Mimamsasutra 42.2.18-3

42.2.18-3

na tāvadvivarṇatvaṃ tallakṣaṇam| varṇavikārasya viparītavarṇatvena stobhatvaprasaṅgāt| ’agna āyāhi’- ityasyāmṛci, akārasya sthāna okāraṃ kṛtvā gāyanti- ’ognāyī’ iti| ’adhiko varṇaḥ stobhaḥ’ ityukte satyabhyāse'tivyāptiḥ| ’pibāsomamindra mandatu tvā’ ityetasyāmṛci ’datu tvā’ ityakṣaratrayaṃ gānakāle trirabhyastam| ato vikārābhyāsayorativyāpternāsti lakṣaṇam| iti cet|
maivam| ’adhikatve satyṛgvilakṣaṇavarṇaḥ stobhaḥ- iti viśiṣṭasya tallakṣaṇatvāt| loke'pi sabhāyāṃ vipralambhakenocyamānaṃ prakṛtārthānanvitaṃ kālakṣepamātrahetuṃ śabdarāśiṃ ’stobhaḥ’ ityācakṣate| tasmāt- asti lakṣaṇam ||

First of all, phonemic divergence is not its definition; for then a phonetic modification, by virtue of being an altered phoneme, would contingently become a musical interjection. In the verse ‘*agna āyāhi*’, having put the phoneme *o* in place of the phoneme *a*, they sing ‘*ognāyī*’. If it is said, ‘an additional phoneme is a musical interjection’, there is over-extension to repetition. In the verse ‘*pibā somam indra mandatu tvā*’, the triad of syllables ‘*datu tvā*’ is repeated thrice at the time of chanting. Therefore, because of over-extension to modification and repetition, there is no definition. If this is urged— / It is not so. Because ‘being a phoneme distinct from the verse while being additional’ is its qualified definition. In ordinary life too, an assemblage of words uttered by a trickster in an assembly, unconnected to the matter at hand and serving merely to waste time, is called a ‘*stobha*’. Therefore, a definition exists.