Praudhamanorama 12_263

12_263

"Of that which is to come": for when elision in the remainder has taken place, the augment *suṭ*, which would obtain because [the base] ends in short *a*, is warded off on the strength of the mention of that which has *suṭ* as the original element—this is the point. On the view that elision in the remainder is elision of *ṭi*, however, the mention of *suṭ* is entirely superfluous. The pronunciation of the long vowel in *ākam* is for the sake of homogeneous lengthening; otherwise, the single substitute for the following vowel would apply. Nor can the efficacy of pronouncing the short *a* be claimed; for, just as in *abhyam*, its purpose is fulfilled by preventing the change to *e*.
Here, in the two rules "yuvāvau dvivacane" (Pā. sū. 7.2.92) and "tvamāvekavacane" (Pā. sū. 7.2.97), the words *dvivacana* and *ekavacana* do not refer to the affixes, but rather refer to meaning—so it has been explained. He shows the result of that [in the text] beginning with "samasyamāne": "of duality and singularity". On the view that the nominal stem's meaning has five components, number too is part of the nominal stem's meaning—this is the point. "The meaning of the compound" means the principal qualificand. "If it has another number" means: if it has a number other than the number residing in the meanings of *yuṣmad* and *asmad*.
"They occur": precisely because, on the strength of resorting to a reference to meaning, the realization of what was previously present is also accepted. If they referred to affixes, however, they would not occur, and so there would be underapplication—this is the meaning. Likewise, in the fourth verse too, by the statement "neither *yuvau* nor *tvamau*", overapplication in the case of referring to affixes was intimated. And thus the outcome is that reference to meaning was resorted to in order to avoid underapplication and overapplication. Nor is there a contradiction with the maxim of the technical and non-technical; for that is blocked precisely on the strength of the mention of the word *vacana*. For otherwise he would simply say *dvitve* and *ekatve*; since it would then be possible to explain: 'in duality and in singularity, [they occur] before the case ending that expresses them'—this is the point.
*atitvākamatimākam*: as for the view that in "sāma ākam" (Pā. sū. 7.1.33), although the mention of *suṭ* is not a qualifier of the original element because of conflict, it is nonetheless an indicative description—whereby only that *ām* before which *suṭ* is due to appear in the sequel must become *ākam*; and since this is not possible when [the base meaning] is secondary, *ākam* does not take effect—[this is not sound]; for when an aggregate is mentioned, a third [mode of construal] does not operate to the exclusion of being a qualifier or an indicative description. Nor is a separate original status of *suṭ* and *ām* indicated here, since the word *ca* and the dual ending are absent. Even if a collective *dvandva* compound were explained as *s ca ām ca*, and on the strength of compatibility only *suṭ* were taken by the word *s*, still, if the mention of *suṭ* were enjoined as secondary in conjunction (*anvācaya*), a compound could not be formed; whereas in other cases, because of the intention to express concomitance, isolated *ām* could not apply.