पुटमेतत् सुपुष्टितम्

verbs in the active voice and verbs in the passive voice. There are some modern scholars of gra- mmar, especially linguists, who like to translate परस्मैपद as 'active voice' and आत्मनेपद as ' passive voice'. Pāņini appears, however, to have adapted the sense of the terms परस्मैपद and आत्मनेपद and taken them to mean mere affixes just as he has done in the case of the terms कृत् and तद्धित. Presumably in ancient times, words current in use were grouped into four classes by the authors of the Nirukta works, viz. (a) कृत् (words derived from roots)such as कर्ता, कारकः, भवनम् etc., (b) तद्धित (words derived from nouns ) such as गार्ग्यः , काषायम् , etc., (c) Parasmaipada words viz. verbs such as भवति, पचति, and (d) Ātma- nepada words i.e. verbs like एधते, वर्धते, etc.Verbs करोति and कुरुते or हरति and हरते were looked upon as both परस्मैपद words and आत्मनेपद words. The question of simple words, as they are called by the followers of Pāņini, such as नर, तद् , गो, अश्व, and a number of similar underived words, did not occur to the authors of the Nirukta as they believed that every noun was derivable, and hence could be included in the kŗt words.

पदकाण्ड (1) a term used in connection with the first section of the Vākya- padīya named ब्रह्मकाण्ड also, which deals with padas, as contrast- ed with the second section which deals with Vākyas; (2) a section of the Așțadhyāyī of Pāņini, which gives rules about changes and modifications applic- able to the pada, or the formed word, as contrasted with the base (अङ्ग) and the suffixes. The section is called पदाधिकार which begins with


the rule पदस्य P.VIII.1.16. and ends with the rule इडाया वा VIII. 3. 54.

पदकार lit. one who has divided the Samhitā text of the Vedas into the Pada-text. The term is applied to ancient Vedic Scholars शाकल्य, आत्रेय, कात्यायन and others who wrote the Padapātha of the Vedic Samhitās. The term is applied possibly through misunderstanding by some scholars to the Mahābhāsyakāra who has not divided any Vedic Sam- hitā,but has, in fact, pointed out a few errors of the Padakāras and stated categorically that gra- mmarians need not follow the Pada- pāțha, but, rather, the writers of the Padapāțha should have follow- ed the rules of grammar. Patañ- jali, in fact, refers by the term पदकार to Kātyāyana, who wrote the Padapātha and the Prātiśākhya of the Vājasaneyi-Samhitā in the following statement--न लक्षणेन पदकारा अनुवर्त्याः। पदकारैर्नाम लक्षणमनुवर्त्यम्। यथालक्षणं पदं कर्तव्यम् M. Bh. on P. III.1. 109; VI. 1. 207; VIII. 2.16; cf. also अदीधयुरिति पदकारस्य प्रत्याख्यानपक्षे उदाह- रणमुपपन्नं भवति ( परिभाषासूचन of व्याडि Pari. 42 ) where Vyādi clearly refers to the Vārtika of Kātyā- yana ' दीधीवेव्योश्छन्दोविषयत्वात् ' P. I. 1.6 Vārt. I. The misunder- standing is due to passages in the commentary of स्कन्दस्वामिन् on the Nirukta passage I. 3, उब्वट- टीका on ऋक्प्रातिशाख्य XIII. 19 and others where the statements referred to as those of Patañjali are, in fact, quotations from the Prā- tiśākhya works and it is the writers of the Prātiśākhya works who are referred to as padakāras by Patañ jali in the Mahābhāsya.

पदचन्द्रिका a grammar work on the nature of words written by कृष्णशेष of the sixteenth century.