The lṛṭ (I Future) retains its accent in connection with the Imperative of a verb denoting 'motion' ('to go', 'to come', 'to start' etc.) but only in that case, when the subject and object of both the verbs are not wholly different one from another.,
Those verbs which have similar meaning with the word गति 'motion' are called गत्यर्थाः ॥ The Imperative of the गत्यर्थ verbal roots, is called गत्यर्थ-लोट् ॥ In connection with such an Imperative of verbs of 'motion', the First Future does not become anudatta, if the karaka is not all different. The sense is, with whatever case-relation (karaka), whether the Subject or Object, the Imperative is employed, with the same karaka, the First Future must be employed. In connection with the finite verb here, the word कारक denotes the Subject and Object only, and not any other karaka, such as Instrument, &c.
Thus आ꣡ग॒॒च्छ॒॒ दे॒॒व॒॒द॒॒त्त॒॒ ग्रा꣡मं, द्रक्ष्य꣡स्येनम् 'Come O Devadatta to the village, thou shalt see it'. Here the subjects of both verbs आगच्छ and द्रक्ष्यसि are the same, and the objects of both verbs are also the same, namely ग्रामं and एनम् ॥ आ is a Preposition and is accented, गच्छ and देवदत्त both lose their accent by (VII. I. 19) and (VII. I. 28), ग्राम is first-acute being formed by the नित् affix मन् ॥ So also आगच्छ देवदत्त ग्रामं, ओदनं भोक्ष्यसे \Come, O Devadatta ! to the village, you will eat rice\. Here the subjects of both verbs are the same, only the objects are different, and so the rule still applies. आहर देवदत्त शालीम्, यज्ञदत्त एतान् भोक्ष्यते꣡ ॥ Here the subjects are different, but the objects are the same; namely शालीम् ॥ Similarly उह्यन्तां देवदत्तेन शालयः, यज्ञदत्तेन भोक्ष्य꣡न्ते \Let the rice be carried by Devadatta, and let them be eaten by Yajnadatta.\
Why do we say 'verbs of motion'? Observe पच देवदत्त ओदनं, भो॒॒क्ष्य॒॒से॒॒ एनम् ॥
Why do we say 'After the Imperative'? Observe आगच्छेर्देवदत्त ग्रामं, द्र॒॒क्ष्य॒॒स्ये॒॒नम् ॥ Here the Potential mood is used.
Why do we say the 'First Future'? Observe आगच्छ देवदत्त ग्रामं, पश्यसि एनम् ॥ Here the Present Tense is used.
Why do we say 'if the karaka is not wholly different'? Observe आगच्छ देवदत्त ग्रामं, पिता ते ओदनं भो॒॒क्ष्य॒॒ते॒॒ ॥ उह्यन्तां देवदत्तेन शालयः, सक्तवस्तेन पा॒॒स्य॒॒न्ते॒॒ ॥ उह्यन्तां is the Imperative of वह् 'to carry'.
Why do we use the word सर्व 'wholly'? Observe आगच्छ देवदत्त ग्रामं, त्वं च अहं च द्रक्ष्या꣡व एनम् ॥ Here also there is prohibition of nighata and the First Future retains its accent, for the subject of the Future is not wholly different from that of the Imperative. For here the subject of the Imperative is the subject also of the Future, though only partly, in conjunction with another. Moreover, the object here in both is the same. Had सर्व not been used in the sutra, where the sentence would have remained the same, there the rule would have applied, and not where the sentences became different.,