आमन्त्रितस्य च

Thus पचसि दे॒॒व॒॒द॒॒त्त॒॒, पचसि य॒॒ज्ञ॒॒द॒॒त्त॒॒ ॥ The Vocative is acutely accented on the first by 6.1.198, the present makes it all unaccented.

Vart:- The rules relating to nighata (by which all syllables of a word become unaccented, such as the present, and 8.1.28 &c) and to the substitutes of yushmad and asmad apply then only, when the preceding word which would cause the nighata or the substitution, is part of the same sentence with the latter word. Therefore not here:- अयं दण्डो, हरानेन ॥ \This is the staff. Carry by means of it.\ Here हर does not lose its accent by (VIII. I. 28), though preceded by the Noun danda, because these are parts of two different sentences. ओदनं पच, तव भविष्यति । ओदनं पच, मम भविष्यति ॥ \Cook the food, it will be for thee. Cook the food, it will be for me.\ That is the rice cooked by thee, will do both for thyself and myself. Here the ते and मे substitutions have not taken place (VIII. I. 22) for yushmad and asmad, for the same reason.

Another example is, भवतीह विष्णुमित्रो, देवदत्तागच्छ \Vishnumitra is here, Come back Devadatta.\ Here Devadatta, though in the Vocative case, does not lose its accent. Nor can you say that समर्थः पदविधिः will make this vartika redundant. In all the above examples, the different sentences are connected with each other in sense. Thus in the last example, Devadatta was searching for Vishnumitra, when some one says to him, 'Here is Vishnumitra come back Devadatta.\ Thus the two sentences are samartha, yet there is no nighata. But the rule will apply here:- इह देवदत्त ! माता ते कथयति । नद्यास्तिष्ठति॑ 8.1.28 कूलं । शालीनां ते ओदनं दास्यामि ॥ In the last examples the Vocatives, the verbs and the substitutes of yushmad and asmad are not in syntactical construction with the words that immediately precede them, and yet the nighata rule &c does apply: inspite of the general maxim समर्थः पदविधिः 2.1.1, for rules relating to completed words apply to such words only which are in construction.

In the last example, the construction is इह स्थिता माता ते देवदत्त, and not इह देवदत्त. Thus इह is in syntactical construction with स्थिता and not देवदत्त, yet it causes nighata of Devadatta. Similarly in नद्यास्तिष्ठति कूलं, the word नद्याः is not in construction with तिष्ठति, but with कूलं, i.e. नद्याः कूलं तिष्ठति; yet it causes the nighata of तिष्ठति ॥ Similarly शालीनां is not in construction with ते, but with ओदनं, i.e. शालीनां ओदनं ते दास्यामि ॥ Yet it causes ते substitution of yushmad. Though the preceding words are not samartha with regard to the words that follow them, they cause the changes, because the words are in the same sentence.,