deriv SD cv (145) ashtadhyayi.com hei.de L 145 ETT STT a 1.2.64 ALPH OLDHOMEPAGE NEWHOMEPAGE

sa-rUpANAm ekazeSa:: eka-vibhaktau

सॱरूपाणामेकशेष‌ एकॱविभक्तौ ONPANINI 12064

When several words have the same form and the same case, the last one stays.

And the others are deleted.

Example. Suppose we want to say that rAma राम and rAma राम are walking, talking about two different persons named rAma राम.

If we use a doershowing verb like **caratas चरतस् to say "they2 walk", both words will get first ending. So, according to the other rules of grammar, we should say —

EW*rAmo rAmaz ca carataH रामो रामश्च चरतः "Raama and Raama are walking"

However this is forbidden, because rAmas रामस् and rAmas रामस् have the same form (the same letters) and the same. So, we delete all the rAmas रामस् words except the last one. As that last rAmas रामस् will carry the meaning of the deleted ones too, it must get the appropriate number, so it will get first ending dual, /au —

rAmau carataH रामौ चरतः "both Raamas are walking"

Similarly, we are not allowed to say

EW*akSo 'kSo 'kSaz ca citre
अक्षो ऽक्षो ऽक्षश्च चित्रे

neither when we mean

"there are a die, an eye and an axle painted in the picture"

nor when we mean

"there are a die, a die and a die painted in the picture"

Whatever the meanings are, we have to delete the first two akSas अक्षस्, and the last one gets first plural ending (akSa- अक्षॱ + /jas → akSAs अक्षास्), and the meanings of all —

akSAz citre अक्षाश्चित्रे "there are Akshas in the picture"

Why do we bother to say ekavibhaktau एकविभक्तौ "same case"? Won't two words with the same form always have the same case?

Not always —

kRtam brAhmaNAbhyAm brAhmaNAbhyAn dehi|
कृतं ब्राह्मणाभ्यां ब्राह्मणाभ्यां देहि।
"give to the two brahmins what was made by the (other or same) two brahmins"

As the two brAhmaNAbhyAm ब्राह्मणाभ्याम् have different cases, this rule won't apply, even though they have the same form.