[-§6
and wording of the rules of grammar that are to be met with in the Ashtadhyayi, We have dealt with the ques- tion of Panini’s date in another part of this essay, and if that result be accepted, Yaska must be placed about 800 to 700 before Christ.
There are, however, a few facts which seem to mili- tate against the view that Yaska flourished before Panini. The Stitras of Panini nowhere make any provision for the
"formation of words like starat, which occurs in Nirukta (Bib. Ind. edition, Vol. iv. page 258 &c.). Nor did Panini appar- ently know Yaska’s explanation of gaf ( Rigveda x. 85.20) by aiea seit. Panini must, therefore, have preceded Yaska; else how can we account for such omissions in a gram- marian of the calibre of Panini ? The utter uselessness of these and similar negative arguments can be seen on a closer examination of the instances adduced. To obviate the last of these defects Katyayana’ gives gqattaarat arg amar: as a vartika to sfitra iv.1. 48. Katydyna must, therefore, have come after Yaska whose work he here presumably utilises. On the contrary, the first omission is not rectified even by Katyayana who gives two vartikas (no. 7 and 8 to vi. 1.89) to explain forms like wtof and aunt but not arm. This would necessitate the supposition that Yaska came after Katyayana. A mode of argumentation which leads to such contradictory conclusions is no safe foundation for
Vasha's Nirukta : Its date 7
there ig 2 great distance bet- 1 In Kielhorn’s edition vol, ii. p-
ween Yuska’s definition of Frovae a8 warateatig frraiar and his giving the meanings for each individually, and Panini’s classification of them: into graf when joined to verba, mf if the rout develops jnto a noun, and arizeaata. Many more similar illustra tions could bo found.
220, this is given not as a vartika of Katynyane but as 8 part of the Mahabhasbya. In that case Yiska’s explana- tion of aqogrdy as aTTET qeft und his non-acquaintance with vurtika 1 to Sutra iv. 1, 49 may be adduced io prove the point st issue. �
