INTRODUCTION lxv हाहाशब्दो धातुजो न भवतीति केचित् व्याचक्रिरे । तज्जल्पितमज्ञानविजृम्भि- तमेव । हेति निन्दितं ध्वनिं जहातीति हाहा इत्यमरभाष्यकाराः प्रतिजानते । (p. 37 ) In a covert reference to Sürin's interpretation of grāha as ‘ a horse-faced aquatic creature' and kumbhira as ‘ a crocodile or shark capable of dragging elephants into the water', Malli. says: घोटकमुखमीननामनी इति वदन्ति । तदसत् । उदकचरमण्डलिसर्पनामनी गजाकर्षणमत्स्यनामनी इति केचित् । तदज्ञानविजृम्भितम् । (p. 170) This censure pronounced on Sūrin is an unjust representation of his erudition, for ajñāna may not be the monopoly of his opponents ; since some kumbhira sharks are quite capable of dragging elephants into the waters (witness nakrākrānte karindre. . .' in the Bhāgavata). Some commentators explain the rohitaka-vrkşa as a variety of the thorny Palāśa tree. Malli. being perhaps familiar with this tree in the Magadha country castigates this play of ignorance'. स च मगधविषयप्रसिद्धः । कण्टकपलाश इति केचित् । तदज्ञानविलसितमेव । C (p. 245) The sūtra-s of Pānini are not generally quoted by Malli. as he does not, as a rule, give the derivation of Amara's words. But occasionally, when he finds that certain words require derivation at his hand, he quotes the sūtra-s. Vaisravana (Kubera) has grammatical peculiarity: विश्रवःशब्दात् 'तस्येदम्' (४. ३. १२०) इत्यणि कृते विश्रवसो विश्रवण- रवणाविति प्राप्ते विश्रवणादेशे वृद्धौ वैश्रवण इति रूपं सिद्धम् । (p. 48 ) The word bharatāh ( actors) has a peculiar formation in the plural and hence he gives the relevant sūtra-s for its derivation. As the word bharata is included in the utsādi group, the affix an is added to it resulting in bhāratah, but by ‘yañaños ca' it loses its gotra affix an in the plural. Hence bharatāh is the resultant form. E
