3.4.24
विभाषाऽग्रेप्रथमपूर्वेषु
Operational rule vidhi
The affixes णमुल् and क्त्वा come optionally after that verb which denotes the prior action, when both verbs have the same agent, provided that the following words are in composition - 1. अग्रे 2. प्रथम 3. पूर्व.
Word by word (padaccheda)
Substitute / term prathamā · ekavacanaRight context अग्रे- - पूर्वेषु saptamī · bahuvacana
- Substitute / term Prathamā (1st case): in operational rules, the substitute or the thing introduced; in definitions, the term or its referent.
- Right context Saptamī (7th case): "when X follows", the operation applies to what precedes (1.1.66 तस्मिन्निति निर्दिष्टे पूर्वस्य). Also a condition or domain ("in the sense of").
Dotted words are technical terms. Hover or tap one to see its card.
Full reading
अग्रे-
Pāṇini leaves out words that carry over from earlier sūtras. Expand to see the rule as a reader actually understands it.
Commentary
The affixes णमुल् and क्त्वा come optionally after that verb which denotes the prior action, when both verbs have the same agent, provided that the following words are in composition - 1. अग्रे 2. प्रथम 3. पूर्व।
This is an Aprapta-vibhasha. The word 're-iteration' is not understood here. Thus अग्रे, प्रथमं, पूर्वं वा भोजं भुक्त्वा व्रजति 'having first eaten he goes'.
By using the word 'optionally' it is indicated, that the regular Tenses, such as the Present &c, may be employed also. Thus अग्रे भुङ्क्ते ततः व्रजति 'he eats first and then goes'.
Q-- The affixes of Lat (Present tense) &c. would have been applied by the rule of वाऽसरूप 3.1.94; why then use the word 'optionally'?
Ans.-- The very use of the word 'optionally' in this sutra indicates the existence of this Paribhasha :- "The rule 3.1.94 has no concern with the affixes ktva and namul, when both these affixes are enjoined at one and the same time by a single rule."
Therefore, we cannot apply 3.1.94 and use the affixes Lat &c, when 're-iteration' is meant That is the exclusive province of क्त्वा and णमुल् ।
Why is not here the Upapada compounding by rule 2.2.20? For an answer to this, see the commentary on 2.2.20. Had only णमुल् been enjoined by this sutra, and not क्त्वा also, then we could have formed the उपपद समास, for such is the force of the word एव in that sutra.
Śrīśa Chandra Vasu, The Ashtadhyayi of Panini (1897), via ashtadhyayi.com.