The addition is lacking at v. 6. 1 and v. 6. 2; although these are consecutive verses, it is clear from the separate giving of two pratīkas that here repetitions of non-consecutive verses are intended, and that the addition in each case would be íty ékā. The addition is also lacking at xiv. 1. 23-24; where, however, the repetition of consecutive verses, vii. 81. 1—2, is intended. Here again the mss. give two pratīkas separately, pūrvāparám (= vii. 81. 1 and xiii. 2. 11) and návonavaḥ (= vii. 81. 2); and they do this instead of giving pūrvāparám íti dvé, because the latter procedure would have been ambiguous as meaning perhaps also xiii. 2. 11-12.
The addition íti pū́rvā is made where the pratīka alone might have indicated two verses with the same beginning. This happens at xiii. 1. 41 (where aváḥ páreṇa might mean either ix. 9. 17 or 18: see note, p. 716) and at xviii. 4. 43 (but as to this there is disagreement: see note). —By lack of further addition, the intended repetition is doubtful at x. 5. 48-49, where yád agna íti dvé might mean either viii. 3. 12-13 or vii. 61. 1-2 (see note, p. 585); there is doubt also at xix. 37. 4 (the case is discussed fully at p. 957).
5. Refrains and the like in the Manuscripts
Written out in full only in first and last verse of a sequence.—For the relief of the copyists, there is practised on a large scale in both the saṁhitā- and the pada-mss. the omission of words and pādas repeated in successive verses. In general, if anywhere a few words or a pāda or a line or more are found in more than two successive verses, they are written out in full only in the first and last verses and are understood in the others ⌊cf. p. 793, end⌋. For example, in vi. 17, a hymn of four verses, the refrain, being c, d of each of the four, is written out only in 1 and 4. Then, for verse 2 is written only mahī́ dādhā́re ’mā́n vánaspátīn, because yáthe ’yám pṛthivī́ at the beginning is repeated. ⌊That is, the scribe begins with the last one of the words which the verse has in common with its predecessor.⌋ Then, because dādhā́ra also is repeated in 2-4, in verse 3 mahī́ also is left out and the verse reads in the mss. simply dādhā́ra párvatān girī́n—and this without any intimation of omission by the ordinary sign of omission. —Sometimes the case is a little more intricate. Thus, in viii. 10, the initial words só ’d akrāmat are written only in verses 2 and 29, although they are really wanting in verses 9-17, paryāya II. (verses 8-17) being in this respect treated as if all one verse with subdivisions ⌊cf. p. 512 top⌋.
Such abbreviated passages treated by the Anukramaṇī as if unabbreviated.—The Anukramaṇī generally treats the omitted matter as if present, that is, it recognizes the true full form of any verse so abbreviated. In
