Praudhamanorama p180

p180

[On P. 7.3.119] 'āṅo nā'striyām': but 'puṃsi' ('in the masculine') was not stated, so that it might apply in [the neuter form] amunā kulena. Nor can the form be established by num, because since the substitution of m [for d by P. 8.2.80] is regarded as not having taken effect (asiddha), num by 'iko 'ci vibhaktau' (P. 7.1.73) cannot take effect. In the case of the substitute nā, however, there is no lack of effect (asiddhatva) because of the prohibition 'na mune' (P. 8.2.3). And one should not say that the prohibition 'na mune' applies only to num, because the 'e' in 'ne' is for the sake of pronunciation; for [then] the forms amuṣmai kulāya, etc., would undesirably fail to be established.
[On P. 7.3.119] 'acca gheḥ': with the intention that the three words 'idudbhyām' [P. 7.3.117], 'ṅe' [P. 7.3.111], and 'aut' [P. 7.3.118] continue, he explains: 'following idut…' etc. It was not stated as 'following a ghi', because in the rule 'gheḥ' ends in the genitive case. Moreover, there is no evidence for a single utterance serving multiple purposes (tantra) or repetition (āvṛtti), etc., and because it is improper to abandon the established connection 'to ṅi following idut' in the preceding rule 'aut'.
[On] 'aut syāt': here [commentators] have explained: the possession of t in 'aut' is for the purpose of the svarita accent; but the prohibition of the technical name it by 'na vibhaktau tusmāḥ' (P. 1.3.4) does not apply because [that prohibition] is non-obligatory; and that it is non-obligatory is obtained from the fact that [the suffix] thamu is made to have an indicatory u in 'idam asthamuḥ' (P. 5.3.24) to protect the m of thamu from having the technical name it—so it has been said right there. That is questionable. For since he himself stated in the rule 'na vibhaktau' that the t of 'aut' [replacing] ṅi is for the sake of pronunciation and not a marker (it), there is a contradiction between his earlier and later statements. And being for the sake of pronunciation is reasonable, not being for the purpose of svarita accent, because svarita accent is not observed in 'stīrṇe barhiṣi samidhāne agnau', etc.
As for the t-affixation in 'at', they say it is for the purpose that, once the substitution of a has been performed in buddhau, etc., ṭāp should not occur in the feminine. That too is questionable. For because of the mention with t, lengthening together with ṭāp would indeed not occur; but ṭāp itself would certainly occur, since there is no proof for barring two rules. That is why, in the Mahābhāṣya and Vārttika commentary on the rule 'kṛn mejantaḥ' (P. 1.1.39), it was stated that ṭāp does not occur by the metarule of non-destruction of the condition of operation (sannipātaparibhāṣā); for if there were an intervention by ṭāp, immediate adjacency would be disrupted. Therefore, it should be noted that, just as in aut, the t-affixation in at as well is solely for the sake of pronunciation.