Page:Systems-of-Sanskrit-Grammar-SK Belvalkar.pdf/13

 [255 Predecessors of Vaska 3

mean not the Pratidakhyas in their present form—which are post-Paniniya and pre-suppose much of his termino- logy—but in some earlier form, and under whatever other -hames they may have been then known.’ The contribu- tions which these prototypes of our present Pratitakhyas made to the science of grammar can now, in the absence of any really representative works of that class, be merely guessed at. Ifthe nature and contents of our existing Pratisakhya literature can safely be made the basis of any inference, we may suppose that these earlier treatises r. classified the Vedic texts into the four forms of speech known to Yaska ; 2. framed and carefully de- fined some of the primitive* safijnas or technical terms ; and 3. possibly also made some more or less crude at- terapts to reduce the words to their elements and explain the mode of their grammatical formation. The really creative period of this science is just this. Had there been for this period any works extant, they would have shown us Yaska in the making, as Yaska himself, to some extent, shows us Panini in the making. It is a great pity, therefore, that the period should be all blank to us. Since, however, these tentative sallies of the earlier authors were not probably definite enough to constitute a system, and since we have here to treat of systems of Sanskrit grammar, we must next pass on to Yaska*, who, although a philologist and not a gramma- rian as such, can for our purpose be regarded as forming the link between the primitive Pratidakhya type of spe-

1 Goldstticker, Panini: hie place Burnell! would call these the in Sanskrit literature, pp. 183 terms of the Aindra Schoo! of

and ff, ; Reprint of the same Grammarians.

by Panini office, pp. 141endf®. 8 Yaska calls his own work a 2 Primitive: those namely that complement to grammer:

Panini pre-supposes and uses STEReT Ht

ont explaining them. Dr, �