An important aspect of procedure of detailing

of a is to first get to the bare

minimum form of the compound word. The bare
minimum form is often the form in
.
For example first word in first verse in
is . This is of course a
compound word. But the form
is
of the noun
. So we should do
of the word
and not of the formatted word
.
This may not be always necessary, especially
if the word is already in .
That was the case for

.
Words like ,
also are already in
.
 But doing of a would need
being conscious of the meaning intended to be
conveyed.
Note = every day
= with wonder. Every day
would be an answer to a question When ?
Similarly with wonder would be an answer to a
question how ? So and
have an adverbial intent,
which in Sanskrit is called as
of a is primarily an exercise
in detailing the meaning of the word. And
should do that.
of is detailed as
.
of is detailed as
.
--s are another type of
-s.
Both these words and
have a prefix . In
detailing of as
what is detailed is really the
meaning lent by the prefix . Likewise in
detailing of as
, what is detailed is really
the meaning lent by the prefix . So in these
words, the prefixes are almost like component
words -s of the compound words.
Need to be conscious of the meaning intended
can be explained also by considering a word
in two different sentences (1)
Wear a clean
cloth (2)
Wash the cloth clean.
First of all, the word is
adjective of the strong arms of King ,
who is the hero of the drama.
(1) =
(In , =
,
). So, = (arms)
which have gained all-round strength by
(= an intoxicating drink, wine). It is a known fact
that an intoxicating drink gives to warriors
reckless courage and under its influence that
perform deeds of valor.
(2) =
. Here =
(-)
Then the meaning becomes (arms) to which
languor or lassitude or weakness has been
imparted by wine.
(3) =
1. =
() (she
), to whom drink has been given
2. =
()
(arms) by which drink has been given to a lady.
Important point to be also noted is that in
, there is a ().
And in compound words, it is compulsory to
coalescence, wherever coalescence is
applicable. ..
But here the challenge is of separating the
components of a coalesced word.
can be split either as +
or + . And that renders
different meanings !
There is another charming and different
meaning possible for the phrase in the

together, a single word ! The component

words to be considered are , ,
, , , =
(arms), which got strength from
(heroine of the drama) whose complexion was
similar to that of (just) rising new moon. This
meaning brings to mind a famous proverb,
Behind every successful person, there is
strong support of a woman.
In the prior discussion the word
was obtained by split of

as
. But the other charming
meaning is derived by not doing this splitting.
Yet another charming meaning .
Keeping in mind that King is the hero of
the drama,

can be interpreted to mean

whose complexion was similar , to
that of (or) moon,
( = ).
Since the drama starts off with
saying this , one can consider that
is not only introducing the hero
and the heroine by their names but also
describing them, how they are, ! That is a
specimen of smartness of Sanskrit poets, here,
. It takes great intelligence and literary skill
to weave so many different meanings in a
single word, right ?
Important point, which is to be noted is that
of a need not be only one
specific . -s are often very
inviting, inviting you to indulge in different
interpretations !
 Such is the case also with -s. In
one comes across
a word . This is
interesting. It lends a negative meaning to the
noun, to which it is prefixed. So,
(-). But in Aptes
dictionary, the first word is detailed giving
also an interesting detail that negativity of
meaning has itself six shades ! The detail given
says, ..


..
So meanings of the word have to be
understood with all the six shades of negativity

1. =
Seeming like , (but not really ) is
!
2. = Absence of
is .
 3. =
Different from (apart from or other than)
is
4. =
Shortcoming in (doing not
wholeheartedly or only half-heartedly or doing
half way, incomplete) is
5.
= Impropriety or haphazardness of
is
6. = Causing
hindrance to or doing opposite of
is !!!
And one can derive a definition of
(What is ?) in the reverse mode to say,
What is not is !!!
Is not philosophy of a great but very
subtle philosophy ?
!