2023-04-26 13:40:42 by ramamurthys
This page has been fully proofread once and needs a second look.
[^40]वः पश्चिमदिगीशे स्याद् वौपम्ये पुनरव्ययम् इति ।
(अनेकार्थसंग्रहे – १-१५ )
अथ कथम्
कटो ना श्रोणिफलकं कटिः श्रोणिः ककुद्मती-इत्यमरः ।
दृप्तः ककुद्मानिव चित्रकूटः--(रघुवंशे १३-४७) इति रघुश्च ।
ककुद्मान् इत्यत्न प्रत्यये भाषायां नित्यम् इत्यनेन (८-४-४५ इत्यत्रत्येन
वार्तिकेन) नित्यमनुनासिकप्राप्तेरितिचेत् । अत्राहुः--मादुपधायाश्च
मतोर्वोऽयवादिभ्यः (८-२-९) इतिसूत्रस्थयवादिगणे[^41] (ककुद् ) इति
दकारान्तत्वेन पाठात् सर्वापेक्षया [^42]गणपाठस्य बलीयस्त्वादिति ।
here cannot be an authentic and correct one. To support the point
Bhānoji (and following him our author also) says that Amara does not use
other Taddhita suffixes such as aṇ, phiñ, vuñ etc. while giving the synonyms of
apatya and of samūha. See Amara :
atmajas tanayas sūnur apatyaṃ tokam etc., and samūho nivaha-etc., where these
suffixes are not included.
[^40]. In his Anekārthasaṃgraha Hemacandra has the following :
vaḥ paścimadigīśe syāt vaupamye punar avyayam (I.15).
From the words aupamye punar avyayam it appears that Hemacandra means
that va (with short a) as a particle of similitude is indeclinable, whereas in
the sense of Varuṇa va is declinable in masculine gender (vaḥ). This style
is adopted by him to bring out the contrast between an avyaya in one sense
and an anavyaya in another. He says later :
a syād abhāve svalpārthe viṣṇāv eṣa tv anavyayam (7.1)
The line of Hemacandra (on va) is similar to the line Medinī, which reads :
vaṃ pracetasi jānīyād ivārthe ca tad avyayam.
This Medinī is quoted by Bālamanoramā (on 1.1.11) too.
[^41]. Bhaṭṭoji gives this answer in his S. K. (under pratyaye bhāṣāyāṃ nityam).
Mallinātha also comments on kakudmantaḥ in Raghu. 4.22 as : yavāditvād
etc.
[^42]. In the light of Bhaṭṭoji's comment : yavādigaṇe dakāranipātanāt (see
previous Note), the statement of our gaṇapāṭhasya balīyastvāt is intended to
mean gaṇe dṛṣṭasya nipātanasya balīyastvāt. For the meaning of nipātana Nāgeśa
says :
anyādṛśe prayoge prāpte anyādṛśaprayogakaraṇam.
(Paribhāṣendu-, on Abhedakā guṇāḥ)
(Contrary to the ordinary rules of grammar, when a specific form is
noted (by Pāṇini) in a rule, it is intended to show that the specific form so
noted has a greater force and thus the ordinary rules are superseded). Under
Sarvādīni sarvanāmāni (1.1.27) Patañjali says :
bādhakāny eva nipātanāni. (See also the Paribhāṣendu-).
(अनेकार्थसंग्रहे – १-१५
अथ कथम्
कटो ना श्रोणिफलकं कटिः श्रोणिः ककुद्मती-इत्यमरः ।
दृप्तः ककुद्मानिव चित्रकूटः--(रघुवंशे १३-४७) इति रघुश्च ।
ककुद्मान् इत्यत्न प्रत्यये भाषायां नित्यम् इत्यनेन (८-४-४५ इत्यत्रत्येन
वार्तिकेन) नित्यमनुनासिकप्राप्तेरितिचेत् । अत्राहुः--मादुपधायाश्च
मतोर्वोऽयवादिभ्यः (८-२-९) इतिसूत्रस्थयवादिगणे[^41] (ककुद् ) इति
दकारान्तत्वेन पाठात् सर्वापेक्षया [^42]गणपाठस्य बलीयस्त्वादिति ।
here cannot be an authentic and correct one. To support the point
Bhānoji (and following him our author also) says that Amara does not use
other Taddhita suffixes such as aṇ, phiñ, vuñ etc. while giving the synonyms of
apatya and of samūha. See Amara :
atmajas tanayas sūnur apatyaṃ tokam etc., and samūho nivaha-etc., where these
suffixes are not included.
[^40]. In his Anekārthasaṃgraha Hemacandra has the following :
vaḥ paścimadigīśe syāt vaupamye punar avyayam (I.15).
From the words aupamye punar avyayam it appears that Hemacandra means
that va (with short a) as a particle of similitude is indeclinable, whereas in
the sense of Varuṇa va is declinable in masculine gender (vaḥ). This style
is adopted by him to bring out the contrast between an avyaya in one sense
and an anavyaya in another. He says later :
a syād abhāve svalpārthe viṣṇāv eṣa tv anavyayam (7.1)
The line of Hemacandra (on va) is similar to the line Medinī, which reads :
vaṃ pracetasi jānīyād ivārthe ca tad avyayam.
This Medinī is quoted by Bālamanoramā (on 1.1.11) too.
[^41]. Bhaṭṭoji gives this answer in his S. K. (under pratyaye bhāṣāyāṃ nityam).
Mallinātha also comments on kakudmantaḥ in Raghu. 4.22 as : yavāditvād
etc.
[^42]. In the light of Bhaṭṭoji's comment : yavādigaṇe dakāranipātanāt (see
previous Note), the statement of our gaṇapāṭhasya balīyastvāt is intended to
mean gaṇe dṛṣṭasya nipātanasya balīyastvāt. For the meaning of nipātana Nāgeśa
says :
anyādṛśe prayoge prāpte anyādṛśaprayogakaraṇam.
(Paribhāṣendu-, on Abhedakā guṇāḥ)
(Contrary to the ordinary rules of grammar, when a specific form is
noted (by Pāṇini) in a rule, it is intended to show that the specific form so
noted has a greater force and thus the ordinary rules are superseded). Under
Sarvādīni sarvanāmāni (1.1.27) Patañjali says :
bādhakāny eva nipātanāni. (See also the Paribhāṣendu-).