Manava Dharmashastra 2.124

2.124

svasya nāmno'nte bhoḥ śabdaṃ kīrtayet | svagrahṇamabhivādyamānapratiṣedhārtham | pariśiṣṭo'rthavādaḥ |
na ca nāmākṣarāṇāmevānte'pi tu tataḥ pareṣāṃ ahamasmoti | eṣa hi tatretikaraṇaṃ prayogāvadhāraṇārtham| evameva prayoktavyaḥ| api ca devadatto bho ahamiti duḥśiṣṭe prayoge vilambitāyāṃ pratipattau sammukhībhāvaścireṇa syāttatra kāryavirodhaḥ | vyavahitasambandhe kaścinnaivāvadhānavānsyāt |
svarūpabhāvaḥ svarūpasya sattā | athavā'bhivācanāmnāṃ 'svarūpe' bhavati, tatsthāne bhavatyatastannāmanivṛttiḥ | bhāvasādhanaḥ kartṛsādhano vā bhāvaśabdaḥ | svarūpabhāva iti saptamyanto vā paṭhitavyaḥ | bhāvaḥ | bho ityetasya yadbhavarna yatsvarūpaṃ tannāmnāṃ svarūpam | yathaiva nāma gṛhītvā kasyacitsambodhanaṃ kriyate- 'devadatta śrūyatāmi'tyevaṃ bhoḥ śabdo'pyāmantritavibhaktyantaḥ sambodhanāyaivaṃ ṛṣibhiḥ smaryate |

In saluting, one should pronounce the term “Oh, Sir” at the end op his own name; since it has been declared by the sages that the form “Oh, Sir” represents the form of all names.—(124)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
‘At the end of his own name one should pronounce the term Oh, Sir.’The epithet ‘own’ has been added with a view to precluding the possibility of the name of the saluted person being understood to be meant.

The rest of the verse is purely valedictory.

The term should be pronounced, immediately after the letters of the name, but after some, other letters also, such as the expression ‘I am’ (as laid down in verse, 122, above). The presence of the particle ‘iti’ (in verse 122, after ‘ahamasmi’) is meant to define the actual form of the expression to be used; the sense being that such is the actual form of the expression to be used; Further, if the expression were wrongly used iu the form ‘Devadatta, Oh, Sir, I am,’ the comprehension of its meaning (by the accosted person) would be delayed, and this would still further delay the inviting of his attention; and this would defeat the purpose of the salutation. And it may also happen that when the expression used is one not amenable to simple construction, the other party does not comprehend it at all.

‘Form’—the existence of very essence. Or, it may mean that it comes in lieu of the name of the accosted person; i.e., comes in place of the name; and the name of the accosted person is. not pronounced. The term ‘bhāta’ may mean either that which is accomplished by means of existence, or that which is accomplished by means of an agent.

Or, we may read ‘svarūpabhāve,’ with the locative ending.

‘The form, Oh, Sir’;—i.e., the presence, the existence, of the term‘Oh, Sir’—‘is, the form of all names.’ Just as one is addressed by having his name uttered—‘Oh, Devadatta, listen to me,’ similarly the term bhoḥ’ (Oh, Sir)—which ends in the Vocative case-ending—is used for the purposes of address; this has been so declared by the sages.—(124)