Praudhamanorama 60_310

60_310

In truth, however, even under the yathoddeśa view, being unaccomplished is indeed useful; for the supplementary statement regarding that which is altered in one part is taught under the sthānivat-rule. Or it is explained that, by the force of the mention of “ādeśa” [in the rule], relying on the principle that “all [substitutes] are substitutes for the whole word,” even an inferred substitute is treated like the original element. In either case, that [sthānivadbhāva] does not apply in a rule concerning a single phoneme. And this is clear in the source texts.
[On the form] “bahuyajvānau”: on account of the prohibition “not after a conjunct” (na saṃyogāt), this does not undergo elision of the penultimate [vowel]; therefore, [the rule] “ana upadhālopinaḥ” does not apply.
[On the rule] “ṅābubhābhyām” (Pā. Sū. 4.1.13): Objection: By the very force of the statement of the prohibition and ḍāp, optional alternation is already established. [Reply:] True. The rule “anyatarasyām” is split. There, the word “manaḥ” ceases [to continue]. [The resulting split rule is:] After a bahuvrīhi ending in an, ḍāp may optionally apply. This is for the sake of obtaining optional alternation with ṅīp. But the rule “ana upadhālopinaḥ” is for the sake of restriction: that optionality which applies to [a stem ending in] an belongs only to one undergoing elision of the penultimate [vowel]. And thus, in forms such as suparvan, this serves to prohibit [ṅīp] in one not undergoing elision of the penultimate [vowel]. In forms such as bahurājñī, on the other hand, ṅīp is indeed by “ṛnnebhyaḥ”. Thereby, bahudhīvarī is established. For the r-substitute is prescribed in conjunction with ṅīp, reiterating the ṅīp [prescribed by] “ṛnnebhyaḥ”. If ṅīp were applied by a rule situated in a different section, it could not be established. Objection: Then let the rule “vano ra ca” itself prescribe both ṅīp and the r-substitute! Reply: No, because prescribing both would involve heaviness. Moreover, even so, if ṅīp were prohibited, the r-substitute also could not be obtained, since they are taught in conjunction. In the Mahābhāṣya, however, this is resolved by re-arranging the rules. As follows: immediately after “ano bahuvrīheḥ”, let there be the rule “upadhālopino vā”. Let the rule “ana upadhā…”, which is located elsewhere, and the mention of “anyatarasyām” in the ḍāp-rule, not be there at all.
[On the sūtra] “ana upadhā…” (Pā. Sū. 4.1.28): with the intention that the mention of bahuvrīhi continues from “bahuvrīherūdhaso ṅīṣ” and ṅīp continues from “saṃkhyāvyayāderṅīp”, he says: “annantāt…”, etc. It has been said that this rule is for the sake of restriction. Nor should it be said that, since the option is already established by the earlier [rule], the mention of “anyatarasyām” here is useless. For if that were absent, this would be an obligatory prescription, not a restriction.