Praudhamanorama p217

p217

Under 'śi' (Pā. Sū. 1.1.41): 'śi' is a mention without case ending (avibhaktiko nirdeśaḥ). The formation of a major technical name (mahāsaṃjñā) is in deference to earlier teachers.
Under 'anyatamasya tu' [of anyatama, however]: And thus usages such as 'sāmānyādiṣvanyatamam' are simply erroneous; this is the idea.
Under 'soramādeśe' [when am is substituted for su]: As for what was said by the older grammarian—'Optionally jaras when am is substituted for su and am'—that contradicts the Bhāṣya. And thus, 'ajarasaṃ vartate' and 'he ajarasam' are simply ungrammatical forms (apaśabda). But the usage 'ajarasaṃ paśya' is correct. However, the older grammarian's statement, 'when the am-substitute has been made, jaras [occurs],' is itself incorrect, because jaras is logically prior as the subsequent rule, and because there is no authority for conflict with an earlier rule (pūrvavipratiṣedha).
[On] "sāntamahataḥ saṃyogasya" (Pāṇini 6.4.10): Explaining that "sānta" is a separate word whose genitive case ending has been elided and is in syntactic agreement with "saṃyogasya", he states: "sāntasaṃyogasya" [of a conjunct consonant ending in s]. [On] "upadhāyāḥ" [of the penultimate]: The mention of "upadhā" is an indicator of merely that which precedes, because its technical meaning is impossible here.