Praudhamanorama 12_249

12_249

Here the subordinate member is not a relative term, so that the two modes could find scope.
If it is objected: 'Here too, does not the word "anta" (final) have a correlative meaning?' [We reply: No,] because those who state, 'the letters ṣ and n which exist at the time of original enunciation,' have abandoned its syntactic connection. For otherwise, one would have had to say, 'that which has [ṣ and n] at the end at the time of original enunciation.' But in reality, even that is not the case; for the word "anta" requires a whole (avayavin), not just anything whatever. Otherwise, one might say 'ṛddhasya rājapuruṣaḥ' (the king's officer of the wealthy [man]), since even a king (rājā) has an expectancy towards that which is to be ruled by a ruler, on account of the lexicon: 'rājā [is used] in the sense of lord, king, moon, yakṣa, kṣatriya, and Indra.' If, however, you say that there is no expectancy towards 'wealthy', then the same applies in the present case too. Regarding [the word] 'saṃnipāta' [in the text]: and thus, the explanation 'at the time of original enunciation' is completely pointless—this is the idea.
As for what some say—that due to the non-obligatory nature of the metarule, luk-elision would take place—that is mere rashness; because if it does not apply even in the intended case, the metarule would become futile. Furthermore, [the restriction] 'in the original enunciation' is also completely groundless.
As for what they say—that being original is obtained from the force of the mention of 'anta'—that too is not so; because its force is exhausted by drawing in the word 'saṃkhyā' and by securing its reference to the named item (saṃjñin).