Praudhamanorama 60_314

60_314

As for the analytical paraphrase formulated by the older grammarian: 'born in the southern direction'—that is not correct, because in the prescription of *tyak*, owing to association with indeclinables, only the word *dakṣiṇā* ending in *āc* is grasped; and otherwise, because of the rule "*sarvanāmno vṛttimātre*", treating [it] like a masculine form would result. As for the claim that treating like a masculine occurs only in a compound, that is not so, as will be explained. When *tyak* is attached, after *vṛddhi* by "*kiti ca*" etc., there is *ṭāp*, and then *ka* in the sense of unknown, etc. By "*ke'ṇaḥ*" there is shortening, then *ṭāp*.
On "*ihatyikā*": [Derived by] "*avyayātyap*" [P. 4.2.104].
On *na yāsayoḥ* (P. 7.3.45): Here the author of the Nyāsa says: when the option by "*udīcāmātaḥ sthāne*" applies to *yā*, this is a prohibition [of it]. That is not correct, because the part "*ātaḥ sthāne*" does not apply here.
With the intention that *yā* and *sā* are indirect indications of *yad* and *tad*, he says: "of *yad* and *tad*". When the own form is not intended to be expressed, he gives an example of the result: *yakām*, *takām*. Setting aside *yāsayoḥ*, it would be proper to say simply *yattadoḥ*.