Praudhamanorama 12_272
English (machine translation) 12_272
- Language
- English
12_272
—because [your claim] conflicts with such usage by Māgha. As for the sentence "naktaṃ bhīrurayam," this is not an injunction, but rather a restatement; therefore, "tadimam" does not conflict. This being so, the trouble of supplying the relative pronoun yat in "yena tvaṃ bhaktaḥ" is useless. Rather, the connection is simply "tena trāyate" (by that [reason] he protects). And because it is an already introduced referent, there is no requirement of the relative pronoun yat. This is the general direction.
Here, tena is an existent inflected word; after it comes hariḥ ending in the nominative; after that occurs the substitute. Similarly, after trāyate comes saḥ ending in the nominative. Nor should one mistakenly think that trāyate stands in a different sentence; for there is a relation with multiple kārakas through a single utterance serving multiple purposes in "sa hariḥ tvāṃ mā trāyate." And even if one accepts an elliptical supply of words, there is no loss of single-sentenceness as defined by the metarule "a sentence has a single finite verb."
Under "sāmantritam" (Pāṇini 2.3.48): even in a technical naming rule, on the strength of making a long technical name, there is inclusion of that which ends in it. An act of address is āmantrita; by metaphor, the term applies to the means of that [address]. And one addresses with that which ends in a case ending, not with the bare case ending alone; with this intention, he says: "ending in that."
Under "āmantritaṃ pūrvamavidyamānavat" (Pāṇini 8.1.72): as for what the older grammarian said—"Excepting a vocative that precedes a substantive and a vocative that precedes a non-vocative, these substitutes do not occur after another vocative, according to some"—in that statement, the phrase "according to some" is improper, because the stated meaning is established by the two rules in question. And as for what commentators explained—that this meaning is derived from a triad of rules—that is incorrect, because the meaning of the third rule does not touch upon that.