Shringaraprakasha 2.p1.7

2.p1.7

In 'the king's wives who do not see even the sun' (asūryaṃpaśyā rājadārāḥ), the negative particle nañ negates the action of seeing which has the sun as its object, even though it is separated, and not the state of being the sun; similarly, 'verses which are not sung again' (apunargeyāḥ ślokāḥ), and 'the brāhmaṇa who does not eat at a funeral feast' (aśrāddhabhojī brāhmaṇaḥ). Likewise, in 'the mendicant who does not eat salt' (alavaṇabhojī bhikṣuḥ), a negative compound is seen even in the absence of semantic compatibility (asāmarthya), just as in asūryaṃpaśyā, etc.; but not in 'doing nothing' (akiṃcitkurvāṇaḥ); likewise, 'stealing a māṣa bean' (māṣaṃ haramāṇaḥ), 'crawled out from the unfathomable depth' (agādhād utsṛptaḥ). Moreover, in 'drinking milk again and again' (payaḥ pāyaṃ pāyaṃ, payaḥ pītvā pītvā) and 'entering the house again and again' (geham anupraveśam anupraveśam, geham anupraviśyānupraviśya), suffixes like ṇamul cause the reduplication of words in the sense of repetition (ābhīkṣṇya) and pervading frequency (vīpsā), but the suffixes yaṅ, śas, etc., do not do so, as in 'he cooks excessively' (pāpacyate), 'give two by two' (dviśo dehi); the intensive word ending in yaṅ conveys the intensity of the action even without reduplication, as in lolūyate ('he cuts intensely'), whereas the imperative form does not, as in 'reap, reap' (lunīhi lunīhi) -> lolūyate; words ending in niṣṭhā, etc., having lost the power to express the object by virtue of the complex formation (vṛtti), do not prevent the accusative case of the object, as in 'having previously made the mat' (kṛtapūrvī kaṭam), 'having studied grammar' (adhītī vyākaraṇam); suffixes like tumun, even when the desire has ceased, govern only the accusative in the object, as in 'intending to go to the village' (grāmaṃ gantumano), 'desiring to make a mat' (kaṭaṃ kartukāmaḥ); even when there is the restrictive rule that when both [agent and object] are applicable, [the genitive occurs] only in the object, suffixes like ktin take the relational case (genitive) even for the agent for the sake of compounding, as in 'the wondrous composition of the sūtra by Pāṇini' (vicitrā sūtrasya kṛtiḥ pāṇineḥ), 'the grammatical instruction of words by the teacher' (śabdānām anuśāsanam ācāryasya); even though ghañ and other suffixes express what is to be accomplished and signify meanings that are not concrete substances, they connect precisely with the relational case (genitive) in the object, as in 'for the cooking of the barley-gruel' (yavāgvāḥ pākāya); thus the action expressed by them becomes 'accomplishable-established' (sādhyasiddha).

2.5 A kāraka (syntactic role) is the cause of an action; that too is of six kinds: agent (kartā), object (karma), instrument (karaṇa), recipient (saṃpradāna), point of departure (apādāna), and locus (adhikaraṇa). Among these, the agent is threefold: independent (svatantra), instigator (hetu), and middle agent (karmakartā);