Praudhamanorama 60_348

60_348

[On] 'in the case of brāhmaṇī': and thus, the older grammarian's giving it as an example of ṅīṣ is an error—such is the intention.
[On] 'kurūḥ': nominal endings such as *su* apply because it is a nominal stem by the metarule regarding that which is qualified by gender. But the older grammarian cited the rule "antādivacca" and said that *su* and the like occur due to its being treated like the initial element. Here, this is to be said: being treated like the initial element is prescribed with respect to the following [element]. And so here, only the prohibition "apratyayaḥ" would apply, not *su* and the like.
As for what they explained: '"ādi" means what is prior with respect to *ūṅ*, the nominal stem; because it is treated like that, that is to say, because it is taken as its part, it is treated like the prior end'—that too is strained, and conflicts with their own and others' texts. For according to the manner stated, even in *kāṇḍe*, *kuḍye*, etc., *su* would apply by the maxim "the singular is by default". And if to avoid that one admits the absolute negation "apratyayaḥ", there is a defect in the present case. Also because in *śvaśrūḥ*, in the absence of a single substitute, the metarule regarding that which is qualified by gender is necessary. As for the claim that there *su* and the like apply from the explicit mention in "śvaśuraḥ śvaśrvā"—that is not so, because the explicit mention is intended to refer to the verbal form itself, as in "viparābhyāṃ jeḥ" and "ṅeryaḥ".
[On] 'śvaśurasya': when ṅīṣ conditioned by connection with a male is applicable, ūṅ [is prescribed]. And elision, being prescribed in conjunction with that, belongs only to the final *a* on account of proximity, not to the first. And this statement is intended to explain an established sense from the explicit mention "śvaśuraḥ śvaśrvā". For this reason also, elision of the first *a* is not to be suspected.