deriv SD cv ashtadhyayi.com hei.de LSK ETT STT a 1.4.50 ALPH OLDHOMEPAGE NEWHOMEPAGE

tathA-yuktaJ cAnIpsitam

तथाॱयुक्तं चानीप्सितम् ONPANINI 14050

Whatever connects to the verb in the same way as in < karturIpsit... is still called an object, even if unwanted.

Example. In

payaH pibati पयः पिबति "drinks milk"

The word payas पयस् is clearly an object because you only drink milk when you want to drink it, so rule < karturIpsit... applies. But in —

viSam pibati विषं पिबति "swallows poison"

rule < karturIpsit... does not apply if you don't want to drink the poison, but this rule teaches that the word viSam विषम् is an object anyway, because viSam विषम् is connecting to pibati पिबति here in the same way that payas पयस् was connecting to pibati पिबति in the previous sentence.

And the same thing happens in —

sUryam pazyati सूर्यं पश्यति "sees the sun"

where the word sUryam सूर्यम् is the object, nvm if you want to see the sun or not.

So this sUtra and the previous sUtra, taken together, might be translated as:

An object is a noun that has the same sort of relationship with its verb as "cracker" has to "wants" in the sentence "Polly wants a cracker".

What about the sentences payaH pIyate kAkena पयः पीयते काकेन "milk is drunk by the crow" or viSam pIyate kAkena विषं पीयते काकेन? Is payas पयस् or viSam विषम् still an object?

Sure is. The crow wants to drink it, or does not want.

I find that confusing. My English teacher says that "milk" in that sentence is a subject, not an object.

Look at it like this: "milk is drunk by the crow" means the same thing as "the crow drinks milk". In Sanskrit, only meaning affectsif things are called doer or object. So in BOTH sentences, the crow is the doer and whatever gets drunk is the object.