Text 7.130

क्वचिन् न दोषो न गुणः. यथा,

kvacin na doṣo na guṇaḥ. yathā,

Sometimes nyūna-pada (missing word) is neither a fault nor a quality:

kupitā kvacid ābhāti dīrghaṃ mayi na kupyati |
gatā vā sva-niketāya mad-eka-hṛdayā kva sā ||

kupitā—angry; kvacit—somewhere; ābhāti—shines; dīrgham—for a long time; mayi—at me; na—not; kupyati—angry; gatā—she went; vā—or else; sva-niketāya—[after aiming] for her place; mat-eka-hṛdayā—she whose heart is only for me; kva—where? sā—she.

Is she burning with anger somewhere? [No, because] she does not stay angry at me for long. Or maybe she went to her place. [No, because] her heart is only for me: Where can she go?

atrādya-tṛtīya-pādānte naitad yata iti padāni nyūnāni tathāpy etad-vākya-vyaṅgyasya vitarkasyotkarṣākaraṇān na guṇaḥ, etaj-jātāyā dhiyo dvitīya-caturtha-pāda-jātayā tayā sphuṭaṃ bādhān na doṣaś ca.

At the end of the third line here, these words are missing: “No, because.”^[1] Still, the omission is not a quality because it does not make the eminence of a supposition which would be an implied sense of the text. It is not a fault either, because the thought in the second sentence annuls the thought in the first, and the thought in the fourth annuls the thought in the third.

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

Those words are also missing between the first and second lines. A footnote in the Kāvya-mālā edition of Sāhitya-kaumudī (p. 98) explains the syntactical connection of the verse by supplying the missing words: sā kvacit kupitā bhāti, iti naitad yuktam, yataḥ sā mayi dīrghaṃ na kupyati. sā sva-gṛhāya gatā vā, ity etad api na yuktam, yataḥ sā mad-eka-hṛdayā kva gantuṃ śaknotīti kṛṣṇa-vitarkaḥ.