Praudhamanorama 60_324

60_324

As for what is cited in the Kāśikā as *svakā*, *svikā*, that concerns a proper name, not a kinsman.
And as for the defense they offered that "affixes with pleonastic meaning sometimes transcend the gender and number of the base", that too is questionable; for even if *ṭāp* is possible after that which ends in the affix *ka* in the manner described, the part "in place of *ā*" is difficult to justify, since the base is not feminine in gender.
Having stated the counter-examples, he states the examples: "*nirbhastrikā*", etc. Gone out of a bellows is *nirbhastrā*. There is shortening of a subordinate member, *ṭāp*, and then *ka* in the sense of unknown, etc.
On "having undergone substitution of *ṣ*": The explicit mention of a modified form in the rule has the intended domain as its scope, and is not an indirect indication like "*na yāsayoḥ*"; such is the purport.