[Y-Indology] Panini's Understanding of Vedic Grammar

[Guest guest]

V. Agarwal wrote:

 

>A response to Daniel Baum and M. Witzel by Dr. V. Swaminathan at -

>

>http://www.bharatvani.org/reviews/baumrejoinder.html

 

 

Just a brief note on all of this (followed by excerpts of older notes):

 

Prof. Swaminathan, I am afraid, still has not done what is required in this

and similar cases:

 

* (1) apart from a study of Panini's Sutras, he must also

 

* (2) go through the (Rg)Vedic corpus and check out - himself- *all*

instances of the actual use and of the underlying grammatical category of

the Injunctive

 

* (3) third, he should also take some note of what has been written on this

in recent decades.

 

The sentence in his new paper "Panini has elaborately dealt with the

functions of all the verbs - tenses and moods, ten in total according to

his scheme" betrays that Swaminathan has *no* idea of the nature of the

Vedic verb system (cf. below).

 

In the present case, the seminal book by Karl Hoffmann, Der Injuktiv im

Veda, 1967, would have saved him much ink and headache, and abbreviated his

work as under (2).

 

Hoffmann has checked out all passages, and if Swaminathan disagrees with

his analysis, he should say so. Even if he cannot read German, as the book

as an extensive English summary.

 

Until today, he has neither done (2) or (3), but he just has given his

interpretation of Panini and some incidental passages, -- besides much

else that does not belong in a scholarly discussion (no comment!)

 

I have pointed out all of this already in January, in a correspondence

via Swaminathan's son, Vishnampet Vaidyaraman, which I add here for

historical purposes. Prof. Swaminathan could have saved much trouble for

himself if he had actually used this:

 

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

 

(a)

Vishnampet Vaidyaraman first asked me (Jan. 4, 2003), about my sentence

"The Rigveda has many grammatical forms that had simply disappeared by the

time of Panini. He and Sayana do not know e.g. of the injunctive (e.g.

han Indroí him han)", in the article titled 'Philology Vanished:

Frawley's Rig Veda - I" in The Hindu in the Open Page on August 13, 2002:

to which his father, V. Swaminathan, Retired Principal, Kendriya Sanskrit

Vidyapeetha, Tiruchur, India, had objected. He asked me whether I would

you like to see it, and respond.

 

 

(b) I answered on 1/4/2003

" Yes please send it, I suppose the aswer is "chandasi bahulam".

The injunctive was described properly and understood only in 1967. "

 

 

Received Prof. S.'s note, and answered on 1/13, 2003

 

© "Dear Mr. Vaidyaraman,

 

today I have found some time to read your father's article.

 

You can tell him the following

 

(1)

It is, as I had predicted to you. He is unfortunately still unaware of the

most detailed discussion of the grammatical form he writes about : the

injunctive.

 

In other words, he is some 40-50 years behind current research. Since he

was a principal in some out of the way place in mid-Kerala, he is excused

(though there is a large university library fairly close by). However, he

is not for points (4, 5)

 

(2)

Therefore, several key sentences in his paper are wrong,

He has carried out a diligent search of the texts and he tell us many well

known facts, but is wrong in key areas (marked by **):

 

"Injunctive is a term by which European orientalists refer to the forms of

the non-augmented *past tense forms*.... Panini does not employ any special

term to refer to the injunctive (*unaugmented past tense*) of the European

Orientalists because **it does not possess a sense of its own** that is

distinct from those conveyed by the **subjunctive, imperative, optative and

precative** - The general meaning of the injunctive **expresses a desire**,

combining the senses of the *subjunctive, the optative and the imperative*."

 

All wrong.

 

"European [and other!] Orientalists" would tell him that the main

function (*this* is the technical term!) of the injunctive is "mentioning

(e.g. well known facts)"; there is some overlap with the function of some

other forms, but not as stated above.

 

He is just as unaware of the real function (und thus the

meaning/translation) of the injunctive forms as were Sayana and Panini. Not

allowed in the year 2002/3, especially when writing things as in points 4/5.

 

(3) It is silly to accuse the use of a stock phase (what can we do in a

newspaper without diacritics and svara?) i.e . "the three words 'indro him

han' in immediate succession" as not being found in the RV.

 

This stock phrase is archetypal of Indra's killing the dragon (from England

to Japan by the way...) e.g. in 5.29.2 aadatta vajram abhi yad ahim

hann... : who is it here that killed the dragon but Indra??

 

[And of course "han" *is*, other than he says, an injunctive form!

Unfortunately your father does not know this.]

 

(4) Late this evening, however, I learned in an email that he has chosen

to "publish" his paper in the "patriotic" web site

http://www.bharatvani.org/reviews/philology.html where it is now found in

good companionship with Rajaram, Frawley and similar great persons.

 

I will therefore not answer him anymore <in> detail.

 

(5)

He has taken my sentence, as I half predicted to myself, as an *attack* on

the great Panini and Sayana, while the thrust of my note was of course that

Panini no longer understood (that part of) Rgvedic well enough as to

recognize that the Injunctive indeed forms a separate verbal category - as

any linguist will tell us now.

 

Such reaction indicates, once more, that the spirit of calm, true

scientific investigation is lacking and that all and sundry is taken

*personally*, even by your father who lives some 2500 years after the

demise of the indeed great Panini and more than a half millennium after

Sayana.

 

So be it... Enlightenment and freeing oneself from the shackles of whatever

oppressive tradition apparently has not yet happened with people who write

sentences like : ".... the monumental works of these outstanding ancient

Indian authors. It is not fair on the part of Mr. Witzel to indulge in

pernicious allegation against the exalted personalities of Panini and

Sayana...".

 

Panini certainly was great, but not a sarvajna.

 

Cheers, MW "

 

=======================================================

 

 

 

Also cf. the answer I sent to V. Agarwal and his ever-continuing vendetta:

 

 

Fri, 17 Jan 2003 23:15:01 -0500

Re: [Y-Indology] Panini, Sayana and Philology

INDOLOGY

 

>INDOLOGY,

V.shal Agarwal wrote:

 

> The response from Dr. Baum was a windfall for you.

 

No, not for me. The sponge-like memory of Agarwal has failed him this

time....

 

See my detailed discussions in a series of exchanges in INDOLOGY in 1999,

of the whole of the Indo-European verb system, including the role of the

(verbal category of the) Injunctive

(though in a slightly different context):

 

See http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgadkw/indology.html with (among others) items :

 

016370 99/02/25 ...

 

016476 99/03/03 ...

 

about Indra + han:

 

"whether you tell your listeners a fact (a-han, impf.), or you just

mention it (han, injunctive) since they know it anyhow, or whether you

stress that he has killed him off (jaghAna, perf.), ...."

 

016602 99/03/14 ...

 

and cf. 016475 99/03/03 ...

 

 

Since K. Hoffmann was one o my Gurus, I read his then still unpublished

"Injunktiv" already in 1967 (written around.1950), and haven't forgotten,

nor should we all, this seminal work since.

 

There is a long English summary (as table of contents) in his book. But

this news clearly has not reached the backwaters of Kerala yet.

 

....

 

MW.

 

 

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

 

 

And there I will let it rest. Once Swaminathan, Agarwal et al. have read

Hoffmann, we can talk...

 

In the future, I will become even less agreeable to answer ANY unsollicited

emails.

A waste of time.

 

 

Cheers, MW

============================================================

Michael Witzel

Department of Sanskrit & Indian Studies, Harvard University

2 Divinity Avenue, Cambridge MA 02138, USA

 

ph. 1- 617-496 2990 (also messages)

home page: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/mwpage.htm

[Guest guest]

Dr. Paul Kiparsky's view may be of interest to the list members.

 

indo_iranian/message/540

 

Sincerely,

 

Vishal Agarwal

 

INDOLOGY, Michael Witzel <witzel@f...> wrote:

> V. Agarwal wrote:

>

>