Yaskas Classification Of Nipatas

Here's a comprehensive summary of Johannes Bronkhorst's article "Yāska's Classification Of Nipātas," based on the provided text:

The article critically examines Yāska's classification of nipātas (particles) as presented in sections 1.4-11 of his Nirukta. Bronkhorst argues that the traditional interpretation, which posits a three-fold classification of particles, is incorrect. Instead, he proposes that Yāska intended a four-fold classification, and further divides these into meaningful and meaningless categories.

Key Points and Bronkhorst's Argument:

• Incompleteness of Yāska's Treatment: Bronkhorst begins by noting that Yāska's discussion of nipātas is not exhaustive. Several common particles like tu are omitted, and even the particles discussed are not always given all their meanings as found elsewhere in the Nirukta. This suggests that the treatment is more about illustrating a classificatory system than providing a comprehensive list of all particles and their uses.

• The Three Traditional Headings: Bronkhorst identifies the three headings that traditionally inform the classification:

  1. Particles for Comparison (Upamārtha): Introduced by "teṣām ete catvāra upamārthe bhavanti" (Nir. 1.4). These are iva, na, cit, and nu. They are clearly defined and illustrated as having a comparative sense, with Yāska explicitly reminding the reader of this function.
  2. Particles of Karmopasangraha: Introduced by "atha yasyāgamād arthaprthaktvam aha vijñāyate na tv auddesikam iva vigrahena pļ thaktvāt sa karmopasangrahaḥ" (Nir. 1.4). This heading is problematic and lacks a clear, unified meaning for the particles listed under it.
  3. Expletives (Padapūraņa): Introduced by "atha ye prav!tte'rthe'mitāk sareşu grantheşu vāk yapūraņā ägacchanti padapūraņās te mitākşareșy anarthakāh" (Nir. 1.9). These are kam, im, it, u, and iva. Yāska explicitly states that expletives carry no meaning.

• The Problematic Second Heading (Karmopasangraha): Bronkhorst highlights the difficulties with the karmopasangraha category.

  • Lack of a Common Meaning: The particles placed under this heading (ca, ā, vā, aha, ha, u, hi, kila, mā, khalu, śāśvat, nūnam, sim) exhibit a wide variety of meanings, with no single shared semantic function.
  • Ambiguous Definition: The definition itself, "yasyāgamād arthaprthaktvam aha vijñāyate" (where by the use of [it] separateness of meaning is understood), is unclear. Bronkhorst interprets this as indicating the separateness of items, which requires at least two items to be distinguished.
  • Particles like ca, ā, vā: These particles are well-illustrated as bringing together distinct items (samuccaya or Aggregation), fitting the "separateness of items" idea.
  • Particles like aha, ha, u: These are described as expressing "mutual opposition" (vinigraha), also fitting the concept of distinguishing items.
  • Particles like hi to sim: Bronkhorst argues that particles from hi to sim (including kila, mā, khalu, śāśvat, nūnam, sim) do not fit the karmopasangraha definition because their examples do not demonstrate the separation of items. This leads him to reject the idea that these particles were treated incidentally.

• Proposing a Four-Fold Classification: Based on the issues with the karmopasangraha category, Bronkhorst suggests Yāska actually intended a four-fold classification:

  1. Upamā (Comparison): Particles meaning "comparison."
  2. Karmopasangraha: Particles that join or distinguish items.
  3. Various Meanings (Anekārtha): Particles with diverse meanings that don't fit neatly into the first two categories. This is a new category not explicitly present in the traditional three.
  4. Padapūraņa (Expletives): Meaningless particles.

• Meaningful vs. Meaningless Particles: This four-fold scheme can be further divided into particles with meaning and particles without meaning (expletives).

• Evidence from the Introductory Sentence: Bronkhorst reinterprets the introductory sentence "atha nipātā uccāvaceșy artheșu nipatanti / apy upamārhte / api karmopasamgrahārthe / api pādapūraņāḥ" (Nir. 1.4). He argues against the common interpretation (where the first half is a general statement and the second half specifies three meanings) and proposes that the sentence itself presents the four classes:

  1. Particles in various senses.
  2. Particles also in the sense of comparison.
  3. Particles also in the sense of karmopasangraha.
  4. Particles also as expletives. He finds support for this interpretation in the Bṛhad-Devatā, which seems to reflect a similar understanding of Yāska's classification.

• Placement of "Various Meanings": Bronkhorst explains why "various meanings" is mentioned first in the introduction but classified third. The primary characteristic of particles is their variety of meanings, even if some fall into more specific categories later. Placing "various meanings" first acknowledges this broad characteristic, and then the specific categories (upamā, karmopasangraha) are detailed. He notes that particles in the "various meanings" category (A3) could also be expletives but are not listed in B to avoid repetition and maintain the distinctness of the meaningful categories.

• Treatment of Irregularities: Bronkhorst addresses specific words that appear to deviate from his scheme:

  • Tva: Although it has a meaning fitting karmopasangraha (vinigraha), it appears at the end of the meaningful categories. Bronkhorst argues that tva is not a particle but a pronoun (sarvanāman), wrongly categorized by some.
  • Net and Na Cet: These are complex forms (na + cet) and are placed after the expletives. Bronkhorst attributes this to their being combinations of particles, discussed by Yāska after the single particles.

• Conclusion: Bronkhorst concludes that Yāska's Nirukta presents a four-fold classification of particles:

  1. Upamā (Comparison)
  2. Karmopasangraha (joining/separating items)
  3. Various Meanings (particles with diverse meanings not fitting neatly into the other categories)
  4. Padapūraņa (Expletives/meaningless) The first three are meaningful, while the fourth is meaningless. This revised understanding clarifies the structure and intent of Yāska's analysis of particles.

In essence, Bronkhorst's article argues for a more nuanced understanding of Yāska's classification of nipātas, moving beyond the traditional three-fold division to a more accurate four-fold system, and reinterpreting the introductory remarks to support this claim.