Some principles of Pānini's grammargrammar

The following principles are seen to operate in the rules Pānini provides for Sanskrit grammar.

1. The obvious principle that the introduction of affixes and augments which condition sound replacements necessarily precede the latter.
2. Bracketing, whereby an operation whose condition is internal relative to a condition causing another operation applies prior to the latter.
3. The derivational prehistory of a form is pertinent to the operations which apply to it.
4. Blocking: a rule R₂ is said to block an R₁ if, in a given domain, R₁ tentatively applies (and would apply in the absence of R₂) wherever R₂ can apply, while R₂ would be vacuous if R₁ applied.
5. Limited blocking, which obtains where R₁ and R₂ overlap but also have independent domains of application.

These principles account for correct derivations in cases where post-Paninian grammarians invoked rule order: where two rules conflict, that one takes precedence which is stated later in the grammar. This principle is not generally tenable, since some derivations require that a rule stated previously in the grammar take precedence. Hence, the grammarians who invoke such rule ordering in cases of conflict must admit that only a knowledge of the correct results to be obtained by applying the rules allows one to correctly apply the rules in the first place. It is argued that Pānini avoided this weakness.     

Attitudes of police officers toward their professional ethics

Professions are guided by codes of ethics to aid them in performance of their duties and to ensure maintenance of high standards of conduct. Police officers are faced with a maze of obligations in the performance of their official duties. The “Law Enforcement Code of Ethics” and “Canons of Police Ethics” were created to make explicit the conduct considered appropriate for police officers and to guide them in the performance of their duties.This study investigates how police officers in several police agencies view their professional ethics. Some of the broader questions examined in the study are the following: Do police officers have a clear understanding of the “Law Enforcement Code of Ethics” and the “Canons of Police Ethics?” Do they feel constrained by agency, societal, or other factors from behaving professionally? Do they consider their ethics adequate to guide professional conduct, and are they willing to abide by the principles? The responses indicate reliance on personal ethics in situations where standard police ethics are not clear, and suggest the need for further research in police ethics.