Page:Sanskrit syntax (IA cu31924023201183).pdf/98

82 § 109-110. Gene- case is to mark the belonging to, partaking of. In San- ral view skrit, it is employed in so manifold and so different ways of the tive. geni as to make it very difficult to give a satisfactory ac- count of all of them ¹). The absolute genitive will be treated in the chapter on participles. 110. I. With substantives, the genitive serves to qua- Its em- ploy lify them, as : : (the king's man), DAN: ment with fatert (the self-choice of Dam.), (the ene- sub- stanti- my's strength), (the friend's arrival), FEB. Hysł M¶¶¶ (the drying up the ocean), kalede: (a part of the sacrifice), (the opportunity of fighting). These examples show 1st that the genitive, at least in prose, commonly precedes the substantive, it is depending upon, 2ly that, like in Latin and Greek, - - 1) Kaç. on P. 1, 1, 49 al f gaaf: akalkanıpantvanelacıkT- CECILIA Pânini seems to have not sharply defined the genitive's sphere of employment, at least if we explain his sûtra (2, 3, 50) with Now, Patanjali aail : the Kâç, as meaning in all other instances [namely if none of the other cases, taught 2, 3, 1-49, be available], one should use the sixth case." But then it is strange, P. has not said inversolya (cp. bis con- stant use 1, 4, 7; 1, 4, 108; 2, 2, 23; 3, 3, 151, 7, 2, 90). gives a somewhat different explication (I, p. 463) »the sixth case is required, if the categories object and the rest are not to be distinctly expressed" but tacitly implied. I am rather inclined to suppose, that either in framing that sûtra Pàgini had iu view his de- finition of the employment of the nominative, which immediately pre- cedes; then would be said in opposition to the quan...... mà of s. 46 (note on 38) and mean »something clse, apart from the gender and number of the conception, signified by the prâtipadika", or anot may mean accessory" (see Petr. Dict. s. v. 1, b); then the sutra enjoins the use of the genitive if the conception, signified by the prâtipadika, is accessory of some other conception. But, which of these acceptations should prove the correct one, the intrusion of the term in the follow- ing sûtras (51, etc), as is done by Kaç, and others, is to be blamed. -