Vyākaraṇa-mahābhāṣya 1.1.8.2

Premabase · Vyākaraṇa-mahābhāṣya · Adhyāya 1 · Pada 1

Show

VṛttiSanskritHindiEnglishTranslator notes

Script

IASTदेवनागरीবাংলা

MBH 1.1.8.2

← 1.1.8.1 1.1.8.3 →

mukha-nāsikā-vacano 'nunāsikaḥ

Aṣṭādhyāyī 1.1.8

Vṛtti Patañjali

atha mukhagrahaṇam kimartham .

Now, for what purpose the mention of 'mukha' (mouth)?

nāsikāvacanaḥ anunāsikaḥ iti iyati ucyamāne yamānusvārāṇām eva prasajyeta .

If only this much were stated — 'that uttered by the nose is anunāsika' — it would (wrongly) apply only to the yamas and the anusvāra.

mukhagrahaṇe punaḥ kriyamāṇe na doṣaḥ bhavati .

But when the mention of 'mukha' is (also) made, there is no fault.

atha nāsikāgrahaṇam kimartham .

Now, for what purpose the mention of 'nāsikā' (nose)?

mukhavacanaḥ anunāsikaḥ iti iyati ucyamāne kacaṭatapānām eva prasajyeta .

If only this much were stated — 'that uttered by the mouth is anunāsika' — it would (wrongly) apply only to the (stops) k, c, ṭ, t, p.

nāsikāgrahaṇe punaḥ kriyamāṇe na doṣaḥ bhavati .

But when the mention of 'nāsikā' is (also) made, there is no fault.

mukhagrahaṇam śakyam akartum .

The mention of 'mukha' can be left unmade (dispensed with).

kena idānīm ubhayavacanānām bhaviṣyati .

By what, then, will (the designation) of the both-uttered ones come about?

prāsādavāsinyāyena .

By the palace-dweller maxim (prāsāda-vāsi-nyāya).

tat yathā .

That is, as (follows).

ke cit prāsādavāsinaḥ ke cit bhūmivāsinaḥ ke cit ubhayavāsinaḥ .

Some are palace-dwellers, some are ground-dwellers, some are dwellers in both.

ye prāsādavāsinaḥ gṛhyante te prāsādavāsigrahaṇena .

Those who are palace-dwellers are included by the mention 'palace-dweller'.

ye bhūmivāsinaḥ gṛhyante te bhūmivāsinyāyena .

Those who are ground-dwellers are included by the ground-dweller principle (bhūmi-vāsi-nyāya).

ye ubhayavāsinaḥ gṛhyante te prāsādavāsigrahaṇena bhūmivāsinyāyena ca .

Those who are dwellers in both are included both by the palace-dweller mention and by the ground-dweller principle.

evam iha api ke cit mukhavacanāḥ ke cit nāsikāvacanāḥ ke cit ubhayavacanāḥ .

So here too: some are mouth-uttered, some nose-uttered, some uttered by both.

tatra ye mukhavacanāḥ gṛhyante te mukhagrahaṇena .

There, those that are mouth-uttered are included by the mention of 'mukha'.

ye nāsikāvacanāḥ gṛhyante te nāsikāgrahaṇena .

Those that are nose-uttered are included by the mention of 'nāsikā'.

ye ubhayavacanāḥ gṛhyante eva te mukhagrahaṇena nāsikāgrahaṇena ca. bhavet ubhayavacanānām siddham .

Those that are uttered by both are indeed included by (both) the mention of 'mukha' and the mention of 'nāsikā'. It may be (granted): for the both-uttered ones it is established (accounted for).

yamānusvārāṇām api prāpnoti .

It would (then) apply to the yamas and the anusvāra too.

na eva doṣaḥ na prayojanam .

(There is) neither a fault nor a purpose.

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

Dialectic construal (whole unit): a prayojana-inquiry — why are both 'mukha' and 'nāsikā' mentioned in the sūtra? s1–s3: mukha is needed, for 'that uttered by the nose is anunāsika' alone would over-apply to the yamas and anusvāra (pure-nose sounds); mentioning mukha removes the fault. s4–s6: nāsikā is likewise needed, else 'that uttered by the mouth is anunāsika' would over-apply to the k/c/ṭ/t/p classes (pure-mouth stops). s7 raises an objection: the mukha-mention could be dropped; s8 asks how the both-uttered sounds would then be caught; s9–s18 answer by the prāsāda-vāsi-nyāya (palace-dweller maxim): a member of the 'both' class is caught by EITHER single mention, so one mention suffices for the overlap. s19 counters that dropping mukha lets the rule over-apply to yama/anusvāra again; s20 is an elliptical closing line (see note). I read s1–s6 as the settled need for both terms and s7 onward as a probing objection that s19 answers; but the last line s20 leaves the matter compressed.
s2 'yamānusvārāṇām' — the yamas (transitional nasal sounds) and the anusvāra, produced in the nose alone. s5 'kacaṭatapānām' — the first members k, c, ṭ, t, p of the five stop-classes (here standing for the mouth-produced stops), which would wrongly be caught if only 'mouth-uttered' were said.
s13 and s14: the source reads 'bhūmivāsi-nyāyena' ('by the ground-dweller maxim/principle') where the strict parallel to s12 'prāsādavāsi-grahaṇena' ('by the ground-dweller MENTION') would be expected. I render the words as they stand (nyāya = maxim/principle) and flag the asymmetry; the argument is unaffected — palace-only caught by the palace-mention, ground-only by the ground-side, both-dwellers caught from either side.
s18 holds two sentences (as in the source): 'those with both-utterance are indeed caught by both the mukha-mention and the nāsikā-mention' + 'it may be so; for the both-uttered ones it is established (accounted for)'. 'bhavet' rendered 'it may be (granted)'.
s20 'na eva doṣaḥ na prayojanam' is elliptical: literally 'neither a fault nor a purpose'. Read against s19 it appears to weigh the yama/anusvāra consequence — that it is 'neither a (real) fault nor does (dropping mukha) serve a purpose' — but the subjects are unstated and I do not supply them. Rendered literally and flagged UNSURE.

← 1.1.8.1 1.1.8.3 →