Praudhamanorama 60_285

60_285

[On Pāṇini 8.2.3, na mu ne:] Taking 'ne' as a locative of domain (viṣayasaptamī), he says: 'when nā-bhāva is to be effected'. Otherwise, because it does not follow a ghi, nā-bhāva would not occur: this is the idea. [Objection:] Even if it is so, once nā-bhāva is effected, lengthening would occur by "supi ca", because the replacement by m is regarded as not having taken effect with respect to lengthening! Therefore he says: 'and when it has been effected'. Or it should be resolved by the metarule of non-destruction of the conditioning factor (sannipātaparibhāṣā).
Here, this is to be noted: while one could have simply said *amunā* just like *adhunā*, stating "na mu ne" is for the sake of splitting the rule (yogavibhāga) into "na". Thereby forms like *rāmo rāmebhyaḥ* are established. Otherwise, because ru would be regarded as not having taken effect, how could the technical designation as marker and the elision of the u take place? Nor should it be said that by virtue of its enunciation as nasalized, it is not regarded as unaccomplished with respect to the technical name of marker and elision; for in *tarumūlam* and so forth, in order to exclude "haśi ca", the enunciation of it as nasalized in "ato roḥ" has its purpose fulfilled right there. Nor should it be said: let there be no nasalized character in "ato roḥ", since the purpose is achieved merely by taking the individually stated item; for even so, in *deva ruhī*, the verbal root *ruh* could not be prevented. Moreover, because the hearing of a nasalized ru in *rāmaḥ* and so forth would be entailed, its purpose is easily stated [otherwise]. And thus, when the rule treating a substitute like the original element also applies, the visarga is also obtained on account of pada status. The enunciations such as "pratyayaḥ" and "paraśca", and the inclusion of *aś* in the rule prescribing the replacement by y, are the inferential signs here: this is the general direction.