263 
1883.] Rajendralala Mitra —On Gonikdputra and Gonardiya. 
dant. He then adds, “ but Gonardiya says, ‘ it is true when there are others,' * 
( Gonardiyas tvaha satyam etat sati tvanyasminniti), i. <?., the rule is necessary 
because the terms initial and final are not applicable without the presence 
of other letters. Kaiyata paraphrases the first part of this passage by the 
words bhashyakaras tvaha —“ but the Bhashyakara says.” 
Nagoji Bhatta, who comments on the gloss of Kaiyata, says on this 
passage, “ he (Kaiyata) now explains the word Gonardiya ; it is the Bha- 
sli 3 r akara,” (Gonardiyapadam vyachashte, bhashyakara iti ). These expla¬ 
nations, however, do not meet the requirements of the case. The saying 
of Gonardiya is so brief and obscure that I cannot flatter myself with the 
idea that I have understood it correctly ; but as it stands following the 
disjunctive particle tu “ but,” it means something distinct from what the 
vartika quoted lays down, and Gonardiya to all appearance seems to be dis¬ 
tinct from Patanjali. Patanjali quotes a vartika in support of his opinion, 
and cannot be expected to set it aside by appearing himself under the name 
of Gonardiya, though he may well cite the opinion of a predecessor who 
differed from him and that without any remark. 
The second citation occurs in the comment on Sutra I, 1, 29. The 
rule lays down that the words included in the class sarva &c., should not 
be 1 ‘eckoned as sarvanamas if they form a part of a bahuvrihi compound. 
Commenting on this, Patanjali shows that the rule is necessary, and its 
object cannot be subserved by reference to those rules by which the sarva- 
namas are made to be the first member of a compound. Besides, there 
is a rule which enjoins the use of the affix akacli after sarvanamas ; and if the 
present rule be reckoned redundant, the use of that affix would be justified 
in the case of bahuvrihi compounds with sarvanamas instead of ka, and the 
result would be that in the case of the words asmat and yushmat followed 
by pitri, the use of the affix akach would be justified, and the words produced 
would be makatpitrika and tvakatpitrika, whereas the forms desiderated 
(ishyate and proper) are matkapitrika and tvatkapitrilca. Discussing then a 
question about the effect of rules regarding subsidiaries on those regarding 
essentials (of Kielhorn’s Paribhashendu-sekhara, pp. 221f.) the commentator 
decides that the rule is necessary. He then adds—“ But Gonardiya says, 
the affix akach and the accent on the first vowel* should be adopted 
without any hesitation in either member of the compounds, and the forms 
should certainly be tvakatpitrika and makatpitrika ."f 
* The TJddtta change in the vowel is enjoined in the Phit sutras, Svangasitamadan - 
tamam &c., and S'it sarvanama. 
f *T ^35 ttf T 11 ^ I \ I 11 
