^{page 73 note 2} I. 1.

^{page 73 note 3} This is merely a stop-gap translation of bhāva, to avoid the usual rendering as “becoming”, which is insufficient by itself, since one of the six modes of bhāva is asti; for the same reason “being” is inadequate as a translation of sattva.

^{page 73 note 4} The Nighaṇṭu and the Nirukta. English Translation and Notes, by Sarup, Lakshman. Oxford, 1921, p. 6.Google Scholar

^{page 73 note 5} Ibid., p. 204.

^{page 73 note 6} Ibid., p. 207.

^{page 74 note 1} Liebich, B., “Über den Sphota,” ZDMG., n.f. 2 (77), 1923, p. 211.Google Scholar

^{page 74 note 2} Who? Audumbarāyana?

^{page 74 note 3} Strauss, Otto, “Altindische Spekulationen über die Sprache und ihre Probleme,” ZDMO., n.f. 6 (81), 1927, pp. 111–13.Google Scholar

^{page 74 note 4} The usual Sanskrit expression for this, however, is kanthastha.

^{page 74 note 5} This is an impossible reading, in spite of the fact that Durga gives it as an alternative interpretation (though not in Strauss's sense). One of the difficulties of linguistic theory, as is constantly stated by the ancient Indian grammarians, is that speech-sounds and words are serial—that they are not yugapat. It is inconceivable that a Sanskrit grammarian could have talked of words as yugapad-utpanna.

^{page 75 note 1} Curiously enough, this passage was known to Dr. Sarup, who quotes from it in his additional notes at the end of his edition of the Nirukta (University of the Punjab, 1927). It did not, however, induce him to suggest a modification of his translation published six years earlier.

^{page 75 note 2} Thus the India Office Malayalam manuscript; the Benares edition and the India Office Nāgarī manuscript both have vibhakto 'sya.

^{page 76 note 1} Punyarāja, buddhau = pratipattrbuddhau.

^{page 76 note 2} It seldom, does mean this, although it is frequently so translated. In most contexts “sense-faculty” is a better rendering.

^{page 76 note 3} Durga, in fact, glosses vacana by vākya, though he misses the general sense of the passage.

^{page 77 note 1} Possibly this refers to the grammatical relationship between words in the same sentence, as Durga takes it, but more probably, as Strauss suggested, to words derived one from the other in etymological discussions.

^{page 77 note 2} The relationship between word and meaning (śabdārthasambandha), rather than the connexion between stem and suffix, prefix and root as understood by Durga.

^{page 77 note 3} Or possibly “subtlety”, words forming so to speak extremely delicate tools with which to map out the world.

^{page 77 note 4} Śabda in this discussion is equivalent to pada.