25 Systems of Sanskrit Grammar $ 16 - ] all nouns from roots. Since, however, no work of Šakata- yana has come down to us, and since the Sabdanuśāsana which now passes under his name is a comparatively late production (see below, § 52), we cannot say whether this ancient Śākaṭāyana left behind him any work in justi- fication of the views which he doubtless held. On the other hand the Unãdi-sutras exhibit unmistak- able marks of Pänini's system. They use sañjñās such as zt, ait, cga, varA, STAT, ÕIT, ÜHHre, and erre in the same sense in which Panini uses them. The anubandhas of the Unādis are also similar to Panini's. This raises a strong presumption that the Unädi-sätras are the work of Panini himself; and it is further corroborated by the fact that Katyāyana in more than one place takes objection to the technical application of a rule in the Ashtadhyayi urging that it does not hold good in the case of particular Uņādi- sütras-an objection which could not have been urged un- less Katyayana regarded Päņini to be the author of the Unädis; for, Pänini was not to be expected to frame rules that would hold good in other people's works.' There is no reason why we should not accept this conclusion. We cannot, however, assign all the Unādi-sätras to Panini's authorship, seeing that in some places their teaching runs counter to the Ashtädhyayi. The probable view, as suggested by Goldstücker,' is that the Unādi list was first drawn up by Panini, but that it was afterwards modified or corrected by Katyayana. The extent of the changes introduced by the author of the Vārtikas must s 2 Thus, Unadi-sutra iv. 226 goes against Panini vi. 2. 139. 3 Panini, his place &c., pp. 170 (Reprint, 130) and 181 (Ke- print, 139). Examples are vii, 3, 50, vii, 4.13, viii. 2. 78, and viii. 3. 59. In most of these cases Katyayana has the remark stat autor words to this effect. Patanjali's defence of Panini is throughout ground- ed on the fact that gan nar
