PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. THIS Second Book of Sanskrit has been prepared under instructions from Sir A. Grant, Director of Public Instruction. Its plan is nearly the same as that of the First Book, which the student is supposed to have read and mastered. Each lesson consists of four parts:-1st, Grammar; 2nd, Sanskrit sentences for translation into English; 3rd, English sentences for translation into Sanskrit-both intended to exercise the student in the rules of Grammar given at the top of the Lesson; and 4th, a Vocabulary. I This and the First Book together contain as much Grammar as is needed for all practical purposes, perhaps more. have adopted the terminology of the English Grammarians of Sanskrit, but have strictly followed Pânini, as explained by Bhaṭṭoji Dikshita in his Siddhântakaumudî. Most of the rules are mere translations of the Sûtras. Besides the terms Guna, Vriddhi, and a few others, which have been adopted from Native Grammarians by nearly all European writers on the subject, I have found it necessary to appropriate two more, viz., Seț and Anit. The prejudice against mere Native terms, in deference to which Professor Benfey seems in his smaller Grammar to have discarded even the words Guna and Vriddhi, without substituting any others, is in my humble opinion very unreasonable, when it is difficult to frame new words to designate the things which they signify. It is very inconvenient to have to describe the same thing again and again whenever one has occasion to speak of it. It will at the same time be somewhat difficult for the learner to make out, when a thing is so described in a variety of cases, that it is the same. Words adapted to express a particular meaning are as necessary here as in other affairs of human life. What an amount of inconvenience would it, for instance, entail, if, whenever we had to speak of the human race, we were, instead of being allowed to use the word "man," made to describe man's physical and rational nature? But I must not elevate an ordinary truism to the rank of a newly-discovered truth. The general rules of Grammar, and such exceptions as are important, have been given in this book; those of the least importance only being omitted. Such an omission is apt to render a book liable to the charge of inaccuracy. But it is unavoidable in an elementary work, and after all it will produce little or no practical inconvenience. एल There is one point in Sanskrit Grammar, in my explanation of which I have departed from ordinary usage, though I think I do agree with Pâṇini and his Commentators. It is the sense to be attached to the so-called Aorist. The most laborious student of a dead language is not alive to all the nice shades of meaning, which are plain even to the uninstructed when a language is living. Even to a Mahâ-Paṇḍita in these days the sound of is not at all so disagreeable as that of gig is to the genuine Marâțhî peasant. We know of the distinc tion between the Atmanepada and Parasmaipada only in theory but that between the and of the Marâțhî habitual Past, of the g and of the Future we feel. We must, therefore, to determine this question about the Aorist, appeal to such Sanskrit works as, we have reason to suppose, must have been written when Sanskrit was a spoken language. The Kâvyas, the Nâṭakas, and most of the Purânas will not do for our purpose. Such books as the Samhitâs of the Vedas, the Brâhmaņas, or even those portions of the two great Epics which do not bear indications of having been subsequently tampered with, must be referred to. To institute such a wide research I have neither had the necessary time nor the necessary means. But the Aitareya Brâhmaṇa, which I have read, seems almost to decide the point. In this work, wherever stories are told, the so-called Imperfect or the Perfect is always used, and the Aorist never occurs.* On the contrary, when the persons in the story are represented as speaking with one another they use the Aorist, and the only sense that can be attached to it in these cases is that of the English Present Perfect; in other words, it indicates simply the completion of an action or an action that has just or recently been done. The reason why the Aorist occurs in these cases only is that there is no scope for recent past time in mere narration; and things that have just or recently occurred can come to be spoken of only when persons are talking with each other. The piece given at the end of this book contains passages remarkably illustrating what I say. The story goes:-"Haris'chandra said to Varuna, 'Let a son be born to me and I will then offer him as a sacrifice to you.' 'Well,' said Varuna. Then a son was born to him. Then said Varuna, 'You have got a son, sacrifice him to me now.' Then said Haris'chandra, 'When a victim becomes ten days old, then he is fit to be sacrificed. Let the boy become ten days old, I will then sacrifice him to you.' 'Well,' said Varuna. The boy became ten days old. Then said Varuņa, 'He has become ten days old, sacrifice him now to me,'" and thus it proceeds. Now in this and the remaining portion of the Khanda the verb "said" (occurring several times), "was born" "became" and others that are used by the narrator speaking in his own person, are always in the Perfect; while "have got," "has become," &c., used by Varuna with reference to the boy, are in the Aorist. The latter clearly refer to a time just gone by. In the same manner, in the story of Nâbhânedishtha, related in the fourteenth Khanda of the Fifth Pañchiká, the verbs भभाक्त, अभाक्षुः, अदु:, and आदित used * In the passage noticed below, we have स ह संनाहं प्रापत्, where प्रापत् is the Aorist of with and is used in the narration of a past event. But in the whole of the Brahmana there is, so far as I can recollect, not a single instance besides this, where the narrator uses the Aorist in speaking of a past action. The evidence being then so overwhelming, some other explanation must be attempted in the present case, and this example ought by no means to be taken to invalidate the position in the text. Perhaps when the reading of Vedic books was fixed, 197 and 1, which occurs immediately after, were, through mistake, made to exchange places. by Nabhánedishtha, and evidently, from the context, denoting events that have just happened, are in the Aorist, as also अवादी: used by Rudra. While when the author, in narrating the story, speaks of certain things as having taken place, he invariably uses the Imperfect, these events from his point of view having occurred at a remote past time. Similar instances in which the Aorist on the one hand, and the Imperfect or the Perfect on the other, are used exactly in the same way, occur in 1-23, 2-19, 3-33, 4-17,* 6-33, 6-34, 7-27 7.28, 8-7, 8-23†; while narratives, in which the Perfect or the Imperfect only is used, and where there is either no conversation, or when there is, it is only with reference to present or future time, are innumerable. 7-26 and 5-34 may also be consulted. t * The cows held a sacrificial session with the object of getting horns; after a year they got horns, and then they say to themselves:-यस्मै कामायादीक्षामह्यापाम तमुत्तिष्ठामः, , “The object for which we undertook this sacrificial ceremony we have got. We now rise or break up." Here is the Aorist of 'to obtain,' and evidently means 'have got or obtained;' while अदीक्षामहि is the Imperfect of दीक्षू, and certainly does not indicate an event that has just happened. + Some of these passages have been given in the lessons on the Aorist. To show how rich the language of this Brâhmana is in verbal forms and especially of the Aorist, I will here give a list of the forms of the Aorist referred to in the text. It will be shown further on that the Brâhmana follows the rules of Fânini faithfully in the use of the Aorist and the following list will show that the forms also of this tense strictly obey the rules laid down by that grammarian, except in a few cases. अदर्शम् आज्ञासम् अवाक्षः Of these 44 forms only five अज्ञत, अक्रत, अकर्, आज्ञासम् and अद्रुक्ष: do not conform to the rules laid down by Pânini for the Bhâshâ or the Sanskrit current in his time. (1885). |