A History of Sanskrit Literature c12.s3.29

c12.s3.29

Though not a pedant, Kumāradāsa was a keen student of grammar, and there is no doubt that he must rank as an authority of some weight in judging the correctness of disputed forms. He himself sneers in a paronomasia at bad poets who spoil their compositions by the use of such particles¹ as *tu*, *hi*, *na*, by incorrect employment of roots, and by hiding their meaning through wrong words, and doubtless he had authority for such formations as *halacarma*, furrow, where *carma* is clearly from *car*, go, and *maruta*, a by-form of *marut*. He borrows from the *Kāçikā* the rare forms *vitūst*-, to comb one’s top-knot, *marmāvidh*, piercing the vitals, *satyāp*-, declare truth, and such aorists as *acakamata*; other rare terms from the grammarians are *anyataredyus*, one day, *āyaḥçūlikatā*, violence, *ikṣuçākaṭa*, field of sugar cane, *jampatī*, husband and wife, *nīçāra*, covering, *paçyatohara*, robber in broad daylight, *pravara*, covering, *bhidelima*, fit to be broken, *muṣṭiṃdhaya*, fist-sucking baby, *çāyikā*, sloth, and *saukharātrika*, asking if one has slept well. Of constructions he has very freely adverbial prepositional compounds, the impersonal use of the perfect passive, and the weird passive *muninā joṣam abhūyata*, ‘the sage rejoiced’. The accusative with *sarvatas* and *ubhayatas* is grammatical; *kālasya kasyacit* has a similar origin, but *samāḥ sahasrāṇi* seems careless and *doṣā* as instrumental of *doṣan* is unparalleled; the use of *khalu* and *iva* at the beginning of lines is quite wrong, and censured by Vāmana as regards *khalu*.² From Vālmīki he has *tanucchada*, feather, from Kālidāsa *avarṇa*, shame, and *ajarya*, friendship. His love of periphrasis is remarkable: he styles himself even Kumāraparicāraka.