Praudhamanorama p143

p143

'Means are soothing indulgences / for children who are being instructed.'
"Standing on an untrue path, one then seeks the true."
Otherwise, how could there be reduplication or the augment aṭ and so forth for [the verbal root] iṅ? And likewise, in the daily lesson on abbreviatory designations, under the section [beginning with] "arthavanto varṇāḥ", it is clearly stated in the Mahābhāṣya that in adhyeti and adhīte, the letter i is meaningful. In the same way, the affix kan too is indeed meaningful, because affixes occurring in the sense of the base itself are meaningful through the meaning of the base itself. If it is objected that this is a mere assumption, [we reply:] no, because an answer has already been given. If it is objected that this assumption is not accepted by the author of the treatise, [we reply:] no, because in the rule "dvitīyatṛtīyacaturthaturyāṇi..." the Bhāṣyakāra himself has stated that the affix aṇ, which occurs in the sense of the base after an ordinal, possesses the meaning of the ordinal. This is also indeed accepted by the Sūtrakāra, who makes the great technical name pratyaya. As for what [has been said concerning] "oṣadheśca..." and so forth, that too is not [correct]. Even if [the rule] is non-obligatory, the desired result is accomplished through its general application; and if it did not apply even in the intended cases, the maxim would end up having no scope at all; and if indicating non-obligatoriness were somehow necessary, the inclusion of the word arthavat itself could serve as that indicator; moreover, even if meant for a subsequent rule, the appropriateness of making it here is fruitful according to the maxim "iha kiñcitrapo"; and because in such [rules] as "oṣadheśca...", under this view, it is possible to reject the explicit mention of case ending and kāraka. This is the direction.
Why [is it said] "adhātuḥ"? [In] ahan, let there not be elision of n. Nor can it be argued that in the view of [operation at] the time of application (kāryakālapakṣa), there would be exclusion due to [its] ending in an affix, because the non-application of the said exclusion through an operation dependent on an affix is indicated by the prohibition "na ṅisambuddhyoḥ". Otherwise, how could there be elision of n in rājan and the like? Why [is it said] "apratyayaḥ"? [In] hariṣu, karoṣi: here, let it not apply to sup and sip.