Praudhamanorama p230

p230

[On] "mo no dhātoḥ" (8.2.64): [On the gloss] "at the end of a pada": As for 'jhali', even though it was continued by the older grammarian, nevertheless, because it is absent in the Kāśikā and elsewhere, and because it is useless, it is to be disregarded.
[On] "kimaḥ kaḥ" (7.2.103): Objection: let it simply be formulated as "imaḥ". It will be explained: "In place of tyad, etc., there should be a of im". And the word kim will be recited before dvi. Because of the prohibition "not of what is meaningless" and on the strength of the formulation, the rule "alo'ntyasya" (1.1.54) will not apply; so what is the purpose of the substitute ka? Anticipating this, he says: "even of that accompanied by akac". If there were substitution of a for the ti-portion, the form would be kakaḥ. And the meaning is that for the sake of "ku tuhoḥ" (7.4.86) and so on, kimaḥ must necessarily be stated.
If it is objected: in this case, since it is not an operation conditioned by [membership in] the gaṇa, would it not occur even when it is subordinate (upasarjana)? It is not so; because, by carrying over "tyadādīnām" and through change of inflection (vacanavipariṇāma), the explanation is: "of kim belonging to the tyad-class". And because, by the force of that continuation (anuvṛtti), the restriction "up to dvi" is abandoned in this rule.
[On the word] "general rule" (utsargaḥ): by this, the purport is that [the objection] "why [state] 'of the non-final' in the rule 'tadoḥ saḥ sau'?" and the bhāṣya text "he sa" and "bho acyuta bhavann acyuta" are not contradicted. As for the basis of the statement "it does not exist", it is simply the non-observation of abundant usage. As for what [some] say—