The Valid Forms in “Bhisa”

This article examines the seven rules in Panini’s Astadbyayi that restrict grammatical forms to the domain of "bhasa," a term the author argues does not denote a distinct, common spoken language separate from Vedic Sanskrit. Instead, the author contends that bhasa represents a syncretic linguistic framework that absorbs both the formal structures of Vedic chandas and elements of later spoken language, with Panini isolating Vedic forms only where specific archaic features required special grammatical treatment. The author challenges the interpretation of Franke, who posited that Panini’s bhasa marked a departure from Vedic Sanskrit, by demonstrating that the linguistic forms discussed in these seven rules are not distinctively non-Vedic. Evidence from later grammatical texts, such as the Katantra of Candragomin and the Mahabhasya, shows that the distinction between bhasa and chandas was often blurred, with later grammarians frequently granting indiscriminate validity (avifesena) to forms originally restricted to either domain. The author notes that while the term "bhasa" might suggest spoken or profane language, it is more accurately understood as the oral or exegetic prose of the Brahmanas, distinct from the sung or chanted portions of the Vedas. The article concludes that Panini’s grammar was designed to accommodate a unified linguistic system, and the mention of bhasa in these specific rules serves as a technical device to demarcate the boundaries of Vedic license rather than to establish a separate linguistic category. The author also discusses how later commentators and texts, including the Kasika and the Nyasa, further complicated or simplified these distinctions over time.

AI-generated summary, automatically checked against the article text.