Shringaraprakasha 3.p2.1

3.p2.1

3.54. kiñca yathākathaṃcidāśriyamāṇo'rthassāmānādhikaraṇyenāvadhibhāvena vā viśeṣaṇatvaṃ na vyatikrāmati| tathāhi, vraḍa devadattetyāmantritasya viśeṣaṇatvenaikavākyatvādāmantritasya ceti nighāto dṛśyate; kartṛtvādbhaviṣyatīti cet vrajati devadattetyatra katham?nahi devadatto vrajikriyāyāḥ kartā, na khalvapi kārakasya viśeṣakaṃ, nāpi suṣṭhu pacatīti padāntaratvena bāhyaviśeṣaṇamupapadyate | kiṃntu kriyāṃ pratyābhimukhyenāvasthāpyamānaḥ pañcavārān, pacatītivat bāhyaviśeṣaṇatāṃ labhyate| kaḥ punarbāhyāntarayoḥ kriyāviśeṣaṇayorviśeṣaḥ? yamasti āntaraṃ hi kriyāviśeṣaṇaṃ karmatvaṃ napuṃsakatvaṃ napuṃsakatvaṃ ca pratilabhate ; bāhyasya tu svaliṅgatā na karmatvāniyamaḥ| evaṃ ca kṛtvoktam--- saṃbodhanapadaṃ yañca tatkrayāyā viśeṣakam | brajāni devadatteti nighāto'tra tathāsati|| 3.55. nanu ca saṃbodhanapadasya tiṅantenaikavākyatā yujyate, saṃbodhanaṃ hyākṣiptakriyāpadaṃ vartate | devadatta abhimukho bhavetyābhimukhye hi yujyate| tatra devadattetyetāvatyarthasya parisamāptatvāt saṃbodhanapadamekaṃ vākyam, sobhimukhībhūtaḥ kriyāntaro vyāpāraḥ | anyetvāhuḥ--- sākāṃkṣāvayavaṃ bhede parānākāṃkṣaśabdakam| karmapradhānaguṇavadekārthaṃ vākyamucyate|| 3.56. evaṃ ca bruvato yathoktalakṣaṇapadasamūho vākyamityabhiprāyaḥ, na ca devadatteti padasamūhaḥ| athābhimukho bhavetyākṣepādasya samūhabhāvaḥ ; tathā'pi sākāṃkṣatvādavākyatvam| na hyabhimukhībāvamātrameva kaścidvidhatte|

3.54. Furthermore, a meaning that is somehow resorted to does not transcend being a qualifier, either through coreferentiality or as a limit. For instance, in "Go, Devadatta," because [the vocative] is a qualifier of the addressed and forms a single sentence, the loss of accent is seen by [the rule] "and of the vocative." If it is claimed, "It will occur because of being the agent," how is it in "Devadatta goes"? For Devadatta is not the agent of the action of going, nor is it a specifier of the syntactic role, nor is it an external qualifier through being another word, as in "he cooks well." Rather, being positioned facing the action, it acquires the status of an external qualifier, as in "he cooks five times." What, then, is the difference between an external and an internal qualifier of an action? There is this difference: an internal qualifier of an action attains objecthood and neuter gender; for an external one, however, its own gender [persists], and objecthood is not fixed. And having held this, it has been said: / "And whatever word in the vocative case is a qualifier of that action; / in 'let me go, Devadatta,' when it is thus, there is a loss of accent." / 3.55. [Objection:] But the status of a single sentence of a vocative word with a finite verb is appropriate, for an address exists with its verbal word implied. For it is employed for facing: "Devadatta, be facing [me]!" There, because the meaning is completed with just this much, "Devadatta," the vocative word is a single sentence; that becoming-facing is an activity toward another action. But others have said: / "That which has interdependent parts upon division, whose words have no mutual expectancy with other [words], / which possesses primary and secondary actions, and has a single meaning, is called a sentence." / 3.56. And for one who speaks thus, the intention is that a sentence is a collection of words having the stated definition; and "Devadatta" is not a collection of words. Now, if it has the status of a collection because of the implication "be facing [me]," even so, because it has expectancy, it is not a sentence; for no one enjoins mere facing-forward alone.