Page:A Sanskrit Grammar.pdf/10

regard to doubtful or difficult forms, of which there are many in the grammar of the Sanskrit language, not one of them can be appealed to as an ultimate authority. Every grammar contains, as is well known, a number of forms which occur but rarely, if ever, in the literary language. It is necessary, however, for the sake of systematic completeness, to give these forms; and if they are to be given at all, they must be given on competent authority. Now it might be supposed that a mere reference to any of the numerous grammars already published would be sufficient for this purpose, and that the lists of irregular or unusual forms might safely be copied from their pages. But this is by no means the case. Even with regard to regular forms, whoever should trust implicitly in the correctness of any of the grammars, hitherto published, would never be certain of having the right form. I do not say this lightly, or without being able to produce proofs. When I began to revise my manuscript grammar which I had composed for my own use many years ago, and when on points on which I felt doubtful, I consulted other grammars, I soon discovered either that, with a strange kind of sequacity, they all repeated the same mistake, or that they varied widely from each other, without assigning any reason or authority. I need not say that the grammars which we possess differ very much in the degree of their trustworthiness; but with the exception of the first volume of Colebrooke and of Professor Bonfey's larger Sanskrit grammar, it would be impossible to appeal to any of my predecessors as an authority on doubtful points. Forster and Carey, who evidently depend almost entirely on materials supplied to them by native assistants, give frequently the most difficult forms with perfect accuracy, while they go wildly wrong immediately after, without, it would seem, any power of controlling their authorities. The frequent inaccuracies in the grammars of Wilkins and Wilson have been pointed out by others; and however useful these works may have been for practical purposes, they were never intended as authorities on contested points of Sanskrit grammar. Nothing remained in fact, in order to arrive at any satisfactory result, but to collate the whole of my grammar, with regard not only to the irregular but likewise to the regular forms, with Pâṇini and other native grammarians, and to supply for each doubtful case,