§ 330. 249 so ¹), such a rule would be in direct opposition to the constant practice of Sanskrit literature up to the Vedas. The imperfect is always and everywhere used both of past facts which are within the compass of the speaker's experience, and of those which are not. witnessed by him." This vårttika seems to be as old as Katyayana, it is expounded by Pat. II, p. 119. 1) It is not quito sure, that he has. Still, when looking closely at Panini's own words about the employment of and f and at the commentaries and disputes of his scholiasts, we may consider it a tenet of the grammarians, that is not available within the sphere set apart for From 3, 2, 116 gusanta » with and a (forsooth) E cp. 307 R. 3 may also be used within the sphere of foc, cp. s. 115, we can draw no other inference, than even this, that in any other case one would be wrong in using a . But it is possible, that this sûtra 116 did not bolong to the original work of Pânini. Indeed setting this sûtra apart, the very arrangement of the rules which treat of the suffixes and tenses of the past, would rather induce us to taught the employment of both and NE auta 123 accordingly expressive is adhikâra, the suffixes taught there are of the past." Now, from 84-110 this »past" is not specialized and comprises any past whatever. With s. 111 the first restriction makes its appearance, it is stated that the imperfect (s) is used #uª »denoting the not-actual past." From there remains adhikåra till s. 119, but s. 115 a second restriction is added to the first: the suffixes are not only expressive of the past but also q. Now the question is simply this: Has Papini meant sûtra 111 (employment of to be an exception to 110 (employment of aorist") and likewise 115 (em- ployment of fre) an exception to 111 or is each of these rules to be interpreted separately and considered by itself? According to the former acceptation, the aorist is taught to be restricted to past actions that have happened to-day, the imperfect restricted to past actions before to-day, but witnessed by the speaker; according to the latter, the aorist is ex- pressive of any past both actual and historical, and the imperfect of any historical past both witnessed and not-witnessed by the speaker. The former acceptation is that of Sanskrit grammarians up to Patanjali and the author of the vårttikas, the latter is in accordance with the practice of Sanskrit literature. T » - suppose Panini having . From 3, 2, 84 up to
