[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Auxiliary Sciences of the Veda](https://indike.org/pramana/in.vedanga) › [Grammar](https://indike.org/pramana/in.vedanga.vyakarana) › [Topical rearrangements of Pāṇini](https://indike.org/pramana/in.vedanga.vyakarana.prakriya) › [Vaiyākaraṇasiddhāntakaumudī](https://indike.org/pramana/in.vedanga.vyakarana.prakriya.siddhantakaumudi) › [Prauḍhamanoramā](https://indike.org/pramana/in.vedanga.vyakarana.prakriya.siddhantakaumudi!praudhamanorama) › [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.vedanga.vyakarana.prakriya.siddhantakaumudi!praudhamanorama~en-mt) › p155 # Praudhamanorama p155 English (machine translation) p155 - **Language:** English ### [p155](https://indike.org/pramana/in.vedanga.vyakarana.prakriya.siddhantakaumudi!praudhamanorama~en-mt.p155) ato bhisa ais (Pā. Sū. 7.1.9). \[Objection:\] Why not just let it be es? Nor can there be the undesirable consequence of single replacement by the following vowel (pararūpa) by "ato guṇe" (Pā. Sū. 6.1.97), because then the enunciation of the letter e would be futile; for otherwise he would simply have prescribed is. If this is said? \[Reply:\] True; because there is no difference in being two morae between e and ai, and thus no heaviness, ais was made. And so there is no suspicion of pararūpa at all, which is a great simplification. As for what they say—that the making of ais is for the sake of hearing the diphthong ai in nirjarasaiḥ—that contradicts the Mahābhāṣya. For it is established as the final view in the Mahābhāṣya that by the metarule regarding proximate contact (sannipātaparibhāṣā), the substitute jaras does not apply, and the form is indeed nirjaraiḥ. nāmi (Pā. Sū. 6.4.3). \[Regarding the statement\] "because of conflict with the metarule": and this is clear in the Bhāṣya and Kaiyaṭa under the rule "rudhādibhyaḥ śnam" (Pā. Sū. 3.1.78) and under the rule "śnānnalopaḥ" (Pā. Sū. 6.4.23). \[Regarding the statement\] "on the strength of its formulation": "supi ca" (Pā. Sū. 7.3.102), however, has no such strength, the idea being that it has scope in examples like rāmābhyām. And so, what they said—that the citation of "nāmi" under the word rāma was due to a scribe's error—is questionable. - [Previous: p154](https://indike.org/pramana/in.vedanga.vyakarana.prakriya.siddhantakaumudi!praudhamanorama~en-mt.p154) - [Next: p156](https://indike.org/pramana/in.vedanga.vyakarana.prakriya.siddhantakaumudi!praudhamanorama~en-mt.p156) --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.vedanga.vyakarana.prakriya.siddhantakaumudi!praudhamanorama~en-mt.p155](https://indike.org/pramana/in.vedanga.vyakarana.prakriya.siddhantakaumudi!praudhamanorama~en-mt.p155) · Pramāṇa