Panini, his work and its Traditions.
This volume, which has justly become popular and undergone a second edition, represents the introduction to a vast eight-volume project. Here Cardona provides access to Panini's Astadhyayi by explaining a large number of sutras distributed according to topic. As usual, his explanations, largely drawing upon the commentaries and accompanied by copious examples taken from different branches of Sanskrit literature, are lucid and profound. Some complexities are avoided at this stage; they are reserved for the future volumes.
The structure of the Astadhyayi--baffling to beginners and even to some distinguished linguists, but a "masterpiece of organization" for others--will be dealt with in the second volume; but already in this volume are useful indications. There are also valuable remarks on accentuation (pp. li ff.) and on such matters as "the status and purposes of grammar," "terms for the language described and for the grammar and its components" (Appendices I and II), as well as a critical edition of the Astadhyayisutrapatha (Appendix III). Helpful indices terminate the work.
Of all the works of the kind that have appeared in recent years, this strikes me as the best, and the completion of the project is impatiently awaited.
Differing from Cardona in matters concerning Panini appears to me extremely hazardous. Nonetheless, I venture to make some observations on a couple of points.
In connection with A 6.1.201 and 202 ([section]595), Cardona seems to derive ksaya 'dwelling' and jaya '(a horse or such) with which one gains victory' with the suffix ac (A 3.3.56). Accordingly, in connection with A 6.2.144 ([section]607), he writes praksayah 'outstanding dwelling'. Here he departs from the general trend among the Paniniyas (cf. Bhattoji Diksita, Praudhamanorama on Siddhantakaumudi 3933 [A 6.2.199]), in accordance with which ksaya and jaya should be derived with the suffix gha (and so, but for these sutras, would have the accent on the suffix: ksaya, jaya), and ksaya destroying' and jaya 'victory' with ac. Thus Kasika: ksaysabdo nivase bhidheye adyudatto bhavati ...pumsi samjnayam ghah prayena (A 3.9.118) iti ghapratyayantasya pratyayasvarah praptah (A 3.1.3) ... nivasa iti kim ksayo vartate dasyunam. er ac (A 3.3.56) ity ayam ajantah.
Now, in connection with A 6.2.144, it seems clear that praksaya and prajaya mean 'utter destruction', 'complete victory'. It may be objected that by A 6.1.163 ksaya and jaya would have the udatta on the final and by A. 6.2.139 would retain the original accent in praksaya and prajaya; why then does Panini enjoin the udatta on the final with the suffix ac in such cases? The answer is--if I read correctly the Kasika and the Nyasa, on which the later commentaries are based--that, if he does so, it is simply to make clear that ksaya and jaya (A 6.1.201 and 202) retain the original accent, by A 6.2.139, in a tatpurusa compound when they follow a gat, etc. praksayah, prajayah. Cf. Kasika: ac--praksayah, prajayah. ksayo nivase (A 6.1.201). jayah karanam (A 6.1.202) iti adyudattau ksayajayasabdau prayojayatah.--Jinendrabuddhi, Nyasa: prakasayah prajaya iti er ac (A 3.3.56) nana ca krduttarpadaprakrtisvarat-venaivatrottarapadantodattatvam bhavisyati (A 6.2.139) ity ata aha ksayo nivasa ityadi. yada ksayo nivase (A 6.1.201) jayah karanam (A.6.1.202) iti cadyudattau ksayajayasabdau bhavatah tada krtsvarena madhyodattatvam syat.
Incidentally, Katre--to mention only him--in his translation of the Astadhyayi also writes, in connection with ac in 6.2.144, praksaya 'excellent residence' prajaya' excellent instrument of conquest', while in connection with A 6.1.201 he writes "ksi + GHa (3.3.118) = ksay-a- 'residence'; the normal suffix is [aC 3.3.56] yielding ksi + aC - ksay-a-'destruction, consumption'." There is a contradiction here!
On pp. xiii-xiv Cardona vigorously defends the position of Paniniyas (starting from the author of the Mahabhasya, if not earlier--Jinendrabuddhi in his Nyasa on Kasika on A 7.2.11 attributes this opinion to "Svabhuti, Vyadi, etc.") who, in order to avoid problems in connection with A 3.2.139, insert in A 1.1.5 (kniti ca) g before k, to postulate suffixes with g as marker (git). However, he omits the problem that this procedure gives rise to in its turn regarding the form of A 7.2.11 (sryukah kiti), where also g should be inserted in order to derive bhusnu in accordance with A 3.2.139, thus interpreted. The problem was raised and solved in the Mahabhasya ad loc. (and, perhaps, earlier--see above). But the solution offered there was not accepted by all Paniniyas. Within the Kasika itself we find two opinions, one advocated by Jayaditya and the other by Vamana. While the former adopts the procedure just cited, the latter adopts a different one (which has at least the merit of being more economical) and dismisses the other one saying na kimcid etat: kecid atra dvikakaranirdesena gakarapraslesam varnayanti bhusnur ity evam yatha syat sautratvac ca nirdesasya sryukah kiti (A 7.2.11) ity atra cartvasyasiddhatavam anasritya ror utvam na krtan visarjaniyas, ca krta iti. glajisthas ca ksnuh (A.3.2.139) ity atra stha a ity akarapraslesena sthasnoh siddhatvan na kimcid etat. Kasika on A 7.2.11. Cf. Jinendrabuddhi, Nyasa on Kasika on A 1.1.5 and 7.2.11; see also Bhattoji Diksita, Sabdakaustubha I p. 102; Jnanedrasarasvati, Tattvabodhini on Siddhantakaumudi 2217 (A 1.1.5); Vitthala on Ramacandra's Prakriyakaumudi II, p. 586; Narayanabhatta, Prakriyasarvasva II, p. 69.
In these circumstances, to some readers, at least, it may appear strange that Cardona, [section]290, p. 194, writes without question, gsnu to interpret ksnu in A 3.2.139. There was a real problem here, of which the ancient grammarians were aware (cf. already Katyayana's varttika in Mahabhasya on A 3.2.139; see also Canadravyakarana 1.2.94 and 1.2.95 with the vrtt; Purusotamadeva Bhasavrtti on A 3.2.139), and it is better to recognize it than to obviate it on the authority of the majority of acaryas.
One may be confident that Cardona will discuss these matters in detail in one of the future volumes of this work; but it appears to me that a bit of caution in this introductory volume itself would have been of much help to readers.