Text 7.70

अवश्य-वक्तव्यं यत्र नोक्तं तद् अनभिहित-वाच्यम्. यथा, अपराध-लवं कं मे वीक्षसे यत् प्रकुप्यसि. अत्रापराधलवम् अपीत्य् अपिर् अवश्यं वच्यः. यथा वा, सोऽयं हरिर् मुनि-मनोरथ-दूरवर्ती. अत्र मनोरथानाम् अपीति वाच्यम्. अपेर् वाचकत्वाभावाद् वाचकान् न्यून-पदाद् भेदः. यथा वा, पाद-प्रणत-कृष्णाया देवि कोपस् तथापि ते. अत्र पाद-प्रणतकृष्णासीति वाच्यम्.

avaśya-vaktavyaṃ yatra noktaṃ tad anabhihita-vācyam. yathā, aparādha-lavaṃ kaṃ me vīkṣase yat prakupyasi. atrāparādhalavam apīty apir avaśyaṃ vacyaḥ. yathā vā, so'yaṃ harir muni-manoratha-dūravartī. atra manorathānām apīti vācyam. aper vācakatvābhāvād vācakān nyūna-padād bhedaḥ. yathā vā, pāda-praṇata-kṛṣṇāyā devi kopas tathāpi te. atra pāda-praṇatakṛṣṇāsīti vācyam.

(13) The fault called anabhihita-vācya (lack of expression) means: “What should have been stated is not stated.” For example: “Which trace of an offense of mine do you see, because of which you are angry?” (Sāhitya-darpaṇa 7.8). Here it should have been said: “What trace of an offense might I have done, seeing which you have become angry?” The word api should have been said.

Another instance is as follows: “Hari stays far away from the inner longings of sages.” Here also the word api should have been used: “He even stays far away from the inner longings of sages.”

The difference between nyūna-pada (missing word) and anabhihita-vācya (lack of expression) is that the word api (even) is not a vācaka (a literally expressive word capable of being significant by itself).

A different kind of example is as follows (api is not missing): pāda-praṇata-kṛṣṇāyā devi kopas tathāpi te, “O goddess, nonetheless you, at whose feet Kṛṣṇa is bowing, are angry” (adapted from Sāhitya-darpaṇa 7.8). Here, pāda-praṇata-kṛṣṇāyāḥ should have been: pāda-praṇata-kṛṣṇā asi. (The sense is the same. The reason for the change is that the clause with tathāpi, “nonetheless”, requires a verb.)