Praudhamanorama 12_252

12_252

In the Śabdakaustubha, the conclusion was made under 'tasya doṣaḥ' that the mention of ṇatva should not be there; in accordance with that manner, he also says: 'on the view of operation at the time of application' (kāryakālapakṣa). Nor should it be said that ṣṭutva should exist taking recourse to the view of operation at the place of enunciation; for the point is that since rejection is impossible if there is a difference in result, the view of operation at the time of application alone is appropriate here. For this very reason, one must not entertain hope for ṣṭutva even by relying on the rejection of the ablative compound; for in order to have unity of result, the view of operation at the time of application alone is appropriate, so unestablishedness is unavoidable. As for the claim that, by the indicator of the mention of 'seṭ' in 'niṣṭhāyāṃ seṭi', treatment like the original in an operation caused by a preceding element is non-obligatory, and therefore does not apply here—giving prominence to non-obligatoriness is entirely improper; but let this stand for now.
Regarding 'in jas and śas': For substitution of auś, just like luk-elision and the augment nuṭ, does not occur when [the base is] subordinate, because of the plural mention 'aṣṭābhyaḥ'. For otherwise, even in the imitation of the form with substituted ā, he would have stated it with the singular alone: 'aṣṭā auś', or 'aṣṭaḥ'. And this is clear in the Bhāṣya and Kaiyaṭa on the rule 'ṣṇāntā ṣaṭ' (Pā. Sū. 1.1.24). And thus, the substitution of ā which is inferred on the strength of the mention of the substituted ā in the rule prescribing auś is also proper only when there is prominence. And so, in jas, it would only be 'priyāṣṭānaḥ' and not 'priyāṣṭāḥ'—suspecting this, it was stated in the Bhāṣya: 'when not in actual usage, [it is formed] according to the grammatical rule.' 'The meaning is that substitution of ā simply does not occur here,' says Kaiyaṭa. Vāmana also, under the rule 'aṣṭābhya auś', having stated 'paramāṣṭau' by virtue of the mention of that which ends in it, says that since substitution of ā is absent in 'priyāṣṭānaḥ', substitution of auś does not occur. But Haradatta—taking up the text of the Vṛtti 'in priyāṣṭānaḥ' right there, and having promised, 'how substitution of ā does not occur in subordination will be explained in that very rule,' and then saying under the rule 'aṣṭana ā vibhaktau' (Pā. Sū. 7.2.84) that because of the singular mention, substitution of ā applies even when subordinate, [and] in the case of bha, elision of ā [applies]: 'priyāṣṭaḥ paśya' etc.—how he stated something contrary to what was previously promised, and contradicted the Bhāṣya, Vṛtti, etc., he alone must be asked.
Regarding 'only when beginning with a consonant': Although an explanation is perceived in the Bhāṣya even without dragging back 'hali', nevertheless, that it is beset with dissatisfaction has been elaborated elsewhere—this is the point. 'priyāṣṭāḥ' is the nominative singular. He summarizes what was said: 'priyāṣṭne'. Thus end [the stems] ending in n.