Bhagavad Gita: Chapter 2/Verse 9

सञ्जय उवाच
एवमुक्त्वा हृषीकेशं गुडाकेशः परन्तपः ।
न योत्स्य इति गोविन्दमुक्त्वा तूष्णीं बभूव ह ॥२- ९॥

sañjaya uvāca
evamuktvā hṛṣīkeśaṃ guḍākeśaḥ parantapaḥ ।
na yotsya iti govindamuktvā tūṣṇīṃ babhūva ha ॥2- 9॥

Sañjaya said, thus Guḍākeśa, Scorcher of Foes, having said to Hṛṣīkeśa, "I will not fight".  Having spoke to Govinda, he became silent, indeed.  


Word-for-word translation

sañjayas (nominative, singular) = Sañjaya

uvāca (past tense verb, 3rd person, singular) = said 

evam (adverb) (indeclinable) = thus 

uktvā (gerund) (indeclinable) = having said

hṛṣīkeśam (accusative, singular) = Hṛṣīkeśa (epithet of Krishna) 

guḍākeśas (nominative, singular) =  Guḍākeśa (epithet of Arjuna)

parantapas (nominative, singular) = Parantapa (Scorcher of Foes) (epithet of Arjuna)

na (adverb) (indeclinable) = not

yotsya (future tense, 1st person, singular) = I will fight 

iti (punctuation) (indeclinable) = (quotation mark)

govindam (accusative, singular) = Govinda (epithet of Krishna) 

uktvā (gerund) (indeclinable) = having spoke

tūṣṇīm (indeclinable) = silent 

babhūva (past tense, 3rd person, singular) = he became 

ha (interjection) (indeclinable) = indeed


Commentary 

The quotation marker, "iti", in Sanskrit is a great way to identify syntax groups within a Sanskrit sentence and thus have more manageable portions to deal with in translating a verse. It seems like most of the translations seem to ignore the syntax boundary created by the quotation marker in this verse. I am siding with the translations (Laurie L. Patton and Gavin Flood & Charles Martin) who stick to the appropriate syntax rules of Sanskrit.