Praudhamanorama 60_311

60_311

[On the sūtra] “pratyayasthātkātpūrvasya” (Pā. Sū. 7.3.44): in “kāt”, the vowel a is for the sake of pronunciation; only the consonant alone is intended. But if the qualified [sound ka] were intended, it would not apply in the case of the affix akac in forms like etikāścaranti; with this intention he says: “kakārāt” (after the letter k). For the affix kāra is prescribed when referring to an individual sound. Its usage after an aggregate in some cases, however, is accomplished by specific effort in the form of an irregular mention, as in “uccaistarāṃ vā vaṣaṭkāraḥ”—such is the sense.
[On the phrase] “āpi pare” (when the affix āp follows): and this is a qualifier of the vowel a. There, by the force [of the rule], it applies even when there is an intervention by the letter k and the vowel a. But it does not apply when there is an intervention by three, four, or more sounds, as in rathakaṭyā. For this very reason, it does not apply to the initial vowel a in sarvikā, etc. This is what was stated: “the vowel a becomes the vowel i when āp follows.” If it were intended to be a qualifier of the letter k, he would have said “pūrvasyātaḥ āpparāt kakārāt” (of the vowel a preceding the letter k which is followed by āp).
As for what the older grammarians say—that “āpi” is a qualifier of the letter k, and in sarvikā, etc., even though there is intervention by the vowel a, [the operation] will take place by the force of the statement because the single substitute is treated like the original element—that is incorrect; because that would result in over-application to rathakaṭyā, etc., since being subsequent is not lost even for that which is separated. Nor is there escape through the metarule of immediate designation (nirdiṣṭaparibhāṣā), because metarules do not present themselves with respect to what is reiterated. For its meaning is: [it applies only] to qualifiers of what is being reiterated. And here, the mention of “sthāne” in the rule “udīcāmātaḥ” is an indicator. The result, however, is the establishment of śālīya, etc., because the ik-metarule does not present itself in the technical name vṛddha.
As for what they also say—that “āpi” is a qualifier of the prescribed vowel i—that is even cruder. But taking “āpi” as a qualifier of the base (aṅga) is not to be suspected at all, because it would over-apply in rathakaṭyā and putrakāmyā.