Praudhamanorama 71.1

71.1

[On P. 8.2.23] "elision of [the final of] what ends in a conjunct consonant": [On the phrase] 'of that which ends in it': the meaning is: by the metarule regarding the final sound. Although the rule concerning ending in that is obtained through qualification, so it would have been proper to formulate the rule merely as "of a conjunct consonant," nevertheless, on the view that the technical name 'conjunct consonant' applies to each individually, the inclusion of 'end' is for the sake of obtaining a compound ending in a dual, namely 'that whose ends are two conjunct consonants', in order to ward off elision in *dṛṣat karoti* and so forth. For in a compound-formation, the singular number of secondary members is default, while the dual and so forth are obtained through special effort: this is established in the Mahābhāṣya. The [prohibition of] a *yaṇ* is an explicit statement. Or, the statement is to be interpreted. And the interpretation is twofold: either the mention of *jhal* is drawn back from "a *jhal* before a *jhal*" (P. 8.2.26), so that elision is prescribed only for a *jhal*; or the external *yaṇ* is suspended when internal elision is to be performed. Nor should it be said that the metarule of suspension belonging to the sixth book does not see internal elision, which is suspended because it resides in the final three chapters; for the view that metarules apply at the time of operation has been accepted. Nor does the prohibition "there is no assumption of externality when vowels are immediately adjacent" [apply], because it is non-obligatory, and also because there is no immediate adjacency of vowels in an elision that takes effect at a later time. And likewise the vārttika: "prohibition of *yaṇ* in elision of that which ends in a conjunct consonant"; "or not, because elision is of *jhal*"; "or because of being an external characteristic." Here, on the view that rules apply at their place of enunciation, the first two vārttikas [belong], while the third belongs to the view that rules apply at the time of operation: such is the distinction. As for what some say: 'the explicit statement belongs to the Vārttikakāra, while the two modes of rejection belong to the Bhāṣyakāra'—that is groundless, since there is no authority for a difference of views. As for what they also say: 'one who recounts a poem (*kāvya*), a wife (*kalatra*), or the Śālva country is *kāv*, *kalat*, *śāl*; from *adabhrayati* [comes] *aghab*'—that too is incorrect, because elision of that which ends in a conjunct consonant is difficult to obtain on all three views. For the sake of uniformity in the first view, it is easy to state that elision of *a* and elision of *ṇi* are suspended, on the principle that each preceding one is internal and each subsequent one is external. Precisely for this reason, in the Kātantrapariśiṣṭa, *śukl* is cited as an example upon [adding] *kvip* to *śuklayati*, because when *kvip* is added to forms ending in *v*, [the augment] *ūṭh* cannot be avoided.