Praudhamanorama p185

p185

"sakhyurasaṃbuddhau" (Pāṇ. 7.1.92): Here, from "ito 'tsarvanāmasthāne" (Pāṇ. 7.1.86), "sarvanāmasthāne" continues. That is qualified by "asaṃbuddhau". From the rule "goto ṇit" (Pāṇ. 7.1.90), "ṇit" continues; because of coreferentiality with it, the locative is taken as nominative; hence he says: 'a sarvanāmasthāna excluding the vocative'. However, the rule would properly be simply "sakhyurasaṃbuddhiḥ".
"khyātyātparasya" (Pāṇ. 6.1.108): 'khya' is the citation of the words 'khi' and 'khī' with the substitute yaṇ applied. Similarly, 'tya' is the citation of the words 'ti' and 'tī'. In both cases, the vowel 'a' is for the sake of pronunciation, and this is not a citation of a portion of the primary words 'apatya', etc. This is because of the explicit formulations "sakhyuryaḥ", "patyurnaḥ", "saṃkhyāyāḥ saṃvatsarasaṃkhyasya ca", "āpatyasya ca taddhite", etc. Intending this, he says: 'after the words khi and ti', etc. The mention of 'parasya' (following) is for the purpose of blocking the governing rule "ekaḥ pūrvaparayoḥ" (Pāṇ. 6.1.84).
"aut" (Pāṇ. 7.3.118): And this is set aside with respect to stems bearing the technical name nadī by the preceding rule "idudbhyām" (Pāṇ. 7.3.117), and with respect to stems bearing the technical name ghi by the subsequent rule "acca gheḥ" (Pāṇ. 7.3.119). Therefore, its domain is that which is devoid of both technical names. And there is no such stem ending in the vowel u; therefore he says: 'ending in the vowel u' [to qualify its limitation]. As for what was said by the older grammarian, namely 'following stems ending in i and u that are devoid of the technical names ghi and nadī'—that is incorrect, because such a stem ending in u is uninstantiated.
[On the word] 'samudāyasya' ("of the aggregate"): And one should not suspect that even in an exclusion (paryudāsa), the word 'sakhi', which conveys the item being excluded, denotes [any form] ending in itself, because no qualified head word is present nearby. Moreover, what Haradatta has adduced here, [beginning with] "grahaṇavatā...", and what Kaiyaṭa [has adduced] under the rule 'khyatyāt' (Pā. sū. 6.1.108), that is incorrect, because that [maxim] applies only to rules prescribing an affix. [On the phrase] 'gauṇatve'pi' ("even when [the word is] subordinate in meaning"): The idea is that it is just like the [substitute] anaṅ for asthi, etc. And likewise under the rule 'yena vidhiḥ' (Pā. sū. 1.1.72), Kaiyaṭa [says]: "paramasakhāyau is a bahuvrīhi; for if it were a tatpuruṣa, the compound-final suffix ṭac would have to occur." Likewise under the rule 'dvitīyā śrita--' (Pā. sū. 2.1.24), having taken the word somasakhā as the headword, Kaiyaṭa [says] that because it is a bahuvrīhi, there is no compound-final suffix. Under the rules 'midaco'ntyāt' (Pā. sū. 1.1.47), 'tṛjvatkroṣṭuḥ' (Pā. sū. 7.1.95), and 'striyāṃ ca' (Pā. sū. 7.1.96), in the Bhāṣya and Kaiyaṭa, and in Mādhava's work under the verbal root khyā, this is clear. Usages such as 'anudyukṣo varuṇa indrasakhā', 'āgneyā hi marutsakhā', and 'tīvraṃ somaṃ pibati gosakhāyam' are consistent only in this way; for there, subordination is evident through the appearance of the original accent of the prior member, which is conditioned by the bahuvrīhi compound. By this, Haradatta and the author of the Nyāsa, who give the example 'susakhiḥ' for 'śobhanaḥ sakhā yasya' under the rule on the technical name ghi, and others who follow them, are to be disregarded.