Shringaraprakasha 4.p1.13

4.p1.13

na hyekāśeṣabhāve prādhānyena guṇābāvena vā kiñcidāśrīyate | pacādayo hi kriyāvacanāḥ, teṣāmeka evānekasādhanasamavetānekatvena vivakṣitāṃ kriyāmabhidhāsyati | tanna, yadyapyeko dhātuḥ yathoktāṃ kriyāṃ bravīti tathā lakārasyānekakarmakartṛviṣayatvātpratisādhanamupapattāvanekatvaṃ prāpnoti | tadanurodhāñcārthāḥ pradhānāni pratyayebhyo vyāvartanta ityekaśeṣārambhasssayāt | kriyāprādhānyena ekaśabdatvaṃ, sādhanabhedāttu dvavacanabahuvacanayogaḥ | 4.14. anye tu bruvate yadyekasyāḥ prakṛtessādhanabhede bhinnālaṅkārāḥ prasajyeran, tathā'pi yathaikasthane ekavacanameva dvayordvivacanaṃ bahūnāṃ bhaviṣyantīti | idameva hi dvivacanābahuvacanayoḥ dvivacanabahuvacanatvaṃ, yattadekaśabdarūpemekaśeṣaśabdavadanekārthābhidhāne samarthamiti vyakhyāyate | itaśca kriyāpradhānamākhyātāḥ karotinā praśne nirṇayārthatvāt | kiṃ devadattaḥ karotīti praśne pacatyāste ityuttaraṃ bhavati, ni tvāsakaḥ pācaka iti | na cāyaṃ kartṛpraśnaḥ kiṃ devadatta iti, viśeṣasyābhyantararīkṛtvāt bhinnaliṅgatvāñca | nāpi kramapraśnaḥ anujñāne vyāpārekramapraśnāsaṃbhāvāt | pacati paṭhatīti kartṛviśeṣamantareṇa prativacane praṣṭuḥ kṛtārthatvāt pacati paṭhatīti cākhyātasya ākhyātenāyogāt | yadi sādhanaṃ pradhānaṃ syāt yathā pācakaḥ pacatīti sāmānādhikaraṇyena na yogo bhavati, yathā pacati paṭhatītyatrāpi syāt |

for in the condition of retention of a single form, nothing is resorted to on the basis of predominance or subordination. For roots such as 'to cook' express action; one single [verb] among them will express the action intended to be expressed as plural because it inheres in multiple means of accomplishment. That is not so: even if a single verbal root expresses the action as stated, nonetheless, because the verbal termination has multiple objects or agents as its scope, multiplicity would result as it applies to each means of accomplishment. And conforming to that, the meanings, which are primary, would turn away from the affixes, so that the formulation of retention of a single form would become necessary. Due to the primacy of the action there is a single word, but due to the division among the means of accomplishment there is the application of the dual and plural numbers. [4.14] Others, however, say: even if distinct forms were to apply when there is a difference in the means of accomplishment of a single morphological base, still, just as in the place of one there is the singular, in the place of two there is the dual, and in the place of many [the plural] will occur. For this alone is the nature of the dual and plural: that a single word-form, like a word resulting from retention of a single form, is explained as capable of denoting multiple meanings. For this reason also, the finite verb has action as its principal element, because it serves as the determination in answer to a question with the verb 'to do'. When the question is 'What does Devadatta do?', the answer is 'He cooks', 'He sits', but not 'A sitter', 'A cook'. Nor is this a question about the agent—'What is Devadatta?'—because the specific distinction is already included within, and because they have different grammatical genders. Nor is it a question about sequence, because a question about sequence is impossible when the activity is not yet known. Because the questioner's purpose is accomplished when the reply is 'He cooks', 'He reads', without any specification of the agent, and because a finite verb has no syntactic relation with another finite verb, as in 'He cooks, he reads'. If the means of accomplishment were predominant, then just as there is no syntactic relation through grammatical agreement in 'The cook cooks', so it would also be here in 'He cooks, he reads'.