[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Auxiliary Sciences of the Veda](https://indike.org/pramana/in.vedanga) › [Grammar](https://indike.org/pramana/in.vedanga.vyakarana) › [Topical rearrangements of Pāṇini](https://indike.org/pramana/in.vedanga.vyakarana.prakriya) › [Vaiyākaraṇasiddhāntakaumudī](https://indike.org/pramana/in.vedanga.vyakarana.prakriya.siddhantakaumudi) › [Prauḍhamanoramā](https://indike.org/pramana/in.vedanga.vyakarana.prakriya.siddhantakaumudi!praudhamanorama) › [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.vedanga.vyakarana.prakriya.siddhantakaumudi!praudhamanorama~en-mt) › p28 # Praudhamanorama p28 English (machine translation) p28 - **Language:** English ### [p28](https://indike.org/pramana/in.vedanga.vyakarana.prakriya.siddhantakaumudi!praudhamanorama~en-mt.p28) On the words "by the terms \*guṇa\* and \*vṛddhi\*": And this is obtained by continuing the words \*guṇa\* and \*vṛddhi\* from the preceding two rules with the construe: "those which are \*guṇa\* and \*vṛddhi\* \[as denoted by\] \*guṇaḥ\* and \*vṛddhiḥ\*". Therefore, it does not apply here: "diva aut" (Pā. sū. 7.1.84), \*dyauḥ\*; "tyadādīnāmaḥ" (Pā. sū. 7.2.102), \*saḥ\*, \*imam\*. On "ending in the genitive case": The intent is that because an item ending in the genitive is imitated in the rule, it denotes its own linguistic form, and so the case ending \*su\* is elided after a neuter. On "word": And that \[word \*ikaḥ\*\], when grammatical agreement is possible, is connected in the manner of "of a base ending in \*ik\*", etc. But in "miderguṇaḥ" (Pā. sū. 7.3.82), "mṛjervṛddhiḥ" (Pā. sū. 7.2.114), etc., since grammatical agreement is impossible, it is connected as "of an \*ik\* that is a part of \*mid-\* and \*mṛj-\*". As for what the older grammarian explained, namely that "they occur in place of \*ik\* alone", and what the commentator on his work said, namely that "this \[rule\] is for the sake of restriction when there is a contingency of non-restriction", etc.—all that is to be disregarded because it contradicts the Mahābhāṣya. For they say that the Mahābhāṣya refutes the view that it is an adjunct to that \[genitive ending\], and supports only the view that a word is present. However, the refutation of the objections even under the view that it is an adjunct to that \[genitive ending\] has been clarified by us in the \*Śabdakaustubha\*. midaco'ntyātparaḥ (Pā. sū. 1.1.47) - [Previous: p27](https://indike.org/pramana/in.vedanga.vyakarana.prakriya.siddhantakaumudi!praudhamanorama~en-mt.p27) - [Next: p29](https://indike.org/pramana/in.vedanga.vyakarana.prakriya.siddhantakaumudi!praudhamanorama~en-mt.p29) --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.vedanga.vyakarana.prakriya.siddhantakaumudi!praudhamanorama~en-mt.p28](https://indike.org/pramana/in.vedanga.vyakarana.prakriya.siddhantakaumudi!praudhamanorama~en-mt.p28) · Pramāṇa