yasmAt pratyaya-vidhis tad-Adi pratyaye 'Ggam ONPANINI 14013
The stem of an affix is whatever it was added to originally, even if it grew afterwards.mmmmmmmmm ^ C+ 126

Simple example.

azva- is a nounbase.

Rule GyApprA says "add su to azva-".

Here azva is the stem of su.

Complicated example.

phala- is a nounbase. Then GyApprA says, add jas to it.

So at the stage phala + jas, phala is the stem of jas.

Now some rule changes jas into zi.

Now we have phala + zi, and phala is the stem of zi.

Now some rule adds num to phala, turning it into phalan.

In phalan + zi, phalan is the stem of zi. It has grown.

And now thanks to the fact that phalan is the stem of zi, rule rAjAnam must work on it (that rule rAjAnam works on all stems that end in n, not just on nounbases that end in n). So we get --

phalan- + zi →rAjAnam phalAni

sup;tiG-antaM padam ONPANINI 14014
sup- tiG-ender is word.mmmmmmmmm ^ M+ C+ 127

Simple examples --

azvas "horse" is a word because it is made from azva- (a nounbase) plus su (a sup).

azva- ( nounbase) + su ( sup affix ) → azvas "horse"

carati "moves" is a word because it is made from car (a root) plus tip (a tiG).

car- ( root ) + laT →lasya car + tip ( tiG affix ) → car + zap + tip → carati "moves" ( word )

Harder examples --

cara "move on!" is a word because it was formed this way --

car- + loT → car + sip ( tiG affix ) → car + zap + sip → cara + hi''' →atoheH cara

Here, adding that sip affix made carsi into a word, and even though atoheH deleted the affix later, the wordness stayed.

The madhu of madhv icchati is a word, because it got am, even though that am was deleted afterwards --

madhu- ( nounbase ) + am →suptiG madhu + am ( word ) →svamorna madhu ( word )

and so is the sundari meaning "hey cutie" --

sundarI- ( nounbase ) + @calling sundarI + @calling ( word ) →ambArtha sundari + s ( word ) →eGhrasvAt sundari ( word )

See also --

sup-ender is noun

tiG-ender is verb .

sv;AdiSv a-sarvanAmasthAne ONPANINI 14017
What is before weak (is a word).mmmmmmmmm ^ M+ C+ 129

The nounbase that is before a valAdi weak is a word, in addition to being a nounbase.

This means that nounbases before valAdi weaks behave as if they were words as far as sandhi rules are concerned.

Example. When we join together manas- n + bhis, bhis is a weak and a valAdi. The whole manasbhis is a word, because suptiG rule says so. But this rule turns the part (manas) of manasbhis into a word too --

manas- + bhis manas ( word ) + bhis

Because this manas is a word, the as is wordfinal. Therefore rules sasaju and hazica (which only work on wordfinals) change that as into o --

manas- + bhis manas ( word ) + bhis →sasaju mana + ru + bhis →hazica manobhis "by minds"

Had the s not been wordfinal, sasaju wouldn't have worked, and rule jhalAJjazjhazi would have turned that s into d.

yaci bham ONPANINI 14018
But wimpy before yac.mmmmmmmmm ^ M+ C+ 130

Exception to the previous rule svAdiSva. In more words:

"The nounbase that is before a weak that starts with a yac is called wimpy, and is not called word"

Example:

TA is always weak, and starts with A (the label T does not count), which is a yac.

Therefore, whatever nounbase we add TA to, is a wimpy nounbase.

And that nounbase is not a word.

For instance, here rAjan is wimpy because it is before TA, and the fact that it is wimpy makes rule alloponaH work --

rAjan- + TA @wimpy rAjan + A →alloponaH rAjn + A →stozzcu rAjJA "with king"

KAZIKA savAdizvasarvanAmasthAne iti vartate. pUrveNa padasaMjJAyAM prAptAyAM tadapavAdo bhasaMjJA vidhIyate. yakArAdAvajAdau ca svAdau sarvanAmasthAnavarjite pratyaye parataH pUrvaM bhasMjJaM bhavati. yakArA'dau gArgyaH. vAtsayaH. ajAdau dAkSiH. plAkSiH. nabho 'GgiromanuSAM vatyupasaGkhyAnam. nabha iva nabhasvat. aGgirA iva aGgirasvat. manuriva manuSvat. vRSaNvasvazvayoH. vRSanityetat vasvazvayoH prato bhasaMjJaM bhavati chandasi vizaye. vRSaNvasuH. vRSaNazvasya mainAsIt. bhapradezAH bhasya 64129 ity evam AdayaH.

When we add a sup or a taddhita after a nounbase, the nounbase will be in one of three situations --

(A) either it is before a strong,

(B) or it is a word, (either because its sup was deleted, or because it's before a valAdi weak),

(C) or it is wimpy (because it is before a yac weak).

Examples.

The nounbase rAjan- --

becomes rAjAn- before a strong (by rAjAnam)

becomes rAja- when it is a word (by nalopaHprA)

becomes rAjn- when it is weak (by alloponaH).

The nounbase vidvas- --

becomes vidvAns- before a strong (by atvasa and ugidacA)

becomes vidvas- when it is a word, then vidvad by vasusra

becomes vidUs- when it is weak, by vasossa.

ta;sau matv-arthe ONPANINI 14019
t-s-enders (are wimpy before) a matvartha.mmmmmmmmm ^ M- C+ 131

...confusing, needs rewrite...

Exception to svAdiSva. The matvartha affixes are those that mean "that has". Of those, matup vatup and vin(i) start with a consonant, and, were it not for this exception, rule svAdiSva would have wordified them.

In the following examples, the lack of wordness of garut- vidyut- yazas- made rule jhalAMjazonte not work --

garut- + matup @wimpy garut- + mat → garutmat- "winged"

vidyut- + vatup → vidyutvat- "that has lightning"

Some m f n examples --

vidyutvAn meghaH "a cloud that has (much) lightning"

vidyutvatI zAlA "an electrified assembly-hall"

zarIraM staumi vidyutvat "I sing the body electric"

and here hazica did not work --

yazas + vini + GI →yasyetica yazasvinI- @f "that has fame, famous"

As in --

nakulasH sahadevo vA draupadI vA yazasvinI "nakula or sahadeva or the renowned draupadI"

This does not affect the nounbases that do not end in t s, so they still get wordified before matvartha affixes --

takSan- + vatup →nalopaHp takSavat- "that has carpenter(s)"

KAZIKA bham iti vartate. ta-kAr%AntaM sa-kAr'-.AntaM zabda-rUpaM matv-arthe pratyaye parato bha-saMjJaM bhavati. udazvitvAn ghoSaH. vidyutvAn balAhakaH. sakArAntam payasvI. yazasvI. tasau iti kim? takSavAn grAmaH.

bahuSu bahuvacanam ONPANINI 14021
Use plural when meaning many.mmmmmmmmm ^ M+ C+ 132

" many", in grammar, means "three or more". So we can't use a plural to mean two.

Rules supaH and tAnyeka teach that the plural endings are these six noun endings --

jas zas bhis bhyas Am sup'

and these six verb endings --

jhi tha mas jha dhvam mahi

This rule says that these twelve endings must be used when meaning three or more.

Examples.

In these sentences, the nounbase azva- means many horses, so it got the plural endings jas zas bhis --

azvAz caranti "horses walk"

azvAn pazyAmi "I see horses"

azvair nadI tIrNA "river was crossed by horses"

And the verbs here got the plural endings jhi, jha because they mean the doer and there are many doers --

azvAz caranti "horses walk"

kapayaH plavante "monkeys jump"

And these other verbs here got the plural endings jha mahi because they mean the object and there are many objects --

vyasmaryanta "they were forgotten"

dRzyAmahe "we are being seen"

KAZIKA Gy-Ap-prAtipadikAt svAdayaH, lasya tib-Adaya iti sAmAnyena bahuvacanaM vihitaM, tasyAnena bahutva-saGkhyA vAcyatvena vidhIyate. bahuSu bahuvacanam bhavati. bahutvam asya vAcyaM bhavatIti yAvat. karmAdayo 'py apare vibhaktInAm arthA vAcyAH. tadIye bahutve bahuvacanam. karm'-AdiSu bahuSu bahuvacanam ity arthaH. brAhmaNAH paThanti. yatra ca saGkhyA saMbhavati tatrAyam upadezaH. avyayebhyas tu niHsaGkhyebhyaH sAmAnyavihitAH svAdayo vidyanta@ eva.

dvy;ekayor dvivacan'-.aikavacane ONPANINI 14022
Dual, singular mean two, one.mmmmmmmmm ^ M+ C+ 133

So, we must use a dual ending when two things are meant --

azvau "two horses" has dual ending au

rAmasItayos "of rAma and sItA" has dual ending os

caratas "both walk" has tas

plavete "both jump" has AtAm

dRzyete "both are being seen" has AtAm

and singular ending when meaning one thing --

azvas "horse" has su

carati "walks" has tip

plavate "jumps" has ta

dRzyate "is being seen" has ta

So we say --

brAhmaNau paThataH "two brahmins chant"

brAhmaNaH paThati "a brahmin chants"

KAZIKA dvitvaikayor arthayoH dvivacanaikavacane bhavataH. etad api sAmAnya-vihitayor dvivacanaikavacanayor arthAbhidhAnam. dvitve dvivacanaM bhavati. ekatva@ ekavacanaM bhavati. brAhmaNau paThataH. brAhmaNaH paThati.

kArake ONPANINI 14023
When meaning relationship with an action.mmmmmmmmm ^ C+ 134

headline. The following rules only work on a role, that is to say, on a word that is related to an action.

Example.

One of the rules below explains " location means place".

Now, if this had been said elsewhere in the grammar, rule " location means place" would just mean that "location" is another name for "place".

But, actually, this rule means " location of an action is the place where the action happens".

Therefore --

In the sentence

hanumAn yudhyate vane "hanumAn fights in the forest"

the word vane is the location of the action word yudhyate, because it explains where the fighting happens.

While in the sentence

mahad vanam "the forest is big"

the word vanam is not a location, because it is not related to any action, even though it means a place.

An action word does not need to be a verb, but it does need to mean an action. For instance, here parvate is the location of the action word patantam "flying", which is a noun --

parvate patantaM zyenamM pazyAmi "I see an eagle flying on the mountain"

The words that have relationships with actions are called kAraka words or role words. There are six sorts of role words --

doer -- who does the action

object -- whatever the action is done to

tool -- what helps to do the action, and is not one of the above

aim -- what the action is aimed at, who is benefitted or harmed by it, or the purpose of the action

from -- the starting point of movement or the cause of the action

location -- the place where, or the time when, the action happens

KAZIKA kArake iti vazeSaNam apAdAnAdisaMjJAviSayam adhikriyate. kArake ityadhikAro veditavyaH. yadita Urdhvam anukramiSyAmaH kArake ityevaM tad veditavyam. kAraka-zabdaz ca nimitta-paryAyaH. karakam hetuH ity anarthAntaram. kasya hetuH? kriyAyAH. vakSyati, dhruvam apAye 'pAdAnaM grAmAd Agacchati. parvatAd avarohati. kArake iti kim? vRkSasya parNaM patati. kuDyasya piNDaH patati. akathitaM ca 14051, akathitaM ca kArakaM karma saMjJaM bhavati mANavakaM panthAnaM pRcchati. kArake iti kim? mANavakasya pitaraM panthAnaM pRcchati. kAraka-saMzabdaneSu cAnenaiva vizeSaNena vyavahAro vijJAyate.

dhruvam apAye 'pAdAnam ONPANINI 14024
The from is whatever one goes away from.mmmmmmmmm ^ M- C+ 135

The from role shows the point AWAY FROM WHICH an action of moving happens. For instance, here the words pAdapAt "from tree" and kapes "from monkey" are the from role of the action word avarohati "climbs down" --

kapiH pAdapAd avarohati "monkey descends from tree"

kaper mAnuSo 'varohati "man descends from monkey"

Those pAdapa- and kapi- got a fifth ending by apAdAnepaJcamI " from gets fifth" --

pAdapa- + Gasi →TAGasi pAdapa + At →akassa pAdapAt

kapi- + Gasi →gherGiti kape + as →GasiGasozca kapes

The word that means the action does not need to be in the sentence if it is obvious --

jalamM meghAt "water (is coming) from cloud"

The from role can also mean the cause, reason, motive --

bhayAd raNAd uparataH "he fled from the battlefield because of fear"

kAmAt krodhaH "anger (comes) from desire"

and sometimes it means the thing the doer would like to get away from (see bhItrArthA and parAjera for examples).

By a vArttika, jugupsA-virAma-pramAdArthAnAm upasaGMkhyAnam, with verbs that mean despising, ceasing and neglecting, what would otherwise be the object is actually the from --

adharmAj jugupsate "he despises evil"

adharmAd viramati "he stops evil"

dharmAt pramAdyati "he neglects justice"

KAZIKA dhruvaM yad apAya-yuktam apAye sAdhye yad avadhibhUtaM tat kArakam apAdAna-saMjJaM bhavati. grAmAd Agacchati. parvatAd avarohati. sArthAd dhInaH. rathAt patitaH. jugupsA-virAma-pramAdArthanAm upasaGkhyAnam. adharmAj jugupsate. adharmAd viramati. dharmAt pramAdyati. apAdAna-pradezAH apAdAne paJcamIty evam AdayaH.

bhI;trA-'rthAnAM bhaya-hetuH ONPANINI 14025
Reason for fear, (is the from) of roots meaning fear protection.mmmmmmmmm ^ C+ 136

As for instance, the word caurebhyas and vRkAt here --

vRkAd bibhemi "I'm afraid from the wolf"

janA bibhyati caurebhyaH "people are afraid from thieves"

rAjA caurebhyas trAyate "king protects from thieves"

are the from of their verbs by this rule. That's why they got fifth from apAdAnepaJcamI.

I already know that in good English you use "of" in those cases, not "from". Please do not email telling me that.

KAZIKA bibhety-arthAnAM trAyaty-arthAnAM ca dhAtUnAM prayoge bhaya-hetur yas tat kArakam apAdAna-saMjJaM bhavati. caurebhyo bibheti. caurebhya udvijate. trAyaty arthAnAm caurebhyas trAyate. caurebhyo rakSati. bhayahetuH iti kim? araNye bibheti. araNye trAyate.

parAjer a-soDhaH ONPANINI 14026
Whatever one is fed up with, (is from) of parAjimmmmmmmmm ^ C+ 137

As in --

vyAkaraNAt parAjaye "I'm fed up from grammar"

Here vyAkaraNa- became a from by this rule, then got fifth by apAdAnepaJcamI.

When parAji means to conquer, this rule won't work --

zatruNA parAjito 'smi "I was defeated by enemy"

zatrUn parAjaye "I defeat the enemies"

KAZIKA parApUrvasya jayateH prayoge 'soDho, yo 'rthaH soDhuM na zakyate, tat kArakam apAdAnasaMjJaM bhavati. adhyayanAt parAjayate. asoDhaH iti kim? zatrUn parAjayate.

karmaNA yam abhipraiti sa sampradAnam ONPANINI 14032
aim is what doer wants to connect with objectmmmmmmmmm ^ M- C+ 138

Examples. Here rAma (the doer of kSipati) wants the arrow (the object of kSipati) to connect with the deer. Therefore, the deer is the aim --

mRgAya zaraM rAmaH kSipati "rAma shoots arrow at deer"

mRgasya zaraM rAmaH kSipati "rAma shoots arrow at deer"

because rAma wants the arrow to connect with the deer.

Being the aim triggers rule caturthIsampradAne and others. That's why aim words get fourth or sixth, most likely sixth.

And here the king (doer of dadAti) wants the cow (object of dadAti) to connect with the brAhmaNa, so the brAhmaNa is the aim --

rAjA brAhmaNAya gAnM dadAti "king gives cow to brahmin"

(Instead of brahmaNAya (that has Ge) we could also have said brAhmaNasya with Gas, same meaning.)

See also --

what means purpose or result is an aim

with verbs that mean to like the pleased one is the aim

With zlAgh hnu sthA zap, the person one wants to know of the action (is the aim).

KAZIKA karmaNA karaNabhUtena kartA yam abhipraiti tat kArakaM sampradAnasaMjJaM bhavati. anvarthasaMjJAvijJAnAd dadAtikarmaNA iti vijJAyate. upAdhyAyAya gAM dadAti. mANavakAya bhikSAM dadAti. kriyAgrahaNam api kartavyam. kriyayA 'pi yam abhipraiti sa sampradAnam. zrAddhAya nigarhate. yuddhAya sannahyate. patye zete. sampradAnapradezAH caturthI sampradAna ityevam AdayaH. karmaNaH karaNasaMjJA vaktavyA sampradAnasya ca karmasaMjJA. pazunA rudraM yajate. pazuM rudrAya dadAti ityarthaH.

rucy-arthAnAM prIyamANaH ONPANINI 14033
With verbs that mean "to like", the pleased one (is the aim).mmmmmmmmm ^ M+ C+ 139

With verbs of liking, the pleased person is the aim, and the pleasant thing is the doer. As in --

rocate me na tat phalam "that fruit doesn't appeal to me, I don't like that fruit"

In this example me (that has fourth or sixth ending, see temayAve) means "to me".

rocante tasya modakAH "he likes sweetmeats"

Here tasya (with sixth) means "to him".

Here me "to me" and tasya "to him" are aims because they mean who is pleased. Like all aims, they got fourth or sixth (see caturthIsa). The piece of fruit and the sweetmeats, being the doer, got first ending by default .

Exception. With ruc + Nic (rocayate) "to like", the pleased person is the doer. So, in this example, aham is not an aim but a doer, and the disliked thing is an object --

vadhanM draSTunM na rocaye "I wouldn't like to see the killing"

KAZIKA rucinA samAnArthAH rucyarthAH anyakartRko 'bhilASo rudiH. rucyarthAnAM dhAtUnAM prayoge prIyamANo yo 'rthaH, tat kArakaM sampradAnAsaMjJam bhavati. devadattAya rocate modakaH. yajJadattAya svadate 'pUpaH. devadattasthasyAbhilASasya modakaH kartA. prIyamANaH iti kim? devadattAya rocate modakaH pathi.

zlAgha;hnuG;sthA;zapAM jJIpsyamAnaH ONPANINI 14034
With zlAgh hnu sthA zap, the person one wants to know of the action (is the aim).mmmmmmmmm ^ C+ 140

So, that person gets fourth ending, not second.

Examples --

devadattAya zlAghate "praises devadatta"

devadattAya hnute "avoids devadatta"

devadattAya zapate "curses devadatta"

KAZIKA zlAgha hnuG sthA zapa ity eteSAm jJIpsyamAno yo 'rthah, tat kArakaM sampradAna-saMjJaM bhavati. jJIpsyamAnaH jJapayitum iSyamaNaH, bodhayitum abhipretaH. devadattAya zlAghate. devadattaM zlAghamAnas tAm zlAghAM tam eva jJapayitum icchati ity arthaH. evam devadattAya hnute. yajJadattAya hnute. devadattAya tiSThate. yajJadattAya tiSThate. devadattAya zapate. yajJadattAya zapate. jJIpsyamAnaH iti kim? devadattAya zlAghate pathi.

This jJIpsyamAna- is jJA + Nic + san + yak + zAnac, so it means means "one that one wants to know about it". The jJA became jJI by Ap;jJapy;RdhAmIt, and the p is from artti;hrI.

Why do we say "the person one wants to know of the action"?

So if you curse devadatta, but you don't want devadatta to know that you cursed him, this rule won't apply, so I get to say devadattaM zapase tUSNIm "you are cursing devadatta silently", not devadattAya.

sAdhakatamaM karaNam ONPANINI 14042
tool is what just helps.mmmmmmmmm ^ M- C+ 141

This rule explains what the " tool" role is. The tool of an action is what helps to do the action but is not the doer, object, etc.

Example. In --

parazunA chinatti devadatto vRkSam "devadatta chops off tree with axe"

the action is chinatti, devadatta is the doer of that action, and the object is vRkSam. So the axe is neither the doer of the verb nor its object. But it is the tool of the verb, because it helps to chop.

Because of rule kartRkaraNayos tRtIyA, the tool gets third endings.

KAZIKA kriyAsiddhau yat prakRSTopakArakaM vivakSitam tat sAdhakatamaM kArakam karaNasaMjJaM bhavati. dAtreNa lunAti. parazunA chinatti. tamab-grahanam kim? gaGgAyAM ghoSaH. kUpe gargakulam. karaNa-pradezAH kartRkaraNayos tRtIyety evam AdayaH.

AdhAro 'dhikaraNam ONPANINI 14045
location is the place (of the doer or object of the action).mmmmmmmmm ^ M- C+ 142

Example. In --

vyAghraM rAmo vane 'pazyat "in forest rAma saw tiger"

the word vane is the location of the root dRz of apazyat, either because rAma is in the forest, or because the tiger is in the forest.

Yet, in --

pazyAmi sumahad vanam "I see a very big forest"

even though the forest is a place, the word vanam is not a location. Because it tells what I see, it is an object. Even if I am in the forest when I say that.

KAZIKA Aghriyante 'smin kriyAH ityAdhAraH. kartRkarmaNoH kriyAzrayabhUtayoH dhAraNakriyAM prati ya AdhArah, tat kArakam adhikaraNasaMjJaM bhavati. kaTe Aste. kaTe zete. sthAlyAM pacati. adhikaranapradezAH saptamyadhikaraNe ca ity evam AdayaH.

The Sanskrit term for location is adhikaraNa, which can also mean referent.

kartur IpsitatamaM karma ONPANINI 14049
object (of an action) is what the doer wants most.mmmmmmmmm ^ M+ C+ 143

Examples --

1. In the sentence

palI pUpam icchati "Polly wants a cookie", "a cookie is wanted by Polly"

the cookie is the object, because Polly wants it. Polly is the doer.

2. In the sentence

palyA pUpa iSyate "Polly wants a cookie", "a cookie is wanted by Polly"

the cookie is still the object, because Polly still wants it. Polly is still the doer.

Why do we say "most"? Because in sentences like

palI pUpAn icchati payasA "Polly wants cookies with milk"

, the cookies, being the main thing, get to be called the object, but the milk, an accompaniment, does not. The word payasA "with milk" is a tool here, so it got third. In

palI pUpair icchati payaH "Polly wants milk with cookies"

, however, the milk is the object and the cookies the tool. In

palI pUpAn icchati payaz ca "Polly wants milk and cookies"

, the object is pUpAn payaz ca "milk and cookies".

Now please see next rule, tathAyukta.

See also doer.

KAZIKA kartuH kriyayA yadAptum iSTatamaM tat kArakaM karmasaMjJaM bhavati. kaTaM karoti. grAmaM gacchati. kartuH iti kim? mASeSvazvaM badhnAti. karmaNa IpsitA mASAH, na kartuH. tam abgrahaNaM kim? payasA odanaM bhuGkte. karma ityanuvartamAne punaH karmagrahaNam AdhAranivRttyartham. itarathA AdhArasya eva hi syAt gehaM pravizati iti. odanaM pacati, saktUn pibati ityAdiSu na syAt. punaH karmagrahaNAt sarvatra siddha bhavati. karmapradezAH karmaNi dvitIyA ityevam AdayaH.

In some rare cases, a root can have two object roles. See akathitaMca.

The Sankrit term for object is karman- n, meaning "work".

tathA-yuktaM c/An-Ipsitam ONPANINI 14050
What is related to the verb in the same way (is object) too, even if unwanted.mmmmmmmmm ^ M+ C+ 144

The previous rule teaches that if Polly wants a cookie, the cookie is the object.

This rule says that whatever word is related to whatever root in the same way, is also the object, even if no wanting is involved. So here too pUpam is the object of icchati --

palI pUpanM n/ecchati "Polly does not want a cookie"

and here the bone is an object too --

asthi zvA vindati "a dog finds a bone"

Explained in another way: when we use roots like find, hate, see, drink, etc then whatever is found, hated, seen, drunk, etc is the object. As long as it works in grammar in the exact same way as a wanted cookie, it's an object.

KAZIKA yena prakAreNa kartur IpsitatamaM kriyayA yujyate, teniva cet prakArena yad anIpsitaM yuktaM bhavati, tasya karma-saMjJA vidhIyate. IpsitAd anyat sarvam anIpsitam, dveSyama, itarac ca. viSaM bhakSayati. caurAn pazyati. grAmaM gacchan vRkSa-mUlAny upasarpati.

akathitaM ca ONPANINI 14051
Some roots may take an extra object optionally.mmmmmmmmm ^ C+ 145

In a few special roots that take an ordinary object, one of the other roles may optionally become a second object. This is called an akathitam ("untold object" or extra object), because rules other than this one do not allow it to be an object.

More than a rule, this is a warning or an excuse, because it does not tell us which roots are affected. Those details will be found in the commentaries.

Here I'll just give an example.

According to the other rules, when saying "the sage told you a stanza", the sage is the doer of the verb "told", the verse is the object, and you are the aim. So we should say --

tubhyaM zlokam avocad vidvAn "the sage told a stanza to you"

where tubhyam got fourth ending, Ge, by caturthI. However, in practice, such sentences are seldom heard. With most verbs of saying, the thing said gets second, and the person to whom it is said gets second too --

tvAM zlokam avocad vidvAn "the sage told a stanza to you"

This tvAm here is said to be an extra object (akathitaGM karma), not an aim, and zlokam is the regular object.

When we make the root mean the object in such a sentence, it can describe either of the two objects, but not both. So, the other one keeps its second ending. Example. Here ukta- "was said" describes the regular object, "stanza" --

zlokas tvAm ukto viduSA "a stanza was told you by the sage, the sage told you a stanza"

But here ukta- "was told" describes the extra object, "you" --

zlokanM tvam ukto viduSA "you were told a stanza by the sage, the sage told you a stanza"

KAZIKA akathitaM ca yat kArakaM tat karmasaMjJaM bhavati. kena akathitam? apAdAnAdi-vizeSa-kathAbhiH. parigaNanaM kartavyam duhi-yAci-rudhi-pracchi-bhikSi-ciJAm upayoganimittam apUrvavidhau. bruvi-zAsi-guNena ca yat sacate tadakIrtitam AcaritaM kavinA. upayujyate ityupayogaH payaHprabhRti. tasya nimittaM gavAdi. tasya upayujyamAnapayaHprabhRtinimittasya gavAdeH karmasaMjJA vidhIyate. pANinA kAMsyapAtryAM gAM dogdhi payaH. pANyAdikam apyupayoganimittaM, tasya 86 kasmAn@ na bhavati? na etadasti. vihitA hi tatra karaNAdi-saMjJA. tad-artham Aha apUrva-vidhau iti. bruvi-zAsi-guNena ca yat sacate. bruvi-zAsyor guNaH sAdhanam, pradhAnaM, pradhAnaM karma, dharmAdikam, tena yat sambadhyate, tadakIrtitam AcaritaM kavinA, tad-akathitam auktaM sUtra-kAreNa. duhi gAM dogdhi payaH. yAci pauravaM gAM yAcate. rudhi gAm avaruNaddhi vrajam. pracchi mANAvakaM panthAnaM pRcchati. bhikSi pauravam gAM bhikSate. ciJ vRkSam avacinoti phalAni. bruvi mANavakaM dharmaM brUte. zAsi mANavakaM dharmam anuzAsti.

A few more examples --

gAnM dogdhi payaH "he milks the cow the milk"

gAm avaruNaddhi payaH "he confines the cow the cowpen"

rAjAnaGM gAmM bhikSate "he begs the king a cow"

mANavakanM dharmamM brUte "he teaches the kid dharma"

mANAvakamM panthAnamM pRcchati "he asks the kid the way"

vRkSam avacinoti phalAni "he picks down the fruits the tree"

Using an extra object is always optional, so we can still say the same things using the ordinary rules of grammar--

gor dogdhi payaH "from the cow he milks the milk"

sva-tantraH kartA ONPANINI 14054
doer (of an action) is who acts on its own.mmmmmmmmm ^ M- C+ 147

Or if you want --

" the doer of a root is the source of its action "

Examples --

1. In the sentence --

palI pUpam icchati "Polly wants cookie"

the word palI is the doer of icchati, because she does the wanting.

2. In --

iSyate palyA pUpaH "cookie is wanted by Polly"

the word palyA (by Polly) is the doer of iSyate, because she's still doing the wanting.

A better translation would be --

" whatever the speaker fancies to be the source of the action is the doer"

This better translation allows us to say --

sthAlI pacaty odanam "pot is cooking rice"

jayati rAjA "king is winning battle"

even though the pot has actually no initiative, and most of the winning must be credited to the soldiers.

See also object.

KAZIKA svatantraH iti pradhAna-bhUta ucyate. aguNIbhUto, yaH kriyA-siddhau svatantryeNa vivakSyate, tat kArakaM kartR-saMjJaM bhavti. devadattaH pacati. sthAlI pacati. kartR-pradezAH kartRkaraNayos tRtIyA ity evam AdayaH.

The fact that Polly is the doer makes other rules work. For instance, in the example iSyate palyA pUpaH, the fact that palI- is the doer triggered rule kartRkaraNayos tRtIyA, which added TA --

palI- + TA →ikoyaNaci palyA

The Sankrit term for doer is kartR-, meaning doer or maker.

When I teach this rule in class, there is always someone commenting "so doer means subject". That's not the case. According to English grammarians, in "Polly wants a cookie" the subject is Polly, but in "a cookie is wanted by Polly" the subject is the cookie. According to Sanskrit grammarians, however, the doer is Polly in both of the sentences palI pUpam icchati and iSyate palyA pUpaH, and the object is the cookie in both sentences.