determine where their deficiencies lie. The second verse informs us that a noun which has its natural accent is compounded with another which is unaccented, except in the case of an enclitic pronoun of the first and second persons, or a vocative: thus we must combine tri : saptâ'ḥ (i. 1. 1), çatá: vṛshnyam (i. 3. 1), into tri-saptah, catá-vṛshnyam. The next verse and the one following treat of the combination of nouns and verbs with prepositions and other words employed as prepositions: these receive here and in what follows the name gati, which Panini also (i. 4. 60 etc.) uses. Verse five has for its subject such compounds as are instanced by súpratishthitam (xii. 1. 63: p. sú-pratisthitam). The sixth verse applies to compounds into which a particle enters as a constituent, and cites itihûsáh (xv. 6. 4: p. itiha-ásáh) as an example; and the first line of the next verse adds the farther instances naghârishâ'm (viii. 2. 6; 7. 6: p. nagha-rishâ'm) and súsaha (vi. 64. 3: p. sú-saha). Hence to the end of verse 8, compounds with saha (and its substitute sa) are defined, the chosen illustrations being sahúsûktavâkaḥ (vii. 97. 6: p. saha-suktavakah) and så'ntardeçâh (ix. 5. 37: p. sá-antardeçah): çatakrato is also added, but apparently only by a blunder; or rather, the reading is probably false and corrupt, as the metre helps to show. Verse 9 prescribes the mode of combination in such a case as púrushé 'dhi sama'hitaḥ (x. 7. 15), where an unaccented preposition stands between two others, both of which have their proper accent. The next verse takes for its example sám súbhûtyâ (iii. 14. 1), where two accented prepositions precede an unaccented noun, and the former of them is to be made independent. Verse 11 has no example, and, although easily enough translated, its meaning is to me obscure. We are then told what combinations are possible: verbs are not compounded with verbs or with nouns; but nouns with nouns and with prepositions. A verse and a half follows, denying the enclitic forms of the first and second personal pronouns the capability of entering into compounds, and citing as instances ma'm ánu prá te (iii. 18. 6) and prá vâm (e. g. vii. 73. 5): and three additional lines extend the same exception to the enclitic demonstrative pronouns, and give the examples brhúnn esham (iv. 16. 1), ya enam vanim âyánti (xii. 4. 11), páry enan (ix. 2. 5), and páry asya (xv. 12.7). The sixteenth verse declares an unaccented preposition capable of composition with a following word, however accented, but illustrates only their composition with a circumflexed word, as saṁsrâvyena (e. g. i. 15. 1), durarmanyàḥ (xvi. 2. 1), and ôcâryàḥ (xi. 5. 3 etc.). The subject now changes, and verses 17-19 give us a list of the twenty prepositions and a definition of their accentuation. Finally, the last verse (or prose passage) attempts to give a list of those words which are treated as if they were prepositions, although properly belonging to other classes. This list is a somewhat strange one, with regard both to what it includes and what it omits. A part of the forms which it contains are in frequent use, and familiarly known as bearing marked analogies with the prepositions proper. Such are achû, tiraḥ, purah, punaḥ, hin, práduḥ, and crat. Others, as aram and astam, are more remotely connected with the same class. Vashat, svâhâ, and vâtî are in the Atharvan compounded only with kara and kṛta, and hardly in such a manner as should require their inclusion in the list. Svadhâ and sruk form no other compounds than svadhákâra and srukkåra (ix. 6.22); phali forms phalikarana (xi. 3. 6); kakajâ forms kakajâkṛta (xi. 10. 25). Namas enters into namaskâra, namaskṛta, and namaskṛtya (vii. 102. 1), which last affords actually good ground for special treatment, as does hastagṛhya (e. g. v. 14. 4), on account of which hasta is ranked with the others. For lângûla, kshiti, and ulâ, I can find nothing at all in the Atharvan: there is room in the case of the two last, and especially of the third, to suspect corrupted readings. What may be hidden in svaralalâ, I have not been able to discover, nor how the last word in the extract, which apparently has to do with the accent of the words treated of, is to be amended into intelligibility. There are two words which we especially miss in this list of upasargavṛttini, and can hardly believe to have been originally absent from it: they are antaḥ and âvih: I cannot, however, find by emendation any place for them in the text as it stands. 5. Corrections and Emendations. I add here a rectification of certain errors in the body of the work, which have attracted my attention as I have been engaged in preparing the indexes; as also, corrections of such errors of the press as I have hitherto discovered. At p. 355, rule i. 24, for fagi read fagri. At p. 371, rule i. 47, translation, for palatal read lingual. At p. 378, l. 16, for kârpanyam read kârpaṇyam. At p. 409, in commenting upon ii. 15, 16, I failed to notice that the implication in the former rule is of catavargábhyâm, after palatal and lingual mutes,' and mutes only: hence this rule has nothing to do with any cases practically arising in the conversion of pada into sanhitâ, and rule 16 covers all the lingualizations of t and th after sh, whether in the same or a different word. At p. 419, rule ii. 29, at the end, for read . At p. 436, comm. to ii. 62, 1. 4, the hyphen representing the avagraha has dropped out from vicvataḥ pâniḥ. At p. 436, comm. to ii, 62, 1. 28: another like instance of repetition is found at xx. 132. 12, where all the MSS. read punaḥ punaḥ. At p. 437, rule ii. 64, translation: for is read does. At p. 442, rule ii. 76, at the end, read (broken letter). At p. 448, under rule ii. 92, I was so heedless as to refer to vy âsthan (xiii. 1. 5) as an anomalous form from stha, forgetting for the moment that it was, in fact, the irregular aorist of the root as, although I had formerly interpreted and indexed it as such. The pada-reading is vi: asthan, as given by our manuscript; but it seems to require amendment to vi: âsthat, having rohitah as subject. At p. 450, rule ii. 97, comm., 1. 3: for stusha u shu read stusha û shu. At p. 456, comm. to iii. 5: a compound analogous with oshadhi-ja is prthivi sad (prthivishadbhyah: xviii. 4. 78), which has also a claim to the attention of the Prâtiçakhya in this part. Its sh was prescribed by ii. 100. At p. 514, at the top, introductory note to chapter iv, I have expressed myself in a manner which misrepresents and does injustice to the Vaj. Pr. Although that treatise does not make the restorations of normal form in pada the subject of detailed treatment, yet its rules iii. 18, 19 (as pointed out in the note to iv. 74, above) virtually cover the ground, with more or less completeness. At p. 539, under rule iv. 53, I have omitted the reference belonging to ṛksâmâbhyâm: it is xiv. 1. 11. At p. 544, rule iv. 59 would have been more accurately translated "nor is division made before any member having an inserted s as its initial," etc. Whether, however, there is any propriety in regarding the inserted sibilant of tuvishtama, and of the other words cited, as the initial of the second member of the compound, is very questionable. At p. 583, l. 32, for vavrdhânaḥ-iva read vavṛdhânaḥ-iva. The indexes call for but a few words of explanation. Into the first I have admitted all distinct references to single passages of the Atharva-Veda, made by either the text or the commentary of the Prâtiçâkhya, distinguishing those of the latter always by an appended C. Words or brief phrases found at two or more places in the Atharvan (and so referred in the notes to the first of them, with a prefixed e. g.) are made no account of unless they are of peculiar and distinctive character; and, when noticed, they are marked here also by an added e. g., or, if found only in a series of passages occurring in the same connection (as in different verses of the same hymn), by an added etc. I have also included in the index all passages to which important reference has been made in the notes on the text, as for the purpose of amending a reading, giving account of an emendation made in the edited text, stating the manuscript authority favoring or opposing a given reading, or the like these are distinguished by an n affixed to the Prâtiçâkhya reference. The second, or Sanskrit index, comprises, in the first place, the whole vocabulary of the treatise itself, both its grammatical phraseology and its citations from the Atharvan, the latter being denoted by a prefixed a. I have added as much of the vocabulary of the commentary as seemed to me worth the trouble, adding always a c to the reference. The pseudo-citations of the commentator, or the illustrations which he fabricates or derives from other sources than the Atharva-Veda, are also (excepting the phrases given in the latter part of add. note 2) included in the index, and marked with a prefixed q. This same indicatory letter is set before the few words quoted in the text of the treatise which are not found in the Atharvan. In the third index it has not seemed to me worth while to make detailed references to the doctrines of the other treatises referred to in the notes; they may always be found stated in connection with the treatment of the related subject by our own Prâtiçâkhya. INDEXES. 1. INDEX OF ATHARVAN PASSAGES, CITED OR REFERRED TO IN THE TEXT, COMMENTARY, AND NOTES. |