Verse 3.14.420

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation of verse 3.14.420:

पुंवद्भावस्य सिद्ध्यर्थं पक्षे स्त्रीप्रत्ययस्य च ।
बह्वपेक्ष्यमतस्तस्यामुभयप्रतिपादनम् ॥ ४२० ॥

puṃvadbhāvasya siddhyarthaṃ pakṣe strīpratyayasya ca |
bahvapekṣyamatastasyāmubhayapratipādanam || 420 ||

420. As, in order to make the masculine form possible or to bring in the desired feminine suffix, one would have to supply much, it has been stated that both the terms refer to the same thing (that is, the upameya).

Commentary

The view that both the terms in śastrīsyāmā refer to the upameya is the correct one according to the M. Bhā. I. p. 397, 1. 24. This is now going to be stated.

[Read verse 420 above]

[The view given in the M. Bhā. passage referred to above is the correct one. If any of the other two views is adopted, one would have to supply much to get over the difficulties that would arise. If the word śyāmā is taken as referring to the upameya and the compound is analysed as śastrīva śyāmā Devadattā then the two terms would refer to two different objects, there would be no sāmānādhikaraṇya and so no compound can be formed at all. To make the formation possible, one would have to say that P. 2.1.55 allows the formation on its own strength even if there is no sāmānādhikaraṇya. But then one could not explain the masculine form in mṛgacapalā because that is also conditioned by the presence of sāmānādhikaraṇya. One would then have to say that the first term in mṛgacapalā is not meant to be a feminine word but one expressive of the universal only as in mṛgakṣīram. But this restriction of what is meant (vivakṣāniyama) is not based on the actual words and so causes delay in understanding. The procedure becomes complicated because one has to supply much. If one takes the view that śyāmā refers to the standard of comparison and the compound is analysed as: yathā śastrī śyāmā tadvad iyaṃ Devadattā, then the required feminine suffix would not result in tittirikalmāṣī. In order to make it possible, one would have to say that it is the whole compound which expresses a particular colour and not the second term only and that the term upasarjana should not be taken in its worldly sense. In any case, there would be difficulty in regard to the accent. Thus here also the procedure would become complicated and one would have to supply much. That is why the M. Bhā. has declared that both the terms refer to the same object.]

The idea that one would have to supply much (bahvapekṣyam) is now explained differently.