102. Ablative of causality.

Hence, the cause, reason, motive by which, is likewise expressed by the ablative namely as far as it is conceived as the origin or starting-point, from whence some consequence has resulted (*1).

The instrumental, as we have seen formerly (72), may likewise serve that purpose, and in the case of feminine nouns of quality it is even obligatory. For the rest, ablative and in tr. of causality are generally interchangeable, and not seldom they are used side by side. So Kathâs. 29, 25 harṣeṇa naṣṭāsyāḥ kṣun na rogataḥ (it is from joy she does not eat, not from illness), Mṛcch. I, p. 44 anyajanaśaṅkayā khalv idam anuṣṭhitaḥ na darpāt (surely, it has been done by taking her for somebody else, not by insolence). But, if the efficient cause be some obligation or other binding motive by virtue of which some effect is produced, the ablative alone is to be used (*2). Nothing impedes concrete nouns to be put in the abl. of cause (*3) but often they are expressed by periphrase, especially by means of hetoḥ (192).

Examples. — Kathâs. 27, 76 divyāḥ patanty eva śāpān mānuṣayoniṣu (by consequence of a curse celestial beings are borne among men), Panc. 202 kapiñcalaḥ śālibhakṣaṇādatīva, Panc. 49 strīdharṣaṇād vadhyaḥ (he is to be put to death for having insulted a woman), Hit. 96 bhayād idam āha (from fear he spoke thus), Ven. II, p. 39 ayaṃ… prīto ‘bhimanyor vadhāt (he is glad on account of Abh.’s death), Mṛcch. I, p. 45 uttiṣṭhāmi samayataḥ (I will stand up, on condition — ), Kathâs. 30, 112 nājñāyata yadā caurastadā jñāniprasiddhitaḥ / ānāyayām āsa nṛpo hariśarmāṇamāśu tam (as the thief was not found, the king sent forthwith for H. on account of the reputation of his knowledge), Panc. I, 180 durmantrān nṛpatir naśyati yatiḥ saṅgātsuto lālanāt / vipro ’nadhyayanāt kulaṃ kutanayāt (by bad counsel a prince comes to ruin, a holy man by wordliness, a son by spoiling, a brahman by not-studying, a family by a bad son), Çâk. I, vs. 22 vayaṃ tattvānveṣān madhukarahatāḥ (to seek after the truth [liter. by seeking — ], it is I, who have been annoyed by the bee). The examples have been selected so as to show, that the different shades of the notion of causality — cause, motive, reason — are promiscuously signified by the ablative.

Many ablatives of causality have assumed the character of adverbs, see 104.

(*1)
How easily this transition is made, will be plain by this example: Mâlav. V, p. 140 vīrasūr iti śabdo ‘yaṃ tanayāt tvām upasthitaḥ. Literally these words signify »the name of mother of a hero” touches you from the part of your son," but as to their meaning they should be rather translated thus »now you deserve the name »m. of a h.” because of your son.” In other terms the abl. of origin is at the same time an abl. of cause.

(*2)
Pāṇini’s rule, which contains this statement, is too narrowly interpreted by the commentaries. His words akartary ṛṇe pañcamī [P. 2, 3, 24] are explained thus: the abl. [alone] is to be used, if the cause be a debt, provided it be not at the same time the agent; examples of which are adduced as śatād baddhaḥ (he is confined for a debt of 100), whereas one must say śatena bandhitaḥ But why should we restrict ṛṇa to its special sense of a »debt of money" and not take the more general meaning of »obligation” and »duty”? If it could be proved that ṛṇa implies also the notion of necessity, ἀνάγχη, the rule would be quite correct, for in the case of direct and unavoidable consequence of an efficient cause the ablative alone is to be used, even of feminine words.

(*3)
Speaking plain, neither the ablat. of bhâvavacanâni nor that of concrete nouns is allowed by Pāṇini’s rules. The sûtras 2, 3, 23-25 name the instrumental as the regular case to denote cause or motive, but with these exceptions, 1° that if the cause be a quality (guṇe) the ablative may be used too, but for feminines [or rather — as the term strī is an ambiguous one — only such as have been made by the fem. endings -ī, ā], 2° that the cause being an ṛṇa, the abl. must be used, and not the instrum. Now, these rules do not leave any room for neither bhâvavacanâni nor concrete nouns, something very strange, because really both classes of words are put in the ablative of cause as often and as well as the gunavacanâni. See the examples adduced in the context.

102. 因果を表すabl.

しかして、なにがしかによる原因、理由、動機は同様にabl.によって表される。すなわち、そこから何らかの帰結が結果する、起源や起点として考えられるのである（*1）。

前に見たようなinst.（72）も同様にこの目的に資し、性質を表す女性名詞の場合においては義務的〔に用いねばならないもの〕である。その他、abl.と因果を表す他動詞はふつう可換であり、そしてそれらが並行して用いられることは稀ではない。
Kathâs. 29, 25 harṣeṇa naṣṭāsyāḥ kṣun na rogataḥ (it is from joy she does not eat, not from illness)
Mṛcch. I, p. 44 anyajanaśaṅkayā khalv idam anuṣṭhitaḥ na darpāt (surely, it has been done by taking her for somebody else, not by insolence)

けれども、効果的な原因が、その効力によって何らかの直接的結果が生じる、何らかの義務や他の拘束力をもつ動機である場合には、abl.のみが用いられる（*2）。具象名詞を原因のabl.に置くことを妨げるものはない（*3）が、それらはしばしば迂言で、特にhetoḥ（192）によって表現される。

例：
Kathâs. 27, 76 divyāḥ patanty eva śāpān mānuṣayoniṣu (by consequence of a curse celestial beings are borne among men), Panc. 202 kapiñcalaḥ śālibhakṣaṇādatīva
Panc. 49 strīdharṣaṇād vadhyaḥ (he is to be put to death for having insulted a woman)
Hit. 96 bhayād idam āha (from fear he spoke thus)
Ven. II, p. 39 ayaṃ… prīto ‘bhimanyor vadhāt (he is glad on account of Abh.’s death)
Mṛcch. I, p. 45 uttiṣṭhāmi samayataḥ (I will stand up, on condition — )
Kathâs. 30, 112 nājñāyata yadā caurastadā jñāniprasiddhitaḥ / ānāyayām āsa nṛpo hariśarmāṇamāśu tam (as the thief was not found, the king sent forthwith for H. on account of the reputation of his knowledge)
Panc. I, 180 durmantrān nṛpatir naśyati yatiḥ saṅgātsuto lālanāt / vipro ’nadhyayanāt kulaṃ kutanayāt (by bad counsel a prince comes to ruin, a holy man by wordliness, a son by spoiling, a brahman by not-studying, a family by a bad son)
Çâk. I, vs. 22 vayaṃ tattvānveṣān madhukarahatāḥ (to seek after the truth [liter. by seeking — ], it is I, who have been annoyed by the bee)

原因のabl.の多くは副詞的性格を帯びている。104をみよ。

（*1）
この移行がいかに容易になされるかは、この例に明らかである：Mâlav. V, p. 140 vīrasūr iti śabdo ‘yaṃ tanayāt tvām upasthitaḥ。これらの語句は文字通りには「vīrasū（英雄の母）という呼び名は、あなたの息子の側からあなたに届く」を表すが、その意味に関しては、むしろこのように翻訳されるべきである：「今や、あなたの息子のために、あなたはvīrasūの名に値する」と。言い換えると、起源のabl.は同時に原因のabl.でもある。

（*2）
この記述を含むPāṇiniの規則は、注釈家たちによって非常に狭義の解釈がなされている。P. 2, 3, 24 akartary ṛṇe pañcamīはこのように説明される：「債務が原因であり、かつ〔債務が〕行為者（kartṛ）でない場合には、abl.〔単体〕が用いられるべきである」；その例は、śatena bandhitaḥとせねばならないところをśatād baddhaḥ（彼は100の借金のために監禁されている）のように例示される。けれども、どうしてṛṇaの語を「借金」という特殊な意味に限定すべきで、より一般的な意味である「義務」を取らないのであろうか？　ṛṇaの語が必要性・不可避性（ἀνάγχη）の観念をも暗に含むことを証明できるなら、効果的な原因の直接的かつ不可避の結果のケースでは、f.の語であっても、abl.のみを用いるべきであるので、規則は完全に正しい。

（*3）
分かりやすく言うと、動詞の抽象概念を表す語（bhāvavacana）＝具象名詞のabl.が、Pāṇiniの規則では許されない。P. 2, 3, 23-25はinst.を原因や動機を表す通常の格として挙げるが、以下の例外を伴っている：1. 性質（guṇa）が原因であり、女性名詞（あるいはむしろ—用語strī（astriyām）は曖昧なものであるけれども—女性語尾-īとāで作られた女性名詞のみ）でない、その場合にはabl.も用いられ得る。2. ṛṇaが原因である場合には、inst.ではなく、abl.が用いられねばならない。さて、これらの規則はbhāvavacana＝具象名詞のための余地を残さない。とても奇妙なことに、実にどちらの種類の語も、性質を表す語（guṇavacana）と同じくらい頻繁に、かつ同じように、原因のabl.に置かれるからである。（*訳注1）（*訳注2）

（*訳注1）
P. 2, 3, 23 hetau [anabhihite (2.3.1), tṛtīyā (2.3.18)]
P. 2, 3, 24 akartary ṛṇe pañcamī
P. 2, 3, 25 vibhāṣā guṇe 'striyām

（*訳注2）
よく文意がとれない。まず、本書において”A or B is…”は「A＝Bは…」の意味でよく用いられる。本項の文はその変形と見なせるであろう。けれども、前提としてbhāvavacanaとconcrete nounは同一でない。A dictionary of Sanskrit grammarによれば、bhāvavacanaは”denoting an abstract idea, conveying the abstract notion of a verb”であり、例えばそれこそ「状態」（bhāva）や怒り（rāga）を言う。なので、具象名詞に相当しguṇavacanaと対応するような文法用語はdravyavacanaである。Pāṇiniの用いる場合のbhāvavacanaからしてabstract nounを指すものと解されるから（P. 2, 3, 15）、Speierの誤りであろうか？bhāva-とconcrete -が”both classes”と括られるのも、単に上の”A or B”構文を受けてのものなのか、あるいはこれらを別個のものと見なしているのか、どちらなのかが分からない。