156 § 216. As little, so we learn from Panini's commentators ¹) an objective genitive in such cases, as far af, here it is not allowed to say ga: , since both the subject and the object of the action conveyed by the noun : are expressed, for nothing impedes using the compound, if the agent is not expressed. 2). I) See Kaç. on P. 2, 2, 14; Pat. I, p. 415, vårtt. 6. Pat. himself rejects the interpretation given there. 2) The shashthisamása is treated by Pânini in the second adhyâya of bis 2d book (2, 2, 8-17), some statements are also scattered in the third book, see f. i. 3, 3, 116, Additions ad corrections on them are of course made in the commentaries. But now and then the cavillations of the commentators have rather obscured the good understanding of some rules. So the Kaçika is wrong loosening sutra 2, 2, 14 from its adhikara and interpreting this rule - as if it taught something con- cerning the objective genitive. Now, as the sûitra could in no way be explained so as to contain a prohibition of compounding any objective genitive whatever, as such compounds are very common indeed, the Kâçikâ was obliged to add a clause of its D E na ugan za zury, which statement certainly will be correct by itself, but not the smallest trace of which is to be found in Pâpini. In fact, Pâpini has here not thought of an objective genitive. When reading the sûtras 12, 13, 14 at a stretch and without prejudice, one sees plainly that for of 14 qua- lifies of 12. Sûtra 14 prohibits compounding a genitive + a participle in with passive meaning. It is not allowed to Bay defny instead of f(shown to him), whereas Papini allows it, when representing af (shown by him), cp. 2, 1, 32. The following sutras 15 and 16 at afford di dia a fair sample of absurd hairsplitting. In s. 15 Panini had given a rule about the words in and when denoting the agent; with them a genitive cannot be compounded, save the few instances mentioned 2, 2, 9. Accordingly it is prohibited by Papini to say af instead of a (bearer of the thunderbolt) or ; instead of who cooks rice). But some schoolmaster, who commented on our great grammarian, discovered Panini to have omitted some kind of words in f grach (one ch, which though not-denoting the agent are like wise forbidden to be compounded with a preceding genitive, as ad: M (your lying down) ep. P. 3, 3, 111. In order to make our sûtra comprise even them, - -
