பக்கம்:ஆய்வுக் கோவை.pdf/266

However, many sutras are devoted to say where a particular case-form should occur in a sentence and other details. From all these evidences, one is tempted to say that Tolkāppiyar is more concerned with the sentence pattern than the grammatical relationship existing among the constituents of a sentence. Thus, it becomes very difficult to give a general statement regarding the method of treatment of cases in Tolkāppiyam. The main functions of eaeh case appear to be similar in both, whatever variations we find, are according to the genius of the particular language. As the method of treatment is different in Aș tā dhyayi, it not confined to explain the caserelationship existing in sentence level but is extended to the word level as explained above. It is not necessary to give the common points but it will be useful if one or two different points are taken from both the grammars and explain how they are treated in the respective grammar. We shall take the 6th case as an example to show the difierence in the method of treatment. Pāzzini does not include the 6th case under the karakas as it is purely adnominal case nor does he define it as the passessive case. He simply says that the 6th case-marker is used in all the remaining cases. This sutra has been interpreted by Patanjali as the 6th caseaffix is required when the kā arakas, apādāna etc. are to be tacitly implied. That is to say that the 6th case-marker is used to represent certain karakas in their surface level. For example, with the root yaj to sacrifice” the 6th case-form is used to denote the karana as ghrtasya yajate “he sacrifice with ghee‘’ (p. 2 3 63). The same sutra has been interpreted as referring to the passessive relation in the kā sika. This relation is not explicit from the present sutra of Panini but it is implied in the sutra 253