Praudhamanorama 12_257

12_257

On *tadoḥ saḥ sāvanantyayoḥ* (Pāṇini 7.2.106): why does the rule say "of non-final [consonants]"? Take *he sa*. Being subsequent, the substitution of *s* would block the substitution of *a* prescribed for *tyad*, etc. (*tyadādyatva*); then, upon the elision by *halṅyābbhyo...*, there would be the substitution of *ru* and the visarga. Moreover, in the feminine, *sā* would not be formed. In reality, however, the mention of *anantyayoḥ* can be dispensed with. Nor is there the stated flaw, because when re-application is recognized (*punaḥprasaṅgavijñāna*), the substitution of *a* for *tyad*, etc. can occur. Even under the view of "applied once" (*sakṛdgatau*), it is possible to split the rule (*yogavibhāga*) immediately after *tadoḥ saḥ sau* as *adasaḥ*, and interpret it to mean that the substitution of *s* belongs only to *adas* and not to any other *d*. If it is objected: "Under the formulation as it stands (*yathānyāse*), when *kvip* is added to the desiderative of *dvi-*, *svaḥ* would result, whereas under the restrictive rule (*niyama*) it would be *dvaḥ*"? Not so; because neither the substitution of *a* nor the substitution of *s* is possible in a secondary meaning (*gauṇa*), only *dvīḥ* is correct.
On *ṅe prathamayoram* (Pāṇini 7.1.28): *ṅe* is a separate word with a dropped genitive case ending; the word *prathamā* is used secondarily for the aggregate of the nominative and accusative—this he explains by saying: "of *ṅe*", etc. It would be better formulated as: *ṅe suṭoram*.
On "with the intention of expressing a locus": if *śeṣe* were an adjective qualifying the case ending (*vibhakti*), then it would be entirely redundant, because the elision can be blocked in its respective domain by the specifically prescribed substitutions of *ā* (*ātva*) and *ya* (*yatva*). Nor does it entail the objection that the view of elision of the final element would have no foundation, because that too is indicated by the mention with *suṭ* in *sāma ākam* (Pāṇini 7.1.33); this is the meaning.
In *yuvaṃ vastrāṇi*, there is elision in the remainder (*śeṣe lopaḥ*).