Verse 3.14.444

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation of verse 3.14.444:

अर्थात् प्रकरणाद् वापि यत्रोपेक्ष्यं प्रतीयते ।
सामर्थ्यादनपेक्षस्य तस्य वृत्तिः प्रसज्यते ॥ ४४४ ॥

arthāt prakaraṇād vāpi yatropekṣyaṃ pratīyate |
sāmarthyādanapekṣasya tasya vṛttiḥ prasajyate || 444 ||

444. When, through the meaning or through the context, what it depends upon is understood, the requirement having been fulfilled, the complex formation would result.

Commentary

[The question arises whether, when a word expressive of action depends upon a substratum, it can take the suffix vati. It is maintained that if the substratum, even when not mentioned, can be understood from the context, the word ending in a kṛtya suffix and expressive of action can take the suffix vati. There can be the relation of standard of comparison and object of comparison if a common property can be understood as in sthātavyena tulyaṃ gamanaṃ, vṛttena tulyaṃ gamanam etc. A word ending in a kṛt suffix usually conveys action as substance or as a thing but sometimes also as an action as in bhoktuṃ pākaḥ = ‘cooking for eating’, boddhum pāṭhaḥ = ‘study for understanding’, kārakasya gatiḥ = ‘going in order to do’. In these expressions, the suffixes ṇvul and tumun, added according to P. 3.3.10. which requires that a word expressive of action should be the neighbouring word when these two suffixes are added to the root. The first two examples show that the word pākaḥ and pāṭhaḥ are considered to be action-words, though they end in ghañ. When, however, the question is of adding the suffix kṛtvasuc to a numeral in order to express the idea of the repetition of an action, pākaḥ is not considered to be an actionword. So we cannot say: pañcakṛtvaḥ pākaḥ. If some verb is brought into the sentence, the suffix can be added as in pañcakṛtvaḥ pāko vartate. Here pāko vartate is the verb and it presents the action as a process. So kṛtvasuc has been added to a numeral In odanasya pākaḥ, one can argue that odana is the object of the action denoted by the root in pāka and not of the action denoted by the suffix ghañ in it because that is a thing and not a process. One cannot use the same reasoning about pañcakṛtvaḥ pākaḥ and say that there is counting of the repetition of the action denoted by the root in pāka. That would involve contradiction.]