User:Dogstar 7/sandbox

George Cardona ([dʒɔːɹdʒ kəɹdonʌ]; born 1936) is an American linguist, Indologist, Sanskritist, and scholar of Pāṇini. Described as "a luminary" in Indo-European, Indo-Aryan, and Pāṇinian linguistics since the early sixties, Cardona has been recognized as the leading Western scholar in the world of the Indian grammatical tradition (vyākaraṇa) and of the great Indian grammarian Pāṇini. He is currently Professor Emeritus of Linguistics and South Asian Studies at the University of Pennsylvania.

Personal life
George Cardona was born in New York, NY on June 3, 1936.

Professional Career: Achievements and Honors
Cardona obtained his BA from New York University in 1956, and his MA and PhD degrees from Yale in 1958 and 1960, respectively. His dissertation advisor at Yale was Paul Thieme who worked primarily in Vedic studies and Sanskrit grammar. Cardona's PhD was in linguistics with a specialization in Indo-European ‒ by this time he had already begun studying Sanskrit grammar (vyākaraṇa) and related areas (especially nyāya and mīmāṃsā). In 1962-63, not long after receiving his PhD, Cardona went to Gujarat state, India, where he worked on his A Gujarati reference grammar, as well as furthering his understanding of Sanskrit and Indian grammatical tradition. While in India, Cardona studied under the tutelage of native Indian gurus, including Jagannath S. Pade Shastri (his first Indian mentor and to whom his most significant work Pāṇini: His Work and its Traditions is dedicated), Pt. Ambika Prasad Upadhyaya, Pt. K.S. Krishnamurti Shastri, and Pt. Raghunatha Sharma.

Sometime after completing his PhD and living in India, Cardona was hired to teach Hindi and other modern Indic languages at the University of Pennsylvania. There, his earlier work in Indo-European studies at Yale slowly gave way to work primarily in Indo-Iranian and Indo-Aryan. His work on Indian grammar gained steam after his exposition of the Ṥivasūtras in 1969. After this point he directed the majority of his scholarly attention toward further vyākaraṇa scholarship and analysis of various aspects of the Aṣṭādhyāyī, which eventually culminated in his Pāṇini: His Work and Its Traditions in 1988, a projected multi-volume work.

Cardona's enormous body of works and publications have evinced his scholarly depth and intensity throughout his professional career. Moreover, he has been formally recognized as such numerous times: he was granted The Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship while working on his PhD;  in 1971-72, he was admitted as a fellow of the Center for Advanced Studies in the Behavioral Sciences, Palo Alto; was selected as the Collitz Professor at the summer institute of the Linguistic Society of America at the University of Illinois (1978); was elected in 1984 and 1997 to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the American Philosophical Society, respectively; and served as President of the American Oriental Society from 1989-1990. These distinctions further attest to Cardona's respected stature in Indo-European studies and Indian grammatical theory.

Personality and Anecdotes as a Professor
Despite Cardona's tireless scholarly altercations, he is known for comporting himself with good sportsmanship and interpersonal amiability. For instance, though Cardona and Staal "differ on fundamental issues", when Cardona was in Berkeley giving a lecture once, Staal invited him into his home and threw a party in his honor.

Cardona's buoyant though exacting personality is narrated by some of his students as well, who report of his assiduous chastisement in class, bent on dispelling student mistakes. Despite this ‒ or perhaps because of this ‒ Cardona is affectionately remembered for his ardent, tough, and, at times, overwhelming pedagogical bearing.

Background to Cardona's Work
Cardona's career began in the 1950s and 60s as indological studies, especially studies in traditional Sanskrit grammar, burgeoned throughout the United States. Cardona here entered the scene of indological studies at the closing of a disciplinary era dominated by the legacies of Bopp, Whitney, and Bloomfield ‒ which triad of thinkers had established a discipline that relied less upon, and on occasion aversely opposed, native Indian tradition itself, in order to accomplish overtly historical and comparative objectives. Thus the emerging indological discipline of Cardona's early career differentiated itself by rejecting what it saw as the unappreciating and therefore skewed appraisal of Indian tradition by early Western indological tradition, instead emphasizing historically descriptive interpretation of Indian thinkers and their works  ‒ that is, to get at what Indian thinkers "sought to achieve in their writings, and how they went about doing it". The disciplinary orientations of both early and late Western indology remain discernable throughout Cardona's career, as when, in a methodological controversy, J.F. Staal characterizes Cardona as a historically motivated philologist, but identifies himself as a linguist in the tradition of Whitney (in certain respects).

On the whole, Cardona has been widely recognized as a champion of the indology that seeks ‒ if not a simply historical ‒ an interior understanding of the intentions and aims of Indian grammarians. Concerning his work on the Aṣṭādhyāyī, Cardona has contributed to an ongoing debate as to how the design of Pāṇini's grammar ought to be conceptualized: in terms of modern linguistic insight, the native exegetical traditions, or some amalgamation of the two?. These debates have resulted in much dispute about scholarly orientation toward and treatment of this grammatical treatise ‒ case in point being Cardona's dispute with J.F. Staal and Sergiu Al-George on the relation of Pāṇini to generative formalism.

Cardona has worked alongside a number of other scholars, who have, as a collective, both constituted an intellectual backdrop for Cardona and mutually constructed an interdependent network of collegiate industry with him. These persons include: Rosane Rocher, Barend van Nooten Hartmut Scharfe, J.F. Staal, Paul Kiparsky, Hans Hock, Madhav Deshpande, Rama Nath Sharma, and Peter Scharf.

Indology
Indology as a whole carries out textual examination and exegesis for the purposes of historical and cultural explanation. Cardona's involvement in this field has concerned the analysis and interpretation of ancient Indian grammatical treatises. One puzzle in this sub-field involves the absolute and relative dating of grammatical texts. While scholars of previous generations ‒ such as Albrecht Weber, Bruno Liebich, and Sylvain Lévi ‒ did not shy away from making claims about dating these texts, Cardona summed up the prevailing contemporary sentiment when he concluded: 'non liquet' (Latin for 'it is not clear').

Another issue in indology is the translation of Pāṇini's grammar and Indian commentaries. Cardona's take on this matter underscores the inevitable inadequacy ‒ indeed, the "useless[ness]" ‒ of translating. Cardona's reasoning for this derives from the nature of the Aṣṭādhyāyī and other grammatical compositions themselves: especially for the former (which was designed to be memorized), the structure of these texts prioritizes economical exposition and so read more like a series of mathematical formulas than spoken prose. Following from this, Cardona holds the view that translations often end up "less clear than the original texts."

An additional task of indology is the relating of texts to each other. In fact, Cardona stands out as a dedicated scholar of not only the Aṣṭādhyāyī, but also of all the later daughter commentaries of this cornerstone text.

Indian Linguistics
Indian linguistics is concerned with the examination of Indian linguistic methods and inquiry insofar ‒ the fact that these linguistic methods have to do with India is incidental. This is Cardona's primary area of activity and expertise. Along these lines, Rocher (writing in 1975) observed that Cardona's then in-progress Panini: His Work and Its Traditions (1988, 1997) would "reflect the fact that present day research is essentially concerned with methodology."

Meta-terminology and Meta-rules
Linguistic description necessarily employs technical and metalinguistic terminology. On this matter, Cardona has defended the view that the immediate context surrounding a term should determine its meaning. This stands in contrast to the perspective held by his direct teacher, Paul Thieme, who argued that technical terms have a "single interpretation" and that their meaning remains consistent across commentaries and grammars. Related to the defining of technical terminology is examining how it operates (in a given text). In his article, Studies in Indian Grammarians, I: The method of description reflected in the śivasūtras, Cardona discusses the metalanguage employed therein and how it accomplishes Pāṇini's methodological aim, namely, economy. In a review of this work, Rocher elects, in fact, as Cardona's chief contribution "the refinement brought to the principle of economy." In other words, what Cardona has accomplished here, Rocher elaborates, is a conscientious investment into and explication of the (intellectual) procedure of generalization as it features within the practice of descriptive economy (of grammar) itself; thus, infers Rocher, the terse brevity of the grammarians ought to be the object itself of further study. All in all then, Rocher attributes to Cardona originality insofar as he keeps to the Indian tradition in methodology, which enables Cardona to translate, so to speak, the scholastic vernacular of ancient India into the modern Western academese. As for Cardona himself, he concludes, after much elaboration, that his achievement in this paper is to have situated "how the śivasūtras fit into the general method of description followed by Pāṇini", which leads to a related, but distinct insight, namely, that Pāṇini's contribution to the Indian grammatical tradition was primarily methodological,  otherwise being quite conservative within his (Pāṇini's) intellectual milieu.

Not all scholars have commended Cardona's The method of description reflected in the śivasūtras. Millonig, for instance, appraises Cardona's study of the śivasūtras as more or less comprehensive, but ultimately deficient in its attention to detail, particularly with regard to the relationships between the text and the pratyāhāra-sūtras. Staal offers a more critical review: he argues, first of all, that Cardona's explication of the śivasūtras is not especially imbued with originality. Nonetheless, Staal credits Cardona for a more explicit formulation of Pāṇinian economy. This explicit formulation, according to Staal, gets across the idea that Pāṇini engaged in the practice of abbreviation not for the sake of brevity for its own sake, but rather conceived of descriptive abbreviation as an instrument of mediating between sāmānya 'the general' and viśeṣa 'the particular'.

Despite Cardona's more explicit formulation, Staal first points out that some post-Pāṇinian grammarians employed abbreviation more than Pāṇini did. Secondly, Staal observes that scholars H.E. Buiskool (1934) and Barend Faddegon (1936) were well aware that Pāṇinian methodology exercised abbreviation for the sake of insinuating functionality into and expressing generalization in grammatical treatment. Finally, asserts Staal, there are many instances of abbreviation in Pāṇini that do not evince Cardona's lofty characterization of Pāṇinian economy: non-functional abbreviation abounds. As a case in point, Staal cites the following:

"1.1.3 iko guṇavṛddhī is a meta-linguistic statement dealing with the use of the technical terms guṇa and vṛddhī. The next sūtra, 1.1.4 na dhātulope ārdhadhātuke, with anuvṛtti of guṇavṛddhī from the previous rule, is a rule which treats a special case where guṇa and vṛddhī, despite other rules, do not take place. Thus this case of anuvṛtti is entirely non-functional and ad hoc".

How Grammar Relates to Logic
An additional area of controversy relevant to the study of Pāṇini's method of linguistic description that has attracted Cardona's attention is how grammar relates to logic. His separate treatments of negations in Pāṇini and of the terms anvaya and vyatireka in the Mahābhāṣya have each sought to determine how Indian grammarians' usage of technical terms has evinced metalinguistic meaning. Once again, Cardona differs from Staal here ‒ the latter combines linguistic, logical, and philosophical usage in his analysis of the relationship between grammar and logic.

The Kārakas Controversy
Also having to do with Pāṇini's method of linguistic description, a disciplinary debate arose during the '60s (when syntax was trending) concerning the notion of kārakas as it "touches the core of syntax." Cardona has maintained the view (since the debate began) that the kārakas are essentially linguistic, syntactic-semantic categories ‒ not non-linguistic or extra-linguistic ones as put forth by Rocher and Al-George on the basis of a lack of correspondence between the Indian notion of 'agent,' a kind of kārakas, and a fixed linguistic expression (compare the correspondence between the grammatical category of 'subject' and its linguistic expression, the nominative). A subset of this debate is Al-George's claim that kārakas issue from "Vedic ritual categories," which Cardona has criticized greatly. Whereas Al-George's supplies extraneous elements to his analysis of the kārakas (he invokes European structuralism), Cardona's position is rooted in Pāṇini's text itself.

General Linguistics and Indian Grammatical Tradition
Beginning in the '60s, attempts at formalization of the Aṣṭādhyāyī developed. These attempts at formalization entailed the comparison of modern Western and ancient Indian grammatical traditions. Since formalizing Pāṇinian rules also amounts to translating them into a different language, so to speak, scholars such as Cardona explored the issue of how ‒ or even whether ‒ comparisons of this sort could be carried out. On this matter, Cardona is well known for having said:

"I do not think we have yet arrived at a sufficiently detailed understanding of Indian grammatical methods to make a comparison with Western methods truly useful. After such an understanding has been attained, it will be both welcome and valuable to make comparisons."

Back and forth with Staal on this point elicited a spirited response in Staal (1967). Staal attributes to Cardona a scholarly approach that is "historically" informed, and identifies him most essentially as a "philologist". On the other hand, Staal considers himself most essentially as a "linguist", approaching his subject "systematically". Staal then points out that "[t]he scope for mutual contradiction between these two approaches is fairly narrow". This narrow scope, nonetheless, evidently affords Cardona the opportunity to wonder whether Staal thought that Pāṇini "started from scratch" in his composition of the śivasūtras (thus, from Cardona's point of view, Staal was ignoring one of Cardona's central theses that Pāṇini was deeply indebted to the Indian grammatical tradition). Staal claims that Cardona has misinterpreted him. He then goes on to dispute, in fact, that there is no such difference between himself and Cardona when it comes to studying the śivasūtras "in terms of 'the grammatical structure of the language' as analysed in the rules of the grammarians." The drift of Staal's point here is that while his own and Cardona's emphases may differ, these emphases nonetheless get at the same object of study (whether that be the śivasūtras, the Aṣṭādhyāyī, or other grammatical treatises) and with the same disciplinary intent, namely, to study "the grammatical structure of the language."

Yet Staal criticizes Cardona's methodological prioritization of historically informed philology over systematically informed linguistics, citing Cardona as having remarked (above) that comparison of "Indian grammatical methods" with "Western methods" would be unprofitable since insight into the former remains limited. Staal sees this as "remarkably naïve" and invokes William Dwight Whitney's legacy, making a claim to the effect that actual comparison of Indian grammatical methods and Western methods is unwarranted in fact ‒ for, after all, Pāṇini's primary status as a linguist, and not as a philologist, demands that he be treated as such, in Staal's view. As a consequence, Staal maintains, scholars ought to aim at "a detailed understanding of Indian grammatical methods", insofar as that aids assessing Pāṇini as a linguist.

Whether these attempts at comparison are premature is beside the point, according to some scholars, since people are performing this kind of comparison and they are doing it more often; what can be done is to assess the adequacy of these attempts. (37) Cardona has persistently upheld the view, as refered to elsewhere, that translations (or 'comparisons') ought to be of a strict sort; to achieve this he has supplied four objectives upon which to carry out translation, namely: These rules of thumb evince Cardona's concern with the tampering of Pāṇini's rules ‒ indeed, he argues that fidelity to the text and tradition in these respects supersedes the importance of absolute clarity. The criterion of scholars such as Staal, on the other hand, permits the incorporation of elements of general linguistic theory into formalizations on the basis of expediency. Other scholars hold the view ‒ which Cardona rejects outright as uncritical ‒ that Western grammatical terms on concepts can be directly imposed onto Indian ones. Interestingly, this approach seems to hold in light of the view that, long ago, Indian grammarians anticipated modern developments in Western linguistics. Cardona has dismissed this kind of historical precurorism.
 * 1) the formalization should not merely be an adaptation of Indian grammatical terms into Western ones;
 * 2) it should not obfuscate the different between the method of Pāṇini and that of other Indian grammarians;
 * 3) it should put on display how Pāṇinian commentators interpreted the same rules differently;
 * 4) and finally, "modern interpreters should recognize their inability to arrive at a unique solution.

Cardona's Relationships with Other Scholars
Regier and Wallace (1991) observe Cardona's ire against Whitney and Goldstücker; for the former in particular, Cardona has criticized Whitney for his "linguistic prejudice" and "more than a little arrogance." Furthermore, Cardona seems to think that Whitney's assumptions inescapably tainted his methodology, hence the disagreement between Staal and Cardona, discussed above. On the other hand, Cardona has looked amiably upon the work of scholars Kielhorn, Renou, and Yudhiṣṭhira Mīmāṃsaka.

Other Criticisms
Scholars other than Staal have criticized Cardona's work, especially in his earlier period. Durbin, for instance, claims that Cardona's A Gujarati Reference Grammar inadequately meets the author's own goals of serving as 1) an audio-lingual textbook for students, being "too sketchy, ill-organized, and defective" and as 2) being a resource for linguists in Indic studies, being better suited, Durbin claims, for the amateur needing a general grammatical overview of an Indo-Aryan language. In particular, he heavily criticizes Cardona's "disturbing" coverage on morphophonemics, which he claims is simply too small;  ignores the interlinking of "different morphophonemic rules"  to each other, which extends itself to a scanty description of rule ordering; and lastly, "the conditions of certain morphophonemic rules"  are incompletely specified such that a "rule becomes non-applicable in certain cases". As an instance of this last criticism, Durbin cites Rule 1b10 where /CəC-VC/ → /CCVC/ (i.e. a facultative phonologically conditioned rule where, in this particular kind of grammatical transformation of a word, schwa, 'ə', is deleted between consonants). Cardona cites the following two examples as instances of this rule: 1) /tərət-əj/ 'right away' ~ /tərtəj/, and 2) /wəkhət-e/ 'at the time' ~ /wəkte/. Durbin points out, however, that Cardona's rule is underspecified, and so examples like /rəm-aṛ/ 'to cause to play' ‒ despite its form (/CəC-VC/) being captured by Cardona's formulation of the rule ‒ are apparent exceptions to the rule. Durbin goes to show how formulating this rule as /#(C)VCəC-VC/ → /#(C)VCəVC/ (where schwa is in a non-initial and unstressed syllable) captures Cardona's examples while accounting (or not accounting, rather) for examples like /rəm-aṛ/, which is no longer an exception to this rule, but rather simply inapplicable to it.

Another criticism of Cardona's work has come from Szemerényi: his review of Cardona's Haplology in Indo-European centers primarily on the volumes thinness of "substance", as well as its physical thinness. As far as the "substance" of the volume goes, Szemerényi starts straight away by singling out Cardona's dictum that "haplology is not essentially separable from regular sound change amenable to formulation in terms of what are called sound laws". The majority of the review goes on to criticize this thesis as untenable because of its insensitivity to an essential difference between what Szemerényi contends are two different types of sound change governing the realization of haplology,  namely, regular group-changes and irregular (sporadic) group-changes. The former, Szemerényi specifies, "cover general[ized] rules of assimilation and dissimilation", for instance the dissimilation of the sequence l-l to l-r in Latin, whereas the latter covers idiosyncratic changes such as isolated Greek examples of vowel harmony: Attic Korkura from Kerkura 'name of an island', or kromuon beside kremuon 'leek'. Szemerényi's issue with Cardona's analysis, then, is directed not toward his specific treatment of Indian -yā́-, Vedic -si-, and Latin forms like dixti per se, but rather toward Cardona's wider claim (in agreement with Hoenigswald (1964), from whom Cardona carried over the idea) that haplology is a regular sound change in relation to these forms. But even as far as the discussion of Latin forms goes, Szemerényi observes that haplologized models dixti and dixem co-existed alongside original longer forms dixisti, dixissem, respectively ‒ that is, there were haplologized models that "never won out". Thus, Szemerényi infers, Cardona's decidedly neogrammarian analysis is in this case inappropriate as, after all, "sound laws suffer no exception". Cardona's attempts to maintain that Latin forms like dixti are instances of haplology-as-regular-sound-change are ultimately sized up by Szemerényi as "mere postulate[s], contradicted by facts". Despite Szemerényi's differences with Cardona on the main thesis of his On Haplology in Indo-European, he commends the descriptions of Indian -yā́- forms (sections §§1-3) and Vedic -si- forms (section §5).

Finally, Cardona's seminal work Pāṇini: His Work and Its Traditions, while generally praised for its lucidity, profundity, and comprehensiveness,     has not entirely escaped critique. Hartmut Scharfe, for instance, criticizes Cardona heavily for his "excessive reliance" on the native Indian tradition and his consequent reluctance to break with tradition and adopt modern scholarship.

Wary of criticizing Cardona on matters relating to Pāṇini, Bhattacharya alludes to Cardona's distinguished authority. He proceeds, however, to make a few observations, noting several of Cardona's departures from conventional analyses. One such departure can be explained as follows:

In A ('A ' is for Aṣṭādhyāyī) 6.1.201 and 202 (that is: adhyāya 'chapter' six, pāda 'quarter-chapter' one, sūtras 'rule' two-hundred and one and two):

Again, that's A 6.1.201-2:

1) Cardona derives kṣáya 'dwelling' and jáya '(a horse or such) with which one gains victory'  with the suffix ac
 * ac is found in A 3.3.56;
 * ac is a kind of verbally independent suffix, part of a wider class of such suffixes known as kṛt affixes ‒ in particular, the suffix ac is a high-pitched affix;
 * in application to A 6.1.201-2, the affix ac contradistinghuishes the variable accentuation of the parallel derivates with kṛt affixes:
 * kṣáya 'dwelling' : kṣayá 'destroying', and
 * jáya '(a horse or such) with which one gains victory' : jayá 'victory'.
 * stipulating that kṣáya and jáya have a high pitch on their first vowels, rather than on their second vowels (which another sūtra, A 3.1.3, fails to account for)

2) In line with his deriving of kṣáya and jáya from ac, Cardona, in A 6.2.144, derives the compound prakṣayáḥ 'outstanding dwelling', permissible since A 6.2.139 allows compounds (here, prakṣayáḥ) containing particular derivates with particular kṛt affixes (including ac ‒ here, kṣáya) to retain their original accentuation (i.e., their accentuation not derived by A 6.1.201-2, see above) (cf. Cardona 1997 ).

3) Bhattacharya notes this is a departure from the typical treatment of Pāṇinīyas; instead, in A 6.1.201-2, they derive kṣáya and jáya with the suffix -gha; Thus, Bhattacharya exemplifies an instance of Cardona's departure from convention, which departure is tied up with Cardona's commitment to the native commentarial tradition.
 * this derivation would result in kṣáya and jáya actually being realized (originally) as kṣayá and jayá;
 * thus, prakṣayáḥ isn't subject to the analysis that it 'retains its original accentuation', because there is not a non-original accentuation that it can conflict with;
 * and which further implies that kṣáya and jáya are the non-original forms, derived as a result from and particular to their relevant sūtras;
 * the kṣayá meaning 'destroying' and jayá 'victory' are derived with suffix ac instead;
 * in other words, Bhattacharya is observing a difference and incongruence in what is being analyzed as the 'original' accentuation.

Legacy
Cardona's legacy is most felt in the discipline of Indian linguistics where he has exemplified ‒ indeed, championed ‒ an approach that seeks to describe and appreciate the techniques of the Indian grammarians. To an extent, Cardona may be characterized as 'historical' and 'philological' in his methodology. However, Cardona has concerned himself with the textual and historically explanatory aims of these appraoches ‒ which were, in fact, the goals of earlier philological indology ‒ only insofar as they enabled him to recover and uncover the linguistic science itself encoded in texts like Pāṇini's Aṣṭādhyāyī. In other words, textual analysis and historical explanation are incidental to Cardona's central priority to treat Pāṇini as an Indian linguist. As fidelity to the tradition figures prominently for Cardona, he has been mostly critical of attempts to compare Pāṇini and the Pāṇinīyas with modern Western grammatical tradition. This stance, moreover, has served as a wellspring for debate, most notably with J.F. Staal and Paul Kiparsky. Along these lines, Brian Joseph's depiction of Cardona as a "luminary" in Pāṇinian linguistics warrants an assessment of Cardona as a veritable Pāṇinīya, carrying on the age-old exegetical tradition of Pāṇini's Aṣṭādhyāyī.

1965: Cardona's A Gujarati reference grammar
Cardona initiated his A Gujarati reference grammar in response to a need identified by a South Asian languages studies committee from the University of Pennsylvania for a new Gujarati grammar. After Cardona secured a contract from the U.S. Office of Education (from September 1962 to September 1964), he began work on his reference grammar, designing it for linguists teaching by the aural-lingual method (also known as the 'army method'). A peripheral aim of the work, according to Cardona, was for it to be generally useful for students and scholars of Gujarati alike. The book's preliminary work was done in Gujarat, where Cardona (and his family) resided during the academic year of 1962-63, spending time in Baroda (now Vadodara) and Ahmedabad.

In terms of the grammar's layout, Cardona arranges topics along conventional parameters, proceeding from smaller linguistic units to larger ones: he starts with a section on phonology, accompanied by an examination of Gujarati morphophonemics and orthography; he then takes up nominal and verbal morphology, which forms the bulk of the book spanning nearly as many pages of his coverage of phonology and syntax combined; and finally he ends with a smaller section on syntax in which he discusses adjuncts, nominal derivation, composition, and compound-like sequences.

Review by Durbin
Durbin has positively appraised Cardona's A Gujarati Reference Grammar on the grounds of its being the only English reference grammar of Gujarati in the 20th century (up through 1968). Despite the work's notability, however, Durbin claims that the work inadequately meets the author's own goals of serving as 1) an audio-lingual textbook for students, being "too sketchy, ill-organized, and defective" and as 2) being a resource for linguists in Indic studies, being better suited for the amateur needing a general grammatical overview of an Indo-Aryan language.

Durbin broadly characterizes the grammar's organization as traditional and in the style of taxonomic linguistics. He situates Cardona's phonological analysis as consistent with structuralist linguistics, and heavily criticizes his "disturbing" coverage on morphophonemics, which he claims is simply too small;  ignores the interlinking of "different morphophonemic rules"  to each other, which extends itself to a scanty description of rule ordering; and lastly, "the conditions of certain morphophonemic rules"  are incompletely specified such that a "rule becomes non-applicable in certain cases". As an instance of this last criticism, Durbin cites Rule 1b10 where /CəC-VC/ → /CCVC/ (i.e. a facultative phonologically conditioned rule where, in this particular kind of grammatical transformation of a word, schwa, 'ə', is deleted between consonants). Cardona cites the following two examples as instances of this rule: 1) /tərət-əj/ 'right away' ~ /tərtəj/, and 2) /wəkhət-e/ 'at the time' ~ /wəkte/. Durbin points out, however, that Cardona's rule is underspecified, and so examples like /rəm-aṛ/ 'to cause to play' ‒ despite its form (/CəC-VC/) being captured by Cardona's formulation of the rule ‒ are apparent exceptions to the rule. Durbin goes to show how formulating this rule as /#(C)VCəC-VC/ → /#(C)VCəVC/ (where schwa is in a non-initial and unstressed syllable) captures Cardona's examples while accounting (or not accounting, rather) for examples like /rəm-aṛ/, which is no longer an exception to this rule, but rather simply inapplicable to it.

Durbin goes on to characterize Cardona's section on orthography as out of place, but systematic. In contrast to Durbin's intense criticism of Cardona's section on morphophonemics, he assesses the section on nominal morphology as exceptional due to Cardona's more economical analysis of Gujarati substantives in terms of variable and invariable stems (as opposed to the traditional gender analysis) as well as to its attention in differences of animacy/inanimacy. Nonetheless, Durbin points out Cardona's lack of awareness in identifying his accordance with a specific linguistic theory: whereas Cardona generally takes a structuralist approach, his analysis of pronominal adjectives more closely concurrs with a generative approach. Other inaccuracies Cardona makes, including citing examples that do not exist in Gujarati, Durbin takes as inattentive. As for Cardona's section on verbal morphology, Durbin reprimands a confusing classificatory analysis of the verbal system, which confusion basically comes down to an incongruent overlapping of two major categories, namely, 'simple' and 'complex' verb forms; moreover, Durbin appraises this section generally as lacking a number relevant particulars,  with certain sections being "full of mistakes" and "superficial". Finally, Durbin addresses Cardona's sections on syntactic topics as being much too small and construed on the basis of data that seems to be collected accidentally.

On the whole, despite Durbin's attentive and numerous criticisms, he graciously acknowledges Cardona's contribution as being the first toward a comprehensive Gujarati grammar.

=
Review by I.R. ===== In contrast to Durbin, I.R. applauds Cardona's A Gujarati Reference Grammar, claiming that Cardona adequately covers grammatical topics for the purposes of a reference grammar. For instance, I.R. positively views Cardona's last sections on syntax, where Durbin criticized their brevity; for I.R., however, this brevity is justified on the grounds that "full treatment… would demand another book in itself".

I.R. makes the claim, similar to Durbin, that this grammar would be "intractable" for the amateur, being more suitable for the well-oriented general scholar of Indic languages. Interestingly, however, I.R. does not take Cardona's claim that this book is for students into consideration.

I.R. pardons the several respects in which Cardona might be contested on the basis that Cardona has produced the first systematic Gujarati grammar, which I.R. expects will hold a prominent position in and inform Gujarati linguistics for years to come.

==== 1968: Cardona's On haplology in Indo-European ==== Cardona's On haplology in Indo-European stems from his observation that haplological forms were not generalized in Vedic (and Classical) Sanskrit. Specifically, he points out feminine stems in -yā́- show up in the instrumental singular as either -áyā (as in śravasyáyā from śravasyā́- 'eloquence') or as -yā́ (as in śravasyā́ from śravasyā́-), with the latter being "a haplologic shortening of forms in -yáyā". This is problematic, however, in that this haplology was not equally applied across an inflectional paradigm, such that forms where the conditions for haplology were met, like -yāyām (locative singular), persisted. Cardona's study is thus motivated on the grounds of examining the distinction between these two contexts, i.e. why haplology occurs where it does occur, in a seemingly idiosyncratic way. He extends his study to an inspection of related phenomena, for instance the Vedic imperative -si from -sasi and Latin -s-perfect forms like dixti from dixisti. His general analysis and ultimate conclusions ultimate stem from his contention that haplology is connate with sound change, at least insofar as an instance of haplology can be formulated in terms of sound laws.

=
Review by Strunk ===== [German]

=
Review by Schmitt ===== [German]

Review by Szemerényi
Szemerényi's review of Cardona's haplology in Indo-European centers primarily on its thinness of "substance", as well as its thinness in bulk. As far as the substance of the volume goes, Szemerényi starts straight away by singling out Cardona's dictum that "haplology is not essentially separable from regular sound change amenable to formulation in terms of what are called sound laws". The majority of the review goes on to criticize this thesis as untenable because of its insensitivity to an essential difference between what Szemerényi contends are two different types of sound change governing the realization of haplology, namely, regular group-changes and irregular (sporadic) group-changes. The former, Szemerényi specifies, "cover general[ized] rules of assimilation and dissimilation", for instance the dissimilation of the sequence l-l to l-r in Latin, whereas the latter covers idiosyncratic changes such as isolated Greek examples of vowel harmony: Attic Korkura from Kerkura 'name of an island', or kromuon beside kremuon 'leek'.

Szemerényi's issue with Cardona's analysis, then, is directed not toward his specific treatment of Indian -yā́-, Vedic -si-, and Latin forms like dixti per se, but rather toward Cardona's wider claim (in agreement with Hoenigswald (1964), from whom Cardona carried over the idea) that haplology is a regular sound change, in relation to these forms. But even as far as the discussion of Latin forms goes, Szemerényi observes that haplologized models dixti and dixem co-existed alongside original longer forms dixisti, dixissem, respectively ‒ haplologized models which "never won out". Thus, Szemerényi infers, Cardona's decidedly neogrammarian analysis is in this case inappropriate as, after all, "sound laws suffer no exception". Cardona's attempts to maintain that Latin forms like dixti are instances of haplology-as-regular-sound-change are ultimately sized up by Szemerényi as "mere postulate[s], contradicted by facts".

Despite Szemerényi's differences with Cardona on the main thesis of his On Haplology in Indo-European, he commends the descriptions of Indian -yā́- forms (sections §§1-3) and Vedic -si- forms (section §5).

1969: Cardona's Studies in Indian grammarians, I: The method of description reflected in the śivasūtras
Cardona's most notable early work on the Indian grammatical tradition, Studies in Indian Grammarians, I: The method of description reflected in the śivasūtras explores the first 14 sūtras of the Aṣṭādhyāyī which enumerate the sounds of Sanskrit, notably systematizing them into classes. These sūtras are said to have been revealed to Pāṇini by the Indian god Śiva himself, hence 'śiva-sūtras'.

Cardona excuses himself from any inquiry into the authorship of the śivasūtras, instead limiting his work to describing the sūtras themselves as well as comparing the rules employed therein with rules in other Indian grammatical treatises. After much elaboration, he concludes that his achievement in this paper is to have situated "how the śivasūtras fit into the general method of description followed by Pāṇini", which leads to a related, but distinct insight, namely, that Pāṇini's contribution to the Indian grammatical tradition was primarily methodological,  otherwise being quite conservative within his intellectual milieu.

=
Review by Millonig ===== Millonig appraises Cardona's study of the śivasūtras as more or less comprehensive, but ultimately deficient in its attention to detail, particularly with regard to the relationships between the text and the pratyāhāra-sūtras.

=
Review by Rocher ===== Observing the exigency for the then-current research on Indian grammarians to aspire to ever more exhaustive depth and holistic coverage, Rocher commends Cardona's work on the śivasūtras as "an example to be followed". Rocher warns that his coverage is not for the amateur, however, imitating the style of "the grammarians he studies" themselves. She justifies this move on the part of Cardona on the premise that paraphrasing, while more 'user-friendly', ultimately shrouds the tight coherence of sūtras to each other, and so Cardona's terse style and methodical cross-referencing more acutely depicts the architecture of the śivasūtras.

Rocher continues by identifying Cardona's self-proclaimed descriptive and comparative aims, lauding the latter especially ‒ she beams at Cardona's innovative comparison of the śivasūtras with the Prātiśākhyas and the Kātantra; which cross-comparison ultimately fleshes out the "unmistakable cohesion of the śivasūtras with the Aṣṭādhyāyī", underscoring the likelihood of Pāṇini's authorship. Through this analysis, moreover, is a bringing out of the inter-generational integrity of the Indian grammatical tradition, which unity points to Pāṇini's embeddedness into the intellectual practice of his predecessors. Interestingly, Rocher also points out Cardona's observation that Pāṇinian commentators did not shy from using "pre-Pāṇinian terms".

Rocher elects as Cardona's chief contribution in this study "the refinement brought to the principle of economy". In other words, what Cardona has accomplished here, Rocher elaborates, is a conscientious investment into and explication of the (intellectual) procedure of generalization as it features within the practice of descriptive economy (of grammar) itself; thus, infers Rocher, the terse brevity of the grammarians ought to be the object itself of further study. All in all then, Rocher attributes to Cardona originality insofar as he keeps to the Indian tradition in method, which enables Cardona to translate, so to speak, the scholastic vernacular of ancient India into the modern Western academese.

Though not brought up by Rocher, compare her assessment of Cardona's work with a statement he made at the outset of his study of the śivasūtras:

"I do not think we have yet arrived at a sufficiently detailed understanding of Indian grammatical methods to make a comparison with Western methods truly useful… comparisons of this kind that have been made risk both being superficial and committing the error alluded to by Thieme [Cardona's PhD advisor]: 'Sometimes, I think, we Western scholars are apt to be more interested in our own theories concerning the Sanskrit grammarians than in their actual teachings'".

Also noteworthy is Rocher's 1975 assessment of this text, which characterizes Cardona's study of the śivasūtras in relation to the Aṣṭādhyāyī as "excellent" (32).

Review by Staal
Staal begins by situating Cardona's current work as the latest in a series of investigations into the śivasūtras, which he claims deserve special attention primarily due to the fact that its (moderate) length and unity make it unique among other 'chapters' of the Aṣṭādhyāyī, and consequently amenable to insightful, productive study. Recognizing Cardona's ambition to this effort, Staal deems that while Cardona walks "well-trodden ground once more", his exhaustive scrutiny highlights previously unappreciated sound rules and his comparison of the śivasūtras to other relevant grammatical treatises expands the "textual basis of comparative studies".

That stated, Staal holds a contrary position to Rocher, namely, that Cardona's explication of the śivasūtras is not specially imbued with originality. Nonetheless, Staal cedes that Cardona's formulation of Pāṇinian economy is more explicit ‒ Staal cites Cardona himself here, more or less getting across the idea that Pāṇini engaged in the practice of abbreviation not for the sake of brevity per se, but rather conceived of descriptive abbreviation as an instrument of mediating between sāmānya 'the general' and viśeṣa 'the particular'.

Despite this more explicit formulation, Staal observes that post-Pāṇinian grammarians employed abbreviation more than Pāṇini did. Secondly, Staal points out  that scholars H.E. Buiskool (1934) and Barend Faddegon (1936) were well aware that Pāṇinian methodology exercised abbreviation for the sake of insinuating functionality into and expressing generalization in grammatical treatment. Finally, asserts Staal, there are many instances of abbreviation in Pāṇini that do not evince Cardona's lofty characterization of Pāṇinian economy: non-functional abbreviation abounds. As a case in point, Staal cites the following:

"1.1.3 iko guṇavṛddhī is a meta-linguistic statement dealing with the use of the technical terms guṇa and vṛddhī. The next sūtra, 1.1.4 na dhātulope ārdhadhātuke, with anuvṛtti of guṇavṛddhī from the previous rule, is a rule which treats a special case where guṇa and vṛddhī, despite other rules, do not take place. Thus this case of anuvṛtti is entirely non-functional and ad hoc".

As far as the rest of Cardona's exposition goes, Staal ascribes a general clarity, with the caveat that Cardona enormous attention to detail does not always pertain to the discussion at hand, e.g. his discussion of  pratyāhāra-sūtras. Staal then emphasizes the unreadability of Cardona's work, excepting the specialist, due to labyrinthine cross-referencing. Subsequently, Staal accords to Cardona that in several respects Cardona's reformulations and treatment śivasūtras have surpassed that of his predecessors, "including[, Staal states] myself".

After some penultimate propositions on community conventions regarding the expression of a Pāṇinian rule, Staal concludes by commenting on his professional relationship with and methodological congruence to, Cardona. He attributes to Cardona a scholarly approach that is "historically" informed, and identifies him most essentially as a "philologist". On the other hand, Staal considers himself (and others) most essentially as a "linguist", approaching his subject "systematically". Staal then points out that "The scope for mutual contradiction between these two approaches is fairly narrow". This narrow scope, nonetheless, affords Cardona the opportunity to wonder whether Staal thought that Pāṇini "started from scratch" in his composition of the śivasūtras (thus, from Cardona's point of view, Staal was ignoring one of Cardona's central theses that Pāṇini was deeply indebted to the Indian grammatical tradition). Staal claims that Cardona has misinterpreted him. He then goes on to dispute, in fact, that there is no such difference between himself and Cardona when it comes to studying the śivasūtras "in terms of 'the grammatical structure of the language' as analysed in the rules of the grammarians." The drift of Staal's point here is that while his own and Cardona's emphases may differ, these emphases nonetheless get at the same object of study (whether that be the śivasūtras, the Aṣṭādhyāyī, or other grammatical treatises) and with the same disciplinary intent, namely, to study 'the grammatical structure of the language'.

Staal criticizes Cardona's methodological prioritization of historically informed philology over systematically informed linguistics, citing Cardona as having remarked that comparison of "Indian grammatical methods" with "Western methods" would be unprofitable since insight into the former remains limited. Staal sees this as "remarkably naïve" and invokes William Dwight Whitney's legacy, to the effect that comparison of Indian grammatical methods and Western methods is unwarranted, perhaps spurious ‒ for, after all, Pāṇini's primary status as a linguist, and not as a philologist, demands that he be treated as such. As a consequence, Staal maintains, scholars ought to aim at "a detailed understanding of Indian grammatical methods", and so, if anything, he implies, Cardona's prioritization of philology is inverted from the natural order of things.

Staal puts forth a last point in the words of English philosopher Gilbert Ryle:

"There is, of course, always a considerable hazard in attempting to elucidate a doctrine of an earlier philosopher in the light of subsequent and especially of contemporary doctrines. It is always tempting and often easy to read palatable lessons between the lines of some respected but inexplicit Scripture. But the opposite policy of trying to chart the drift of some adolescent theory without reference to the progress of any more adult theories is subject not to the risk but to the certainty of failure. We cannot even state what was a philosopher's puzzle, much less what was the direction or efficacy of his attempt to solve it, unless subsequent reflections have thrown a clearer light upon the matter than he was able to do. Whether a commentator has found such a light or only a will-of-the-wisp is always debatable and often very well worth debating" (Ryle 1939: 324-325).

On this matter, Cardona, as cited in Regier and Wallace (1991) (164), criticizes Whitney greatly for his "linguistic prejudices" and "more than a little arrogance" (239).

==== 1976, 1980, 1998: Cardona's Pāṇini, a survey of research ==== Cardona's self-assigned objective in this work is to 1) represent the breadth of the discipline of Pāṇinian linguistics, 2) highlight those works that have most drawn scholarly attention, and 3) depict the then-current status of Pāṇinian research. This threefold goal informs, as he states, the outlay of his Pāṇini, a survey of research, the bulk of which is comprised of two parts, namely: Part 1, containing a 123-page bibliography, followed by Part 2 "The Survey" at 172-pages which critically examines major ideas deemed important in the field and the work done on those topics.  Cardona subdivides Part 2 into: III. Pāṇini, Kātyāyana, and Patañjali; IV. later commentaries; V. evaluations of commentaries; VI. treatises on semantics and philosophy of grammar; VII. literary works illustrating grammatical rules; and VIII. a summary of trends.  This subdivision, particularly the grouping together of  Pāṇini, Kātyāyana, and Patañjali in one section (rather than into, namely, one on Pāṇini's Aṣṭādhyāyī and another on the Mahābhāṣya ‒ as suggested by Rocher) evinces Cardona's disciplinary commitment to the traditional notion of the munitraya 'the trio of sages', customarily understood in the Indian tradition as a inviolable and integrated entity  (164, 165).

=
Review by Buddruss ===== Buddruss's comments are minimal ‒ he quotes A. Wezler in having said that every Pāṇinian scholar will have this book in his library ("dem jeder Pāṇiniya einen Ehrenplatz in seinem Handapparat einräumen wird"), and that typographical errors from the original 1976 edition have been corrected in the 1980 reprint.

Review by Rocher
Published along with two other surveys of Indian grammar published contemporaneously with Cardona's Pāṇini, a survey of research, Cardona's work surpasses them each due to its nearly exhaustive coverage and its author's ambition to critically assessing work in each major field. Rocher characterizes the work as a standard to which future work ought to aim at.

She bases this claim on the fact that one 1) the same reasons it surpasses comparable works of its time, 2) it cites obscure sources, including non-microfilmed dissertations, and 3) his "Survey" (Part 2) more or less meets the challenge of characterizing the contributions of other scholars to fields in which they are deemed the experts. Concerning this last point, Rocher excavates Cardona's unique commitment among western scholars to the traditional Indian schools of grammatical thought. Rocher underscores Cardona's singular status in the community of western scholars when she cites his assessment of "S.C. Vasu's translation of Pāṇini's grammar: 'Vasu closely follows the Kāśikā, hence is trustworthy'",  whereas most (western) scholars would instead rate Vasu's translation of Pāṇini's grammar as being merely loyal to how the Kāśikā understood it.

Rocher finishes by reaffirming the encyclopedic ambitions of this book, and consequently its sure utility for all Pāṇinian scholars, including those at variance with either Cardona's fundamental stances or specific assessments of authors in this work.

1988, 1997: Cardona's seminal work Pāṇini: His work and its traditions
Cardona's most notable work Pāṇini: His work and its traditions sets out, according to its author, to elaborate as exhaustively as possible on the work of Pāṇini and Pāṇinīyas (a scholar or commentator of Pāṇini). It is a projected multi-volume work, though a second volume has yet to be released (this delay is addressed in Cardona 1997 ).

=
Review by Bhattacharya ===== Reviewing the revised 2nd edition, Bhattacharya reviews Cardona's work positively on the whole. This work, claims Bhattacharya, surpasses all other comparable works in its lucidity and profundity. In his eager anticipation for future volumes, Bhattacharya confirms an overall satisfaction with this volume.

Wary of criticizing Cardona on matters relating to Pāṇini, Bhattacharya alludes to Cardona's distinguished authority. He proceeds, however, to make a few observations, noting several of Cardona's departures from conventional analyses. One such departure can be explained as follows:

In A ('A ' is for Aṣṭādhyāyī) 6.1.201 and 202 (that is: adhyāya 'chapter' six, pāda 'quarter-chapter' one, sūtras 'rule' two-hundred and one and two):

Again, that's A 6.1.201-2:

1) Cardona derives kṣáya 'dwelling' and jáya '(a horse or such) with which one gains victory'  with the suffix ac
 * ac is found in A 3.3.56;
 * ac is a kind of verbally independent suffix, part of a wider class of such suffixes known as kṛt affixes ‒ in particular, the suffix ac is a high-pitched affix;
 * in application to A 6.1.201-2, the affix ac contradistinghuishes the variable accentuation of the parallel derivates with kṛt affixes:
 * kṣáya 'dwelling' : kṣayá 'destroying', and
 * jáya '(a horse or such) with which one gains victory' : jayá 'victory'.
 * stipulating that kṣáya and jáya have a high pitch on their first vowels, rather than on their second vowels (which another sūtra, A 3.1.3, fails to account for)

2) In line with his deriving of kṣáya and jáya from ac, Cardona, in A 6.2.144, derives the compound prakṣayáḥ 'outstanding dwelling', permissible since A 6.2.139 allows compounds (here, prakṣayáḥ) containing particular derivates with particular kṛt affixes (including ac ‒ here, kṣáya) to retain their original accentuation (i.e., their accentuation not derived by A 6.1.201-2, see above) (cf. Cardona 1997 ).

3) Bhattacharya notes this is a departure from the typical treatment of Pāṇinīyas; instead, in A 6.1.201-2, they derive kṣáya and jáya with the suffix -gha; Thus, Bhattacharya exemplifies an instance of Cardona's departure from convention.
 * this derivation would result in kṣáya and jáya actually being realized (originally) as kṣayá and jayá;
 * thus, prakṣayáḥ isn't subject to the analysis that it 'retains its original accentuation', because there is not a non-original accentuation that it can conflict with;
 * and which further implies that kṣáya and jáya are the non-original forms, derived as a result from and particular to their relevant sūtras;
 * the kṣayá meaning 'destroying' and jayá 'victory' are derived with suffix ac instead;
 * in other words, Bhattacharya is observing a difference and incongruence in what is being analyzed as the 'original' accentuation.

=
Review by Brockington ===== Applauding Cardona's comprehensiveness and expositional clarity in this first volume, even to the extent of granting the community's indebtedness to Cardona, Brockington refrains from complete assessment of a single volume belonging to a multi-volume project. Brockington's criticisms center on the specialist nature of the work, in contrast to the purported introductory aims of the work; notwithstanding, he suggests this issue could be easily ameliorated by rearranging parts of the work. In particular, Brockington suggests that Cardona's section "The status and purpose of grammar" ‒ situated in the appendix ‒ be moved to the front of the volume, which would be serve the introductory aims of this text.

=
Review by Laddu ===== Laddu proffers greatly positive feedback. He counts Cardona among those handful of scholars "equal to the task" of expounding Pāṇini and the pāṇinīyas, notably remarking upon Cardona's unique dexterity for integrating modern and traditional approaches. Laddu observes that this is the first of eight volumes in the series, the others being II. Kinds of Rules in the Aṣṭādhyāyī and how they are related, III. Metalanguage, IV. Affixational Rules, V. Formation of derived bases, VI. Rules providing for augments, replacements, and accentuation, VII. Pāṇinian Sūtras concerning dialects, VIII. Syntax and Stylistics of the Aṣṭādhyāyī.

Laddu also notes the extensive use of cross-referencing in the first volume, reminiscent of many of Cardona's earlier works and thought by some to be a technique adopted from the Aṣṭādhyāyī itself, facilitating greater economy and simplicity. Laddu offers limited criticism, most notably of Cardona's conflicting account of Pāṇini's prescriptivist and descriptivist aims. Finally, Laddu alertly suggests that Cardona incorporate an appendix on the "pre-Pāṇinian contributions to the Science".

=
Review by Regier & Wallace ===== Regier and Wallace start by identifying the multiplicity of reasons thinkers have supplied to the question 'Why study Sanskrit grammar?', namely:

"First, so speak the Vedas purely; second, to be pure; third, to be able to purify. Fourth, to avoid being taken for a barbarian. Fifth, to eliminate ambiguity. Sixth, to learn brevity. Seventh—never mind the rest—'without regard to any immediate purpose'" (163-164).

Regier and Wallace astutely observe that Cardona's projected project of eight volumes goes hand in hand with the eight books of the Aṣṭādhyāyī (164) (Aṣṭādhyāyī literally means 'eight chapters' (3). After summarizing the Cardona's layout and coverage, they emphasize Cardona's overall commitment to the Pāṇinian exegetical tradition as embodied in the trimuni vyākaraṇasya–Pāṇini, Kātyāyana, and Patañjali (164, 165) (59). Finally, the remark that notwithstanding Cardona's Pāṇini: His work and its traditions not being amenable to the amateur, it stands as the best introduction to Pāṇini in English (166).

=
Review by Scharfe ===== Scharfe puts forth a more critical review of Cardona's Pāṇini: His work and its traditions. After discussing popular interest in Pāṇini's Aṣṭādhyāyī, centering on its generative methods (653), Scharfe goes on to critique Cardona's specialist work characterizing the first five-hundred pages as tiresome (653). Like other reviewers, Scharfe thinks the last hundred pages (see Brockington) would go better at the front (653).

He lauds Cardona for demonstrating, exhaustively, Pāṇini's attempt to choose the most basic form for derivation (654). He criticizes Cardona heavily for his undue commitment and "excessive reliance" on the native Indian tradition, claiming that "rarely does he break with tradition and follow modern scholarship" (654) (cf. Staal; Regier and Wallace).

=
Review by Wright ===== TBD

==== 1999: Cardona's Recent Research in Pāṇinian Studies ==== TBD

=
Review by Kulikov ===== TBD

Legacy
Cardona's legacy is most felt in Indian linguistics where Cardona has exemplified -- indeed, championed -- the approach that seeks to describe and appreciate the techniques of the Indian grammarians. Cardona, in this sense can be described as 'historical' and 'philological' (Staal 1970), though it is important to note that Cardona has only concerned himself with the kind of textual analysis that concerned earlier philological indology to the extent that it has enabled him to uncover the linguistic science itself (as a discipline) of ancient India(cf. Rocher 24) -- in other words, textual analysis and historical interpretation are incidental to Cardona's overall attempt at recovering the linguistic techniques and methods encoded in the Astadhyayi and later commentaries. As a consequence of this disciplinary position, Cardona has been critical, by and large, of attempts to compare or map modern Western grammatical notions with/onto Indian ones, mostly because comparisons of this sort may take the shape of assuming precurorism, or even just simply miss the point. And yet, Cardona is willing to make these comparisons, but only when the preliminary work of fully contextualizing and explicating the Astadhyayi and its commentaries has been carried out. Thus, fidelity to the tradition figures prominently in Cardona's approach insofar as it leads to explication of the linguistic methods of Panini and later Indian grammarians. LIke other present-day Indian scholars, Cardona "urge[s] the use of Paninian grammar in Vedic interpretation" (Rocher, 11). This orientation in basic assumptions and methodology, along with the implicit prioritization of the native Indian tradition, has served as a wellspring for controversy in Cardona's professional career, notably with Kiparsky and Staal. In line with Joseph's characterization of Cardona as a "luminary" in Paninian linguistics, Cardona may be appropriately described as a veritable Paniniya: carrying on the exegetical tradition of Panini's Astadhyayi.

Cardona is unique because he stands out as a scholar combining the approaches of indology on the one hand, and Indian linguistics on the other (see esp. 24, 26). As far as Indian linguistics goes, Rocher comments that it is shifting from "philological indology" to "a linguistic appreciation of techniques and description, and the comparison between Western and Indian methods" (24). Indology, on the other hand, was based on the "study [of] the Indian grammarians not [for] their methods of description and techniques, but their testimonial value" (6) (so they are more about the Indian grammatical tradition as a cultural phenomenon, and as an examination of the texts; Indian linguistics has more to do with the study of the linguistics of these texts, and the fact that they talk about Sanskrit is coincidental).

So: (1) comparative linguistics --> (2) indology --> (3) Indian linguistics --> (2a) philological indology --> (2b) linguistic appreciation of techniques, comparison with Western tradition

List of Publications
1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
 * Greek kámnō and támnō. Language 36:502-207
 * Rev.: H. Krahe, Indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft II.Formenlehre. Language 36:534-539
 * R̥gvedic śr̥ṇviṣé. Language 37: 338-341
 * Rev.-art.: W. Winter (ed.), Evidence for Laryngeals. Language 37:413-424
 * R̥gvedic śrúvat. Journal of the Oriental Institute, Baroda 12:1-4
 * Rev.: B. Shefts, Grammatical method in Pāṇini. Journal of Asian Studies 25:589-590
 * Greek heîsa and Sanskrit sátsat. Language 39:14-16
 * samānáṁ cid rátham ātasthivā́ṁsā. Journal of the Oriental Institue, Baroda 12:238-240
 * Rev.-art.: F. Rodríguez-Adrados, Estudios sobre las laringales indoeuropeas. Language 39:91-100
 * Rev.: V. Pisani, Le più belle pagine della letteratura dell'India in sanscrito. Journal of the Oriental Institue, Baroda 12: 458-460 K. Chaitanya, A new history of Sanskrit literature. Journal of the Oriental Institute, Baroda 13:159-161
 * The formulation of Pāṇini. 7.3.73. Journal of the Oriental Institute, Baroda 14:38-41
 * A Gujarati reference grammar. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 188 [circulated in duplicated form (pp. xv, 305), 1964]
 * The Vedic imperatives in -si. Language 41:1-18
 * On Pāṇini's morphophonemic principles. Language 41: 225-237
 * On translating and formalizing Pāṇinian rules. Journal of the Oriental Institute, Baroda 14:306-314
 * Rev.-art.: F. Rodríguez-Adrados, Evolución y estructura del verbo indoeuropeo. Language 41:105-114
 * The Indo-European thematic aorists. University Microfilms. Pp. 159 [doctoral dissertation, completed in 1960]
 * Negations in Pāṇinian rules. Language 43 (Bloch Memorial Volume):34-56
 * Pāṇini's syntactic categories. Journal of the Oriental Institute, Baroda 16:201-215
 * Rev.-art.: O Szemerényi, Syncope in Greek and Indo-European. Language 43:757-773
 * Rev.: J. Gonda, Manuel élémentaire de grammaire sanskrite (tr. by R. Rocher). Journal of the Oriental Institute, Baroda 16:274-275
 * On haplology in Indo-European. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press (=Haney Foundation Series 1), pp. 87
 * Anvaya and vyatireka in Indian grammar. Brahmavidyā, The Adyar Library Bulletin 31-32 (1967-1968 [V. Raghavan felicitation volume]):313-352
 * Pāṇini's definition, description and use of svarita. Pratidānam (Festschrift F.B.J. Kuiper), pp. 448–461
 * Rev.-art.: Vidya Niwas Misra, The descriptive technique of Pāṇini. Language 44:643-649
 * Rev.: G.V. Devasthali, The Phiṭsūtras. JOIB 17: 332-335. S. D. Joshi, Sphoṭanirṇaya. Journal of the Oriental Institute, Baroda 17:445-450
 * Studies in Indian grammarians, I: The method of description reflected in the śivasūtras. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, new series, 59.1, p. 48
 * Rev.: Actas del III congreso español de estudio clásicos. Language 45: 897-903
 * Indo-European and Indo-Europeans, edited with H.M. Hoenigswald and A. Senn. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press (Haney Foundation Series 9), pp. 440
 * Some principles of Pāṇini's grammar. Journal of Indian Philosophy 1:40-74
 * The Indo-Iranian construction manā [mama] kr̥tam. Language 46:1-12
 * A note on Pāṇini's technical vocabulary. Journal of the Oriental Institute, Baroda 19:195-212
 * Rev.-art.: Vidya Niwas Misra, The descriptive technique of Pāṇini. Indo-Iranian Journal 12:226-232 J.F. Staal, Word order in Sanskrit and universal grammar. Indo-Iranian Journal 12:232-239 R. Rocher, La théorie des voix du verbe dans l'école pāṇinéenne. Lingua 25:210-222
 * Cause and causal agent: the Pāṇinian view. Journal of the Oriental Institute, Baroda 21:22-40
 * Anvaya and vyatireka in Indian grammar [see under 1968]. Proceedings of the 27th international congress of orientalists, pp. 313–314 (abstract)
 * Pāṇini's use of the term upadeśa and the ekānta and anekānta views regarding anubandhas. Summaries of papers, 1st international Sanskrit conference, 4:23-25
 * Rev.-art.: M.A. Mehendale, Some aspects of Indo-Aryan linguistics. Language. 48:171-179 S.D. Joshi, The vyākaraṇa-mahābhāṣya avyayībhāva-tatpuruṣāhnika (P.2.1.2-2.1.49), S. D Joshi and J.A.F. Roodbergen, The vyākaraṇa-mahābhāṣya karmadhārayāhnika (P.2.1.51-2.1.72). Journal of the Oriental Institute, Baroda 22:225-232 K. Hoffmann, Der Injuktiv im Veda. Kratylos 14 (1970 [1972]):47-51
 * Rev.: H.S. Ananthanarayana, Verb forms in the Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa. Journal of the Oriental Institute, Baroda 21:248-249 Venkitasubramonia Iyer, Dhātukāvya of Nārāyaṇa Bhaṭṭa. Journal of the Oriental Institute, Baroda 21:375-376 J. Kurylowicz, Indogermanische Grammatik, II: Akzent–Ablaut. IIJ 14:61-68 S Levin, The Indo-European and Semitic languages. American Anthropologist 4:1488-1490
 * Indian grammarians on adverbs. Issues in linguistics, Papers in honor of Henry and Renée Kahane, edited by Braj B Kachru et al., pp. 85–98
 * On the interpretation of Pāṇini 1.4.105-108. Brahmavidyā, The Adyar Library Bulletin 37:1-47
 * Cause and causal agent: the Pāṇinian view. Oriental Studies (Acta et commentationes Universitatis Tartuensis) II.2:354-381
 * A new translation of the Mahābhāṣya [review-article of S.D. Joshi vyākaraṇa-mahābhāṣya samarthāhnika (P.2.1.1)]. Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 68.5/6:229-238
 * Rev.-art.: S.M. Katre, Dictionary of Pāṇini. IIJ 15:43-56 H. Scharfe, Pāṇini's metalanguage. Indo-Iranian Journal 15: 207-221
 * Rev.: J.F. Staal, A reader on the Sanskrit grammarians. Language Sciences 26:43-48 T Sebeok et al., editors, Current trends in linguistics V: South Asian linguistics. Linguistics 107:40-46
 * Pāṇini's kārakas: agency, animation and identity. Journal of Indian Philosophy 2:231-306
 * On Pāṇini's metalinguistic use of cases. Charudeva Shastri felicitation volume, pp. 305–326
 * Indo-Iranian languages. Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th edition, pp. 438–450, 456-457 [entire article covers pp. 438–457, with section on Iranian by R.E. Emmerick]
 * Paraphrase and sentence analysis: some Indian views. Journal of Indian Philosophy 3:259-281
 * On the Pāṇinian view regarding agency and animation. R̥tam 2-6 (July 1970-January 1975 [K.A. Subramania Iyer felicitation volume]):135-145
 * A note on the formulation of Pāṇini 6.1.67. Annals of Oriental Research silver jubilee volume, pp. 11–20
 * Rev.-art.: C. Watkins, Indogermanische Grammatik, III.1: Geschichte der indogermanischen Verbal-flexion. Indo-Iranian Journal 17:103-111
 * Pāṇini, a survey of research (Trends in linguistics, state of the art reports, 6) The Hague: Mouton, pp. xvi, 384 (see 1980)
 * Some features of Pāṇinian derivations. History of linguistic thought and contemporary linguistics, edited by H. Parret, pp. 137–158
 * On rules of Pāṇini's grammar said to expatiate on other rules. Journal of the Oriental Institute, Baroda 25:241-251
 * Subject in Sanskrit. The notion of Subject in South Asian languages, ed. by M.K. Verma, pp. 1–38
 * On the Pāṇinian view regarding agency and animation, R̥tam 2-6 (July 1970-January 1975) (Prof. K.A.S. Iyer Felicitation Volume):135-145
 * A note on morphophonemic and phonetic rules in Sanskrit. Mysore Orientalist 10 (jubilee volume):1-6
 * Rev.-art.: A.M. Ghatge, editor, An encyclopaedic dictionary of Sanskrit on historical principles, volume one, part one. Indian Linguistics 38: 234-243 S.D. Joshi and J.A.F. Roodbergen, Patañjali's vyākaraṇa-mahābhāṣya bahuvrīhi-dvandvāhnika (P.2.2.23-2.2.38). Journal of the Oriental Institute, Baroda 26: 328-342 Kapil Deva Shasrti ### [edition and Hindi translation of the Vaiyākaraṇa-siddhānta-paramalaghu-mañjūṣā] Journal of the Oriental Institute, Baroda 26:470-478
 * Rev.: S.D. Laddu, Evolution of the Sanskrit language from Pāṇini to Patañjali. Language. 53:221-224
 * Relations between causatives and passives in Indo-Iranian. Linguistics in the seventies: Forum Lectures presented at the 1978 Linguistic Institute (special volume of Studies in the Linguistic Sciences, vol. 8, no. 2), edited by Braj B. Kachru, pp. 1–42
 * Still again on the history of the Mahābhāṣya. Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute 58 -59 (diamond jubilee volume): pp. 79–99
 * A note on Indo-Iranian dhā (IE *dhē). Indian Linguistics 39 (P.B. Pandit memorial volume):209-224
 * ### [Some attitudes in recent work on Pāṇini and Pāṇinīyas, Marathi translation by K.S. Arjunwadkar]. [###][Centenary volume of the Vedaśāstrottejaka Sabhā (Pune)], edited by R.N. Dandekar and C.G. Kashikar, pp. 59–75
 * Rev.-art.: J. Haudry, Lemploi des cas en védique. Kratylos 23 (1978 [1979]):71-81
 * Gujarati language and literature. Encyclopedia Americana 13:596
 * Rev.-art.: H Scharfe, Grammatical literature [A history of Indian literature, part II, fascicle 2]. Indo-Iranian Journal 21:117-139. A.M. Ghatge, An encyclopaedic Sanskrit dictionary on historical principles, volume one, part two. Indian Linguistics 40:198-205
 * Pāṇini, a survey of research. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass [Indian corrected reprinting of work published in 1976]
 * On the paribhāṣā upapadavibhakteḥ kārakavibhaktir balīyasī. Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik 5/6 (Festschrift Paul Thieme):27-48
 * On the Āpiśalaśikṣā. A corpus of Indian studies [Essays in honour of Professor Gaurinath Shastri], edited by Gopikamohan Bhattacharya, pp. 245–256
 * Rev.: W. Rau, Bhartr̥hari's Vākyapadīya. Die Mūlakārikās nach den Handschriften herausgegeben und mit einem Pāda-Index versehen. Indo-Iranian Journal 22:53-56
 * On reasoning from anvaya and vyatireka in early Advaita. Studies in Indian philosophy [A memorial volume in honour of Pandit Sukhlalji Sanghvi], edited by Dalsukh Malvania and Nagin J. Shah], pp. 79–104
 * On the domain of Pāṇini's metarule 1.3.10: yathāsaṁkhyam anudeśaḥ samānām. Brahmavidyā, The Adyar Library Bulletin 44-45 (1980-1981 [Dr. K. Kunjunni Raja felicitation volume]):394-409
 * Vedic causatives. Vaidika Saṁśodhana Maṇḍala (Pune), Golden Jubilee Volume, pp. 17–38
 * Grammar and philosophy. Systems of communication and interaction in South Asia [Summaries of papers from the South Asia Seminar, University of Pennsylvania, 1979-1980], edited by Peter Gaeffke and Susan Oleksiw, pp. 3–11
 * Vedic causatives. ### Golden Jubilee Volume, Vaidika Saṁśodhana Maṇḍala (Pune: Vaidika Saṁśodhana Maṇḍala), edited by T.N. Dharmadhikari, pp. 17–38
 * Rev.-art.: I.Y. Junghare, Topics in Pāli historical phonology. Word 33:272-279
 * Rev.: H.S. Ananthanarayana, Four lectures on Pāṇini's Aṣṭādhyāyī. Indo-Iranian Journal 24:301-302
 * Linguistic analysis and some Indian traditions (The Pandit Shripad Sastri Deodhar Memorial Lectures, first series). Pune: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, pp. xvi, 159
 * On the formulation of Aṣṭādhyāyī 8.3.4: anunāsikāt paro' nusvāraḥ. Surabhi, E.R. Sreekrishna Sarma felicitation volume, edited by M.S. Narayana Murti, pp. 199–205
 * On the Mahābhāṣya evidence for a Pāṇinīya Dhātupāṭha without meaning entries. Amr̥tadhārā (Prof. R.N. Dandekar felicitation volume), edited by S.D. Joshi, pp. 79–84
 * On Yāska's etymology of daṇḍa. MM. Professor Kuppuswami Sastri Birth Centenary Commemoration Volume, edited by S.S. Janaki (Madras: The Kuppuswami Sastri Research Institute), part 2, pp. 33–42
 * Rev.: M.D. Balasubrahmanyam, The system of kr̥t accentuation in Pāṇini and the Veda. Journal of the Oriental Institute, Baroda 34:269-272
 * Phonology and phonetics in ancient Indian works: the case of voiced and voiceless elements. Studies in South Asian languages, edited by Bh. Krishnamurti, C. Masica, and Anjani K. Sinha. (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass), pp. 60–80
 * Pāṇini and Uṇādisūtra 2.84. Brahmavidyā, The Adyar Library Bulletin 50 (Golden Jubilee Volume):46-57
 * Festschrift for Henry M Hoenigswald presented on the occasion of his seventieth birthday, edited with Norman H. Zide. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. pp. xix, 435
 * On Sanskrit bhunákti 'aids, serves, protects', Festschrift Hoenigswald, pp. 65–72
 * Indo-Aryan. The world's major languages, edited by Bernard Comrie (London-Sydney: Croom Helm Ltd.), pp. 440–447
 * Sanskrit, The world's major languages, pp. 448–469
 * Indian grammarians on vowel alternations in Sanskrit. Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute 68 (Ramakrishna Gopal Bhandarkar 150th birth-anniversary volume):233-244
 * On Indo-Iranian *tva- 'the one'. Studies in memory of Warren Cowgill (1929–1985); Papers from the fourth East Coast Indo European Conference, Cornell University, June 6–9, 1985, edited by Calvert Watkins, pp. 1–6
 * Some neglected evidence concerning the development of abhinihita sandhi. Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik 13/14 (Festschrift Wilhelm Rau):59-68
 * Pāṇini: His work and its traditions. Part I: General introduction and background. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, pp. xxiv, 671
 * Pāṇinian studies. New Horizons of research in Indology, edited by V.N. Jha (Silver Jubilee volume of the Centre of Advanced Study in Sanskrit, Pune), pp. 49–84
 * Rev.: Frits Staal, Universals: Studies in Indian Logic and Linguistics. Journal of Asian Studies 48.3:666-668
 * On attitudes towards language in ancient India. Sino-Platonic Papers 15:1-19
 * La linguistica indiana. Storia della linguistica, a cura di Giulio C Lepschy (Bologna: I1 Mulino), pp. 51–84
 * Indo-Aryan. The major languages of South Asia, the Middle East and Africa, edited by Bernard Comrie (London: Routledge), pp. 21–30
 * Sanskrit. The major languages of South Asia, the Middle East and Africa, edited by Bernard Comrie (London: Routledge), pp. 31–52
 * A note on "dative agents" in Sanskrit. Experiencer subjects in South Asian languages, edited by Manindra K. Verma and K.P. Mohanan (Palo Alto: The Center for the Study of Language andI Information, Stanford University), pp. 141–145
 * Rev.: The Sanskrit Grammar and Manuscripts of Father Heinrich Roth S.J. … with an introduction by Arnulf Camps and Jean-Claude Muller. International Bulletin of Missionary Research 14.3:132-133
 * On the dialect status of Vedic forms of the types dakṣ- / dhakṣ-. Studies in Dravidian and General Linguistics, A Festschrift for Bh. Krishnamurti, edited by B. Lakshmi Bai and B. Ramakrishna Reddy (Osmania University Publications in Linguistics 6), pp. 263–273
 * On Pāṇini, Śākalya, Vedic dialects and Vedic exegetical traditions. Pāṇinian Studies, Professor S.D. Joshi Felicitation Volume, edited by Madhav M. Deshpande and Saroja Bhate (Center for South and Southeast Asian Studies, University of Michigan, Number 37), pp. 123–134
 * A passage from the Paramalaghumañjūṣā. Prajñājyoti, Prof. Dr Gopikamohan Bhattacharya Commemoration volume (ed. Debabrata Sen Sharma, Manabendu Banerjee), Kurukshetra: Nirmal Book Agency, pp. 39–44
 * A path yet taken: Some Indian arguments concerning time. Journal of the American Oriental Society 111:445-464
 * Rev.: Thomas Oberlies, Studie zum Cāndravyākaraṇa. Eine kritische Bearbeitung von Candra IV.5.52-148 und V.2. Journal of the American Oriental Society 111:589
 * Rev.: Charu Deva Shastri, Pāṇini Re-visited. Journal of the American Oriental Society 111:839
 * Indo-Aryan languages. International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, edited by W. Bright (New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press), Volume 2, pp. 202–206
 * Indo-Iranian languages. International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, edited by W. Bright (New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press), Volume 2, pp. 212–213
 * On the development of presents like bibhéti. Language and Text. Studies in honour of Ashok R. Kelkar, edited by R.N. Srivastava et al. (Delhi: Kalinga Publications), pp. 1–13
 * Indian grammatical traditions and historical linguistics. in E. Polomé-W. Winter (eds.), Reconstructing Languages and Cultures. (Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter), pp. 239–259
 * Rev.: Colin P. Masica, The Indo-Aryan Languages. Journal of Linguistics 28:519-522
 * On comparatives and superlatives formed to finite verbs in Sanskrit. Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute 72-73 (1991 and 1992):409-422
 * The bhāṣika accentuation system. Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik 18: 1-40
 * Review: Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophers, V: The Philosophy of the Grammarians by Harold G. Coward and K. Kunjunni Raja. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990. Journal of the American Oriental Society 113:137-139
 * Indian Linguistics: A History of Linguistics, vol. I: The Eastern Traditions of Linguistics, edited by G.C. Lepschy (London and New York: Longman), pp. 25–60
 * Language. World Book Encyclopedia, pp. 64–69
 * On Pāṇini, Śākalya, Vedic dialects and Vedic exegetical traditions. Beyond the Texts: New Approaches to the Study of the Vedas, edited by M. Witzel, pp. 26–32
 * A note on asti … ### Consciousness Manifest: Studies in Jaina Art and Iconography in Honour of Dr. U.P. Shah, chief editor R.T. Vyas. Vadodara: Abhinav Publications (Oriental Institute), pp. 137–140
 * Some thoughts on ārṣaprayoga. Śrījñānāmr̥tam, A Memorial Volume in Honour of Professor Śrī Nivasa Śāstrī, edited by Vijaya Rani. (Delhi: Parimal Publications), pp. 173–196
 * Āmreḍita compounds? Veda-Vyākaraṇa-Vyākhyāna, Festschrift Paul Thieme … (= StII 20), pp. 67–72
 * Pāṇini: His work and its traditions. Volume One: Background and Introduction, Second edition, revised and enlarged. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. pp. lxiv, 763
 * Pāṇini, A Survey of Research. Reprinted with additions and corrections. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass
 * kiṁ tarhi in the Mahābhāṣya, Mír Curad: Studies in Honor of Calvert Watkins edited by Jay Jasanoff, H. Craig Melchert, Lisi Olivier (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 92) (Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck), pp. 63–73
 * A new edition of Vyāḍi's Paribhāṣāvr̥tti. Journal of the American Oriental Society 118:239-244. [Review-article of Metarules of Pāṇinian Grammar: Vyāḍi's Paribhāṣāvr̥tti, Critically edited with Translation and Commentary by Dominik Wujastyk.]
 * Ideal and performance in Sanskrit. ### Purāṇa-Itihāsa-Vimarśaḥ: Essays in Honour of Prof. S.G. Kantawala (chief editor Professor Rajendra I Nanavati, Delhi/Varanasi: Bharatiya Vidya Prakashan), pp. 313–335
 * Recent Research in Pāṇinian Studies. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, pp. xi, 372
 * Approaching the Vākyapadīya. Journal of the American Oriental Society 119:88-125 [Review-article of Jan E.M. Houben, The Saṃbandha-samuddeśa (chapter on relation) and Bhartṛhari’s Philosophy of Language. A Study of Bhartṛhari’s Saṃbandha-samuddeśa in the Context of the Vākyapadīya, with a Translation of Helārāja’s Commentary Prakīrṇa-prakāśa.]
 * Old Indic Grammar. Morphologie/Morphology: Ein internationales Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung/An International Handbook on Inflection and Word-formation (ed. Geert Booij. Christian Lehmann., Joachim Mugdan), Berlin-New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1. Halband/Volume 1, article 5, pp. 41–51
 * Pāṇini. History of the Language Sciences/Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaften/Histoire des sciences du langage (ed. Sylvain Auroux, E. F. K. Koerner, Hans-Josef Niederehe), Berlin-New York: Walter de Gruyter, Volume 1/1. Teilband/Tome 1, V, article 17, pp. 113–124.
 * The organization of grammar in Sanskrit linguistics. History of the Language Sciences/ Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaften/Histoire des sciences du langage (ed. Sylvain Auroux, E. F. K. Koerner, Hans-Josef Niederehe), Berlin-New York: Walter de Gruyter, Volume 1/1. Teilband/Tome 1, V, article 21, pp. 157–166.
 * Review of Richard Salomon, Indian Epigraphy : A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the other Indo-Aryan Languages. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. Language 76:454-456
 * Review of Otto Böhtlingk, Pâṇinis Grammatik: Herausgegeben, Übersetzt, erläutert und mit verschiedenen Indices versehen. Abteilung I & II (l vol.). Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1998. Journal of the American Oriental Society 120:464-465
 * L’analisi linguistica come paradigma della scienza vedica, 1. śikṣā (fonetica), 2. vyākaraṇa (grammatica) 3. nirukta (analisis semantica). Storia della scienza, volume I: Cina, India, Americhe (editor-in-chief Sandro Petrucioli, Roma: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana), pp. 740 –756
 * La tradizione del vyākaraṇa (grammatica), 1. L’Aṣṭādhyāyī di Pāṇini, 2. Le grammatiche non pāṇiniane, 3. I raporti fra il vykaraṇa e le scuole filosofiche, Storia della scienza, volume I: Cina, India, Americhe (editor-in-chief Sandro Petrucioli, Roma: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana), pp. 821 –831
 * Pāṇini e i pāṇinīya su che cosa è on non è possibile (Italian translation by Alessandro Graheli of ‘Pāṇini and Pāṇinīyas on what is and is not possible’), in Federico Squarcini (editor), Verso l’India Oltre l’India, Milano: Mimesis, pp. 219–234.
 * The Old Indo-Aryan tense system. Journal of the American Oriental Society 122:235-242 (Indian and Iranian Studies in Honor of Stanley Insler on his sixtiy-fifth Birthday).
 * Indo-Aryan Languages. Encyclopedia of Modern Asia, vol. 3, pp. 44 – 47
 * Indo-Aryan and historical linguistics: observable change and grammarians’s insights (Professor Suniti Kumar Chatterje Lecture for 2001). Journal of the Asiatic Society (Kolkata) 44.4 (2002 [2003]):1 - 48
 * The Indo-Aryan Languages, coedited with Dhanesh K. Jain. London: Curzon/Routledge, pp. xx, 952 (plus indexes, pp. 953–1061))
 * General introduction, in The Indo-Aryan Languages, pp. 1–45 (coauthored with Dhanesh Jain)
 * Sanskrit, in The Indo-Aryan Languages, pp. 104–160
 * Gujarati, in The Indo-Aryan Languages, pp. 659–697 (coauthored with Babu Suthar)
 * Recent Research in Paṇinian Studies, second edition. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Pp. xv, 375.
 * Pāṇinian sūtras of the type ### Jambūjyoti (Munivara Jambūvijaya Festschrift), edited by M. A. Dhaky and J. B. Shah, Ahmedabad: Shreshthi Kasturbhai Lalbhai Smarak Nidhi, Shardaben Chimanbhai Educational Research Centre, pp. 91 – 107
 * Rev.-art.: Wilhelm Rau, Bhartṛharis Vkyapadīya, Versuch einer vollständigen deutschen Übersetzung nach der kritischen Edition der Mūla-Kriks, herausgegeben von Oskar von Hinüber. Indo-Iranian Journal 47:147 - 159.
 * Rev.: Thomas Oberlies, A Grammar of the Language of the Theravāda Tipiṭaka, with a Concordance to Pischel’s Grammatik der Prakrit-Sprachen. Kratylos 49:87 -89
 * From Vedic to modern Indic languages. Morphologie/Morphology, Ein internationales Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung/An International Handbook on Inflection and Word Formation, Herausgegeben von/Edited by Geert Booij, Christian Lehmann, Joachim Mugdan, Stavros Skopetas, in collaboration with Wolfgang Kesselheim. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, volume 2, pp. 1712–1729.
 * Some philosophical issues in early Indian grammar. Sanskrit Studies, volume 1, edited by Kapil Kapoor (New Delhi: Special Centre for Sanskrit Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University), pp. 1 – 8
 * Max Müller on Indian views concerning language. Avaniśrīḥ, Avanindra Kumar Felicitation Volume, edited by Mithilesh Chaturvedi, Om Nath Bimali, Siddharth Shankar Singh (Delhi: Vidyanilayam), pp. 91 –108
 * Philosophy of language in India. Encyclopedia of Philosophy, second edition, Donald M. Borchert, editor in chief, volume 7, pp. 412 – 417
 * The Indo-Aryan Languages, coedited with Dhanesh K. Jain (paperback edition). London: Curzon/Routledge, pp. xx, 1061
 * General introduction, in The Indo-Aryan Languages, pp. 1–45 (coauthored with Dhanesh Jain)
 * Sanskrit. The Indo-Aryan Languages, pp. 104–160
 * Gujarati. The Indo-Aryan Languages, pp. 659–697 (coauthored with Babu Suthar)
 * Sanskrit. Morphologies of Asia and Africa, edited by Alan S. Kaye, Eisenbrauns, pp. 775 – 824
 * On the position of vyākaraṇa and Pāṇini. Expanding and Merging Horizons, Contributions to South Asia and Cross Cultural Studies in Commemoration of Wilhelm Halbfass, edited by Karin Preisendanz (Beiträge zur Kultur- und Geistesgeschichte Asiens, Sitzungsberichte der philosophischen-historischen Klasse der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften), pp. 693 – 710
 * Pāṇini and Pāṇinīyas on what is and is not possible. Colonel Henry Scott Olcott Death Centenary Commemoration Volume, Brahmavidyā, The Adyar Library Bulletin 68 - 70 (2004–2006):467 - 499 [see 2002]
 * Henry M. Hoenigswald 1915-2003, A bibliographical memoir. American Academy of Sciences Bibliographical Memoirs 89:180-205
 * Pāṇini and Pāṇinīyas on śeṣa relations. First Kunjunni Raja Memorial Lecture, Aluva - Kerala, Kunjunni Raja Academy of Indological Research. Pp. I, iii, 35
 * Theoretical precedents of the Kātantra. Grammatical Traditions of Kashmir: Essays in Honour of Pandit Dinanath Yaksh, edited by Mrinal Kaul and Ashok N. Aklujkar (New Delhi: D. K. Printworld), pp. 300 – 367
 * Inquiring into Indian theories of verbal cognition. Review-article of N. S. Ramanuja Tatacharya, Śābdabodhamīmāṃsā, An Inquiry into Indian Theories of Verbal Cognition, Subarthavicārātmako dvitīyo bāhgaḥ, Part II: Case Terminations and their Significance (Collection Indologies vol. 100.2, Saṃskṛtavarṣasmṛtigranthamālā vol. 7) (Pondichéry: Institut Français de Pondichéry, Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan, 2006). Journal of the American Oriental Society 128.1:105 - 111
 * Rev.: Dragomir Dimitrov, Lehrschrift über die zwanzig Präverbien im Sanskrit, Kritische Ausgabe der Viṃśatyupasargavṛtti und der tibetischen Übersetzung Ñe bar bsgyur ba ñi śu pa´ i´ grel pa (Editionen von Texten der Cāndra-Schule. Band I). Indo-Iranian Journal 51:33 - 38
 * ###:, Saṃskṛta, Saṃskṛti and Saṃskāra, edited by Shashiprabha Kumar (Noida, Delhi: Niḥśreyasa in association with Vidyanidhi Prakashan), pp. 3–6.
 * On the structure of Paṇini’s system, in Sanskrit Computational Linguistics, First and Second International Symposia, Roquefort, France, October 2007, Providence, RI, USA, May 2008, Revised Selected and Invited papers, edited by Gérard Huet, Amba Kulkarni and Peter Scharf (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer), pp. 1–32.
 * Rev.: N. S. Ramanuja Tatacharya with the collaboration of F. Grimal and S. Lakshminarasimham, Śābdabodhamīmāṃsā Subantapdārthavicārātmakaḥ tṛtīyo bhāgaḥ. An Inquiry into Indian Theories of Verbal Cognition. Part III — Nominal Stems and their Significance. (Institut Franc̦ ais de Pondichéry Collection Indologie — 100.3, Rasthriya Sanskrit Sansthan Saµskṛtavarṣasmṛtigranthamålā — 8. Pondichéry: Institut Franc̦ais de Pondichéry/Rasthriya Sanskrit Sansthan, 2006). Journal of the American Oriental Society 129:123 - 128.
 * Rev. N. S. Ramanuja Tatacharya, Śābdabodhamīmāṁsā: An Inquiry into Indian Theories of Verbal Cognition.Part IV—Roots and Verb desinences: their Significance. (Pondichéry/New Delhi: Institut Franc̦ais de Pondichéry/Rasthriya Sanskrit Sansthan, 2008). Journal of the American Oriental Society 129:710 - 712.
 * Indological Researches: Different Standpoints, edited by P. C. Muraleemadhavan. Kalady: Sree Sankarachary University of Sanskrit.
 * Theoretical arguments concerning etymological explanations in Yāska’s Nirukta. Panditaratnam Prof. K. P. Narayana Pisharoti Centennary Memorial Lecture (Kalady, Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, 5thFebruary 2010), Indological Researches:35-68.
 * ### Vācaspativaibhavam. A volume in felicitation of Professor Vachaspati Upadhyaya, Delh: D. K. Printworld, pp. 439–440.
 * Studies in Sanskrit Grammars, Proceedings of the Vyākaraṇa Section of the 14th World Sanskrit Conference, edited by George Cardona, Ashok Aklujkar, Hideyo Ogawa. New Delhi: D. K. Printworld, pp. xii, 417.
 * Pūrvatrāsiddham and āśrayāt siddham, in Cardona, Akljukar, Ogawa (eds.), pp. 123–162.
 * Indian Grammars, Philology and History, Papers of the 12th World Sanskrit Conference, volume 4, edited by George Cardona and Madhav M. Deshpande. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
 * On some sources in Nāgeśa’s Mahābhāṣyapradīpoddyota, in Cardona and Deshpande (eds.), pp. 83–100.
 * A note on Vākyapadīya 1.45/46: ātmabhedas tayoḥ kecid … Saṁskṛtasādhutā Goodness of Sanskrit, Studies in Honour of Professor A. N. Aklujkar, edited by Chikafumi Watanabe, Michelle Desmarais, Yochichika Hondo, Delhi: D. K. Printworld, pp. 100–109.
 * On the construction type naṭasya śṛṇoti. Saṁskṛta Vimarśaḥ 6:65-84.
 * Pāṇini and padakāras, in François Voegeli, Vincent Eltschinger, Danielle Feller, Maria Piera Candotta, Bogdan Diaconescu and Malhar Kulkarni (eds.), Devadattīyam: Johannes Bronkhorst Felicitation Volume, Bern et alibi: Peter Lang, pp. 39–61.
 * Indo-Iranian languages, Indo-Aryan languages, Sanskrit, Prakrits. Encyclopaedia Britannica. Encyclopaedia Britannica, electronic version. [revised edition. of 1974]
 * Rev.: F. Grimal, V. Venkataraja Sarma, S. Lakshminarasimham, Pāṇinīyavyākaraṇodāharaṇakośaḥ, La grammaire pāṇinéenne par ses exemples, Pāṇinian Grammar through its Examples; Volume III.2: Tiṅantaprakaraṇam 2, Le livre des conjugaisons 2, The Book of Conjugations 2. [Rashtriya Sanskrit University Series No. 202, Collection Indologie 93.3.2] (Tirupati: Rashtriya Sanskrit University, Pondichéry: École française d’ExtrêmeOrient, Institut Français de Pondichéry, 2009). Indo-Iranian Journal 55:55-74.
 * Indological Research: Different Standpoints, edited by P. C. Muraleemadhavan (revised edition). Delhi: New Bharatiy Book Corporation. Pp. xiv, 184.
 * Development of nasals in early Indo-Aryan: anunāsika and anusvāra. Festschrift for Hiroshi Kumamoto (= Tokyo University Linguistic Papers) 33:3-81.
 * Indological Research: Different Standpoints, edited by P. C. Muraleemadhavan, revised edition. New Delhi: New Bharatiya Book Corporation.
 * Vyākaraṇa Across the Ages, Proceedings of the vyākaraṇa section of the 15th World Sanskrit Conference, volume II: Vyākaraṇa section, edited by George Cardona. Delhi: D.K. Printworld. Combinations of upasargas and tiṅanta forms: lexical versus grammatical positions.
 * Vyākaraṇa Across the Ages, Proceedings of the 15th World Sanskrit Conference, volume II: Vyākaraṇa section, pp. 189–215.
 * Sanskrit Grammar and Related Sciences. In Oxford Bibliographies in Hinduism. www.oxfordbilbiographies.com. 39 pp.
 * Pāṇinian grammarians on agency and independence. Free Will, Agency and Selfhood in Indian Philosophy, edited by Edwin Bryant and Matthew Dasti, Oxford/New York, Oxford University Press, pp. 85–111.
 * ### तने लौिकको 5वहार: Vidyud-dūtaḥ, International Association of Sanskrit Studies 8:1-6.
 * Some contributions of ancient Indian thinkers to linguistics. In Sanskrit and Development of World Thought (Proceedings of “The International Seminar on the Contribution of Sanskrit to Development of World Thought”), edited by Vempaty Kutumba Sastry, Delhi: D.K. Printworld and Rashtriya Sanskti Sansthan, pp. 1–22.
 * Segmentation of Vedic texts: padapāṭhas. BÉI 32 (Les études sur les langues indiennes, leur contribution à l'histoire des idées linguistiques et à la linguistique contemporaine, Textes réunis par Émilie Aussant et Jean-Luc Chevillard): 87-100.
 * Derivation and interpretation in Pāṇini’s system. Sanskrit Syntax: Selected papers presented at the seminar on Sanskrit syntax and discourse structures, 13–15 June 2013, Université Paris Diderot, edited by Peter M. Scharf (Providence, RI: The Sanskrit Library), pp. 53–107.
 * Extension rules and the syntax of Aṣṭādhyāyī sūtras with vati. Sanskrit Syntax: Selected papers presented at the seminar on Sanskrit syntax and discourse structures, 13–15 June 2013, Université Paris Diderot, edited by Peter M. Scharf (Providence, RI: The Sanskrit Library), pp. 109–155.
 * The bhāṣika accented revisited. Brahmavidyā, The Adyar Library Bulletin 78-79 (2014-205) (Radha S. Burnier commemoration volume):159-174.
 * ### Select papers Vyākaraṇa Section, 16th World Sanskrit Conference, Bangkok, Thailand, 2015, edited with Hideyo Ogawa. New Delhi: DK Publishers. Pp.. xiii, 392
 * A note on TS 2.4.12.2-6. Sahasram ati srajas, Indo-Iranian and Indo-European Studies in Honor of Stephanie W. Jamison, edited by Doieter Gunkel, Joshua T. Katz, Brent Vine, Michael Weiss (Ann Arbor/New York, Beech Stave Press), pp. 29–35.

Reviews on Cardona's Works

 * Durbin, Mridula Adenwala. A Gujarati Reference Grammar (review). Language 44: 2, (1968), pp. 411–420.
 * I.R. A Gujarati Reference Grammar (review). Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 30: 2 (fiftieth anniversary volume) (1967), pp. 470–471.
 * Strunk, Klaus. On haplology in Indo-European (review). Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 121: 2 (1971), pp. 327–330.
 * Schmitt, Rüdiger. On haplology in Indo-European (review). Indo-Iranian Journal 13: 4 (1971[1972]), pp. 274–277.
 * Szemerényi, O. On haplology in Indo-European (review). Language 46: 1 (Mar., 1970), pp. 140–146.
 * Millonig, Harald. Studies in Indian grammarians, I: The method of description reflected in the śivasūtras (review). Zeitschrift Der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 123: 2 (1973), pp. 424–427.
 * Rocher, Rosane. Studies in Indian grammarians, I: The method of description reflected in the śivasūtras (review). Journal of the American Oriental Society 89: 4 (Oct.-Dec., 1969), pp. 788–789.
 * Staal, J.F. Studies in Indian grammarians, I: The method of description reflected in the śivasūtras (review). Language 46: 2, part 1 (Jun., 1970), pp. 502–507.
 * Jasanoff, Jay H. Indo-European and Indo-Europeans (review). The Journal of Interdisciplinary History 5: 1 (Summer, 1974), pp. 139–145.
 * Levin, Saul. Indo-European and Indo-Europeans (review). American Anthropologist (new series) 74: 4 (Aug., 1972), pp. 927–929.
 * Muhly, James D. Indo-European and Indo-Europeans (review). American Journal of Archaeology 75: 4 (1971), pp. 437–439. www.jstor.org/stable/502979.
 * Reed, Carroll E. Indo-European and Indo-Europeans (review). The Modern Language Journal 57: 1/2 (Jan.-Feb., 1973), pp. 52–53.
 * Sotiroff, George. Indo-European and Indo-Europeans (review). Canadian Slavonic Papers/Revue Canadienne des Slavistes 13:4 (Winter, 1971), pp. 453–457.
 * Szemerényi, O. Indo-European and Indo-Europeans (review). Journal of Linguistics 10: 1 (Feb., 1974), pp. 178–185.
 * Buddruss, Georg. Pāṇini, a survey of research (review). Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 133: 1 (1983), p. 214.
 * Rocher, Rosane. Pāṇini, a survey of research (review). Journal of the American Oriental Society 100: 1 (Jan.-Mar., 1980), pp. 59–60.
 * Bhattacharya, Kamaleswar. Pāṇini: His work and its traditions. Part I: General introduction and background (review). Journal of the American Oriental Society 127: 1 (Jan.-Mar., 2007), pp. 102–103.
 * Brockington, J.L. Pāṇini: His work and its traditions. Part I: General introduction and background (review). The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland 1 (1990), pp. 182–183.
 * Laddu, S.D. Pāṇini: His work and its traditions. Part I: General introduction and background (review). Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute 70: 1/4 (1989), pp. 350–353.
 * Regier, Willis G. and Rex E. Wallace. Pāṇini: His work and its traditions. Part I: General introduction and background (review). Language 67:1 (Mar., 1991), pp. 163–166.
 * Scharfe, Hartmut. "Something Old and Something New: Two Traditional Approaches to Pāṇini", Pāṇini: His Work and Its Traditions (review). Journal of the American Oriental Society 109: 4 (Oct.-Dec., 1989), pp. 653–658.
 * Wright, J.C. Pāṇini: His work and its traditions. Part I: General introduction and background (review). Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 53: 1 (1990), pp. 152–154.
 * Brockington, J.L. Pāṇinian Studies, Professor S.D. Joshi Felicitation Volume (review). Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (third series) 3: 3 (Nov., 1993), pp. 474–475.
 * Rocher, Rosane. Pāṇinian Studies, Professor S.D. Joshi Felicitation Volume (review). Journal of the American Oriental Society 115: 4 (Oct.-Dec., 1995), p. 700.
 * Salomon, Richard. Pāṇinian Studies, Professor S.D. Joshi Felicitation Volume (review). Pacific Affairs 67: 1 (Spring, 1994), pp. 140–141.
 * Kulikov, L.I. Recent Research in Pāṇinian Studies (review). The Canadian Journal of Linguistics/La revue canadienne de linguistique 49: 1 (March/mars 2004), pp. 121–124.
 * Haag, Pascale. Madhav M. Deshpande et Peter E. Hook (éd.) : Indian Linguistic Studies. Festschrift in Honor of George Cardona. In: Bulletin de l'Ecole française d'Extrême-Orient. Tome 90-91, 2003. pp. 504–509.
 * Hinüber, O.V. Indian Linguistic Studies: Festschrift in Honor of George Cardona (review). Indo-Iranian Journal 47: 3/4 (2004), pp. 339–340.
 * Hock, H.H. Indian Linguistic Studies: Festschrift in Honor of George Cardona (review). Journal of the American Oriental Society 126: 1 (Jan.-Mar., 2006), pp. 108–111).
 * Joseph, Brian D. Indian Linguistic Studies: Festschrift in Honor of George Cardona (review). Language 90283: 4 (2006), pp. 902–904.
 * Masica, Colin P. The Indo-Aryan Languages (review). Journal of the American Oriental Society 125: 1 (Jan.-Mar., 2005), pp. 79–89.
 * Peterson, John. The Indo-Aryan Languages (review). Language 82: 4 (Dec., 2006), pp. 891–894.
 * Malhar. Process & Language: A Study of the Mahābhāṣya Ad a 1.3.1 Bhūvādayo Dhātavaḥ, Foreword by George Cardona (review). 名古屋大学大学院文学研究科東洋学講座インド文化学研究室 (Department of Indian Studies, Graduate School of Letters, Nagoya University), 2016. Web.
 * Vergiani, Vincenzo. Process & Language: A Study of the Mahābhāṣya Ad a 1.3.1 Bhūvādayo Dhātavaḥ, Foreword by George Cardona (review). Indo-Iranian Journal 53: 4 (2010), pp. 389–394.
 * Pataskar, Bhagyalata. Proceedings of the Vyākaraṇa Section of the 14th World Sanskrit Conference: Studies in Sanskrit Grammars (review).  NSICB: Saṃbhāṣā 30 (Department of Indian Studies, Graduate School of Letters, Nagoya University) (2016), pp. 86–89. Web.

Other Reviews of Cardona

 * Kiparsky, Paul. “On Pāṇinian Studies: A Reply to Cardona.” Journal of Indian Philosophy, vol. 19, no. 4, 1991, pp. 331–367.