Pa~ncamii and sattamii according to the Saddaniiti

Hi Rett,

Jim:
>>> I think the ordinal terms for the imperative and the
>>> optative are very old Indian terms predating Panini.

Eisel:
>> Yes, but they are isolated in the list of non-ordinal terms
>> presented by Kaccayana, and their numbers do not actually
>> correspond ("ordinally") to their position in that list.  I
>> do not know any Pali grammatical source in which those two
>> ordinal names "make sense".  Your opinion on their antiquity
>> is very interesting to me --but it only elaborates the
>> problem.

Rett:
> From Chatterji, Ksitish Chandra, _Technical Terms and
> Technique of Sanskrit Grammar_, Calcutta, 1964: "The
> original name for lo.t (Imperative) was lost in the
> Kaatantra school which uses pañcamii for it, because lo.t
> occupies the fifth place in the Paaninian scheme of moods
> and tenses if the Subjunctive, which is confined to Vedic,
> is excluded." page 12.
>
> "In the case of li.n (Potential) as in that of lo.t, the
> earlier name was lost and li.n came to be called saptamii in
> the Kaatantra system, as with the exlusion of the Vedic
> Subjecnctive, it occupied the seventh place in the system of
> Paa.nini." page 13
>
> To me the above makes good sense of the terms (which one
> might abbreviate 5mi and 7mi), though I don't think it's
> certain that the Paninian terms need to predate the
> Kaatantra terms, as Chatterji assumes.

An alternative explanation:

According to Aggava.msa, there was an ancient scheme of
stating tenses in the following order: parokkhaa,
hiyyattanii, ajjattanii, bhavissanti, vattamaana. Within this
scheme the imperative belongs in the fifth class,
vattamaana, and so is called pa~ncamii.

If the vattamaana and pa~ncamii are counted as two, this
would make 6 vibhattiyo, with the optative making the
seventh, hence the name 'sattamii'.

Here's the relevant passage:

'Pa~ncamii' ti kena.t.thena pa~ncamii? Pa~ncama.m
vattamaana.t.thaana.m gamana.t.thena, pa~ncanna~nca
sa`nkhyaana.m puura.na.t.thena. Tathaa hi niyogaa
atiitaanaagatapaccuppannakaalikaana.m
parokkhaahiyyattanajjataniibhavissantiivattamaanaasa`nkhaataana.m
pa~ncanna.m vibhattiinamantare pa~ncamiibhuutaaya
vattamaanaaya sayampi paccuppannakaalikabhaavena
samaana.t.thaanattaa pa~ncama.m vattamaana.t.thaana.m
gacchatiiti pa~ncamii. Yathaa nadantii gacchatiiti nadii.
Tathaa niyogaa atiitaanaagatakaalikaa
parokkhaahiyyattanajjataniibhavissantiisa`nkhaataa catasso
vibhattiyo upaadaaya sayampi vattamaanaavibhatti viya
pa~ncanna.m sa`nkhyaana.m puura.niiti pa~ncamii.

'Sattamii' ti kena.t.thena sattamii? Sattanna.m
sa`nkhyaana.m puura.na.t.thena. Tathaa hi
atiitaanaagatapaccuppannakaalikaa
parokkhaahiyyattanajjataniibhavissantiivattamaanaapa~ncamiisa`nkhaataa
cha vibhattiyo upaadaaya sayampi paccuppannakaalikaa hutvaa
sattanna.m sa`nkhyaana.m puura.niiti sattamii.

-- Sadd. Padamaala pp 102-3 (Bhuumibalo Bhikkhu Foundation
edition, 1978).

I'm afraid there is no paragraph numbering in the BBF
edition of the Padamaala, and I don't have the H. Smith
edition. However, the passage comes three paragraphs from
the end of the Paki.n.nakavinicchaya.

Best wishes,

Dhammanando