Praudhamanorama p121

p121

On "the substitute *khyāñ*": For the substitute in the original enunciation begins with *khś* (*khśāñ*). In the section on unaccomplished rules (*asiddhaprakaraṇa*), after *ṇatva*, substitution of *y* for the *ś* of *khśāñ* is optionally enjoined. Therefore, *sauprakhya* is formed from *suprakhya*; situated therein is *sauprakhyīya*; because the substitution of *y* is unaccomplished, the suffix *vuñ* by *dhanvayopadhāt…* (Pā. Sū. 8.2.121) does not apply—such purposes are established in the source texts. And thus, since the substitution of *y* is unaccomplished, there is no state of being followed by *am*; therefore, the substitution of *ru* by *pumaḥ khayi* (Pā. Sū. 8.3.6) does not take place—this is the meaning.
On "*puṃkhyānam*": Suffix *lyuṭ* after *cakṣiṅ*. The substitute is *khyāñ*. Now, is not the substitute difficult to obtain here, due to the vārttikas: "Prohibition in the sense of exclusion" and "And before *as* and *an*"? If this is objected: True. It is to be resolved from the mention of *bahulam* in the vārttika: "*bahulam* after *taṅ* for the sake of *anna*, *vadhaka*, *gātra*, *vicakṣaṇa*, *ajira*, etc." And accordingly, the vārttika enumerating the purposes of beginning with *khś* states: the operation of *ru*—in *puṃkhyānam*; *ṇatva*—in *paryākhyānam*; and *-na* of the past participle (*niṣṭhānatva*)—in *ākhyātam*. Due to the intervention of the letter *ś*, *ṇatva* by *kṛtyacaḥ* (Pā. Sū. 8.4.29) does not apply; likewise in *ākhyātam*, the substitution of *na* by *saṃyogāderātaḥ…* (Pā. Sū. 8.2.43) does not apply, because, with the substitution of *y* being unaccomplished, there is no possession of a semivowel (*yaṇ*). And in this way, the mention of *khyā* should not be made in the rule *na dhyākhyā…* (Pā. Sū. 8.2.57)—such is the idea. Nor should it be said that it is for the sake of the root *khyā* in the sense of narrating (*prakathana*), because that applies exclusively to *sārvadhātuka* affixes. And here, the subsequent vārttika, "Homorganic status in *namaḥ khyātre*", is the authority. *Sasthāna* is the technical name of the older grammarians for the *jihvāmūlīya*. It does not apply here, because of the application of *śarpare visarjanīyaḥ* (Pā. Sū. 8.3.35)—such is the idea. If the independent root were also accepted before an *ārdhadhātuka* affix, then, because the *jihvāmūlīya* would be unavoidable, this vārttika would be inappropriate. As for what Haradatta, Mādhava, and others said—that the root *khyā* also begins with *khś* and the rule enjoining the substitution of *y* is common to both—that is questionable; for in the Mahābhāṣya the introduction concerns only *cakṣiṅ*, and it would lead to the undesirable consequence of using forms beginning with *khś* even in *sārvadhātuka* [forms]. Nor is this an acceptable consequence, because Mādhava has stated that this beginning with *khś* occurs only before *ārdhadhātuka* affixes; and because it is burdened with cumbrousness by having to resort to non-expression (*anabhidhāna*) alone in the case of *sārvadhātuka* forms. Let this rest for now.
This may be raised: In *bahu-pum khyāti* ("there are many men in this family, he is well known"), the substitution of *ru* would apply. In the list beginning with *uras*, because only the singular form of the word *pums* is recited, the suffix *kap* does not apply here. And before a *sārvadhātuka* affix, the usage of *khyāti* is certainly unimpeded—if this is objected: We accept this consequence. But when continuous recitation (*saṃhitā*) is not intended, the substitution of *ru* does not take place; this is quite clear. As for what was said by the older grammarian—"Some say: not before the root *khyā*"—if the meaning there is "when it is the substitute *khyāñ*", then saying "some" is inappropriate; and if it means "in the case of the independent root", then the prohibition would apply even in the domain of *sārvadhātuka* affixes. Nor is that an acceptable consequence, since it lacks any textual foundation.
[On] *cakrim̐strāyasva*: As for what the older grammarian stated as *trāhi*, the *parasmaipada* is incorrect there, because the root *trāy* has the marker *ṅ* (*ṅit*). Or it should be understood as an agentive form ending in *kvip* from *trāyate*—one who protects is *trāḥ*; in the sense of "he acts like him", a denominal suffix *kvip* expressing conduct (*ācārakvip*) is added.