Praudhamanorama p192

p192

"Of the word vṛścika": for the Bhāṣyakāra, resorting to a departure conceived in the mind, rejected the sūtra "bhītrārthānām..."; and consequently, when a mere relation is intended to be expressed, only the genitive occurs—this is the point. Even according to the view of the sūtra, he says: "connected with a scorpion".
"Elision of a and elision of ya": and one should not say that because it is subsequent, "verapṛktasya" would apply; for the Vārttikakāra has stated: 'Elision before a val consonant [takes place] instead of the elision of uncombined vi by virtue of prior conflict of rules'.
"luptam under kvi": the affix kta is used in the neuter expressing the action itself; it means "elision under kvi". All this should also be understood in kumārī from "kumārīm icchan".
"Because of non-otherness": and this should be understood because it has been stated that even in a secondary sense, the substitute anaṅ and the status of having an indicatory ṇ operate. "Even of a long vowel": the mention made with the yaṇ substitute is for this purpose—this is the point. If it is objected: Is not the mention with yaṇ made in order to exclude cases of guṇa, as in atisakheḥ and bhūpateḥ? Let it be so; even then, its application to a long vowel cannot be prevented. For there is no authority showing that it should take place with short vowels, but not with long vowels. Since the modified mention found in the sūtra prevents both under-application and over-application, thereby obtaining substantiality, it is indeed proper in that very manner, and also because it is established in the Mahābhāṣya. As for the older grammarian having said: "Some say it is optional", and then stated forms like sakhyuḥ; and as for his commentators having said that both views are established in the Mahābhāṣya; and as for the author of the Prasāda having cited, for support on this point—