. Vol. 3).

Birw 1958 Birw R. Variae lectiones in Adhyya IV und V derAdhyy // Zeitschrift der Deutschen MorgenlndischenGesellschaft. Bd. 108. S. 133154.

Butzenberger 1995 Butzenberger K. Pinis stra.s on karma-kraka(Adhyy 1,4,49-51) and their historical development //Berliner Indologische Studien. Bd. 8. S. 962.

Cardona 1976 Cardona G. Pini: A Survey of Research. The

Hague, Paris: Mouton.Cardona 1999 Cardona G. Recent Research in Pinian Studies.Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

Fillmore 1968 Fillmore Ch. J. The Case for Case // Universals inLinguistic Theory / ed. by E. Bach and R. T. Harms. New York:Holt, Rinehart & Winston. P. 188.

Houben 2003 Houben Jan E. M. Three myths in modern PinianStudies // Asiatische Studien. tudes Asiatiques. Vol. 57. P. 121179.

Iyer 1983 Iyer V. S. On Variations in the Adhyy// Proceedingsof the International Seminar on Studies in the Adhyy ofPini / ed. by S. D. Joshi and S. D. Laddu. Pune: University ofPoona. P. 141155.

Joshi, Roodbergen 1976 Joshi S. D., Roodbergen J. A. F. PatajalisVykaraa-Mahbhya: Anabhihithnika (P. 2.3.12.3.17).Poona: University of Poona.

Joshi, Roodbergen 1983 Joshi S. D., Roodbergen J. A. F. TheStructure of the Adhyy in Historical Perspective //Proceedings of the International Seminar on Studies in theAdhyy of Pini / ed. by S. D. Joshi and S. D. Laddu. Pune:University of Poona. P. 5995.

Keidan 2007 Keidan A. Pini 1.4.23: emendation proposal // Rivistadi Studi Sudasiatici Vol. 2. P. 209241.


16/16

Compositional history of Pinis krakatheory3-

Keidan Forthcoming a Keidan A. Lability in Middle Indo-Aryan:theories, facts, and indirect evidence // Papers from theWorkshop Typology of labile verbs: Focus on diachrony (ISTAL19) / ed. by L. Kulikov and N. Lavidas / Linguistics. Special Issue.

Keidan Forthcoming b Keidan A. Theoretical stratifications inPinis kraka system // Papers from the panel The Indiantraditions of language studies (ICHoLS XI) / ed. by J.-L.Chevillard and . Aussant.

Liebich 1886 Liebich B. Die casuslehre der indischen grammatikerverglichen mit dem gebrauch der casus im Aitareya-Brhmana //Beitrge zur Kunde der indogermanischen Sprachen. Bd. 10. S.205233.

Renou 1969 Renou L. Pini // Current Trends in Linguistics.Volume 5. Linguistics in South Asia /ed. by T. A. Sebeok. The

Hague, Paris: Mouton. P. 481498.Sharma 1990 Sharma R. N. The Adhyy of Pini. 2. Englishtranslation of Adhyya one with Sanskrit text, transliteration,word-boundary, anuvtti, vtti, explanatory notes, derivationalhistory of examples, and indices. Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal.

Speijer 1886 Speijer J. S. Sanskrit Syntax. Leiden: Brill.Van Valin, Lapolla 1997 Van Valin R. Jr., Lapolla R. J. Syntax:

structure, meaning and function. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Zaliznjak 2007 . . . (2.). : .

Summary

The main claim is that Pinis Adhyy may be viewed as aresult of several consecutive textual stratifications. Such strata arenow primarily distinguishable on the theoretical basis, since thereare some relevant dissimilarities in the analysis of the simple clausein different parts of the grammar. Particularly, the krakesection aswell as some other parts of the Adhyy connected with the

role/case-form distinction are taken into consideration. The radicalparadigm change in categorization and terminology that isobservable in these sections could be explained if a change in theauthorship is also assumed.

Compositional History of Panini s Karaka

Documents

Transcript of Compositional History of Panini s Karaka