Shringaraprakasha 5.p2.16

5.p2.16

prayoganiyamānāmapi prayoganiyamo dṛśyate, tasmādavyabhicāra iti | upasarjanānāmapi ca viśeṣayogo dṛśaayate, devadattasya gurukulamiti | cādīnāṃ tu naitatkadācidapyasti, vyākaraṇe cārthāḥ kathaṃ vādiśyanta iti | śaālīnakaupīne, adhṛṣṭākāryayoḥ, agāraikadeśe praghaṇaḥ praghāṇaśceti | nirukte'pyuñcāvacasyārthasya kevalānnipātādanupalabdheḥ padāntaropādānāttu tadarthābhivyakternipāto dyotyate | ato dyotakā eva na vācakāścādaya iti | atha gatyupasargakarmapravaca nīyānāṃ vārtā ? ucyate | gatīnāṃ tāvatsadasadādīnāmādarānādarādinācyanirdeśenaiva gati saṃjñāvidhānārdiṣṭavācyānāmapyūryādīnāṃ vācakatvameva gamyate | upasargāstu vācakāḥ dyotakāḥ viśeṣakāssahābhidhāyakāḥ kāryārthā nirarthakāśca bhavanti | karmapravacanīyāḥ punarnipātavat dyotakā eva | tadāha-- kriyāviśeṣajanyātāṃ saṃbandhānāṃ prakāśane | karmatvaṃ karaṇatvaṃ ca bhedenaivāśritaṃ katham || 5.33. iha khalu saṃbandhāḥ kriyāpūrvakatvāt karaṇānavidhāyitayā kriyopadarśitaviśeṣaṃ kārakamāśrayanti | tatra ca bhinjātīyasya yugapadekayā vibhaktyāvaktuṃ śakyatvāt śeṣasaṃbandhābhidhānavelayāmaśabdopādānaḥ kriyākārakasaṃbandhaśśabdavatā śaeṣasaṃbandhenānumīyamānasannidhiravatiṣṭhate | tañcānumānaṃ śeṣasaṃbandhasya kvarūpasāmarthyanniyatakriyāyaviṣayamaniyatakriyāviśayañca | niyatakriyāviṣayaṃ yathā--- ... nā janā kartaryapekṣitakarmaviśeṣe śeṣalakṣaṇaṃ pitāputrasaṃbandhamutpādayatīti | saiva tasmādanumīyate |

even among rules of usage a restriction of usage is seen, therefore there is no deviation. And qualifying connection is observed even for subordinate members, as in 'the family-school of Devadatta' (*devadattasya gurukulam*). But for *ca* and the like, this never occurs; and how are meanings taught in grammar? As in 'shy and indecent, in the senses of unbold and disgraceful' (*śālīnakaupīne adhṛṣṭākāryayoḥ*), and 'in the sense of a part of a house, *praghaṇaḥ* and *praghāṇaḥ*'. In the Nirukta as well, because the manifold meaning is not grasped from a particle in isolation, but that meaning is made manifest only upon the employment of another word, the particle is shown to illuminate. Therefore *ca* and the like are merely illuminators, not denoters. Now, what is the status of verbal adjuncts (gati), prefixes (upasarga), and governing particles (karmapravacanīya)? It is replied: First, as for the *gati*s such as *sat*, *asat*, and so on, because the term *gati* is assigned simply through the instruction of a denotation such as respect, disrespect, and so forth, even elements like *ūrī* and others that possess a prescribed denotation are understood to be indeed denotative. But prefixes are denotative, illuminative, distinctive, co-signifying, functional, and meaningless. Governing particles, however, like particles, are strictly illuminative. Thus it is said: / When expressing relations generated by a specific action, / how are the status of direct object and the status of instrument adopted as distinct? // (5.33) Here indeed, since relations are preceded by action, they depend upon a syntactic role whose distinction is shown by an action through its functioning as an instrument. And there, because things of different classes cannot be expressed simultaneously by a single inflectional case-ending, at the moment of expressing a residual relation, the relation of action and syntactic role, which is not expressed by speech, remains with its presence inferred by the verbal residual relation. And that inference, by the inherent power of the form of the residual relation, has as its scope either a fixed action or an unfixed action. As for having a fixed action as its scope: for example, […] produces a residual relation characterized as father and son with respect to an agent that requires a specific object; that [action] alone is inferred from it.