Praudhamanorama p200

p200

and from the lexicon of Yādava: "varṣābhū is feminine in [the sense of] a female frog [and] hogweed (punarnavā); masculine in [the sense of] a male frog." There is a variant reading, ṣaṇi instead of dardure; ṣaṇ is the technical name of the older grammarians for the masculine.
[On] 'dṛbhati': dṛbhī in the sense of 'to string together' belongs to the tudādi class. [On] 'vyutpāditaḥ' (is derived): although Ujjvaladatta, reading dṛmphūḥ with the second consonant of the labial series [i.e. ph], explained that the absence of n-elision for dṛmph- is irregular, nevertheless in other glosses it is stated that after this [root] dṛbhī in the sense of 'to string together', with the affix ḍū, the augment num is irregular. And this is clear in Mādhava's work. In the Daśapādīvṛtti, however, it is stated that dṛmbhūḥ means 'stringing together', and the augment num and the anusvāra are irregular ready-made forms. This ū-kāra does not belong to a verbal root, so there is no occasion for uvaṅ; hence yaṇ applies by 'iko yaṇaci' (Pāṇini 6.1.77). And that [yaṇ] is barred by 'ami pūrvaḥ' (Pāṇini 6.1.107) and 'prathamayoḥ pūrvasavarṇaḥ' (Pāṇini 6.1.102); with this intention he gives the example: 'dṛmbhūm' and so on. Nor should one suspect yaṇ here by 'dṛnkara…', because only that which possesses meaning is taken there; whereas for this [word dṛmbhū], both the element dṛn and the element bhū are devoid of meaning; this is the purport. And thus the outcome is that this [word declines] like hūhū. According to the view of Śrīpati he says: 'dṛn'. But Mādhava says: by the rule 'andūdṛnbhū…' etc., when the word dṛḍha is the co-occurring word, the affix kū is used, and the substitute dṛn for the co-occurring word is irregular; thus he says: 'dṛnbhūḥ'. Some say it is a kind of tree, [others] a kind of snake; others say it is a monkey.
[On] 'dṛnkara…': here the reading ending in n, dṛn, is primary; the reading ending in m is also held by some. [On] 'vaktavyaḥ' (should be stated): in 'varṣābhvaśca', the ca-kāra is for including what is not stated; and what is not stated is to be determined by the force of the Mahābhāṣya and the vārttika; this is the purport. And accordingly, having explained the vārttika 'varṣābhūpunarbhvaśca', the Bhāṣyakāra says: 'This is stated too narrowly; one should say [yaṇ applies to] bhū preceded by varṣā, dṛn, kāra, [and] punar.' Vāmana, however, did not read the word dṛn at all. This being so, what was read by the older grammarian as dṛk-kāra, and what his grandson said: 'He restates the meaning of the Mahābhāṣyakāra's words', and what was introduced by others: 'He exemplifies the meaning supplemented by the vārttika'—all that is purely the result of haste. Nor should one be confused thinking that the reading in the Mahābhāṣya also is only dṛk; for then contradiction would follow with Mādhava's text—'andūdṛnbhū… is an irregular ready-made form'—and with the texts of Kaiyaṭa and others. Thus this is trivial.
[On] 'in the reading with a long vowel': and this is the reading approved by many works such as the Mahābhāṣya and the glosses. But in the Anusmṛti, a short vowel is read. As for what was said in its commentary—'Since that which is modified in one part is not different, [the rule] is established even for that which is preceded by kāra'—that is not correct; for even so, that which is qualified by the affix aṇ is different; surely the affix aṇ too is not a modification. Therefore, in the reading with the short vowel, only uvaṅ applies to that which is preceded by kāra; likewise in the reading with the long vowel, uvaṅ applies to that which is preceded by kara; this is the distinction.