1.35

एतान्न हन्तुमिच्छामि घ्नतोऽपि मधुसूदन
अपि त्रैलोक्यराज्यस्य हेतोः किं नु महीकृते

Printed: etAnna hantumichchhAmi ghnatoBpi madhusUdana , api trElokyarAjyasya hetoHa kiM nu mahIkRute .

ghnatoBpi ... [6.1.113, 6.1.109, 6.1.87, 1.3.2, 8.2.66] ato roraplutAdaplute
kiM n ... [8.3.23] mo'nusvAraHa
hetoHa k ... [8.3.15, 1.3.2, 8.2.66] kharavasAnayo visarjanIyaHa
etAnna ... [6.1.72] saNhitAyAm
hantumichchhAmi ... [6.1.72] saNhitAyAm

Underlying: etAn na hantum ichchhAmi ghnatas api madhusUdana , api trElokyarAjyasya hetos kim nu mahIkRute .

COMMENTS:

• The parser treats 'ghnataHa' as an ACC-P term (as does [MM2015] [1]), unlike [KAL2015] [2] which treats it as a 'NOM-S' term. This NOM-S treatment by [KAL2015] is incorrect because the term is a derived nominal (derived from the verb 'han:2:P:to kill' with the 'shatRu' affix, and not the 'kta' affix wrongly assumed in [KAL2015]). Hence this is not a defective assignment by the parser.
• The treatment of the infinitive 'hantum' as a separate clause by the parser is to ensure that a verb and its arguments are clearly delineated. In Sanskrit, although the infinitive is termed as an indeclinable in a morphological sense, it still retains the syntactic features of a verb.
• Ideally, the term 'ghnataHa' (a present participle derived from a verb, as described in the comment above) could also be treated as a separate clause, but its nominal features are considered somewhat more important by the parser. Notice that the parser cannot figure out the object ('me') of the present participle (i.e. 'I do not wish to kill those [who are] killing [me]'); this interpretation is best left to the human expert.
• The parser treats the term 'mahIkRute' as LOC-S, as does [MM2015]. As mentioned in the Siddhanta Kaumudi ('nimittAtkarmayoge'), the Locative Case is used in certain contexts (instead of the Dative Case) when the meaning is 'for the sake of', and there is a close connection between the purpose and the act. In this case, the verb 'han:to kill' is purported to be 'for the sake of acquiring a kingdom'). [KAL2015] treats the term as DAT-S, assuming its derivation from the base 'mahIkRut' (instead of 'mahIkRuta'), which is probably incorrect.
• Note that, unlike [MM2015], the parser does not create a separate clause for 'kim nu: nor indeed'.

---

A: etAn na hantum ichchhAmi ghnataHa api madhusUdana api trElokyarAjyasya hetoHa kim nu mahIkRute

A.1:

etAn:ACC-P:etad:Masc.:Pronoun

hantum:-:han:2:P:VerbInfinitive

ghnataHa:ACC-P:ghnat:Masc.:Adj:present_participle_shatRu_2P_han:Link_subj_etAn

api:Indeclinable

A.2:

na:Indeclinable

ichchhAmi:I-S:iSH:6:P:VerbPresent

madhusUdana:VOC-S:madhusUdana:Masc.:Noun

api:Indeclinable

trElokyarAjyasya:GEN-S:trElokyarAjya:Neut.:Noun

hetoHa:GEN-S:hetu:Masc.:Noun

kim:Indeclinable

nu:Indeclinable

mahIkRute:LOC-S:mahIkRuta:Masc.:Noun

References