A sanskrit grammar for beginners : in Devanagari and Roman letters throughout

HANDBOUND AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO PRESST SANSKRIT GRAMMAR FOR BEGINNERS, IN ROMANDEVANAGARl AND LETTERS THROUGHOUT, BY F. MAX MtiLLER, M.A., THE FRENCHFOREIGN MEMBER OF INSTITTTTB, ETC. AND ACCENTUATED.REVISEDSECOND EDITION, LONDON: CO.ANDGREEN,LONGMANS, 1870.AND E. PICKARDE. B.T. GARDNER,- HALL,COMBE, M.A., TO TH.E UNIVERSITY.PRINTERSPREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. J.HE which is intended for ispresent grammar, chiefly beginners, believed to contain all the information that a student of Sanskrit is to want the first two or three of his likely during years reading. Rules to the of the Vedas have beenreferring language entirely for it not desirable that the difficulties of that ancientisexcluded, should be one who has not mastereddialect approached by any fully the of the Sanskrit such as it was fixed Paninigrammar ordinary by and his successors. All allusions to forms in Greek, Latin,cognate or have likewise been however inter-Gothic, because,suppressed, toand useful the advanced are tostudent, depriveesting they apt of that clear firm ofthe and thebeginner grasp grammatical system to the of ancient which alone can form aIndia,languagepeculiar foundation for the both of Sanskrit and ofsolid study Comparative Philology. The two which I have in view while com-principal objects kept this have been clearness and correctness. Withposing grammar, to chiefmodel has been the ofclearness, ;regard my grammar Bopp of If Iwith to the Colebrooke.correctness, mayregard grammar have a few of the intricacieswithout to simplifiedhope, presumption, which were but clearedof Sanskrit partially up by Bopp,grammar and I can flatter to haveFlecchia, others,Benfey, hardly myself with to the standard ofColebrooke'sreached, correctness,regard high unfinished work. I can in that itself-defence,great, though only say is far more difficult to be correct on minute ifone endea-every point, vours to as I have the materials collecteddone, Panini,re-arrange, by and into them to the current Europe,adapt grammatical system than if the of nativeone follows so as Colebrooke, systemclosely the whole of their technical termi-andgrammarians, nearlyadopts elaborated nativeThenology. system by grammariansgrammatical in most and those who have tested PninTsis, work,itself, perfect; thatwill admit that there is no in languagereadily anygrammar a 2TO THEiv PEEFACE wonderful mechanism of his books ofcould vie with the eight But unrivalled as that it is notrules. is,systemgrammatical to the wants of least of all to the wantssuited students,English of While therefore of the materialsbeginners. availing myself collected in the of P&nini and in later such as theworks,grammar the the SarasvatiSiddhnta-Kaumudi,Prakriy-Kaumudi, Prakriya, I asand the have as muchabstained, pos-Madhaviya-dhatu-vritti, of and offrom more thesible, introducing any peculiar system the of Indian than has foundgrammarians* alreadyterminology admittance into our Sanskrit I have ;grammars nay, frequently the observations to handrejected grammatical supplied ready in their in order not to overwhelm the of theworks, memory student with too rules and too Whethermany many exceptions. whatI have been successful in a line betweenalways drawing is essential in Sanskrit and what is I must leavenot,grammar to ofthe of those who the fortune beingjudgment enjoy good in the of a the studentsengaged practical teaching language of which be counted no but hundredstens, f.may longer by by I ruleswish it to be understood that where I have left outonly * The few alterations that I have made in the usual have been madeterminology with a view of the work of the learner. Thus instead ofsolely facilitating numbering the ten classes of I have called each its first verb. This relieves theverbs, by memory of much as the name indicates the character of each classunnecessary trouble, very ; and the names at first sound somewhat are after all thethough may uncouth, they only names native from as an examiner,recognized by grammarians. Knowing my experience how difficult it is to rememberthe numerical distinction between the first, second,merely or third or the first and second I have as much as to thepreterites, futures, kept possible with which classical scholars are the tense toterminology familiar, correspondingcalling the Greek that to theImperfect, Imperfect; corresponding Perfect, Reduplicated Perfect; that to andthe the mood to theAorist, Aorist;corresponding corresponding Optative, The names of Perfect and Future tell their ownOptative. Periphrastic Periphrastic and if I have retained the numerical distinction between the First andstory; merely Second it was thisbecause distinction seemed to be more to aAorists, intelligible classical scholar than the six or seven forms of the so-called multiform Preterite. If it were to make a in the established I shouldpossible change grammatical nomenclature, much to call the and FirstFirst the the Second the the formerprefer Second, Aorist; a and latter a and tense. But Firstthebeing secondary simplecompound, primary and Second Aorists have become almost and will not theirproper names, easily yield to mereplace argument. t In the of as as attendalone, pupils every yearUniversity Leipzig many fifty the classes of Professor Brockhaus in order to a of the elements ofacquire knowledge to the of under Professor Curtius.Sanskrit, previous study Comparative Philology