Page:Sanskrit syntax (IA cu31924023201183).pdf/264

 248 § 330. feet when expressive of an action the speaker has wit- nessed himself. Good authors, accordingly, avoid using the perfect tense, if the facts narrated have been witnessed by the speaker. The Daçakumâracarita abounds in stories of adventures, told by the very persons who have experienced them; all past tenses are employed promiscuously, only perfects are wanting. But, in the same work, if the author himself is speaking, or if any of his heroes is relating a fable of olden times, the perfects make their appearance side by side with the other past tenses ¹). The same observation may be made with respect to the Kathâsaritsâgara ²). Yet, from this one must not infer, that on the other hand the imperfect is restricted to the relation of past facts witnessed by the speaker ³). Even, if Pânini had taught 1) So there is not a single perfect in the whole story of Apahara- varma, as he relates his own adventures; for the same reason perfecta are wanting in the stories of other princes. The sixth ucchvâsa, Mitra- guptacaritam, has no perfects, while Mitragupta tells all what has hap- pened to himself, but as soon as he is narrating to the giant the four little tales of Dhûmini etc., perfects abound. 2) Exceptions may, however, occasionally be found. Daç. 110 and 111 prince Upaharavarma, when relating his own adventures, says twicenta, while speaking of a woman, who wept beforc his eyes. E. 3, 67, 20 the vulture Jatayu informs Râma, how Râvana na aycan faer- trade, uses the perfect, while relating, that each woodcutter gave him two pieces of wood, as he presented them with a fresh draught. Likewise Nagan. V, p. 77 qu instead of the aor. of a fall, which the speaker has seen on the same day and with his own eyes. But, I repeat, such deviations are upon the whole very rare, at least in good authors. 3) The term for the sphere of the perfect, is a point of dispute with the commentators. It is asked, what kind of actions may be said to fall under this category, and as the term, when strictly interpreted, signifies beyond the reach of the eye," it has been deemed necessary to give an additional rule in express terms, that » well-known facts fall- ing within the speaker's sphere of observation are to be put in the imperfect not in the perfect even if they have in fact not been » - 1
 * ч. Kathâs. 6, 43 the clever merchant, who has made his fortune by