Hari-nāmāmṛta-vyākaraṇam – Page 3

sarvatrāvaśeṣe luptasya śakty-āropa

sarvatrāvaśeṣe luptasya śakty-āropa iti nyāyena samāsa-vigrahāṇāṁ lope sati tat-tac-chakteḥ samāsa evāvasthānāt tair api kārakāny uktāni syuḥ |
(Amṛta-ṭīkā on Hari-nāmāmṛta-vyākaraṇa: 929)

“As per the maxim, ‘Attribution of the śakti [i.e., the force, the meaning] of that which has been deleted [by means of the rules for forming compounds when a compound is formed] is present all throughout the remainder [i.e. the whole compound itself],’ when deletion of the vigrahas [i.e., the resolved parts] of compounds occurs, the kārakas shall be expressed even by those [deleted parts] because of their respective śakti remaining in the compound itself [even after they are deleted].”

Read on →

śakti-graho vyākaraṇopamāna

śakti-graho vyākaraṇopamāna-
koṣāpta-vākyād vyavahārataś ca |
vākyasya śeṣād vivṛter vadanti
sānnidhyataḥ siddha-padasya vṛddhāḥ ||
(Unknown source; cited in the Amṛta-ṭīkā on Hari-nāmāmṛta-vyākaraṇa: 924)

“The learned say that comprehension of the force (śakti) [i.e., the meaning] of a declined word comes from grammar, comparison, dictionaries, the statement of a reliable person, common usage, the remainder [i.e., the word(s) implied but not stated] in a [elliptical] sentence, and commentaries.”

Read on →

adhikārī ca sambandho viṣayaś ca prayojanam

adhikārī ca sambandho viṣayaś ca prayojanam |
avaśyam eva vaktavyaṁ śāstrādau tu catuṣṭayam ||
(Unknown Source; cited in the Amṛta-ṭīkā to Hari-nāmāmṛta-vyākaraṇam: Maṅgalācaraṇa, 1)

“The eligible person (adhikārī), the relationship (sambandha), the topic (viṣaya), and the purpose (prayojana)—these four must be stated at the beginning of a śāstra.”

Read on →

ṇiḥ preraṇādau

ṇiḥ preraṇādau |
(Hari-nāmāmṛta-vyākaraṇa: 787)

“[The pratyaya] [ṇ]i [is applied after a dhātu] in [the sense of] preraṇa (causation) and so on.”

Read on →

bhāvini bhūta-vad upacāraḥ

bhāvini bhūta-vad upacāraḥ |
(Kātantra-vyākaraṇa: 26; cited in the Amṛta-ṭīkā on Hari-nāmāmṛta-vyākaraṇam: 859, Krama-sandarbha-ṭīkā on Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 3.21.25)

“The figure of speech in the case of the immediate future being [spoken of] as if in the immediate past [i.e., there is a figure of speech in which something that is just about to a happen is spoken of as having already happened].”

Read on →