Mimamsashastrasarvasva 5.4

Taking the examples, “One desiring cattle should sacrifice with the citrā,” and “The ājyas are fifteen-fold,”
it is considered: Are the two words citrā and ājya expressive of an enjoined subordinate element, or are they a name?
On that, [the prima facie view is that] by “citrā” there is an injunction of a subordinate element in the Agnīṣomīya. For:
“The connection of variegatedness and femaleness belongs by nature to the animal class;
therefore, these, being a subordinate part of an animal sacrifice, resort to the base [archetype], the sacrificial animal of the Dīkṣā.”
“For the distinction of femaleness and so forth is recognized in an entity other than an animal by mere imitation of [grammatical] words; but in animals and the like it is real. And the ritual in context has as its substance curd, honey, ghee, milk, parched grains, water, and husked rice grains—mixed together, dedicated to Prajāpati; and that is unsuitable for connection with femaleness. Hence, being displaced from the context, when on the strength of the sentence it presents itself as connecting to sacrifice in general, the two [qualities]—variegatedness and femaleness—seeking an animal sacrifice by virtue of fitness, resort to the Agnīṣomīya, which is the ultimate archetype of all animal offerings, according to the principle ‘because it has been stated in the archetype.’ Nor does the principle of udbhid apply here, because [the word] is established [in another sense]; nor is there metaphorical transfer of the possessive suffix. Because, by virtue of the fact that instrumentality is understood from the originative injunction, the variegatedness, if it is to be effected by the sacrifice, is enjoined through diverse case-relation by way of reference to it. Nor is there a split of the sentence. Because they are conveyed by a single word, there is the injunction of a single factor qualified by both variegatedness and femaleness. The word ‘one desiring cattle’ is also a reiteration of the desire for the means; for one performing an animal sacrifice indeed has a desire for cattle. Similarly, in ‘The ājyas are fifteen-fold’ also, because of the injunction of clarified butter qualified by the number, there is no split of the sentence. Therefore, it is an injunction of a subordinate element. And thus, even in originative sentences such as ‘They praise with ājyas,’ the word ājya, etc., is a reiteration of a subordinate element obtained from the sentence containing the subordinate element, not a name.”
This [prima facie view] having been reached, we say:
“Because of the consequence of a split of the sentence, because of co-referentiality,
and because of an explanatory passage giving the etymology, it is established solely as a name.”
Variegatedness and femaleness cannot be enjoined by a single sentence. Even in the injunction of a single factor qualified by both, there is excessive complexity. And the word denoting desire is primary regarding the fruit, but secondary regarding the means. And it is not proper to pass over the contextual sacrifice consisting of substances such as curd, which expects a fruit.
Therefore, that very [sacrifice] is enjoined with respect to the fruit. And the word citrā is a name by co-referentiality. And because it has diverse substances such as curd, the word citrā is suitable even with respect to the sacrifice. In “The ājyas are fifteen-fold” also, because of the absence of a compound, there is no injunction of a qualified substance. If both substance and number are enjoined, however, there would be a split of the sentence. Nor is an adverbial qualification enjoined, because the injunctive [morpheme] has no direct relation with nominal words;
nor could any action here, being the means, imply multiple subordinate elements from the enjoined sense. And he has said:
“The productive force causes many an object to be enjoined through the sense;
but the injunction of a qualification does not admit another qualification.”
“Nor are these comprehended by the injunction of performance of praise, because they are not of the nature of action.
And he has said:
‘Except through connection with an intermediate action constructed by the sentence,
how do the actions in context comprehend subordinate elements and substances through the modes of procedure?’
Moreover, since ājya is an unsegmented mass of substance, the number fifteen is directly inapplicable to it, and there would follow the undesirable assumption of a quantity of fruit, etc., which is not heard [in scripture].
Therefore, by way of reference to ājya, the number alone is enjoined.
Hence the word ‘fifteen-fold’ (pañcadaśāni) also would be consistent.
For the suffix ḍa is taught in tradition regarding a stoma, in the sense of fifteen-fold and so forth: ‘The rule for ḍa is in the case of a stoma, for the purpose of fifteen, etc.’
And a stoma is the measure of praise; that is, the stotra which is the most effective means of praise, cutting off sin.
Therefore, on the strength of the sentence containing the subordinate element, it is a name; and because of co-referentiality, and because of the rest of the sentence, ‘They praise with ājyas’—[as in the explanatory passage:] ‘That they ran a race (ājim īyuḥ), that constitutes the ājya-nature of the ājyas.’

4. The section on names of sacrifices [based on the rule]:
‘And another teaching is of that character.’

Regarding “He pours the stream (ādhāram āghārayati)” and “He performs the agnihotra offering (agnihotraṃ juhoti),” there is a doubt: Are the words āghāra and agnihotra injunctions of a subordinate element, or the name of a rite?
On this, [the prima facie view holds:] “By well-known [usage] and the like, there is an injunction of a subordinate element. Nor is there metaphorical transfer of the possessive suffix, because in the word agnihotra, the sense of the possessive suffix is stated by the bahuvrīhi compound itself: 'the oblation (hotram) is unto Agni (agnaye) in this [rite].' Agni, the subordinate element, is enjoined as the deity.” And it is said:
“Everywhere, when another word heard is connected with the finite verb,
and the injunctive force is transferred [to it], the verbal root becomes a reiteration.”
“Moreover, if it were a name, [the rite] would be devoid of distinctive form. Even though the substance is obtained from sentences about curds and the like, still, because of the absence of a deity, it would be devoid of distinctive form. Nor is the deity obtained from ‘When he offers to Agni and Prajāpati in the evening’ and ‘When he offers to Sūrya and Prajāpati in the morning,’ because, through the inclusion of multiple subordinate elements, those [sentences] enjoin a qualified action; otherwise, there would be a split of the sentence.” As it is said:
“When an action is already established, multiple subordinate elements cannot be enjoined;
but when it is not yet established, even many may be enjoined by a single effort.”
“By the word āghāra, too, a substance capable of trickling, such as clarified butter, milk, and so forth, is denoted.
And that, because of the designation in the accusative case, is understood as the object to be consecrated by pouring. And since there is no consecration of what has no purpose, when looking for a purpose, its purposefulness for the animal sacrifice in need of the contextual substance is understood. And when a subordinate element is enjoined by context, there is no metaphorical transfer of the possessive suffix,
because a sentence endowed with the possessive suffix itself is postulated.” And it is said:
“In the case of alternative assumption of deficiency or excess in a heard sentence,
there are defects such as metaphorical transfer and split of the sentence; but that does not occur in an inferred [sentence].”

Therefore, it is an injunction of a subordinate element.