Vyākaraṇa-mahābhāṣya 1.1.7.1

Premabase · Vyākaraṇa-mahābhāṣya · Adhyāya 1 · Pada 1

Show

VṛttiSanskritHindiEnglishTranslator notes

Script

IASTदेवनागरीবাংলা

MBH 1.1.7.1

← 1.1.6 1.1.7.2 →

halo 'nantarāḥ saṃyogaḥ

Aṣṭādhyāyī 1.1.7

Vṛtti Patañjali

anantarāḥ iti katham idam vijñāyate : avidyamānam antaram eṣām iti āhosvit avidyamānāḥ antarā eṣām iti .

'anantarāḥ' — how is this understood: as 'those of which there is no intervener (avidyamānam antaram eṣām)', or rather (āhosvit) as 'those between which there is nothing intervening (avidyamānāḥ antarā eṣām)'?

kim ca ataḥ .

And what [follows] from this?

yadi vijñāyate avidyamānam antaram eṣām iti avagrahe saṃyogasañjñā na prāpnoti apsu iti ap-su iti .

If it is understood as 'those of which there is no intervener (avidyamānam antaram eṣām)', then at an avagraha (word-division pause) the saṃyoga-designation would not obtain: in 'apsu' [analysed as] 'ap-su.'

vidyate hi atra antaram .

For here (in ap-su) there is an intervener (antaram).

atha vijñāyate avidyamānāḥ antarā eṣām iti na doṣaḥ bhavati .

But if it is understood as 'those between which there is nothing intervening (avidyamānāḥ antarā eṣām)', no fault arises.

yathā na doṣaḥ tathā astu .

Let it be in whichever way there is no fault.

atha vā punaḥ astu avidyamānam antaram eṣām iti .

Or else (atha vā), let it rather be 'those of which there is no intervener (avidyamānam antaram eṣām)' after all.

nanu ca uktam avagrahe saṃyogasañjñā na prāpnoti ap-su iti apsu iti .

But surely (nanu ca) it was said: at an avagraha the saṃyoga-designation would not obtain — 'ap-su,' 'apsu.'

vidyate hi atra antaram iti .

'For here there is an intervener (antaram)' — [thus it was said].

na eva doṣaḥ na prayojanam .

[It is] neither a fault nor a purpose (na eva doṣaḥ na prayojanam).

Translator notes mūla-only construal · not shown in the reading edition

The sūtra halo 'nantarāḥ saṃyogaḥ (A. 1.1.7) is a saṁjñā (definition) rule: 'consonants (hal) that are unseparated / contiguous (anantarāḥ) are termed saṃyoga (a consonant cluster).' The whole block is Patañjali's prose (no vārttika).
Dialectic construal: s1 poses how to analyse the bahuvrīhi anantarāḥ — Option A, 'avidyamānam antaram eṣām' = 'those of which there is no intervener (antaram, the intervening thing)'; or Option B, 'avidyamānāḥ antarā eṣām' = 'those between which there is nothing intervening (antarā, the in-between)'. s2 asks what turns on it. s3–s4 give Option A a fault: at an avagraha (the pause of the padapāṭha), as in apsu split ap-su, the pause counts as an intervener (antaram vidyate), so p+s would fail to be saṃyoga. s5 notes Option B has no fault; s6 concludes: adopt whichever reading avoids the fault.
s7 then reopens Option A ('atha vā punaḥ astu … antaram eṣām'); s8–s9 restate the avagraha objection (nanu ca uktam …); s10 answers 'na eva doṣaḥ na prayojanam' — in the split padapāṭha the point is inert: no operation depends on p+s being saṃyoga there, so its failing is neither a genuine fault nor a genuine purpose, and Option A therefore stands. I am fairly confident of this flow; the force of s10 is that the apsu/ap-su case carries no consequence either way.
FLAG: the two analyses hinge on antaram (neuter noun, 'gap / intervening thing') vs antarā (indeclinable, 'in between'); the source spells the alternants avidyamānam antaram vs avidyamānāḥ antarā, which I have preserved in the construals. Examples apsu / ap-su kept in IAST.

← 1.1.6 1.1.7.2 →