[PDF]Vedic Grammar By A A Macdonell

SRUNDRiSS DER INDO-ARISCHEN PHILOLOGIE UNO ALTERTUMSKUNDE

(ENCYCLOPEDIA OF INDO- ARYAN RESEARCH)

BEGRONDET von G. BijHLER, FORTGESETZT VON F. KIELHORN,
HERAUSGEGEBEN VON H. LtiDERS UND J. mCKERNAGEL.

I. BAND,. 4. HEFT.




VEDIC GRAMMAR


BY


A. A. MACDONELL


"if ^ r;
tj l,.V tji


/N.V'’ til)'.



=35^ STRA.«;.qRTTRr


STRASSBURG
VERLAG VON KARL J. TRUBNER
1910 .



The priming was commenced in May, 1907. and
afterwards delayed by the death of the editor


Prof. Kielliorn,





GRUNDRiSS DER INDO-ARISOHEN PHILOLOGIE UNO ALTERTUMSKUNDE

(ENCYCLOPEDIA OF' INDD- ARYAN RESEARCH)

EEGRUXDET VOX G. BChLER, FORTGESETZT VON F. KIELHORN. '

I. BAND, 4. HEFT,..


V E D I C G R A MM A R

BY

A. A. MACDONELL.


INTRODUCTION.-

I. General Scope of this Work. — ¥edic grammar has never till now
..been treated separately and as a whole. Both in India . and in the ' West
the subject has hitherto been handled only in connexion with Classical
Sanskrit. Hundreds of Panini’s Sutras deal with the language of the Vedas;
but the account they give of it is anything but comprehensive. In the West,
Bexfey was the first, more than half a century ago (1852), to combine a
description of tiie linguistic peculiarities of the Vedas with an account of the
traditional matter of Panini; but as Vedic studies were at that time still in
their ill fancy, only the Samaveda^ and about one-fourth of the Rgveda®
having as yet been published, the Vedic material utilized in his large grammar ^
was necessarily very limited in extent In Whitney’s work'^ the language of
the Vedas, which is much more fully represented, is treated in its historical
connexion with Classical Sanskrit Partly for this reason, his work does not
supply a definite account of the grammar of the Sanihitas as compared
with that of the later phases of the language ; thus ivhat is peculiar to the
Brahmanas or to a particular Samhita is often not apparent Professor
WackernageCs grammar 5 , which when finished will present the ancient language
of India more completely than any other work on the subject, deals with
the combined Vedic and post -Vedic material from the point of view of
Comparative Philology. Different sections or individual points of Vedic
grammar have been the subject of separately published treatises or of special
articles scattered in various Oriental and philological journals or other works
of a miscellaneous character. It is advisable that all this as well as additional
material^ should now be brought together so as to afford a general survey
of the subject. ■ .

In view of the prominent position occupied by the Indo-Aryan branch
in Comparative Philology and of the fact that the language of the Vedas


^ Edited by Bexfey, with German trans-
lation and glossary, Leipzig 1848.

2 Vol. 1 edited by Max Muller, London
1849, vol. V[ 1S75; 2«d ed. London 1S90—
92; edited by Aufrecht, Berlin 1861 and
1S63 {vols. VI and of Indische Studien),
2’id ed. Bonn 1877.

3 Vollstiindige Grammatik der Sanskrit-
spraclie, Leipzig 1S52.

* 4 A Sanskrit Grammar, Leipzig 1879; 3rd

ed. 1896.

5 AltindLsclie Grammatik von Jacob


i Wackernagel, I. Lautlehre, Gottingen
I II, I. Einleitung zur Wortiehre. Nominal-
I komposition, 1905. (Cp. Bartholomae, Bei-
i trage zur altindisciien Grammatik, ZDMG.

[50,674-735).

! 6 Such additional material is supplied in

! this work from collections made for me by
; ray pupils Prof. H. C Norman (Benares)
I from the Vajasaneyl Samhita, and Mr. A. B.
I Keith from the Taitlirlya Sainhita, the
i Mantras in the Aitareya Aranyaka, and the
I Khilas of the Rgveda.


Indo-arische Philologie. I. 4.


2


L Allgemeines UND Sprache. 4. Vedic Grammar.


represents the foundation of the subsequent strata^ it seems important for the
sake of clearness and definiteness that the earliest phase should be treated as
a whole independently of later developments. The present "work will therefore
deal with the grammar of only the Mantra portions of the Sanihitas; that is
to say, it will embrace the whole of the Rgveda, the Atharvavedah the
Samaveda% and the Vajasaneyi Samhita^, but will exclude those portions of
the Taittirlya Samhita'^, the Maitrayani Sarnhita^ and the Kathaka^ which
have the character of Brahmanas^. Reference will also be made to Mantra


material not found in the canonical texts of the Samhitas, that is, to the
Khilas® of the Rgveda and the occasional Mantras of this type occurring
in the Brahmanas^ and Sutras. As the linguistic material of the Rgveda is
more ancient, extensive and authentic than that of the other Sanihitas, all
of which borrow largely from that text^*^, it is taken as the basis of the
present work. Hence all forms stated without comment belong to the Rgveda,
though they may occur in other Samhitas as well. From the other Vedas,
such matter only is added as occurs in their independent parts or, if borrowed
from the Rgveda, appears in an altered form, the source being in such cases
indicated by an abbreviation in parentheses (as VS., TS., AV,). The addition
of the abbreviation ‘RV.’ means that the form in question occurs in the
Rgveda only.

2. Verbal Authenticity of the Texts”. — In dealing with the linguistic
material of the Samhitas the question of the authenticity of the forms which
it embraces is of great importance. What guarantees then do we possess
that the original form of the texts handed down by tradition has not in the
course of ages undergone modification and modernization in respect to
vocabulary, phonetics, and grammatical forms? This question must first be
applied to the Rgveda, the oldest of the Samhitas, which forms the very
foundation of Vedic tradition. The evidence of the SarvanukramanT^®, which
states the number of stanzas, the metre, and the deity for every hymn of
the RV., shows that in general extent, form, and matter, this Samhita was
in the Sutra period the same as now. The Pratisakhya demonstrates that
its phonetic character was also the same. Yaska’s commentary proves that,


1 Edited (Sairihita text only) by Roth and
Whitney, Berlin 1856 (Index Verborum in
JAOS., voL XU); translated by WHITNEY
(Books I — xix), with a critical and exegetical
commentary, Cambridge, Mass., 1905 (vols.
vn and vm of the Harvard Oriental Series);
also edited by Shanxar P. Pandit (both
Samhita and Pada text), Bombay 1895—99.

2 Besides Benfey’s edition also that of
Satyavrata Sama^ramI, 5 vols., Calcutta
1874 — 78 (Bibliotheca Indica).

3 Edited by Weber, with the commentary
of IMahldhara, London and Berlin 1852.

4 Edited by Weber (vols, xi and xu of
Indische Stiidien), Berlin 1871 — 72.

5 Edited by L. v. Schroeder, Leipzig
1881—86.

^ Edited by L. v. Schroeder, vol. i
(books I— xviii), I.eipzig 1900,

7 Cp. Oldenberg, Die Hymnen des Rigveda,
Band J (Prolegomena), Berlin 1888, p. 294 ff.

8 See Auii'RECHT, Die Hymnen des Rigveda*,
vol. 11, 672— 88; Max Muller, Rgveda*,
vol. IV, 519—41; cp. Macdonell,’ Bfhad-
devata, vol. I, introduction, g 1 5 (Cambridge,


Mass., 1904); SCHEFTELOWITZ, Die Apokry-
phen des Rgveda (edition of the Khilas),
Breslau 1906 (cp. Oldenberg, Gottingische
Gelehrte' Anzeigen 1907, 210 — 41).

9 Cp. Oldenberg, op. cit, 359 IT. ; Auf-
RECHT, Das Aitareya Brahmana, Bonn 1879,
p. 420f.

Cp. Oldenberg, op. cit, chapter iii;
Macdonell, History of Sanskrit Literature,
181 and 186.

Cp. Oldenberg, op. cit., chapter ni
(271 — 369) Der Riktext und der Text der
jungeren Samhitas und der Brahmanas;
Ludwig, Ueber die Kritik des Rgveda-
Textes, Abhandlimgen d. k. bohm. Gesell-
scliaft der Wissenscliaften, Prag 1889.

Edited by A. A. Macdonell, Oxford

18S6.

^3 The Rgveda Pratisakhya, edited with
German translation by Max Muller, Leipzig
1856 — 69; edited with Uvata’s commentary,
Benares Sanskrit Series 1894.

14 Yaska^s Nirukta, edited by Roth, Got-
tingen 1852; edited by Satyavrata Sama-
^RAMi, 4 vols. (ii — IV with the commentary



Introduction.


3


as regards the limited number of stanzas explained by him, his text was
verbally identical with ours. The frequent statements of the Brahmanas
concerning the number of verses contained in a hymn or .liturgical group
agree with the extant text of the Rgveda. The explanatory discussions of the
Brahmanas further indicate that the text of the Rgveda must have been
regarded as immutably fixed by that time. Thus the Satapatha Brahmana,
while speaking of the possibility of varying some of the formulas of the
Yajurveda^ rejects as impossible the notion of changing the text of a certain
verse of the Rgveda as proposed by some teachers h

Probably soon after the completion of the actual Brahmanas the hymns
of the Rgveda were fixed in the phonetic form of the Sarnhita text; and
after no long interval, in order to guard that text from the possibility of any
change or loss, the Pada text was constituted by Sakalya, whom the Aranyakas
or appendixes to the Brahmanas, the Nirukta, and the Rgveda Pratisakhya
presuppose^. By this analysis of the Sarnhita text, its every word, stated in
a separate form as unaffected by the rules of euphonic combination, has
come down to us without change for about 2,500 years.

The Sarnhita text itself, however, only represented the close of a long
period in which the hymns, as originally composed by the seers, were handed
down by oral tradition. For the condition of the text even in this earlier
period we possess a large body of evidence corresponding to that of Mss,
for other literary monuments. It was then that the text of the other Vedas,
each of which borrowed extensively from the Rgveda, was constituted. With
each of them came into being a new and separate tradition in which the
borrowed matter furnishes a body of various readings for the Rgveda, The
comparison of these variants, about 1200 in number, has shown that the text
of the Rgveda already existed, with comparatively few exceptions, in its present
form when the text of the other Vedas was established. The number of
instances is infinitely small in which the Rgveda exhibits corruptions not
appearing in the others. We have thus good reason for believing that the
fixity of the text and the verbal integrity of the Jlgveda go several centuries
further back than the date at which the Sarnhita text came into existence.
As handed down exclusively by oral tradition, the text could hardly have
been preserved in perfectly authentic form from the time of the composers
themselves; and research has shown that there are some undeniable corruptions
in detail attributable to this earliest period. But apart from these, the Sarnhita
text, when the original metre has been restored by the removal of phonetic
combinations which did not prevail in the time of the poets themselves, nearly
always contains the very words, as represented by the Pada text, actually
used by the seers. The modernization of the ancient text appearing in the
Sarnhita form is only partial and is inconsistently applied. It has preserved
the smallest minutiae of detail most liable to corruption and the slightest
differences in the matter of accent and alternative forms which might have
been removed with the greatest ease. We are thus justified in assuming that
the accents and grammatical forms of the Rgveda, when divested of the
euphonic rules applied in the Sarnhita text, have come down to us, in the
vast majority of cases, as they were uttered by the poets themselves.

Though the tradition of nearly all the later Samhitas has in a general
way been guarded by Anukramams, Pritisakhyas, and Pada texts, its value
is clearly inferior to that of the Rgveda, This is , only natural in the case


of Durga), Calcutta 18S2 — 91 (Bibliotheca ^ See Oldenberg, op. cit., 352.
Indica). 2 See Ocdenberg, op. cit, 3S0 f.


L Allgemeines unb Sprache. Vedic GRA]\BIAR.


of collections in whidi the matter was largely borrowed and arbitrarily cut
up into groups of verses or into single verses solely with a view to meet
new liturgical wants. Representing a later linguistic stage, these collections
start from a modernized text in the material borrowed from the Rgveda, as
is unmistakable when that material is compared with the original passages.
The text of the Samaveda is almost entirely secondary, containing only
seventy-five stanzas not derived from the Rgveda. Its variants are due in
part to inferiority of tradition and in part to arbitrary alterations made for
the purpose of adapting verses removed from their context to new ritual uses h
An indication that the tradition of the Yajur and Atharva Vedas is less trust-
worthy than that of the Rgveda is the great metrical irregularity which is
characteristic of those texts ^ Of all these the Vajasaneyi Samhita is the best
preserved, being not only guarded by an Anukramam, a Pratisakhya, and a
Pada text, but partially incorporated in the Satapatha Brahmana, where the
first 1 8 books are quoted word for word besides being commented on. The
Taittirlya Samhita has also been carefully handed down, being protected by
an AnukramanI, a Pratisakhya, and a good Pada text The MaitrayanI Samhita
is not so well authenticated, having no Pratisakhya and only an inferior
Pada text, of which but a single somewhat incorrect Ms. is known 4. Least
trustworthy of all is the tradition of the Kathaka which lacks both a Pratisakhya
and a Pada text. Moreover only one complete Ms. of this Samhita is known^.
As that Ms. is unaccented, it has only been possible to mark the accent
in small portions of that part of the text which has as yet been published
(Books I— xviii). As, however, the texts of the Black Yajurveda often agree
even verbally, and the Maitrayarii Samhita is closely connected with the
Kathaka, the readings of the latter can to some extent be checked by those
of the cognate Samhitas.

The inferiority of tradition in the Atharvaveda w-as increased by the
lateness of its recognition as a canonical text. It contains many corrupt
and uncertain forms, especially in Book xix, which is a later addition^.
The text is guarded by Anukramanis, a Pratisakhya, and a Padapatha7. The
latter, however, contains serious errors both in regard to accentuation and
the division of compound verbal forms, as well as in other respects. The
Padapatha of Book xix, which is different in origin from that of the earlier
books is full of grave blunders^. The critical and exegetical notes contained
in Whitney’s Translation of the Atharvaveda accordingly furnish important aid
in estimating the value of the readings in the SaunakTya recension of the
Atharvaveda. The PaippalMa recension is known in only a single corrupt
Ms., which has been reproduced in facsimile by Professors Garbe and
Bloomfield^'’. About one-eighth or one-ninth of this recension is original,
being found neither in the Saunakiya text of the Atharvaveda nor in any other
known collection of Mantras”. The various readings of this recension, in the


On tlie Padapatha of the Samaveda see
Uenfey’s edition of that Samhita, p. LVU— LXiv.

2 See Whitney’s Iixtroduction to the
Atharvaveda, p. cxxvii; BLOOMFIELD, The
Atharvaveda, Grundriss 11 , IB, § I.

3 Cp. Weber’s edition p. vutf., and
Indische Studien 13, i — 114 (Ueber den
Padapatha der Taittiriya-Samhita).

4 See L. V. Schroeder’s edition, Intro-
duction, p. XXXVI f.

5 Cp. L. V. Schroeder’s Introduction to
Ixis edition, § I.


6 See Lanman’s Introduction to Book XIX

in Whitney’s Translation of the Atharva-
veda. ■ . ■

7 See Lanman’s Introduction to Whitney’s
Translation, p. lxix— LXX iv.

^ The Padapatha of the Atharvaveda has
been edited in full by Shankar P. Pandit
in his Atharvaveda.

9 Cp. Bloomfield, The Atharvaveda p. 16.

*0 The Kashmirian Atharva-Veda, Balti-
more 1901.

Bloomfield, The Atharvaveda p. 15;
>>>