काव्यप्रकाश (आचार्य मम्मट - सम्पूर्ण १० उल्लास सटीक)

262 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA
इत्यादौ क्रियाविशेषणत्वेपि विवक्षितार्थप्रतीतिसिद्धौ
“गतार्थस्यापि विशेष्यस्य विशेषणदानार्थं क्वचित्प्रयोगः कार्यः”
इति न युक्तम् । युक्तत्वे वा
चरणत्रपरित्राणरहिताभ्यामपि द्रुतम् ।
पादाभ्यां दूरमध्वानं व्रजन्नेष न खिद्यते ॥२९३॥
इत्युदाहार्यम् ॥५८॥
to justify (as Vāmana has done) the addition of the
noun ‘vācham’, ‘speech’, [which would appear to be
superfluous on the ground of the verb ‘jagāda’ ‘uttered’,
itself denoting the ‘uttering of speech’], on the ground
that ‘even though the sense of the noun may have been
obtained already, it is added for the purpose of adding
qualifying epithets to it’; because the purpose sought to
be served by the adding of these epithets could be more
easily served by the use of adverbs (qualifying the verb
itself) ; [So that the addition of the noun should not be
necessary, even for that purpose].
[The expression with the adverbs could appear in the
form ‘jagāda madhuraṁ vidvān viśadākṣaraśālī cha].
As an example of the propriety of the justification
suggested by Vāmana we have (not the aforesaid sentence
cited by him, but) the following—
‘Charaṇatraparitrāṇarahitābhyāmapi drutam
Pādābhyāṁ dūramadhvānaṁ vrajanneṣa na khidyate.
‘He is not fatigued even when he walks long distances
swiftly with feet deprived of shoes.’—[Where the purpose
served by the addition of adjectival epithets to the noun
‘charaṇa’ is such as could not be served by the addition
of any adverbial expressions]. 58.