49. Double object with causatives.
Accusative with causative verbs. — If the primitive be an intransitive verb, its causative is construed with with the accusative of its (the primitive’s) subject. Prim. śete devadattaḥ Caus. yajñadatto devadattaṃ śāyayati. The same applies to verbs of going; then we will have occasionally two accusatives, one of the aim and the other, pointing out the primitive’s subject. Prim. devadatto pāṭalipurtaṃ gacchati Caus. rājā devadattaṃ pāṭaliputraṃ gamayati.
But if the primitive be a transitive, there is diversity of idiom {P. 1, 4, 52.}. Often the primitive’s subject is in the same manner put in the accusative, when construed with the causative, but often also in the instrumental. In the former case we have of course two accusatives, as Kathâs. 9, 10 mantrapūtaṃ caruṃ rājñīṃ prāśayan munisattamaḥ (the best of ascetics made the queen eat a consecrated porridge), wherewith cp, this instance of the instrumental: Mhbh. 2, 1, 7 na śakṣyāmi kiñcit kārayituṃ tvayā (I shall not be able to get anything done by you). The difference of both constructions is determined by the diverse nature of the notions, carried by them. If one wants to say he causes me to do something, it is by his impulse I act, there is room for the type māṃ kiñcit kārayati, but if it be meant he gets something done by me, I am only the agent or instrument through which he acts, the instrumental is on its place kiñcit kārayati mayā.
Examples: a.) of two accusatives; Mudr. I, p.43 api kadāciñ candraguptadoṣā atikrāntapārthivaguṇāndhunā smārayanti prakṛtīḥ (do not the vices of Candrag. still remind the people of the former kings?), Daç. 144 pitarau tasyā dārikāyā māṃ pāṇim agrāhayetām (my parents allowed me to wed that girl), Mhbh. 1, 75, 28 sa ṛṣīn karam adāpayat (he made the holy men pay taxes), R. 2, 55, 17 rāmas tām adhyāropayat plavam (he ordered her to embark), ibid. 2, 94, 2 atra dāśarathiś citraṃ citrakūṭam adarśayat / bhāryām, Daç. 215 jñāpaya māṃ svavārttām. — So always adhyāpayati kaṃcit kiṃcit, for this verb at the same time formally is a causative and as to its meaning (to teach) it belongs to the category, mentioned in 46.
b.) of the instrumental of the primitive’s subject: Daç. 170 sā tasya sādhoś citravadham ajñena rājñā samādeśayāṃ cakāra (she obtained an order of the king who was unaware [of what had happened before] to put to death this honest man); Mudr. I, p. 37 lekhaṃ śakaṭadāsena lekhayitvā (after having got written the letter by Çakatadâsa); Panc. 51 rathakāra āpnapuruṣaistaṃ svagṛham ānāyayat (the cartwright let him bring home by friends), Kumâras. 6, 52 sa tair ākrāmayām āsa śuddhāntam (he [Himavân] suffered his zenana to be entered by them, that is »he opened his zenana to them”), M. 8, 371 tāṃ śvabhiḥ khādayedrājā (her the king should order to be devoured by dogs) (*1).
(*1)
Pâṇini gives a different rule about the construction of the causatives. In his sûtra 1, 4, 52 he teaches that the primitive’s subject is the karma of the causatives of a.) all intransitives, b.) the verbs of going (moving), c.) those of perceiving and knowing (buddhi) d.) those of feeding, e.) those of uttering voice, and the following rule declares »optionally also with kārayati and hārayati [and their compounds, see Pat. I, p.109, 1. 10]. With the other causatives, therefore, the primitive’s subject is not considered an object (karma), accordingly not put in the accus., but in the instrumental, according to P. 1, 4, 55 compared with 2, 3, 18. Now, to these rules of Pâṇini, which do not take account of the internal difference existing by necessity between the two conceptions, but simply set up some outer marks, I have substituted the description expounded in the context Mr. Anandoram Borooah has preceded me in this way. Moreover I have tested Pâṇini’s rule in numerous instances, but found it deficient now and then even when paying due respect to the modifications made in it by the different vârttikas on our sûtras (1, 4, 52 sq.), whereas the same enquiry confirmed the exactness of the rule as it has been laid down in the context.
49. 使役文におけるdouble object
原形が自動詞の動詞では、使役活用（causative）はその〔元の形での〕主語をacc.にとる。
原形：śete devadattaḥ / Caus. yajñadatto devadattaṃ śāyayati
「行く」動詞にも同じことが適用されるが、2つのacc.を用いることがあり、一方は行き先を、もう一方は原形における主語を指す。
原形：devadatto pāṭalipurtaṃ gacchati / Caus. rājā devadattaṃ pāṭaliputraṃ gamayati
しかし、原形が他動詞の動詞では色々な言い回しがある。ふつう原形での主語は同じようにacc.で置かれるが、caus.ではしばしばinst.も用いられる。 acc.を用いる場合は当然2つのacc.を使う：
Kathâs. 9, 10 mantrapūtaṃ caruṃ rājñīṃ prāśayan munisattama (the best of ascetics made the queen eat a consecrated porridge)
対して、inst.での例は以下の通り：
Mhbh. 2, 1, 7 na śakṣyāmi kiñcit kārayituṃ tvayā (I shall not be able to get anything done by you)
両者の構文的違いは、話者の持つ発話観念の諸々の性質によって決まる。「彼が私に～させる」「彼に煽られて私は～する」と言いたいなら、māṃ kiñcit kārayatiという形の表現が適している。そうではなくて「彼が私に～してもらう」「私は彼の行為の代理者（agent）あるいは手段（instrument）に過ぎない」ということを意味するならばinst.の範疇であり、kiñcit kārayati mayāとなる。
a.) 2つのacc.を用いる例：
Mudr. I, p.43 api kadāciñ candraguptadoṣā atikrāntapārthivaguṇāndhunā smārayanti prakṛtīḥ (do not the vices of Candrag. still remind the people of the former kings?)
Daç. 144 pitarau tasyā dārikāyā māṃ pāṇim agrāhayetām (my parents allowed me to wed that girl)
Mhbh. 1, 75, 28 sa ṛṣīn karam adāpayat (he made the holy men pay taxes)
R. 2, 55, 17 rāmas tām adhyāropayat plavam (he ordered her to embark)
ibid. 2, 94, 2 atra dāśarathiś citraṃ citrakūṭam adarśayat / bhāryām
Daç. 215 jñāpaya māṃ svavārtnām
adhyāpayati kaṃcit kiṃcitについて、常にその動詞は正しくはcaus.であるけれども、その〔実用上の〕意味（教える）は46に示したカテゴリに属する〔吹田§194を参照〕。
b.) 原形のinst.を用いる例：
Daç. 170 sā tasya sādhoś citravadham ajñena rājñā samādeśayāṃ cakāra (she obtained an order of the king who was unaware [of what had happened before] to put to death this honest man)
Mudr. I, p. 37 lekhaṃ śakaṭadāsena lekhayitvā (after having got written the letter by Çakatadâsa)
Panc. 51 rathakāra āpnapuruṣaistaṃ svagṛham ānāyayat (the cartwright let him bring home by friends)
Kumâras. 6, 52 sa tair ākrāmayām āsa śuddhāntam (he [Himavân] suffered his zenana to be entered by them, that is »he opened his zenana to them”)
M. 8, 371 tāṃ śvabhiḥ khādayedrājā (her the king should order to be devoured by dogs) （*1）
（*1）
Pāṇiniは使役構文について異なる規則を与えている。彼のsūtra（1, 4, 52）において、原形における主語は、①あらゆる自動詞、②「行く」（移動する）動詞、③「知覚する」「知る」動詞（buddhi）、④「食事する」動詞、⑤「発声する」動詞、の使役活用の対象（karma, object）であるとする。そして、その後に続く規則はこう宣言する：「kārayatiやhārayatiを伴う場合は任意で〔karmaと呼ばれる〕」と（これらの複合語についてはPat. I, p.109, 1. 10参照）。 ゆえに他の使役活用だと、acc.で用いられないために原形における主語が対象（karma）とはみなされず、P. 2, 3, 18に照らしたP. 1, 4, 55に従って、inst.で置かれる。
ここでPāṇiniの、これら2つの発話観念の間に必然的に存在する内的差異を考慮せず単に外面的な記号を提示しただけの規則に、Anandoram Borooah氏が私に先んじて論じた詳細な説明を以て代わりとしよう。
「さらに、私はPāṇiniの規則を様々な用例において検証したが、vārttikaがsūtraに施した注釈にしかるべき敬意を払ってもなお、度々不足のみられることがわかった。一方では、同じ調査により、文典においてすでに規定されている規則の正確さが確認された」