Text 7.65

मत-योग इष्ट-सम्बन्धः स यत्राभवन्. तद् यथा,

mata-yoga iṣṭa-sambandhaḥ sa yatrābhavan. tad yathā,

(12) The etymology of the fault called abhavan-mata-yoga (the intended syntactical connection is inexistent) is: mata-yoga iṣṭa-sambandhaḥ sa yatrābhavan, “a sentence in which the intended syntactical connection (mata-yogaḥ = iṣṭa-sambandhaḥ) does not exist.” For example:

yā jaya-śrīr manojasya yayā viśvaṃ vibhūṣitam |
yāṃ padmākṣīṃ vinā prāṇā vṛthā mama kuto’dya sā ||

yā—who; jaya—of the victory; śrīḥ—is the beauty (the glory) (jaya-śrī = vijaya-lakṣmī, victory goddess); manojasya—of Cupid; yayā—by whom; viśvam—the world; vibhūṣitam—is adorned; yām—whom; padma-akṣīm—whose eyes are like lotuses; vinā—without; prāṇāḥ—life airs; vṛthā—useless; mama—my; kutaḥ—where?; adya—now; sā—she.

On this day, where is she, Cupid’s victory goddess, by whom the world is adorned, and without whom, a lotus-eyed woman, my life is useless? (adapted from Sāhitya-darpaṇa 7.8)

atra yac-chabda-nirdiṣṭānāṃ vākyānāṃ mitho nairapekṣyāt tad-antaḥ-pātinā padmākṣī-śabdenānyeṣāṃ sambandhaḥ kavibhir abhīṣṭo’pi na ghaṭate. “yāṃ vināmī vṛthā prāṇāḥ padmākṣī sā kuto'dya me” iti tac-chabda-vākyāntaḥ-pātitve tu sarvair api yac-chabdanirdiṣṭair vākyaiḥ sambandho ghaṭate.

Here the adjective padmākṣīm (lotus-eyed woman) is out of place because that adjective should have been stated in the tat clause, and not in one of the yat clauses. Since there is no mutual requirement between yat clauses, a syntactical connection between the word padmākṣī, which falls in one of those, and other yat clauses does not occur,^[1] nor is it intended by poets. Thus the second half of the verse should read: yāṃ vināmī vṛthā prāṇāḥ padmākṣī sā kuto’dya me, “On this day, where is she, a lotus-eyed woman, without whom my life is useless?” The syntactical connection with yat clauses occurs only when that word is in the tat clause.

Commentary:

The word jaya-śrī (victory goddess) in the first line is faulty for the same reason. Or else it is an instance of ardhāntara eka-vācaka (one word placed in the wrong half of the verse) because it should have been placed next to the pronoun sā (she), which forms the tat clause (sā).

In addition, here the genius of Kavikarṇapūra would point out a discrepancy in the sequence of the pronouns: yā (first case), yayā (third case), and yām (second case). Kavikarṇapūra calls this vibhakti-akrama (break in the sequence of case endings),^[2] which is a subcategory of bhagna-prakrama (broken symmetry) (7.81).^[3]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

In this regard, Mammaṭa cites this passage: guṇānāṃ ca parārthatvād asambandhaḥ samatvāt syāt (Pūrva-mīmāṃsā-sūtra 3.1.22) (Kāvya-prakāśa verse 227 vṛtti).

[2]:

tathāpi vibhakty-akrama-doṣaḥ (Alaṅkāra-kaustubha 10.88).

[3]:

bhagna-kramo bhagna-prakrama ity arthaḥ. sa ca kāraka-vacana-paryāyādi-kramabhagnāditvena bahudhā bhavati (Alaṅkāra-kaustubha 10.101).