an accusative;
II. compounding the accusative is allowed:
{{right sidenote|P.2,1,29.[1])
a) when being one of time as (
Sanskrit characters). So R. 2, 71, 18 (Sanskrit characters) Malat. I, p. 14 (Sanskrit characters);
b) with some participles in °, with active or intransitive meaning, P. 2, 1, 24.
as : (gone to the village), fit: (fallen to hell), P. 2, 1, 26.
कष्टश्रित: (come to hardship ), सुखप्रापुः [2]) sim. In practice, there are more. So f. i. the restriction of (P. 2, 1, 26) to a reproachful term does not imply the prohibition of compounding खट्टा चढ otherwise. See hut Panc. 51, ibid. 30 गृहायातः
an instrumental; III. compounding the instrumental is allowed:
a) if denoting the agent or instrument + some verbal noun, P. 2, 1, 32. as श्रहितः. The participles in "तवन्त् are excepted, compounding हिना + हतवान् therefore not allowed. Some proverbial locutions P. 2, 1, 33. are explicitly named by Pánini, as काकपेया नदी, श्लेयः कूपः, but
- ↑ The preceding sûtra 28 is too artfully interpreted by Pat. and
Kaç to have been interpreted well. It is likely, we have here again an instance of distortion by yogavibhâga. I am sure, Pânini himself has given but one rule (
Sanskrit characters). Patanjali's defence (I, p. 384) is not persuasive.
- ↑ I agree with Boethlingk and Whitney in explaining (Sanskrit characters) and
the like as bahnvrîhis. Pâṇini brings them under the tatpurushas, see 2, 2, 4. Inversely such compounds as which P. 6, 2, 170
सुरापीत, मासज्ञात understands as bahuvrîhis, are to be recognised as tatpurushas.
the well-known yogavibhâga-expedient was taken recourse to, and our sûtra was split up in two. One made the discovery that the word a (Sanskrit characters) admitted of two acceptations, according to its being construed either with
scar or with the general adhikâra; in other terms, P. could
mean either any genitive + agent in (Sanskrit characters) or (Sanskrit characters) or the subjective genitive +
any noun in (Sanskrit characters) or (Sanskrit characters). By combining both and assigning to either an own sûtra the (Greek characters) felt by the commentator found its (Greek characters). See but the artificial interpretation of both in the Kâçikâ. How Patanjali interpreted the rule we do not know, a comment of his on s. 15 and 16 being wanting; from vârtt. 2 on I, p. 415 it appears he was acquainted at least with s. 15.
