Praudhamanorama p135

p135

On "sasajuṣo ruḥ" (Pā. Sū. 8.2.66): the [word] "padasya", which is continued, is qualified by "sa" and "sajuṣ"; by virtue of a qualifier, an operation applies to that which ends therein. And in the part consisting of the word "sajuṣ", one should not suspect the prohibition: "There is no operation applying to that which ends therein by an explicitly mentioned nominal stem", because that [prohibition] pertains to the domain of rules enjoining an affix. Whatever inflected word ends in [the letter] "s" and ends in the word "sajuṣ", for that there is "ru"; and that replaces the final sound. Such being the case, he states the resultant meaning: "padāntasya" [i.e., 'of the end of an inflected word'], and "sajuṣśabdasya" [i.e., 'of the word sajuṣ']. The meaning is: of an inflected word ending therein; thereby there is no overextension to forms such as "sajuṣā". Nor should it be said that there is non-extension to the case of "sajūḥ" because of the prohibition "Treatment as if having designation does not apply to that which is not a nominal stem", since in the Śabdakaustubha on the rule "yena vidhiḥ" this [prohibition] was rejected; and also because Kaiyaṭa and Haradatta have stated on the rule "diva ut" that both metarules—"Treatment as if having designation does not apply to that which is not a nominal stem" and "There is no [operation applying to that which ends therein] by an explicitly mentioned [nominal stem]"—pertain only to the domain of rules enjoining an affix. And thus forms such as "paramasajūrbhyām" are also unproblematic. Such being the case, it should be noted that the statement of the older grammarians, namely that an operation applying to that which ends therein does not apply here by the word "sajuṣ", is merely superficial.