1

Maria Piera Candotti (University of Lausanne) - Tiziana Pontillo (University of Cagliari)

Pāṇini’s zero morphs as allomorphs in the complexity of linguistic context*

0. Introduction

Morphological studies have, for a very long time, identified a series of linguistic facts in different world

languages, all sharing a common feature, i.e. the homonymy perceived between two linguistic forms in

presence of a perceived semantic similarity and difference between them.1 To use a definition given by

Whitney long ago (1875: 214), all the linguistic facts we shall tackle in our discussion are characterised by

the "absence of an otherwise necessary sign".

There are many examples collected in available modern studies and others can be found. Focusing only

on strictly morphological ones,2 they can be divided, following a suggestion coming from Mel’čuk 2001, into

two major groups:

1. Absence of segmental signs, most commonly of suffixes, 3 be them derivational or

inflectional.

eng. cheat (vb.) alternating with cheat (noun)4 as opposed to pairs such as buy (vb.)/ buyer

(noun); engl sheep (sing) alternating with sheep (pl.)5 as opposed to pairs such as dog / dogs; ai.

sarit- ‘river’ (base in compound) alternating with sarit (nom. sing.) as opposed to such pairs as

puruṣa- ‘man’ (base in compound) and puruṣas (nom. sing.)

2. Absence of operational signs. Attention has been addressed to this kind of absences only

recently. Operations such as reduplication, apophony, conversion, are considered as zero when

their output is identical to their input.

eng. cut (present) alternating with cut (past)6 as opposed to pairs such as drink/drank; ai. deva

‘god’ (noun) alternating with deva or daiva ‘divine’.

* This paper is the result of a joint work entirely discussed and shared by both authors. However, Maria Piera Candotti is

responsible for §§ 0; 2; 4 and Tiziana Pontillo for §§ 1; 3. All translations are the authors’. 1 This to eliminate from the beginning, cases of unrelated or casual homonymy such as bark (noun denoting “the sharp explosive

cry of certain animals, esp. a dog” and verb “to emit a bark”) and bark (noun “protective outer sheath of the trunk”). 2 That is, excluding cases of non morphological zeroes, i.e. the zero of word forms or lexemes (syntactic zeroes) such as the well

known case of the present indicative 3rd singular copula in Russian and purely phonological zeroes, i.e. zeroes of phones in purely phonetic contexts.

3 Zeroes of lexical bases are rare in all languages. As Mel'čuk (2001: 4) points out, bases "are meant to designate a huge number of poorly organized signifieds (= lexical meanings), and it is difficult to use an absence to signify something if there is no fixed position in which a limited number of elements is supposed to appear, so that this absence could readily contrast with one of few "presences".'

4 Example taken from Kastovsky 1969: 8. 5 This example is emphasized e.g. by Bloomfield (1933: 209). 6 Example of “zero-alternant”, “zero-feature” or “zero-element” in Bloomfield 1933: 215; 218; 239.

2

Ever since Saussure in the notes of his Cours de Linguistique Générale, the crucial feature of the above

examples has been interpreted as that of showing how a language system, just as it is a system, does not

invariably need a signifier to convey a signified or to perform a function:

“On voit donc qu'un signe matériel n'est pas nécessaire pour exprimer une idée; la langue peut

se contenter de l'opposition de quelque chose avec rien.” (Saussure, CLG, p. 123).

It is the whole system, as we have already seen, that makes those absences of distinctive features

significant and functional from the morphological and semantic point of view: e.g. the absence of the plural

segmental sign s in sheep is “created” by all the many occurrences of dogs, cats, cows and so on.7 These

absences may cover a range of morphological functions:

1. Transcategorisation.

eng. cheat (vb.) alternating with cheat (noun); other less prototypical forms may involve a shift in

accent, see ai. kṛṣṇáḥ ‘black’ (adj.) alternating with ḳŕṣṇaḥ ‘black antelope’ (noun) and all the

bahuvrīhi forms alternating with a tatpuruṣa: rājaputráḥ ‘son of a king/of kings (noun) alternating

with rājájaputraḥ “one who has a son of a king as his son / one who has sons of kings as his

sons” (adj.)

2. Derivation. This is certainly the most questioned function, and whose borders are fuzzier, both as

regards the preceeding point and with broader rhetorical facts.8

ai. cañcā ‘puppet’ (noun) alternating with cañcā (adj.) litt. ‘similar to a puppet’ > ‘dummy’ (as a

nickname); magadhāḥ (pl.) ‘the Magadhas’ (etnonym) alternating with magadhāḥ (pl.) ‘The (country

of) Magadhas’ (coronym); it. arancio ‘orange tree’ alternating with arancio ‘orange’9 as opposed to

pairs such as melo ‘apple tree’ / mela ‘apple’.

3. Inflection.

eng. sheep (sing.) alternating with sheep, (pl.) discussed above, ai. abibhar (aorist) ‘you brought’

alternating with abibhar ‘he brought’ as opposed to such couples such as abhūs (aorist) ‘you were’ /

abhūt ‘he was.

Without doubt these homonymies hint at some powerful linguistic device to create meaning without the

need of explicit linguistic features. One major problem is on the other hand to establish the specific

grammatical borders of this phenomenon in order to identify what can be specifically ascribed to a

morphological domain. In other words the tool can prove to be even too strong, as Nida had already

7 Saussure's position is in fact different. As it is clear from the examples he proposes immediately following the above quoted

statement, he is thinking of a kind of “paradigmatic” opposition, such as the one between cz. žena ‘woman’ (nom. sing.) ženy ‘women’ (nom. pl.), žen ‘of women’ (< asl. ženu ).

8 Melčuk, among others, negates the possibility of zero inflectional suffixes. We shall come back to this later. 9 Nevertehelss the standard form is arancia.

3

highlighted in 1948, and leads to an uncontrollable proliferation of unexpressed differences for any tiny

shade of meaning.

Some restrictions have thus been established, and a preliminary version of these can be taken from the

classical work of Haas 1957, stipulating that, in order to consider two homonyms as morphologically related,

it is necessary that they both:

• contrast with an overt form: e.g. sheep/ sheep contrasts with dog/ dogs. It is thus not possible to

posit an homonym to account for any different shade of meaning of a word;

• alternate with an overt form (cheat noun vs cheat vb.)10. It is thus not possible to suppose an

unexpressed difference in fr. père just because it contrasts with beau-père.11

Saporta (1964) adds a further condition to this pair:

• that the overt form with which it is contrasted is productive. Otherwise, in the presence of the eng.

couple datum/ data where the sing. is morphologically expressed, it would be necessary to posit an

unexpressed difference in the singular dog (dog/ dogs).

Of course this way of establishing the restrictions is heavily influenced by a structuralist background, but

in more recent times other formulations have also been proposed, which nevertheless greatly cover the

same range of phenomena. Mel’čuk (2001: 2), for example, prefers speaking in terms of expressiveness,

exclusiveness and contrastiveness, describing these three principles in the following way:

"A zero sign must always do a clearly circumscribed job (= express some content really present in

the utterance, i.e. carry an information payload); it must do it in the absence of contenders (=be

exclusive on the job; i.e. the very last resort of our description); and it must be opposed to12 a non

zero sign (= distinguish two utterances, i.e. participate in a semantic contrast)".

Both sets of principles put contrastiveness at the core of the description but they differ inasmuch as the

structuralist set puts the accent on the system (the presence of a competitive morphological means

elsewhere and productivity of that means) while Mel’čuk focuses on the specific function to be fullfilled by the

zero segment/ operation that must be, at the same time, necessary and morphologically totally absent.13

10 Cheat vb. is an overt form inasmuch as the relationship between its semantic and morphological structure is univocal. 11 This example, based on a purely privative opposition between something and nothing, in accordance with the broad zero-

postulation proposed by Frei 1950, was already refused by Godel 1953: 35-7, because zero does not serve any recognizable semantic function: it had rather to be interpreted in terms of markedness. Godel thus suggested that zero should only be admitted if it could be based on a proportional opposition such as this: cat : cat-s = sheep : sheep-Ø.

12 This is what we have previously called alternate. 13 Even though he does not state clearly how one is supposed recognise that a given unexpressed morph or operation is doing “a

clearly circumscribed job” in absence of a comparison with overt morphological formations doing the same job. How can I demonstrate that the meaning nuance of naughty in some occurrences such as you naughty boy! is not morphological?

4

1. A brief sketch of relevant modern studies

Till now we have tried to describe the relevant facts without taking position, as far as possible, when it

comes to the theoretical ways to account for them, even though even a common expression such as

“absence of a distinctive feature” is of course full of implications. Modern studies, beginning with the first

linguistic occurrence of the term “zéro” in a morphological context, dating back to Saussure 1878: 182 (=

1879: 194), where the Indo-European vocative ending of the oxytonic nominal bases in a1 (e) is put in

comparison with the nominative ending -s, accusative -m and locative -i, seem to naturally stem from the

structural approach to the morphological analysis of the language. 14 With the distinction of the two

components of “sign”, i.e. "signified" and "signifier" and the later consistent rise of the biplanar definition of

morphemes15, the synchronical treatment of linguistic facts such as inflection and derivation led linguists to

arrange the whole semiotic system as a collection of units that stand in opposition. It forced them to notice

cases where a sub-unit of a linguistic form denotes a given meaning which is also denoted in an analogous

linguistic form but without the help of the same sub-unit. From Meillet 1903: 116-18 onward the term “zero” is

thus often employed in the description of root nouns, where e.g. the meaning of agency of a gr. noun (thḗr

‘beast of prey’) is conveyed by zero instead of by the current suffix -tor/tēr:

“[...] il n’y a pas de racine nue: il y a seulement des thémes qui sont caractérisés par l’absence de

suffixe, ou autrement dit par le suffixe zéro: tel est le cas de thḗr. Le nominative est une forme à suffixe

et à désinence zéro.”

Zero is therefore postulated for illustrating a sort of exception as far as both the flectional mark and the

derivative suffix are concerned. But a really prominent place was gained by the so-called “zero-alternants” in

the age of post-Bloomfieldian American structuralism, after Bloomfield (1933: 209) himself had put the zero-

element of the English plural form sheep, side by side near to the ordinary English plural suffix -s (in its three

common shapes of [-iz] glasses [-z] cards and [-s] books) and near to the “phonetic modification of the

vowel” of the stem in the pair of sing. : pl. = man : men.

“In other cases there is not even a grammatical feature: a single phonetic form, in the manner of

homonymy, represents two meanings which are usually distinguished by means of a linguistic form, as,

singular and plural noun in the sheep (grazes) : the sheep (graze).”

From a more general point of view, Bloomfield limited himself to single out the specific relation which

connects a morpheme with its “phonetic alternant” (1933: 214-6), so that he did not yet employed the phrase

14 Another quite early Saussure passage on the zero-concept in linguistics, precisely regarding the description of the genitive

absolute, is included in the Mss. of Harvard, in some notes dating back to the author’s stay in Germany (1876-1880): see Parret 1994: 94 ss. On the other hand, the often quoted CLG (p. 255) expression “thème à suffixe zéro” referring to root nouns, such as gr. phlóx “flame” does not actually occur in the relevant Cahiers of Riedlinger (Komatsu-Wolf 1996), but rather only in (p. 10 of the ms. B,) the Course entitled “Étymologie grecque et latine” of 1911-1912. Nonetheless the relevant passage pertained to the first academic course (1906-1907) but (as suggested by Collinder 1962-8: 15) might have targeted the description of a grammarian’s point of view as being a different reality from that of a speaker, and not a newly sponsored method of linguistic analysis (Cf. Pontillo 2002: 565-67).

15 For the earliest neatly biplanar definitions of morpheme, see e.g. Harris 1942: 169; Nida 1946: 1; Hockett 1958: 123.

5

“zero morph”. Indeed this prevailed in the immediately following period, when the well arranged system

relying on the terminological series “morpheme-morph-allomorph” was realised by scholars such as Harris

(1942: 170f.: “morpheme alternant”), Hockett (1947: 322: “morph”) and Nida (1946: 6ff.: “allomorph”). As a

consequence, the zero identified e.g. in the plural form sheep, started being called as a zero morph of

morpheme s.

The opposition and analogy of linguistic forms continue to be the basis on which the zero morphs rely,

when they are assumed in the description of several languages in many different contributions, such as

Jakobson 1939, with regard to some Russian nominal paradigms, or Sapir-Swadesh 1946, for some verbal

forms used by some American Indian languages (Navaho, Yana and Nootka), but from a less enthusiastic

and more methodologically oriented point of view, as the following presentation of the same “oppositional”

model of zero by Anderson 1992: 265 shows:

“Pretheoretically, at least, such ‘zero’ elements are simply a way of designating a class of cases in

which the formal composition of a word does not match its relevant morphosyntactic content. In

occasional cases it is possible to develop arguments that ‘zero’ is a specific element of morphological

expression, but in general specific motivation is lacking, and Øs are posited simply because a relevant

category is not overtly reflected in words.” 16

In fact, in the meanwhile, the strict conditions surveyed above had been officially fixed in order to avoid

that the postulation of zero being unfruitfully proliferated and furthermore, some alternative description

models for the same linguistic phenomena had been advanced.

The most popular among these, even though almost restricted to the analysis of the English morphology,

consists in a proposal for treating the derivations otherwise involving a zero suffix as a specific “conversion”

(germ. Konversion/ Funktionverschiebung)17 from a grammatical class or function to another, such as the

classical English example of the word form cut, which from being used as a verb (to cut) can switch to

denote a nomen rei actae, i.e. “a cut”. As registered by Bauer-Valera 2005: 8, “conversion is usually defined

as a derivational process linking lexemes of the same form but belonging to different word-classes”.18 The

main typologies of English conversion processes are the following: 1. from a verb to a noun, as it has been

just exemplified; 2. from a noun to a verb (ex. father > to father); 3. from an adjective to a verb (ex. dry > to

dry); 4. from a particle to a verb (ex. out > to out); 5. from an adjective to a noun (ex. bitter > a bitter).19 Of

course this kind of analysis leads to the underestimation of the common distinction between several word-

classes, which is considered perhaps more superficial than the lexeme itself. In other words an almost

abstract lexical meaning is supposed to be rooted more deeply in the morpheme than its functional and

grammatical (derivative or inflectional) status, so that the types of common linguistic facts listed above are

16 Already Harris 1951: 334 considered this procedure “never unavoidable” 17 The term was coined in 1891 for the English Grammar - see Bauer-Varela 2005: 7. 18 An extreme consequence of this reading of such a linguistic phenomenon is advanced by Lieber (1981), who considers the so-

called “conversion” as something which is outside morphology, namely a mere lexical relisting. 19 Cf. Pavesi 1994: 61-62.

6

interpreted as genuinely lexical derivational processes, likely comparable to rhetoric devices such as tropes.

As argued by Clark-Clark 1979: 802 such an, otherwise scarcely iconic, kind of word formation,20 performs

very well under the parameters of precision, vividness and surprise, which make it especially fit for the

technical codes (see e.g. to xerox, to telephone, to paperclip). These advantages, of course, have to be

counterbalanced by the observance of some specific pre-emption principles, which for the repertory of

English denominal verbs had been recognized by Clark - Clark 1979: 798-801, i.e.

1. synonymy (the formation of the verb **to hospital is blocked by the existence of the synonymous

suffixal verb to hospitalize);

2. suppletion (the past tense of the denominal verbs **to car and **to airplane is blocked by resorting to

the more current verbs to drive and to fly);

3. entrenchement (the idiomatic verb to imprison blocks the formation of the denominal verb **to

prison);

4. ancestry (a denominal verb **to baker derived from the noun baker cannot be formed because this

latter one is derived in turn from the verb to bake);

5. homonymy (the denominal verbs to winter, to summer, to autumn are used but not **to spring and

**to fall respectively from the nouns of season spring and fall because of the existence of the

homophone verbs to spring, to fall).

Which, when all is said and done, leaves us with five lexical restrictions instead of three morphological

ones.

Of course, the model of conversion can be profitably applied in order to account for these kinds of

homonymies when it deals with languages with a neat demarcation between inflection and derivation, i.e.

where the majority of formal exponents of morphological categories are lost, due to the so-called “phonetic

erosion” and a clear shift from root-based to word-based inflectional morphology is realized. In all other

cases, the postulation of zero morphs manages to better pinpoint better the complexity of morphological,

syntactical and semantic changes involved in the several series of homonymous pairs of word forms.21 In

particular conversion hardly manages to account for the zero-allomorphs which are supposed in the analysis

of some flectional or derivative facts as being an asigmatic nominative form such as sarit- ‘river’ (base in

compound) alternating with sarit (nom. sing.), or a denominal derivative noun as jambū- ‘the black plum tree’

(feminine noun inflected in the nominative case) alternating with jambū- ‘the black plum fruit’ (feminine noun

inflected in the nom. case), for which the overt realizations of the same morphological category is clearly

productive in other environments such as, respecively, in pairs such as puruṣa- ‘man’ (base in compound)

and puruṣas (nom. sing.) or plakṣa- “Ficus religiosa tree” (base in compound) and plākṣa- “the fruit of the

20 The third one in Dressler’s 1984 scale of morphological diagrammaticity after suffixation and ablaut modification and before

subtraction. 21 Cf. Kastovsky 2005: 33 ff.

7

Ficus religiosa tree” (nominal base derived by applying the suffix -a).22 As it is self evident, the multiplicity of

features which have to be supposed to transfer from the prototypic alternating overt form to the word-form,

and which involve a zero-realization of the same reference-morpheme forces the analysis to arrange a more

complex model of Zero morphology, such as those of Kastovsky (1969) or Marchand (1969), jointly

comprehending the morphological, semantic and syntactic layers of this kind of syncronic processes:

“Das Nullmorphem fungiert als Determinatum eines morphologischen Syntagmas an einer

bestimmbaren Stelle dieses Syntagmas, das in Opposition zu anderen Syntagmen steht, in denen das

Determinatum durch ein explizites Suffix markiert ist” (Kastovsky 1969, 9-10)

“The use of a word as a determinant in a syntagma whose determinatum is not expressed in phonic

form but understood to be present in content, thanks to an association with other syntagmas where the

element of content has its counterpart on the plane of phonic expression” (Marchand 1969, 359).

The postulated zero morpheme or the zero (allo)morph in each analysis as a determinatum of a

morphological syntagm works as placeholder, exactly as the uncontested zero in mathematics, or better, its

utility consists in mustering all the relevant morphological, semantic and syntactic features conveyed in

absentia of the word form which commonly convey them.

2. Zero as a substi tute in Pāṇ i ni

The same phenomena, as is well known, had already attracted Pāṇini’s attention when, in his grammar

dating back to ca. the IV BC, he makes a wide use of different types of “zero signifiers” to account for them.

In fact, what is striking at first sight is exactly the latitude of linguistic phenomena dealt with by Pāṇini through

this device; there are some purely phonological constraints, such as the nom. sing sarit ‘river’ (with Ø of the

second consonant and nom. sing. morph s) due to the impossibility of clusters of consonants at the end of a

word23, the zero of inflectional suffixes, as for the adesinential Vedic locative vyoman ‘in the sky’ (with Ø of

locative ending -i),24 the zero of derivational suffixes, such as the already quoted jambū- “the black plum tree’

/ jambū- ‘the black plum fruit’25 and what someone would call transcategorisations (that Pāṇini does not

distinguish from other derivations) such as bhās- ‘to shine’ (vb. base)/ bhās ‘light’ lit. ‘the shining one’ (with Ø

of the agentive morpheme KVIP according to A 3 2 177).

2.1 Pāṇini’s descriptive method is consistently synchronic, with almost no concession to the diachronic

dimension of language. It is based on four main operations, namely, suffixation (of morphs), composition (of

words), replacement or substitution (of sounds, morphs and inflected words) and incrementation (of existing

22 With regard to this distinction, it is perhaps noteworthy to note an initial refusal of the postulation of zero allomorphs in Kastovsky

1969: 8 followed by an unconditioned acceptance in Kastovsky 1980: 215ff. 23 This example is governed by A 6 1 68: see below § 3. 24 Cf. A 7 1 39 where a list of special nominal endings used in Vedic texts are taught as substitutes of the default endings taught in

A 4 1 2. 25 This example is governed by A 4 3 166: see below § 3.

8

morphs). It is thus necessary to clearly identify the place of zero (lopa litt. interruption/ distruction but defined

as adarśana ‘non-perception’ by Pāṇini in A 1 1 60) in the grammar, in order to fully understand its linguistic

value and import. We have argued elsewhere26 that zero in Pāṇini is to be interpreted in the wider frame of

substitution. We cannot present this discussion again here but we consider that this point, far from granted in

modern indological studies, is crucial both for interpreting Pāṇini's global approach to these phenomena, and

to highlight its possible differences from other theories.

Substitution, as we have seen, is a core operation in Pāṇini's grammar whose scope and import are

precisely defined and formalised. It may concern inflected words, verbal and nominal bases, suffixes and

pure sounds, all of which are explicitly taught as substitutes of something else. Let us see some examples:

a. A 8 1 20 yuṣmadasmadoḥ ṣaṣṭhīcaturthīdvitīyāsthayor vānnāvau "the [full forms] vām and nau in the

place of the forms of [the pronouns] yuṣmad and asmad in the sixth, fourth and second ending

<occurring after an inflected word 8 1 17>. Thus the form vām is used in enclitic position instead of

e.g. yuvābhyām.

b. A 6 3 48 tres trayaḥ "traya- in the place of [the nominal base] tri- <before a final member of a

compound consisting in number words except for a bahūvrīhi compound or aśīti- "eighty" as the final

member 6 3 47>." Thus the forms trayodaśa ‘thirteen’ trayoviṃśati ‘twenty-three’ etc. alternate with

tridaśāḥ ‘consisting of three or ten’ tryaśīti ‘eighty-three’.

c. A 2 4 52 aster bhūḥ "bhū- in the place of [the verbal base] as- <before ārdhadhātuka suffixes 2 4

35>". Thus, the present stem asti ‘he is’ alternates with the infinitive bhavitum ‘to be’ in contrast with

other verbal bases such as vadati ‘he speaks’/ vaditum ‘speaking’.

d. A 3 4 82 parasmaipadānāṇ ṇalatususthalathusaṇalvamāḥ "[the verbal suffixes] ṆaL, atus,us, thaL,

athus, a, ṆaL, va ma in the place of parasmaipada verbal suffixes <of the perfect tense 3 4 81>."

Thus, next to the present stem bhavāmi ‘I am’ we have the reduplicate perfect babhūva ‘I was’.

e. A 7 2 92 yuvāvau dvivacane "yuva- and āva- <in the place of the presuffixal bases yuṣmad and

aṣmad 7 2 86 till m 7 2 91 before endings 7 2 84> in dual meaning. Thus yuṣmad + au > yuvām.27

f. A 7 1 84 diva aut "au in the place of the [final sound of the presuffixal base] div- <before the nom.

sing. suffix sU 7 1 82>". Thus dyauḥ ‘the sky’ (nom. sing.) but divam (acc. sing.)

g. A 6 1 64 dhātvadeḥ ṣaḥ saḥ "s in the place of ṣ at the beginning of a verbal base.” Thus sahati ‘he

bears’ but abhiṣahati ‘he conquers’.

h. A 6 1 87 āt guṇaḥ "A single phoneme of the guṇa-type (a, e, o) in the place of an a vowel <followed

by any vowel 6 1 77> <in continuous utterance 6 1 72>." Thus deva+indra > devendra.

26 Candotti-Pontillo 2012: 122ff. 27 We can skip the technicalities here. Suffice it to say that the -ad portion of the presuffixal bases yuṣmad /asmad will also be

modified by other replacements rules but in different ways depending on the following ending, thus leading, e.g. to yuvām (nom./ acc. dual) and yuvābhyam (str., dat.) (A 7 2 87 and 88) but yuvayoḥ (gen./ loc.) (A 7 2 89).

9

As it should be quite clear from these scanty examples it is in fact difficult to sharply distinguish Pāṇini's

phonological replacements from morphological ones, as so many variables are at play: the status of the

replaced unit (called sthānin ‘the placeholder’) and that of its substitute (ādeśa ‘specifically instructed’) ‒ may

both be fuzzy as we can find phones in a morphological context (ex. g) and morphs phonologically restricted

(exx. e, f.) ‒ but furthermore, the status of the conditioning may also be morphological (exx. a, b, c, d, e)‒ or

phonological (exx. f, g, h).

In fact, the status of the elements at play in the substitution itself is not crucial for Pāṇini who can quote

them as morphs or phones following the needs of the operation. More than that, there is no explicit provision

in his grammar on this aspect of substitution, while substitution itself is, as we already mentioned, strictly

regulated and formalised. In fact, a part from the metarules on the special substitute, namely the zero, and

which we shall see later on, there are two major points that are regulated by metarules on substitution in the

Aṣṭādhyāyī28 and they are as follows:

a. Identification of the extension of the replaced string of the placeholder. We have already said that the

placeholder is always unambiguosly identified in the substitution rule itself, but the portion of it that is

to be substituted is yet to be determined. Pāṇini does so, through a set of metalinguistic rules (A 1 1

52-55) teaching that by default, it is the final or the initial sound of the placeholder that is replaced;

respectively according to A 1 1 52 alo ’ntyasya "in the place of the final sound" and, if the

placeholder is a following unit, according to A 1 1 54 ādeḥ parasya "In the place of the initial

<sound> of [a placeholder] taught as a following element." On the other hand, sequences of sounds

and single sounds marked by Ś replace their placeholders in their entirety (A 1 2 55), while single

sounds and sequences marked by Ñ only substitute the last sound of the placeholder mentioned (A

1 2 53).29 If we come back to the examples seen at the beginning we see that the polyphonic string

traya (ex. b) substitutes the whole of the placeholder tri- while the diphtong au (ex. f) only replaces

the last sound of the presuffixal base div-. This procedure creates a hyatus between the concept of

placeholder and that of substituted strings, making it even more difficult to sharply distinguish the

two levels in Pāṇini's grammar.

b. Regulation of the relationship between the placeholder and its substitutes. If there are clear hints of

the fact that Pāṇini works with a non-rigid status of the units he is dealing with in substitution, on the

other hand there is clear proof of the fact that he is concerned with the status of rules. In particular,

in another set of immediately following metarules (A 1 1 56-59), he establishes what is to be done

28 Apart from these two, we find a metarule stipulating that the placeholder is to be expressed in the genitive (A 1 1 49), a rule

teaching how to select the right substitute when more than one is possible (A 1 1 51) and a rule accounting for the special case of the substitution of ṛ (A 1 1 51).

29 See Kiparsky (2009: 86) on this device: “Another distinction reminiscent of the morphophonology/ allomorphy divide emerges, again on purely technical grounds, between substitutes consisting of one sound and substitutes consisting of more than one sound”. The single sound substitution is more likely to be a pure phonological rule, while the whole segment substitution is generally an allomorphy-rule. Again the author closes his reasoning by stating that (:87): “there is no reason to believe that Pāṇini had any principled rule typology analogous to those developed in many modern linguistic theories. He simply dealt with the morphology/ phonology interface phenomena of Sanskrit by means of his usual grammatical technique, driven solely by the simplifying, generalizing imperative”.

10

with substitutes when it comes to provisions that apply to the placeholders. The most general one is

the first, namely A 1 1 56: sthānivad ādeśo ’nalvidhau stipulating that “The substitute (lit. ‘that which

is specifically enjoined’) is as if it were the placeholder, except in respect of a provision mentioning a

sound (of the placeholder).” This reasonably means that the substitute shares the same meaning

and the same morphological constraints of its placeholder, e.g. yuva- and āva- substitutes of the

pronominal bases yuṣmad ‘you’ and asmad ‘me/us’ maintain the meaning and the specific

pronominal endings required by pronominal bases, but that this transference is blocked in case of

rules concerning the sounds of the placeholder. The traditional example given by Indian

commentators is extremely neat and can be used here. There is a rule A 7 2 35 ardhadhātukasyeṭ

valādeḥ "The initial increment i‚ is inserted at the head of an ārdhadhātuka suffix beginning with

semivowels and consonants excluding y," that also concern, among other units the ārdhadhātuka

suffix -tvā, accounting for such forms as vaditvā ‘having spoken’/ vaditum ‘to speak. Now, this same

suffix is substituted with -ya in some contexts, precisely when the verbal base has a preverb, as

taught by rule A 7 1 37. Even though -ya is a substitute of -tvā, it will not receive the augment iT that

is thaught only for suffixes "beginning with semivowels and consonants excluding y": anuvadya

‘having repeated’/ anuvaditum ‘to repeat’. This most general provision is further specified by the

following rules. A 1 1 5730 also grants the application of phonic rules; provided the placeholder is a

vowel, the substitution is conditioned by the right context and the rule in question concerns the left

context of the substitution: rule A 7 2 7,31 teaching that there is optionally no vṛddhi substitute (ā) of

an internal a of a prefixal base followed by the aorist incremented marker -is followed by active

verbal endings, applies to forms such as akaṇīt/ akāṇīt (verbal base kaṇ- "to move"). Analogously, in

the case of the formation of avadhīt ‘he killed’, the optional vṛddhi-replacement taught by A 7 2 7

could apply to the verbal base vadh-, because the final vowel of vadha (vadha- substitute of han- by

A 2 3 43) is substituted with zero before the aorist marker siC (A 6 4 48 ato lopaḥ). On the contrary,

A 1 1 57 intervenes to transfer the properties of the vowel a final of vadha to its substitute Ø (vadh),

so that the verbal base vadha- actually does not end in a consonant. A 1 1 58 then negates the

transference for some specific vocalic placeholders and 1 1 59 grant it in some specific cases of

reduplication.

Some crucial facts about substitution in the Aṣṭādhyāyī should hopefully emerge quite vividly from the

examples we have seen and discussed. First of all, it should be clear that substitution in Pāṇini is grounded

30 A 1 1 57: acaḥ parasmin pūrvavidhau “<An element specifically instructed 1 1 56> in place of a vowel, if it is conditioned by a

right context, <behaves like its placeholder1 1 56> in case of a rule mentioning its left context.” 31 A 7 2 7 ato halāder laghoḥ “<Marginally 7 2 6 no 7 2 1vṛddhi in place of 7 2 1> a light a <of a presuffixal base 6 4 1> beginning

with a consonant <and ending with a consonant 7 2 3> <before the aorist marker siC 7 2 1 with initial increment iṬ 7 2 4 followed by parasmaipada substitutes 7 2 1>”.

11

in the synchronic device of looking for analogical formations: the paradigm vaditum/ vaditvā permits the

identification of -ya as a substitute of ‒tvā in anuvaditum/ anuvadya. Thus, the morphological and semantical

content of ‒ya is, so to say, granted by another morph seen in other formations, which is posited as the

prototypic morph of which all the others are allomorphs. This prototypic morph - speaking in terms of

contemporary theories - would be a morph and morpheme at the same time. Such a description means that

the position of purely abstract levels and units can be avoided, and work can be carried out, as much as

possible,32 on actual linguistic material.

3. Zero-typology in the Aṣṭādhyāy ī

The technical device of lopa is involved in 239 rules of the A, and applies to the non-perception of every

kind of śabda, that is, both to units which are devoid of sense, such as single sounds or sequences of

sounds (95 rules), and to units which are possessed of a sense (arthavat-units), namely, 117 for morphs

(either inflectional or derivative suffixes), 1 for an inflected word (pada) and 1 general rule for its, i.e. for the

so-called ‘markers’ used by Pāṇini to connect some rules to some specific units. The remaining rules are

devoted to assigning the relevant technical names, or to governing the specific treatment of different kinds of

lopa or mentioning lopa as a condition for applying some different operative rules. A short typological

schema of relevant rules with some examples should suffice to show the kind of linguistic facts that are

accounted for in these rules.

3.1 ZERO ( l opa) OF SOUNDS

Among the 95 rules teaching lopa of sounds, only 10 are targeted to a sequence of sounds to be

replaced by zero, while 77 to a single sound.

Examples

(1a) zero of a single final sound

A 6 1 66 lopo vyor vali, “lopa in the place of a v or y before a consonant sound except y”

knūy- ‘to be humid’ (Ø of y) + p + -aya- + -ti knū-p-aya-ti > knopayati ‘to wet’

(1b) zero of a single mentioned internal sound as a part of a mentioned morpheme

A 3 4 32 varṣapramāṇe ūlopaś cāsyānyatarasyām, “Suffix -am occurs <after the verbal base pūr 3 4 31

when it co-occurs with an inflected word denoting an object 3 4 29>, provided that the kṛt-formation denotes

the measure of rainfall and optionally lopa applies to the ū of this [verbal base pūr]“.

goṣpad- ‘cow’s hoofmark’ + pūr- (Ø of ū) + -am > goṣpadapūram / goṣpadapram [vṛṣṭaḥ devaḥ] “it rained

as much as to fill a cow’s hoofmark”.

32 One exception we will see with cases of zero of the abstract suffixes vi but there are also other cases of morphemes never realised in actual language and represented only by their allomorphs.

12

The kind of rules exemplified as 1a is actually almost rare, because the rules teaching lopa of single

sounds are often not purely phonic rules, i.e. general sandhi-rules, merely taught for specific phonic contexts.

In fact these rules actually refer to linguistic units possessed of a meaning (arthavat-units), in the sense that

they point at selected parts of morphemes as their explicited object (ex. 1b). These parts are therefore

singled out in a unit which is endowed with precise boundaries and determined rather than accidentally used,

with regard to their aim of meaning.

(1c) zero of a sequence of sounds

A 6 4 142 ti viṃśater ḍiti, “lopa of ti of the <aṅga ‘pre-suffixal base’ 6 4 133> viṃśati <when it is a base of

the type BHA34> before suffixes with the marker Ḍ.”

viṃśati ‘twenty’ (Ø of ti) + -aka35- viṃśaka- ‘bought by twenty [coins]’

Furthermore no purely phonic context even occurs for the rules of type 1c, since at least some aṅga- or

BHA-condition is always to be taken into account, as directly mentioned or included by means of anuvṛtti, as

in our example. Both the aṅga- and the BHA-conditions actually result to add a phonic condition to otherwise

morphologic boundaries,36 but they cannot be considered totally extraneous to a morphological context,

because of the determined place occupied by both the linguistic units, which have to take place precisely

before a suffix.37

No general rule is peculiarly devoted to the zero-replacements concerning sounds, which seems to

suggest that this kind of substitution is governed by the main set of substitution rules A 1 1 56-9, which - as

noticed above, in § 2 - gives form to a classification of rules in accordance with their capability of being

transferred/extended from the replaced linguistic unit to its substitutes. Therefore as far as zero-substitutions

of sounds are concerned, all the rules which are taught for the sounds of the placeholder, precisely quoting

33 The technical term aṅga is defined in A 1 4 13: yasmāt pratyayavidhis tadādi pratyaye ’ṅgam “aṅga is the form beginning with a

unit after which an suffix is introduced in the form it takes before that suffix”. With same approximation, here the translation the ‘pre-suffixal base [of a word]’ has been used for practical purposes.

34 A presuffixal stem is called BHA, following the definition rule given in 1 4 18, before suffixes beginning with y or with a vowel with the exception of flectional sarvanāmasthāna suffixes.

35 Taught in the abstract form ḌvuN in A 5 1 24. 36 Cf. Candotti-Pontillo 2004: 18; Candotti-Pontillo forthcoming: § 4. 37 Moreover, there are 8 cases of lopa of the abhyāsa (reduplication syllable), which could be actually expected to have been

included in a morphological chapter of some other grammar, since reduplication is a precise linguistic segment whose position is known, inasmuch as it is taught by means of a substitution rule, namely A 6 1 1 ekāco dve prathamasya “The first syllable of a unit which contains a single vowel is replaced by two”. Therefore, it is endowed with boundaries and with a name, since it is termed abhyāsa in A 6 1 4 (pūrvo ’bhyāso). Nonetheless it is not a real morpheme, even when it replaces a part of a specific class of morphemes, i.e., of a dhātu from A 6 1 8 to 6 1 11. The relevant zero-rules are consistently treated by Pāṇini as lopa of sounds with the classification of the other segments of morphemes, object of the zero-rules exemplified here at point 1b and 1c. ex. A 6 4 120 ata ekahalmadhye’ nādeśāder liṭi “An a occurring in between two single consonants of an <aṅga ‘pre-suffixal base’>, whose initial sound has not gone through a replacement, <is replaced with e and the abhyāsa ‘reduplication syllable’ is zero-replaced 6 4 119>, when a LIṬ suffix with K or Ṅ as its marker follows.” (raṇ- + LIṬ > (Ø of ra-) + raṇ- + atus reṇ-a-tus ‘They were happy’).

13

them as sounds, are not transferable to the zero (lopa), but any rule taught for morphs consisting of the

same sounds are transferred. Non phonic rules concern any element performing a given function

(irrespective of the form these elements may assume) but phonic rules concern specific forms. In other

words the postulation of zero referred to sounds, i.e. Pāṇini’s choice to insert this kind of linguistic

phenomena in the complex framework of zero-subsititution generates no other effect than to single out the

place where a given sound or its absence have to occur. Nonetheless an actual effect is granted if the

replaced sound is a vowel and its substitution matches the conditions explained in A 1 1 57 and escapes the

exceptions listed in A 1 1 58 (see above, § 2.1).

For instance, in the formation of avadhīt (see above § 2.1) zero is actually an element specifically

instructed in place of a vowel, because of the augmented aorist marker -is which occurs in its right context.

As a consequence, zero at the end of vadhØ behaves as if it were the final a of vadha or, from a different

point of view, the final a of vadha, which is phonically absent, takes effect on the preceding unit; de facto the

zero- pattern governs the allomorphy of the Pāṇinian morpheme vadha when it works as a pre-suffixal verbal

base.

As it is self evident, by trying to focus on the zero-replacement of sounds, we have been often forced to

shift to some different kinds of classification, eventually paying attention to the different kinds of rules and to

the allowance to extend the effect of some rules to the substitute and mainly to its left context, i.e. generally

to the pre-suffixal base. As we tried to prove elsewhere,38 Pāṇini is not working with a fixed status for his

linguistic categories except for purely linguistic sounds.

3.2 ZERO ( l opa / LUK, ŚLU and LUP) OF MORPHS

This kind of zero does not distinguish the inflectional morphs from the derivative ones, either from the

terminological point of view, since, however, Pāṇini uses the compound pratyayalopa for both, or with

regard to their behaviour, which is recalled39 as a general feature:

A 1 1 62: pratyayalope pratyayalakṣaṇam “An operative rule conditioned by an suffix also applies

when this suffix is subject to lopa.”

On the contrary, the previous rule (A 1 1 61 pratyayasya LUK-ŚLU-LUPaḥ) introduces an important

labelling of different kinds of lopas of pratyayas, thus dividing them into two main classes, namely lopas

tout court and LUK, ŚLU and LUP. The distinctive feature of LUK, ŚLU and LUP is taught in the following

rule:

A 1 1 63 na lumatāṅgasya, “The suffix which is subject to lopa when it is termed with a name which

contains LU does not condition operations on the aṅga ‘pre-suffixal base’ (otherwise applied in the

presence of this suffix)”.

38 Candotti - Pontillo 2004; Candotti - Pontillo forthcoming. 39 Note that we have chosen the verb “to recall“ instead of “to teach“ because we are persuaded that this rule is enunciated here

only in order to proceed with the prohibition in the following one. In fact, in our opinion the transference of rules taught for the suffix which is subject to lopa actually depends on the more general rule A 1 1 56 (see above § 2.1).

14

As a consequence, the crucial discrimen which Pāṇini takes into account with regard to the zero of

morphs is this opposition between lopas of pratyayas taught by means of lumat-terms (78X), or by means

of the term lopa itself (39X). This latter class is almost uniquely represented by cases of lopa of suffixes

consisting in just one single sound (14X) or of fictitious suffixes vi (25X)40.

Examples of LUmat zero-replacements

(2a) LUK-zero-replacement

A 4 3 163 phale luk “LUK replaces <any secondary suffix41 introduced after a nominal stem in the

meaning of ‘modification (of that)’ 4 3 134, ‘part (of that)’ 4 3 135> when it means a fruit”.

jambū- ‘the black plum tree’ + Ø of -a- (aÑ) > jambu- ‘the black plum fruit42 (alternating with jambvāḥ

phalam “fruit of the black plum tree”).

The phonological properties of aÑ, taught after nominal bases ending in -u, (according to A 4 3 139: or añ)

and in particular, the applicability of the vṛddhi-replacement of the initial vowel taught by A 7 2 11743 and the

guṇa-replacement of the final vowel taught by rule A 6 4 14644 (whose effect is on the left context but

determined by its right context) which would form the proparoxytone **jā’mbav-a-45 is blocked by A 1 1 63. It

cannot be extended from aÑ to its zero-substitute which is taught by means of the term LUK. Nonetheless,

the denotation of a fruit instead of that of a tree is, however, assured by the zero-substitute of the suffix aÑ.

The gender and number (nom. sing.) of jambu agree with the denotatum phalam, which from a different point

of view is also the determinatum of the supposed morphological syntagm corresponding to jambvāḥ phalam,

where zero takes the place of phalam.

A 2 4 72 adiprabhṛtibhyaḥ śapaḥ “LUK replaces ŚaP after the verbal bases included in the list

beginning with ad- (second verbal class)“

vid- + Ø of -a- (ŚaP) + -tha > vittha ‘you (pl.) know’

40 Only two rules point at suffixes consisting in two sounds. A 6 4 50 (kyasya vibhāṣā) marginally teaches lopa of Kya, which is a

cover term for the suffixes KyaṄ and KyaṢ (es. sam- + idh- + Ø -ya- + i + -tum > samidhitum), and A 6 4 154 (tur iṣṭhemeyassu) teaches lopa of the kṛt suffix -tṛ at the end of the aṅga of a BHA-nominal base before the suffixes iṣṭhaN, imanIC, īyasUN. Moreover, A 4 3 133 teaches lopa of -ika which is actually a three-sound-suffix (matching with ṬHaK taught in A 4 2 63), which is taught in Pāṇini’s grammar (A 7 3 50: ṭhasyekaḥ) as a phonic-replacement for ṬHa (i.e. for this syllable which is contained in 9 suffixes such as ṬHaK.

41 The genitive here, contrary to the preceding example, is supplied by the definition itself of LUK, LUP and ŚLU as being taught of suffixes (cf. A 1 1 61).

42 Thanks to A 1 2 49 the LUK of this suffixes involves also LUK of the feminine taddhita-suffix of its subordinate nominal base (i.e. of its etymon).

43 A 7 2 117 taddhiteṣv acām ādeḥ “A vṛddhi-vowel (ā, ai, au) replaces the first vowel of a pre-suffixal nominal base before a suffix with marker Ñ or Ṇ’.”

44 A 6 4 146 or guṇaḥ “A guṇa-vowel replaces the sound u/ ū <of a BHA nominal base 6 4 129 before a taddhita suffix 6 4 144>”. 45 By contrast the oxytonic nominal base jāmbavá- is optionally derived from jambū by applying the suffix aṆ in accordance with 4

3 165: jambvā vā “The taddhita-suffix aṆ occurs preferably after the nominal base jambū ending in the sixth ending in the meaning of ‘modification [of that]’ 4 3 134, ‘part [of that]’ 4 3 135> when it means a fruit 4 3 163>.”

15

ŚaP is the so-called thematic vowel taught by A 3 1 68 kartari śap “Suffix ŚaP occurs after a verbal base

<when a sārvadhātuka46 suffix 3 1 67> denoting the agent follows.” ŚaP as a sārvadhātuka determines a

guṇa-replacement of the final vowel or of the penultimate vowel of the pre-suffixal base according to A 7 3

84-6, so that e.g. the 2nd plural person of the present tense of the verb budh- is bodh-a-tha ‘you are awake’.47

Bodh- is the allomorph of the presuffixal base budh- under condition of its right context. If we have to form

the analogous form, the 2nd plural person of the present tense of a verb of the second verbal class, such as

vid- ‘to know’, the replacement of i of vid- with the guṇa-vowel e will not be determined by ŚaP in absentia,

so that the righ form is vittha ‘you (pl.) know’.48 The phonological properties of ŚaP and in particular the

applicability of A 7 3 86 (whose effect is on the left context but determined by its right context) cannot be

extended from ŚaP to its zero-substitute, which is taught by means of the term LUK. No meaning is

trasferred from ŚaP to its zero-substitute.

(2b) ŚLU-zero-replacement

A 2 4 75 juhotyādibhyaḥ śluḥ “ŚLU replaces <the suffix ŚaP 2 4 72> after the verbal bases included in the

list beginning with hu- ‘to pour an oblation’- (third verbal class).”

hu- + Ø of -a- (ŚaP) + -tha > ju-hu-tha49

The reduplication is precisely determined here by ŚLU according to A 6 1 10 ślau “<two syllables replace

the first syllable of a unit 6 1 1 or the second of a unit begininning with a vowel (and containing two or more

syllable) 6 1 2> before a ŚLU-zero-replacement. The properties of ŚaP and in particular the applicability of

rule A 7 3 84 cannot be extended from ŚaP to its zero-substitute which is taught by means of the term ŚLU.

Therefore the only reason to postulate a zero-replacement both for the LUK- and the ŚLU-replacement

of ŚaP seems to account for the productivity of the first thematic class, as suggested by the overall 1010 /

2090 verbal bases of the traditional root-list that belong to the first thematic class.

(2c) LUP-zero-replacement

A 4 3 166 lup ca “<Preferably 4 3 165> LUP also replaces <the (taddhita) suffix aṆ 4 3 164 introduced

after the nominal base jambū 4 3 165 to denote its fruit 4 3 163>”

46 According to A 3 4 113 (tiṅśitsārvadhātukam) both all the 6 triplets of verbal endings listed in A 3 4 78 and the suffixes endowed

with Ś as their marker taught after verbal bases are termed sārvadhātukas. 47 See A 7 3 86 pugantalaghūpadhasya ca “<A guṇa-vowel replaces the vowel i, u, ṛ, ḷ of the presuffixal base 7 3 82>, if it is the

penultimate sound or if the presuffixal base ends with the final increment p <before sārvadhātuka or ārdhadhātuka suffixes 7 3 84>.” 48 The singular parasmaipada triplet vetti, vetsi vedmi with the guṇa vowel e for i depends on the following sārvadhātuka tiP, siP,

miP according to A 7 3 86. The other parasmaipada and ātmanepada endings which are not endowed with the marker P, do not determine the guṇa-replacement because A 1 2 4 (sārvadhātukam apit “a sārvadhātuka-suffix without the marker P <is as if it were with marker Ṅ 1 2 1>” and A 1 1 5 kṅiti ca “and there are no guṇa and vṛddhi-replacements when a suffix endowed with a marker K or Ṅ” block it.

49 For the guṇa-replacement of u with o involved in the singular parasmaipada triplet juhoti, juhoṣi, juhomi with the guṇa vowel o for u which is determined by the presence of the sārvadhātuka -ti according to A 7 3 84 (sārvadhātukārdhadhātukayoḥ “<A substitute guṇa vowel (a, e, o) replaces the aṅga final of verbal stems ending in i, u, ṛ, ḷ> before sārvadhātukas and ārdhadhātukas”), see the previous note.

16

jambū- ‘the black plum tree’ + Ø of -a- (aṆ) > jambū- “the black plum fruit”

As seen above with regard to the taddhita nominal base jambu obtained by means of A 4 3 163 by

applying a LUK-zero-replacement of aÑ, the properties of the suffix aṆ (optionally taught after the nominal

base jambū in order to form the oxytone nominal base jāmbavám by A 4 3 165 and optionally zero-replaced

here) cannot be extended to its zero-substitute here too.

Moreover, there is complete homophony in this case between the derived noun (the name of the fruit)

and the noun included in the relevant formation-rule, i.e. its etymological base (the name of the tree).50 The

meaning of the derived noun has thus been otherwise considered as a sort of metonymic usage of the basic

noun, for instance by Debrunner (1954: II.2, §̊15). This feature of this class of taddhitas, which almost

realizes a trope, seems to better emerge from some other examples governed by rules such as the following:

A 5 3 98 lup manuṣye “LUP replaces <the suffix kaN introduced in the meaning of ‘similar to’ 5 3 95 for

deriving a name 5 3 97> to denote a human being.”

cañcā- ‘scarecrow/puppet’ + Ø of -ka- > cañcā ‘The Scarecrow/Puppet’, as a nickname used for

labelling a person similar to a scarecrow/ puppet (i.e. a dummy).

The superimposition of the image of the scarecrow on the person, i.e. the rhetoric suggestion of the

perfect identification between the two denotata corresponds to the absolute phono-morphological identity

of the common noun with the proper name. The actual non-identity is granted by the sense of similarity

denoted by the suffix -ka which is transferred to its zero-substitute.

Examples of lopa-replacements of morphs

(2d) Zero of suffixes consisting of a single sound

A 6 1 68 halṅyābbhyo dīrghāt sutisyapṛktaṃ hal ‘<lopa 6 1 66> of the consonantic sound of sU (nom.

sing.),51 si (2nd sing.) and ti (3rd sing.) when they consist of a single sound (apṛktam) after an unit ending with

a consonant with the feminine suffixes Ṅī and āP when they have long [ī and ā]’

sarit- ‘river’ + Ø of -s sarit “river” (nom. sing.)

a- + bi- + bhṛ- ‘bring’ + Ø of -t or ‒s abibhar ‘you/he brought’

Consider how rule 6 1 68 also equates nominal and verbal inflection as far as the treatment with lopa is

concerned. In the two examples, the morphological meaning of the inflectional suffixes sU (nom. sing.) and ‒

s and ‒t (2nd and 3rd singular, past) is present in, respectively sarit and abhibhar even though no directly

perceptible morph seems to carry it. Moreover the guṇa-replacement determined by the sarvadhātuka -s or -t

50 We follow Scharfe‘s (1965) interpretation of this kind of rules here. Cf. Pontillo 2010. 51 For the sake of simplicity and uniformity we have maintained this translation here, as otherwise this would require the mention of

the haL ‘consonantic sound’ to be put in the genitive. The KV (ad A holds that lopa is not used here in its technical meaning (adarśana ‘non perception’) but in its everyday-life one, namely as an object name: lupyate lopaḥ ‘that which is suppressed, that is lopa’. The literal translation of the rule should thus be ‘The consonantal sound of sU (nom. sing.), si (2nd sing.) and ti (3rd sing.), when they consist of a single sound, is suppressed, when it comes after an item ending with a consonant or with the feminine suffixes Ṅī and āP, if they have long [ī and ā].

17

(according to the general rule A 7 3 84), even though this last unit is not perceptible, constitutes a perceptible

effect of this (which is by contrast prohibited for the lumat kinds of zero according to A 1 1 63).

In order to further focus on the difference between LUmat zero-replacements and lopa of morphs, a

classical example of comparison included in KV ad A 1 1 63 is illustrated by the following diagram.

According to A 6 4 8 “a long vowel replaces the penultimate sound of a pre-suffixal base ending in n before strong nominal endings, excluding the vocative singular”

According to A 8 2 7 “lopa replaces the final sound n of a pre-suffixal base which is at the same time an inflected word”.

*rājan “prince” + s (sing. nom)

A 6 1 68: lopa of the ending -s *rājan

+ Here the strong ending -s is zero-replaced by means of the term lopa according to A 6 1 68, therefore the properties of -s are extended to its zero-substitute and as a consequence Ø of -s has to be considered a strong ending and rājan- its presuffixal base, so that the corresponding long-vowel actually replaces the penultimate sound of the pre-suffixal base

*rājān-

+ Here *rājān is at the same time the pre-suffixal base with respect to the ending -s and an inflected word, because Ø is considered as if it were the replaced ending -s

rājā (Ø of -n) *saptan- “7” + -as (pl. nom.)

A 7 1 22 LUK zero-replacement of the ending -as introduced after the number words for 1,2,3,4,5 and 6 *saptan

- Here the strong ending -as is zero-replaced by means of the term LUK according to A 7 1 22, therefore the properties of -as cannot be extended to its zero-substitute because of A 1 1 63 which blocks operations on the pre-suffixal base otherwise applied in the presence of this suffix, so that the long-vowel does not replace the penultimate sound of the pre-suffixal base

*saptan

+ Here *saptan is at the same time the pre-suffixal base with respect to the ending -s and an inflected word, because from the morpho-syntactic point of view Ø is considered as if it were the replaced ending -as (exactly as in the case of *rājān + Ø-ending ), i.e. A 1 1 63 does not impede the classification of saptan + Ø-ending as an inflected word

sapta (Ø of -n)

(2e) A 6 1 67: ver apṛktasya “lopa of vi which is a one-sound suffix”52

This is the general unconditioned rule which provides for the zero-replacement of all the fictitious suffixes

vi (i.e. the kṛt-suffixes KVIN, KVIP, ṆVI, VIṬ, ṆVIN, VIC and the taddhita-suffix CVI), which are thus

morphemes endowed with a single phonic realization, precisely the zero morph taught by A 6 1 67, but which

grant the effect of all the markers of which they are holders.

A 3 2 62 bhajo ṇviḥ “Suffix Ṇvi after the verbal base bhaj- <when an inflected word 3 2 4 or a preverb 3 2

61 co-occur>”

ardham ‘the half part’ + bhaj- ‘to share’ + Ṇvi > ardha-bhāj ‘one who shares a half part’

Ṇvi by nature has no perceptible form of its own, but the vṛddhi-replacement in bhāj- (< bhaj-) constitutes a

perceptible effect of the unperceptible suffix, which is subject to lopa. In fact, the vṛddhi-replacement of the

52 Cf. A 1 2 41 apṛkta ekāl pratyayaḥ, which teaches to call a suffix consisting of a single phoneme apṛkta.

18

penultimate short a vowel of the presuffixal base (aṅga) is determined by the marker Ṇ of the suffix Ṇvi

according to A 7 2 116.53

3.3 ZERO OF AN INFLECTED WORD

A 5 3 82 ajināntasyottarapadalopaś ca “<The suffix kaN is introduced after a nominal stem consisting of a

personal name 5 3 81> and when it is co-occurring with the term ajina there is also lopa of the final member”

vyāghra- ‘tiger’ + Ø of ajina- ‘skin’+ -ka- > vyāghraka- ‘poor ‘Tiger skin’54

3.4 ZERO OF MARKERS

A 1 3 9 tasya lopaḥ governs the interpretation of forms with markers, by teaching an unconditioned

lopa (i.e., not restricted by means of some specified left or right context) of all the elements previously

defined as it (A 1 3 2-8).55 No trace of markers remains directly in the form of the unit to which they are

attached (prasañj- according to M ad A 1 3 9) but the effects of the operational rules which they convey to

the units to which are attached are of course perceptible once again.

A 4 3 164: plakṣādibhyo ’ṇ “The suffix aṆ is introduced after a nominal stem of the gaṇa which begins

with plakṣa <to denote its modification 4 3 134 or part 4 3 135 when it designates its fruit 4 3 163>”

plakṣa- “Ficus Religiosa tree”’ + aṆ > plākṣ-a- ‘the fruit of Ficus Religiosa’ (Ø of marker Ṇ)

The vṛddhi-replacement of the first vowel of the nominal presuffixal base (aṅga) before the taddhita

suffix is determined by this marker itself, according to A 7 2 117, even though the suffix a is perceptible

while the marker Ṇ is unperceptible because it is subject to lopa.

3.5 To sum up, consider the following diagram:

Morphological Conditions (right and left context) for zeroing

Morpho-semantic features conveyed by the unit zeroed

Phonic effects determined by the unit zeroed

Lopa-zero of sounds ±56 - ±57

53 For an example of the secondary affix vi see A 5 4 50: kṛ-bhv-asti-yoge saṃpadyakarati cviḥ “The taddhita suffix Cvi occurs after

a nominal stem which serves as the agent of an action denoted by the verb saṃpad- ‘to become’ in a syntactical connection with the verbs kṛ- ‘to do’, bhū- ‘to become’ and as- ‘to be’.” (ex. ghaṭī bhavati mṛdam “the clay becomes a ghaṭa- ‘pot’)”. The replacement of the vowel -a/-ā final of the nominal base with -ī is taught by A 7 4 32: asya cvau, “<The vowel ī 7 4 31> replaces the a/ā final vowel <of the pre-suffixal base 6 4 1> before the taddhita suffix Cvi.” This formation has been compared with other morphological devices employed in several IE languages such as Latin constructions such as rubefio/ rubefacio ‘I become/I make (something) red’ or the old Slavonic abstract names in -i derived from adjectives in -o (es. studeni ‘cold weather’ < studeno ‘cold’). On the basis of comparison -ī (*-ih1) seems rather to be a denominal derivative suffix employed to denote abstract nouns- see Schindler 1980.

54 This is the only rule teaching zero of an inflected word. Yet, already Kātyāyana’s vārttikas extend the domain of lopa of an inflected word in composition well beyond the strict limits established by A 5 3 82. Other 3 rules A 8 1 45; 8 1 62; 8 1 63 mention zero of a whole word, respectively kiṃ, ca and aha and all the particles of the gaṇa cādi as a condition for some different operations. Pāṇini’s pattern of ekaśeṣa according which the syntagm pitā ca mātā ca matches the dual noun pitarau “mother and father” has been interpreted as a case of “prescribed word-deletion”, putting it on an equal footing with the uttarapadalopa taught by A 5.3.82 by Deshpande (1985: 37-9). For a different proposal see Pontillo forthcoming.

55 See Candotti - Pontillo 2012b. 56 Cf. ex. 1b above (§3.1) where the relevant rule points at a selected part of a morpheme as its explicit object, i.e. singled out in a

unit which is endowed with precise boundaries and determined rather than accidentally used, with regard to its aim of meaning.

19

Lumat zero of morphs + + -58

Lopa-zero of morphs + + +

Lopa-zero of vi morphemes + + +

Lopa-zero of inflected words + + -

Lopa-zero of markers - ±59 ±

4. Pecul iari t ies of Pāṇ ini ’s zero-model

By its very extension, lopa is a foundational device of Pāṇini’s grammar and for sure one of its great

achievements.60 The historiography of linguistics oscillates between tracing back the earliest use of the

concept of zero to the Indian grammatical tradition or not. Compare for instance the following pair of

statements:

Bloomfield 1933: 209 comments on some eng. examples of ‘homonymy’ (see above § 1): “Here the

Hindus hit upon the apparently artificial but in practice eminently serviceable device of speaking of a zero

element: in sheep : sheep the plural-suffix is replaced by zero - that is, by nothing at all.”

Meier 1961: 143, after a short survey of ai. Pāṇinian and non-Pāṇinian zero-terms but not based on

the analysis of their actual operational usages, concludes: “Eine vorgeschichte fūr das Zéro-Problem ist

jedoch bei indischen Grammatikern schwer zu finden”.

Nonetheless the overall framework of the theoretical and practical zeroes employed by Pāṇini seems

often to be ignored. Frequently, e.g. in Allen 1955: 10961; Collinder 1962-68: 15, the sole zero-case study

which is quoted from the Aṣṭādhyāyī is that of the vi-morphemes (ex. 2e, § 3.2), which - as we have seen

above - is actually a peculiar kind of zero if compared with the others.

However, structuralists generally recognize their debt to Pāṇini and all modern linguists properly connect

his use to the requirements of generalization in morphology (see e.g. Allen 1955: 113; Pinault 1989: 323;

Zakharyin 2003: 338) which aim at establishing a prototypic structure of word-formations on the basis of a

statistically high majority, so that the zero device consistently constitutes a means of avoiding the recognition

of a separate structure for a small minority of cases. By contrast, not always does the specific multiple

pattern of zero morphs seem to have been clearly evaluated. For example, in our opinion, the following

structural interpretation by Mc Gregor (2003: 77) has to be slightly modified:

57 All the rules which are taught for the sounds of the placeholder, precisely quoting them as sounds, are not transferable to the

zero (lopa), except if the replaced sound is a vowel and its substitution matches the conditions explained in A 1 1 57 and escapes the exceptions listed in A 1 1 58 (see above, §§ 2.1; 3.1).

58 See rule A 1 1 63 above (§ 3.2). 59 For an example of morphological feature determined by a marker, see the units traditionally called āgamas ‘increments’ which

are are not strictly morphemes, but in accordance with their specific marker (A 1 1 46 ādyantau ṭakitau; 47 mitaco ’ntyāt paraḥ), they have to be put at the beginning (marker Ṭ), at the end (marker K) or in the middle (after its last vowel: marker M) of the unit they “increment”. Thus, for example, when the increment iṬ is involved in some rule, we know the position of this sound i in advance: it will be put at the beginning of the unit to which it applies.

60 Diller 1996: 243-4 e.g. includes “zero-operators” among the 7 features listed as examples of “features now standard in modern linguist analysis” which are already part of the Aṣṭādhyāyi. 61 Nonetheless (p. 110) he emphasizes that "In linguistics there is no single zero unit; there are various ‘zeroizable’ units.

20

“The use of the concept of zero in linguistics can be traced back at least to Pāṇini (c. 300 BC), who

invoked it in morphology in order to make certain irregular forms seem more regular. He postulated what

are effectively abstract underlying forms [...] that get deleted by later rules.”

- As we have seen above (§ 3.2), Pāṇini generally singles out a prototypic morph (the placeholder -

sthānin), possibly by selecting it on the basis of the productivity parameter, and uses it as a sort of

morpheme, proceeding with cataloging all its allomorphs, zero morph included, as its substitutes (cf. exx. 2a,

2b, 2c, 2d § 3.2). Therefore, though, on the one hand, he utterly avoids the purely abstract level of language

to operate, as much as possible, with actual linguistic material, on the other hand, he postulates 7 different vi

morphemes, which have a only overt phonological realization, i.e. a zero form (cf. ex. 2e § 3.2).

- Pāṇini’s zero-postulation is almost entailed in his general model of replacive grammar, which even

though founded on a biplanar definition of morpheme, does not include a veritable replacive morphology. In

fact, some otherwise typically synchronic morphological relationships, such as the vowel gradation in the

derivation- or inflection-patterns, are unrelated to the aim of conveying sets of distinct grammatical functions

or meanings. As we have seen, vṛddhi- or guṇa-replacements are merely conditioned by the phono-

morphological right context (cf. exx. 2a, 2c, 2d, 2e § 3.2).

- Just as the whole substitution-schema adopted by Pāṇini, the zero-replacement is not based on

supposed paradigmatic-relations between the analysed forms, such as cz. žena ‘woman’ (nom. sing.) / ženy

‘women’ (nom.pl.) / žen ‘of women’ (gen.pl.) focused on by Saussure. Pāṇini rather - as highlighted by Al-

George 1967: 121 - postulates a zero by analogical assimilation in the very place where European linguists

could postulate a zero by significant opposition.”

- Furthermore the allomorphy in use in the Aṣṭādhyāyī is not restricted to the mere description of the

phenomenon of some morphs alternating with each other but is involved in a broader schema which aims at

jointly accounting for the different linguistic levels. Each zero (allo)morph is postulated within a sort of

morphologic syntagma, of which a component does not have an overt form but is understood to be present,

thanks to an association with other syntagmas where this same unit has its phonic counterpart. The zero

morph has thus to be analysed as a placeholder which plays the crucial role of mustering all the relevant

morphological, semantic and syntactic features conveyed in absentia of the word form which commonly

convey them, practically working as the recipient target of the allowed extension of the relevant rules.

Abbreviations

A Aṣṭādhyāyī ̶ Sharma 1987-2003

21

KV Kāśikāvṛtti ̶Sarmā, Deshpande, and Padhye 1969‒1970

M Mahābhāṣya ̶ Kielhorn 1880-1885

vt Kātyāyana’s Vārttikas ̶ M

Bibl iographic references

Al-George, S. 1967. “The Semiosis of Zero according to Pāṇini”. In: East and West 17, pp. 115-24. Allen, W.S. 1955. “Zero and Pāṇini”. In: Indian Linguistics 16, Chatterji Jubilee Volume, pp. 106-113. Anderson, S. R. 1992. A-Morphous Morphology, Cambridge. Bauer, Laurie - Salvador Valera, 2005. “Conversion or zero-derivation: an introduction”. In: Bauer, Laurie -

Salvador Valera, eds., Approaches to Conversion/ Zero-derivation. Münster, 7-18. Bloomfield, L. 1933. Language, New York. Candotti, M.P. and T. Pontillo 2004. “Substitution as a descriptive model in Pāṇini ’s grammar: towards an

opposition between phonological and morphological level?” In: R. Ronzitti - G. Borghi, eds., Atti del Secondo Incontro Genovese di Studi Vedici e Pāṇiniani (Genova, 23 luglio 2003-15 ottobre 2003). Recco, pp. 1‒45.

Candotti, M.P. and T. Pontillo 2012. “The earlier Pāṇinian tradition on the imperceptible sign”. In: Pontillo, T. - M.P. Candotti, eds., Signless Signification. In Ancient India and Beyond. London, pp. 99‒153.

Candotti, M.P. - T. Pontillo 2012a. “Interpreting forms with markers: the morphological approach, in Indian Grammar, Philology and History”. In: Proceedings of 12th World Sanskrit Conference (Section 5: Vyākaraṇa, Helsinki, 13-18 July 2003): 61-82. Delhi.

Candotti, M.P. and T. Pontillo, forthcoming. “In favour of a linear reading of the Aṣṭādhyāyī : materials from the discussion on substitution”. In: ed. by J.E.M. Houben.

Clark, E.V. - H.H. Clark 1979. “When nouns surface as verbs”. In: Language 55, pp. 767-811. CLG = F. De Saussure, Cours de linguistique génerale, publié par Ch. Bally et A. Sechehaye, avec la

collaboration de A. Riedlinger, Paris 1922 [Lausanne - Paris 1916]. Collinder, B. 1962-1968. “Les origines du stucturalisme”. In: Acta Societatis Linguisticae Upsaliensis, n.s., I,

pp. 1-15. Deshpande, Madhav M. 1985. Ellipsis and Syntactic Overlapping: Current Issues in Pāṇinian Syntactic

Theory. Poona. Diller, A. 1996. "Linguistic zero in Asia: from Pāṇini to pro-drop". In: The Fourth International Symposium on

Language and Linguistics, Thailand, pp. 242-258. Institute of Language and Culture for Rural Development, Mahidol University

http://sealang.net/sala/archives/pdf8/diller1996linguistic.pdf Dressler, W.U. 1984. “Subtraction in Word Formation and its Place within a Theory of Natural Morphology".

In: Quaderni di Semantica 5, 78-85. Frei, H. 1950. “Saussure contre Saussure?” In: Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure 9, pp. 7-28. Godel, R. 1953. “La question des signes zéro”, In: Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure 11, pp. 31-41. Haas, W. 1957. Zero in linguistic description. In: Studies in Linguistic Analysis. Oxford 1957, pp. 33-53. Harris, Z.S., 1942. “Morpheme Alternants in linguistic Analysis”. In: Language 18, pp. 169-80. Harris, Z.S., 1951. Structural Linguistics, Chicago 1960 [=Methods in Structural Linguistics, Chicago 1951]. Hockett, C.F. 1947. “Problems of Morphemic Analysis”. In: Language 23, 4, pp. 321-343. Jakobson, R. 1939. “Signe Zéro”. In: Mélanges de Linguistique offerts à Ch. Bally. Genève, pp. 143-152. Kastovsky, D. 1969. “Wortbildung und Nullmorphem”. In: Linguistiche Berichte I,2, pp. 1-13. Kastovsky, D. 1980. Zero in Morphology: a means of Making up for phonological losses? In J. Fisiak (ed.),

Historical Morphology, The Hague, pp. 213-50. Kastovsky, D. 2005. Conversion and/ or zero: word-formation theory, historical linguistics and typology. In:

Bauer, Laurie - Salvador Valera, eds., Approaches to Conversion/ Zero-derivation. Münster, pp. 31-50. Kielhorn, Franz, ed. 1880‒1885. The Vyākarana-Mahābhāshya of Patañjali, 3 vols. Bombay [Osnabrück

1970].

22

Kiparsky, Paul 2009. On the Architecture of Panini's Grammar. In: Huet, Gérard P., Amba P. Kulkarni, Peter M. Scharf (eds.), Sanskrit Computational Linguistics. Proceedings of the First and Second International Symposia, Rocquencourt, France, October 29-31, 2007 Providence, RI, USA, May 15-17, 2008, “Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science”, 5402, pp. 33-94.

Komatsu, E. - G. Wolf, ed. and transl. 1996. F. de Saussure, Premier Cours de Linguistique Generale (1907), d’après les Cahiers d’Albert Riedlinger. Oxford 1996.

Lieber, R. 1981. “Morphological Conversion within a restrictive theory of the lexicon”. In: Moortgat, M. - H.V. d. Hulst e T. Hoekstra (eds.), The Scope of lexical Rules, Dordrecht, pp. 161-200.

Marchand, H. 19692. The Categories and Types of present-day English Word-Formation, München. Mc Gregor, W. 2003. “The Nothing that is, the zero that isn’t”. In: Studia Linguistica 57, 2: pp. 75-119. Meier, G.F. 1961. Das Zéro-Problem in der Linguistik (Schriften zur Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und

Kommunikationsforschung nr. 2), Berlin 1961. Meillet, A. 1903. Introduction à l'etude comparative des langues indoeuropéennes, Paris. Mel’čuk, I. 2001. “Zero sign in Morphology”. In: The Fourth International Tbilisi Symposiumon Language,

Logic and Computation Borjomi, Georgia, September 23-28, 2001, 31 pp. http://www.illc.uva.nl/Tbilisi/Borjomi2001/Proceedings/contents.html

Nida, E.A. 1946. Morphology, the descriptive analysis of words, 2. Ann Arbor. Nida, E. 1948. “The Identification of Morphemes”. In: Language 24, 4 (1948), pp. 414-41. Parret, H., ed. 1994. = F. de Saussure, Manoscritti di Harvard. Roma-Bari 1994. Pavesi, M. 1994. Formazione di parole. La conversione in inglese L2. Milano. Pinault, G.-J. 1989. Parole articulée et vérité; Travaux à partir du corpus védique; Pāṇini et l’enseignement

grammatical; Procédés pāṇinéens; Le système de Pāṇini. In: S. Auroux, ed., Histoire des idées Linguistiques, 1, Liege-Bruxelles 1989, pp. 293-401.

Pontillo, T. 2002. “La prima ricezione del modello morfologico di Pāṇ ini nella linguistica occidentale: il caso dello zero”. In: Idee e parole. Universi concettuali e metalinguistici. Ed. by V. Orioles. Vol. 3. “Lingue, linguaggi, metalinguaggio”. Roma, pp. 535‒587.

Pontillo, T. 2010. “Once again on Vyakti-Vacane in Aṣṭādhyāyī I.2.51: śravaṇaḥ / śravaṇā”. In: Rivista di Studi Sudasiatici, 4: 97‒126.

Pontillo, T. forthcoming. “‘Where the sense is intended although the corresponding speech unit is not employed’: the ekaśeṣa case”. In: Proceedings of the 15th World Sanskrit Conference, Delhi 5-10 January 2012 (Vyākaraṇa Session). Ed. by George Cardona. Delhi, pp. 99‒134. Sapir, E. - M. Swadesh 1946. “American Indian Grammatical Categories”. In: Word 2, pp. 103-12. Saporta, S. 1964. “On the Use of Zero in Morphemics”. In: Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress

of Linguists, Cambridge August 27-31, 1962 (Janua Linguarum. Studia Memoriae N.V.WijK dedicata ed. C.H. van Schooneveld, Series Maior XII), ed. H.G. Lunt, London-The Hague-Paris, pp. 228-31.

Sarmā, Āryendra, Khanderao Deshpande, and D.G. Padhye, eds. (1969‒1970). Kāśikā. A Commentary on Pāṇini’s Grammar by Vāmana and Jayāditya. Hydearabad: Sanskrit Academy. Osmania University.

Saussure, F. De 1878. Mémoire sur le système primitif des voyelle dans les langues indo-européennes, Hildesheim 1968 (Reprographischer Nachdruck der Ausgabe Leipzig 1879 [= 1878]).

Scharfe, H. 1965. vacana “ ‘Numerus’ bei Pāṇini?”. In: Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung 80, 239-46.

Schindler, J. 1980. “Zur Herkunft der altindischen cvi-Bildungen”. In: M.P. Mayrhofer, M. Peters, O. Pfeiffer (eds.), Lautgeschichte und Etymologie. Akten der VI. Fachtagung der Indogermanische Gesellschaft, Wien, 24-29 Sept. 1978, Wiesbaden 1980: pp. 386-93.

Sharma, Rama Nath 1987-2003. The Aṣṭādhyāyī of Pāṇini. 6 vols. New Delhi. Zakharyin, B.A. 2003. “PaaNini’s Lopa and Zeroing in Modern Standard Hindi”. In: Masica, C.P., ed., Papers

growing out of the Fifth International Conference on South Asian Linguistics (ICOSAL-5), held at Moscow, Russia in july 2003 (MLBD Series in Linguistics XVI), pp. 337-48.