2023-04-26 13:21:37 by ramamurthys
This page has been fully proofread once and needs a second look.
अथ कथम्--
अत्यर्थमुद्वेजयिता परेषां[^50] नाम्नापि तस्यैव स नन्दकोऽभूत् (३-१९)
इति माघः ।
अत्र परशब्दस्य कोशादिषु शत्रौ प्रसिद्धत्वात् (अधरशब्दे इव व्यवस्थायाः
अभावे) कथं सर्वनामकार्यम् इति चेत् --
अत्राहुः । देशवाचितया व्यवस्थाविषयत्वात् (सर्वनामसंज्ञकस्य ) तस्यैव
परशब्दस्योपचाराच्च शत्रौ प्रयोगः । न च ( एवं सति) उपसर्जनतया (संज्ञोप-
सर्जनीभूतास्तु न सर्वादय इत्यनेन सर्वनामसंज्ञायाः) निषेधः (स्यात् ) इति
वाच्यम् । न हि लाक्षणिकत्वमुपसर्जनत्वम् । किं तु स्वार्थविशिष्टार्थान्तरवत्त्वम् ।
comparative terms, such as uttara=upper; adhara = lower (than the other
etc.). This is the meaning of the rider vyavasthāyām, (which is explained as svābhi-
dheyāpekṣāvadhiniyamo vyavasthā). The word adhara is not strictly a relative
term, in the sense of lower lip, because it is regarded as a synonym of "lip"
in general. The lexicographer Halāyudha notes thus :
adharo radanacchada oṣṭha ucyate,
dantavāsaś ca (II.369).
Consequently when the word dakṣina is used in the sense of a skilled
person in general, it is not counted as a Pronoun. Similarly adhara is a
synonym of oṣṭha in general, as is held by some, whom Bhaṭṭoji and our
author seem to follow. As a result the word adhara is not a Pronoun, and
therefore is not eligible for the pronominal termination. In the examples
such as adhare tāmbūlarāgaḥ (given by Bhaṭṭoji in P.M., p. 439) and adhare
navavīṭikānurāgaḥ, the word adhara need not mean lower lip alone, as the
tāmbūlarāga is seen on the upper lip also. This is the answer to the question
raised in this context. See the previous Note also. Bhaṭṭoji mentions
the counter example uttare pratyuttare ca śaktaḥ too.
[^50]. Bhaṭṭoji gives two more usages of para and apara thus :
tathā pareṣāṃ yudhi ceti pārthivaḥ (Raghu-III. 21)
and apare pratyavatiṣṭhante. The second one is a common expression met
with in many works, where it is used to introduce the opinion of some who are
opposed to the view previously noted in the context. Para in the first usage
means "enemy", and apara means an opponent. These are not, here, in
the sense of next or subsequent etc. and so are not relative terms.
when there is no vyavasthā (see previous Note), the pronominal terminations
are not applicable. The pūrvapakṣin means that the forms should be parāṇām
(not pareṣām) and aparāh (not apare ). For similar uses having apare see the
following :
tasyābhāvaṃ jagadur apare (Dhvanyāloka, I.2) and
tad apare na kṣamante (Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya, p. 13).
अत्यर्थमुद्वेजयिता परेषां[^50] नाम्नापि तस्यैव स नन्दकोऽभूत् (३-१९)
इति माघः ।
अत्र परशब्दस्य कोशादिषु शत्रौ प्रसिद्धत्वात् (अधरशब्दे इव व्यवस्थायाः
अभावे) कथं सर्वनामकार्यम् इति चेत् --
अत्राहुः । देशवाचितया व्यवस्थाविषयत्वात् (सर्वनामसंज्ञकस्य ) तस्यैव
परशब्दस्योपचाराच्च शत्रौ प्रयोगः । न च (
सर्जनीभूतास्तु न सर्वादय इत्यनेन सर्वनामसंज्ञायाः) निषेधः (स्यात् ) इति
वाच्यम् । न हि लाक्षणिकत्वमुपसर्जनत्वम् । किं तु स्वार्थविशिष्टार्थान्तरवत्त्वम् ।
comparative terms, such as uttara=upper; adhara = lower (than the other
etc.). This is the meaning of the rider vyavasthāyām, (which is explained as svābhi-
dheyāpekṣāvadhiniyamo vyavasthā). The word adhara is not strictly a relative
term, in the sense of lower lip, because it is regarded as a synonym of "lip"
in general. The lexicographer Halāyudha notes thus :
adharo radanacchada oṣṭha ucyate,
dantavāsaś ca (II.369).
Consequently when the word dakṣina is used in the sense of a skilled
person in general, it is not counted as a Pronoun. Similarly adhara is a
synonym of oṣṭha in general, as is held by some, whom Bhaṭṭoji and our
author seem to follow. As a result the word adhara is not a Pronoun, and
therefore is not eligible for the pronominal termination. In the examples
such as adhare tāmbūlarāgaḥ (given by Bhaṭṭoji in P.M., p. 439) and adhare
navavīṭikānurāgaḥ, the word adhara need not mean lower lip alone, as the
tāmbūlarāga is seen on the upper lip also. This is the answer to the question
raised in this context. See the previous Note also. Bhaṭṭoji mentions
the counter example uttare pratyuttare ca śaktaḥ too.
[^50]. Bhaṭṭoji gives two more usages of para and apara thus :
tathā pareṣāṃ yudhi ceti pārthivaḥ (Raghu-III. 21)
and apare pratyavatiṣṭhante. The second one is a common expression met
with in many works, where it is used to introduce the opinion of some who are
opposed to the view previously noted in the context. Para in the first usage
means "enemy", and apara means an opponent. These are not, here, in
the sense of next or subsequent etc. and so are not relative terms.
when there is no vyavasthā (see previous Note), the pronominal terminations
are not applicable. The pūrvapakṣin means that the forms should be parāṇām
(not pareṣām) and aparāh (not apare ). For similar uses having apare see the
following :
tasyābhāvaṃ jagadur apare (Dhvanyāloka, I.2) and
tad apare na kṣamante (Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya, p. 13).