अनुदात्तं सर्वम् अपादादौ

The three words anudattam \unaccented \, sarvam \the whole\, and apadadau
ot in the beginning of a Pada of a verse\, should be understood to exert a governing influence over all the subsequent sutras of this chapter, upto its end. Whatever we shall treat of hereafter, must be understood to be wholly unaccented, provided that, it does not stand as the first word of a verse or stanza. Thus 8.1.19, says \of a Vocative \. The whole of this sutra should be read there to complete the sense, viz: \all the syllables of a Vocative are unaccented when a word precedes it, and it does not stand as the first word of a hemistich\; as पचसि दे॒॒व॒॒द॒॒त्त॒॒ ॥

Why do we say \when not at the beginning of a hemistich\? Observe यत्ते नियतं रजसं मृत्यो अनवधृष्ण्यम्, here मृत्यो though in the Vocative case, is not anudatta, as it stands at the beginning of a Pada.

Similarly (VIII. I. 21), teaches \वः and नः are the substitutes of युष्मद् अस्मद् in the plural\. The present sutra must be read there to complete the sense, viz, when not at the beginning of a verse. Thus ग्रामोवः स्वं, जनपदो नः स्वम् ॥ But at the beginning of a hemistich, we must have the forms युष्माकं and अस्माकं instead of वः and नः ॥ As,

रुद्रो विश्वेश्वरो देवो युष्माकं कुलदेवता ।
स एव नाथो भगवानस्माकं शत्रुमर्दनः ॥

The word पाद् in the sutra refers both to the hemistiches of the sacred Rik hymns, as well as to secular slokas.

Question: Why do we employ the word सर्वं in the sutra?

Answer:- The word sarvam is used in the sutra, in order to indicate that a word, which has not acute accent on the first syllable, should also become anudatta. For the word पदात् 8.1.17 is in the ablative case, and shows that the operation taught in any sutra governed by it, will be performed on the first syllable, according to the maxim आदेः परस्य ॥ Therefore, by rule 8.1.28, the word प꣡चति, which is acutely accented on the first syllable, (because शप् and तिप् are anudatta), will only lose its accent in देवदत्तः पचति; but not so the verb करोति which is acutely accented in the middle (by the vikarana accent) in देवदत्तः करोति ॥ But by force of the word सर्वं, करोति also loses its accent.

Question: This cannot be the reason, for the author indicates by his prohibition in Sutra 8.1.29, that a verb loses its accent, where ever that accent may be. For there is no verb when conjugated in लुट् which has acute on the first syllable.

Answer:- The word 'sarvam' is used to prevent the operation of अलोऽन्त्यविधिः; for where the rule आदेः परस्य will not apply there the other will apply: so that, if \sarvam\ was not used, the rule would apply to the finals, and not to cases where there were other than initials to be operated upon. Thus the rule 8.1.28 would apply to कुरुतः꣡ which is finally acute by 6.1.186, in देवदत्तयज्ञदत्तौ कु॒॒रु॒॒तः॒॒, but not to देवदत्तः करोति ॥

Question: No; this cannot be the reason of employing the word 'sarvam' in the sutra, for the author indicates that the rule is not confined to the finals, by the prohibition he makes in favor of लृट् in 8.1.51; for there is no verb, when conjugated in Lrit, which has acute on the final. All Lrit is acute in the middle by 6.1.186. So the अलोऽन्त्यस्य rule does not apply.

Answer:- The word 'sarvam:' is used for this reason. Had 'sarvam', not been used, then in those cases where there was no other rule to apply, like 8.1.19, there only the word would become anudatta. But in cases where another rule also operated, there this anudatta rule would not apply, for then there would be two different sentences. For a thing which is already in existence can be made the subject of a rule ordering certain operations to be performed on it; but not so a thing which will come in existence in future time. Thus the words वां and नौ are ordained as substitutes of yushmad and asmad by one sentence 8.1.20; while another sentence ordains their anudatta-hood. So here there is separation of sentences (vakya-bheda): which is not desireable; for a vakya bheda should be avoided, if possible. But by employing the word 'sarvam:', this vakya-bheda is made tolerable.

Another reason for employing this word is that the substitutes वां and नौ should come in the room of the whole declined forms of yushmad and asmad, with their case-affixes. Had not this word (sarvam) been used, then वां and नौ would have replaced only 'yushmad' and 'asmad'. Objection:- Will not the anuvritti of the word 'padasya', cause the whole declined word to be replaced by वां and नौ, not only the crude-forms yushmad and asmad? And there cannot be a full word unless it takes case-affixes; so the whole of yushmad and asmad with their case-affixes will be replaced. Where is the necessity of using the word 'sarvam'? Answer:- This objection will apply to those cases where a Pada is a word ending in a case-affix. But the word पद is a technical term also, and applies to crude forms before certain case-affixes. Thus a nominal stem (not a full word) is also called Pada by 1.4.17, before non-sarvanamasthana case-affixes. Therefore yushmad and asmad will be pada before those affixes. Thus before the affix of Dative Dual, they will be called Pada; and had सर्वं not been used, then only \yushmad\ and \asmad\ will be replaced and not their case-affixes. Thus ग्रामो वां दीयते, जनपदो नौ दीयते ॥ Here वां and नौ would require after them the case-affix भ्यां otherwise.,