INTRODUCTION ]
xxxi
1. The use of the Vedic language would have been archaic in Classical Sanskrit. Hence the illustration of Vedic sUtras was not possible for Bhatti. 2. Bhatti confined himself to Panini’s sUtras and did not take up any of the varttikas of Katyayana for illustration. Jayamangala, Mallinatha and other commentators used a few of them for elucidating certain formations. 3. Accent, a peculiarity of Vedic Sanskrit, was lost in Classical Sanskrit. Hence Bhatti has omitted the it-s (indicatory consonants). Out of tavyat-tavyayaniyarah he has illustrated °tavya, °ya and 'aniya forms, dropping tavyat. 4. I. 2.14, 3.47, 4. 96 ; II. 3.43, 3.51 ; III. 2.34, 3.34, 3.35 ; VIII. 3.86, 3.99, 3.100 are omitted in the Adhikara-kanda. 5. From among the Samjftas and the Pratyaharas he illustrates only the most apt alternative and omits all the others. 6. Out of a group of roots included in one sutra Bhatti selects only one and drops all others.78910 7. Bhatti generally does not repeat his illustrations ; that is why he usually avoids the later Adhynharas (recurring applications) ; sometimes, however, he illustrates the later Adhyahara dropping the earlier one. 8. Out of synonyms (artha) too, all, but the initial one, are dropped. 9. Similarly, only one example each is given out of the Unadi and the SusamVdi groups. Optional forms, possible according to sUtras attributed to ancient grammarians, barring one or two exceptions, are never illustrated. Suitable examples of all the optional forms are given only when the sutra is very small. Once, however, fifteen out of twenty options given in a longer sutra are illustrated. 10. Out of the NipUtanas too, only one befitting illus tration is given, unlike the later poets. Out of two or more Nipatanas having the same sense, only one is illustrated. Three
