Text 7.108

सुधाकर सुखं देहि वियोगि-जन-तापनः. अत्र विरहे व्याहारे द्वितीय-पादार्थो नानुवाद्यः।

sudhākara sukhaṃ dehi viyogi-jana-tāpanaḥ. atra virahe vyāhāre dvitīya-pādārtho nānuvādyaḥ.

(21) [This is an example of anuvāda ayukta (improperly described substantive):] “O moon, you, who torment separated lovers, should give happiness.” Here, in the context of an utterance on the topic of separation, the meaning “It torments separated lovers” should not have been a substantive (i.e. it should not have been said at all).

Commentary:

Śeṣarāja Śarmā expounds: anuvādya-viśeṣeṇasya vidheya-virodhitvam anuvādāyuktatvam, “The fault named anuvāda ayukta means an adjective of the substantive contradicts the predicate” (Candrakalā 7.12). Here the fault is that it makes no sense to expect happiness from the moon after saying that it torments separated lovers. Moreover, Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa omits the actual substantive, the pronoun tvam (you).

The topic of substantive and predicate is complex. In verse 7.107, an adjective (ānandita-sva-pakṣa) of the substantive was called a predicate, and in this verse an adjective of the substantive is called a substantive. In Mammaṭa’s and Kavikarṇapūra’s examples of the current topic, a vocative is called a substantive.^[1] Elsewhere, Paṇḍita-rāja Jagannātha refers to a vocative as an adjective of the subject (ayi lāvaṇya-jalāśaya, Commentary 10.178). And in the context of avimṛṣṭa-vidheyāṃśa, Kavikarṇapūra indicates that an adjective of the substantive is called a predicate when the compound adjective ends with a participle (which has the force of a verb) (in the verse that begins sevante jaladāgame, Alaṅkāra-kaustubha 10.50), as in the adjective viyogi-jana-tāpana here, “It torments separated lovers” (so that viyogi-jana-tāpana is the fault called avimṛṣṭa-vidheyāṃśa because viyogi-jana should be given importance). The gist is that the discrepancy which characterizes this fault (anuvāda ayukta) is greater than the discrepancy in the previous one.

This is Kavikarṇapūra’s example of the current topic:

ayi para-bhṛta tasyāḥ kaṇṭha-nādena tasyāṃ tava nipatitam akṣi prāyaśo vismayena |
virahi hṛdaya-kāla-vyāla mā vañcayetāḥ kathaya katham idānīṃ labhyate kutra rādhā ||

“Hey black cuckoo, dumbstruck by Rādhā’s sweet pitch, you stared at Her so intensely that your eyes almost fell. Hey black snake of the heart, who feels separation, don’t deceive Me. Tell Me where and how I may find Her at this time.”

Kavikarṇapūra explains: atra “virahi hṛdaya-kāla-vyāla” iti nānuvādyaṃ, kutaḥ kathayeti prārthanā-phalābhāvāt. tena “mama ruci-sadṛśatvān mitra” ity anuvādyam, “In the third line, the vocative virahi hṛdaya-kāla-vyāla (black snake of the heart, who feels separation) is not a proper substantive. If it were, what is the sense of saying “please tell Me” afterwards? One could not expect any positive reply in this way. Therefore, virahi hṛdaya-kāla-vyāla should be replaced by mama ruci-sadṛśatvān mitra, “Hey friend on account of a similar luster.” This is a proper substantive in this context.” (Alaṅkāra-kaustubha 10.122 vṛtti)

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

atra virahi-prāṇa-damaneti nānuvādyam (Kāvya-prakāśa, verse 283 vṛtti).