Abstract

Comparing the _kāraka_ theory as presented in Pāṇiniʼs (_ca_. fifth-fourth century BC) and Candragominʼs (_ca_. fifth century AD) systems of grammar, Joshi and Roodbergen observed that in the _Cāndrasūtra_, the heading rule Pāṇ 2.3.1 (_anabhihite_), which plays an important role for all the _kāraka_ rules, is missing. Deshpande, however, criticized their understanding. According to him, Patañjali (_ca_. second century BC), in his _Mahābhāṣya_, already dealt with the question of whether the general principle _uktārthānām aprayogaḥ_ can justify the omission of this heading rule; under the influence of Patañjali, Candragomin took the position that it is not necessary to explicitly provide Pāṇ 2.3.1. The present paper revisits this issue on the basis of some newly edited Cāndra materials, the _Cāndrapañjikā_ and the _Śabdārthacintā_, which were both written by the eminent Sinhalese grammarian Ratnamati or Ratnaśrījñāna (_ca_. tenth century AD). Ratna’s detailed explanation not only confirms that Deshpande’s assumption is correct, but it also clarifies that the problem pointed out by Pāṇinians in the case of the omission of Pāṇ 2.3.1 can be solved by resorting to the theory of the fivefold meaning of a nominal stem.