Praudhamanorama p210

p210

On "priyatriḥ": On this they explain: since the feminine is the meaning of another word, the base in the form of a bahuvrīhi is present there, but the word tri itself is only in the masculine or neuter; therefore, the substitute tisṛ does not occur, and so forth.
On this, the following is to be stated: In [the view that a compound involves] abandonment of its own meaning (jahatsvārthā), the word tri is devoid of meaning. But in [the view that it involves] non-abandonment of its own meaning (ajahatsvārthā), it simply denotes the feminine. How then can its denoting the masculine or neuter be consistent? On this, here is the truth: The gloss (vṛtti) involving abandonment of its own meaning alone is intended here, in accordance with the target forms. Therefore, [the view that] the base (aṅga) denotes the feminine is entirely correct. But the word tri having masculine or neuter denotation is by taking recourse to what it was previously, since the established doctrine's pronouncement, 'A tatpuruṣa is predominant in the meaning of the subsequent member,' and so forth, is to be accounted for in this way alone. Likewise, in priyatasā pumān, its denoting the feminine is also solely by taking recourse to what it was previously. On the view of non-abandonment of its own meaning, however, the intended meaning is: of tri and catur which convey a number residing in a feminine entity. And the text passage of the Bhāṣya under the rule 'pratyayottarapadayośca' (Pā. Sū. 7.2.98) is authoritative evidence here.
Under 'anityatvāt' [because of non-obligatoriness]: And the mention of 'ac' [vowel] in 'iko'ci' is an indicative sign (liṅga) here. For that is made in order to avert num in the vocative, because, even though num would arise before [case endings beginning with] bhyām and so forth, its elision (lopa) would be possible. And the vocative ending is elided by luk; therefore, the application of num must be asserted by virtue of [the rule treating the stem as having] an affix-effect (pratyayalakṣaṇa). And an affix-effect is difficult to obtain without the non-obligatoriness of the prohibition 'na lumatāṅgasya' (Pā. Sū. 1.1.63), as is clear in the source texts. And one should not insist that this non-obligatoriness applies only to the guṇa of the vocative, since, in accordance with the target forms, there is no obstacle to accepting it elsewhere as well in certain cases. And likewise, both forms, priyatisṛ and priyatri, have indeed been defended by Kaiyaṭa in the manner stated.
Under 'pūrvavipratiṣedhena' [by conflict with an earlier rule]: Nor is there an absence of authority here, because the Bhāṣya's example itself, priyatisṛṇi and so forth, is the authority on that point.