Sambodhi 1984 Vol 13 and 14

SR No.: 520763
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Dalsukh Malvania, Ramesh S Betai, Yajneshwar S Shastri
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad
Publication Year: 1984
Total Pages: 318
Language: English, Sanskrit, Prakrit, Gujarati
Classification: Magazine, India_Sambodhi, & India
File Size: 14 MB

Page 41

Nilanjana S. Shah
Bhatti seenis to have violated the rule ag 499994 (1. 4. 21), in using the plural with regard to the word महिपी in विचुनः भमिपतमहिण्यः (3.22), because the queen regularly coronated with the king is called Afest, which denotes singular.
By quoting the sūtra 191090 #raggawqate917 (1. 2. 58), he propounds that the plural here denotes Jati and not an individual. As another alternative he suggests that by common sense, we can understand the word as denoting the haren.
According to the satras pegar (2. 1. 4) and fafanuftqagao (2. 1.6), Bbalti's usage gir TIRET 391=$17 (4.5) is not correct, as the 33574 gr slould form a compound with the gra word 14.
To the rejoinder, Saraṇadeva, argues that the above rule itself has violated another rule, 2691€7TH (2. 2. 2.), by placing af in the beginning, therefore it is 31924. Hence Bhatti's usage cannot be deemed incorrect
Moreover, he adds that the mention of stafgala 376274's such as a etc. in the sutra, also indicates that the sūtra may not apply to gra, which is a तद्वितान्त अध्यय. The word सराजम् in the verse गात् सरोज बलमध्वनीनम् (2. 49) poses a difficulty. In order to derive the word we have to affix za according to 91787 (5. 4. 108) but that is not permissibel according to the rules of Bahuvrihi compound.
At the same time, it cannot be derived by 3779214 9 1919 (2. 1. 21), because there is the 31fa ofan from the previous sūtra (2. 1. 20) and in this word, 5919 is not a r 5. Hence according to Saranadeva, The word should be understood as an avyayibhava compound in the sense of 1149 by 84577fufta...numag (2. 1. 6). It then conveys the sense of simultaneity.
Many a times, he has utilised the anuvyttis also to justify some usages of Bhattikavya.
Bhatti has employed the sixth case affix for that in the line, galo gforat fa (18.9). This is not correctly used, because, while commenting on we igara (2. 3. 11), Patanjali has enjoined the fourth case-aflix in fa-41n.
To justify this, Saranadeva draws the antivrit of the word 'alear from 1264 (4. 4. 51) and joins it with fea in f&991: (4. 4. 651 and approves of the sixth case affix in faulai.