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.