Verse 3.14.408

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation of verse 3.14.408:

श्यामत्वमुपमाने चेद् वृत्तं वृत्तौ प्रयुज्यते ।
उपमेयं समासेन बाह्यं तत्राभिधीयते ॥ ४०८ ॥

śyāmatvamupamāne ced vṛttaṃ vṛttau prayujyate |
upameyaṃ samāsena bāhyaṃ tatrābhidhīyate || 408 ||

408. If in the compound (śastrīśyāmā) the word śyāmā = ‘dark’ is taken as referring to the standard of comparison (upamāna = śastrī) then the object of comparison (upameya) an outside object, would be conveyed by the compound as a whole.

Commentary

Now M. Bhā. I. p. 397, 1. 13-14 in which an example of P. 2.1.55 is given is going to be discussed.

[Read verse 408 above]

[In the M. Bhā. passage referred to above, the example given of a compound formed by P. 2.1.55 is śastrīśyāmā = ‘dagger-dark’. If. in this compound, both the constituents refer to the śastrī, that is, the standard of comparison, the object of comparison would be understood from the compound as a whole. That would mean that this compound has been formed in the sense of something different from the meanings of the two constituents. In other words, it is formed anyapadārthe, though it is a tatpuruṣa. But it is the bahuvrīhi which has been taught in P. 2.2.24 in the sense of an outside word. It is true, but sometimes other compounds like tatpuruṣa and avyayībhāva are also formed in the sense of an outside word. That is how one can explain the discussion in the M. Bhā. I. p. 410, 11.8 ff: Whether a negative compound is pūrvapadārthapradhāna, uttara-padārthapradhāna or anvapadārthapradhāna. This discussion itself shows that, according to the M. Bhā. a compound other than the bahuvrīhi can be formed in the sense of an outside word. Therefore, there is no need to suspect śastrīśyāmā to be a bahuvrīhi. It cannot be so as it is formed by a sūtra which precedes P. 2.2.23 from where the topic of bahubrīhi begins.]

Now M. Bhā. I. p. 397, 1. 9-10 is going to be explained.