Verse 3.14.50

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation of verse 3.14.50:

असमासे समासे च गोरथादिष्वदर्शनात् ।
युक्तादीनां न शास्त्रेण निवृत्त्यनुगमः कृतः ॥ ५० ॥

asamāse samāse ca gorathādiṣvadarśanāt |
yuktādīnāṃ na śāstreṇa nivṛttyanugamaḥ kṛtaḥ || 50 ||

50. In the case of compounds like goratha, words like yukta arc not seen in the sentence nor in the compound. That is why its elision is not taught in the śāstra.

Commentary

If case-endings, seen in a sentence arc elided in a compound, why is the elision of words like yukta also not taught?

[Read verse 50 above]

[In a compound, the elision of case-endings is taught in P. 2.4.71 so that we may obtain the correct form. The case-endings actually exist in the sentence. Only the elision of those things are taught which actually existed in the sentence before the compound was formed. Goratha is not a compound derived from the sentence goyukto rathaḥ. It is formed out of gavāṃ rathaḥ, in which the word yukta docs not exist. There can, therefore, be no question of its elision being taught. The sixth case-ending stands for the relation of vāhya = ‘what is to be drawn’ and vāhana = ‘that which draws’ between go and ratha which is not possible unless some such action as is denoted by the root √yuj is understood by us. But the śāstra does not teach the elision of all that is understood. If it did, there would be no end to what would have to be taught.]

In connection with the compounds goratha, dadhyodana and dadhighaṭa, one does see the sentences goyukto rathaḥ, dadhyupasikta odanaḥ, and dadhipūrṇo ghaṭaḥ actually used. Similarly, in con- nection with the compound praparṇa, one does see the sentence pragataparṇa or prapatitaparṇa actually used. Therefore, the śāstra should have taught the elision of the elements yukta, upasikta, pūrṇa, gata etc. This objection is answered as follows—