Prakaraṇa 10 · SK 309–323

अजन्तनपुंसकलिङ्गप्रकरणम्

ajantanapuṃsakaliṅgaprakaraṇam · 15 sūtras

SK 309 · A 7.1.24V

अतोऽम् ॥ ३०९ ॥

ato'm

ato'm — 7.1.24. After an aṅga ending in short a, am is the substitute for su and am (the nominative and accusative singular of the neuter).

Rule. After a neuter aṅga ending in short a, the endings su and am are both replaced by am. This is an apavāda (an exception) to SK 319: where SK 319 would delete the ending, SK 309 keeps an am instead. Replacing am by am is not idle; it is exactly what saves the accusative ending from luk.

Example.

jñāna + su → su → am → jñāna + am

jñāna + am → a + a → the single vowel a by ami pūrvaḥ (SK 194; the pūrvarūpa, "the shape of the former vowel") → jñānam (nominative singular).

jñāna + am (accusative) → the same steps → jñānam (accusative singular).

Vocative singular: he jñāna + su → su → am → pūrvarūpa → he jñānam → by eṅ hrasvāt (SK 193) the consonant of the vocative ending is dropped → he jñāna.

Applies when / blocked by. Only after a stem in short a. "After" is read by tadanta-vidhi: "after a" means "after a stem ending in a", because the heading aṅgasya is here turned into an ablative and qualified by ataḥ.

Watch out. Why is the substitute am and not just m? Bhaṭṭoji's commentators explain: if a bare m replaced su, that m would count as a consonant-initial case-ending, and supi ca (A 7.3.102) would wrongly lengthen the stem to jñānām. So the substitute is the full syllable am, which then merges with the stem-final a by pūrvarūpa. In the vocative, what eṅ hrasvāt removes is only the m left over after pūrvarūpa; scholars discuss exactly how that residue still counts as the vocative ending.

Siddhānta-kaumudī

अतोऽङ्गात् क्लीबात्स्वमोरम् स्यात् । अमि पूर्वः SK 194 । ज्ञानम् । एङ्ह्रस्वात् SK 193 इति हल्मात्रलोपः । हे ज्ञान ॥

After an a-ending (ataḥ) aṅga that is neuter (klība), am is substituted for su and am (svamoḥ — the nominative and accusative singular). By "ami pūrvaḥ" (SK 194) there is pūrvarūpa (the single substitute in the shape of the preceding vowel): jñānam. By "eṅ hrasvāt [saṃbuddheḥ]" (SK 193) there is elision of the consonant alone (hal-mātra-lopa): he jñāna (vocative singular).

Tattvabodhinī

alignment inferredNSP p. 85

—हल्मात्रेति । हे ज्ञान सु इति स्थिते संबुद्धिलोपात्परत्वादमादेशे कृते अमि पूर्वत्वे च तस्यान्तवद्भावाद्भस्वान्तमङ्गं न भवतीति ततः परस्य संबुद्धिसंबन्धिनो मकारस्य लोप इत्यर्थः

Bālamanoramā

अतोऽम् - ज्ञानशब्दात्सुःस्वमोर्नपुंसका॑दिति तस्य लुकि प्राप्ते — अतोऽम् । 'अत' इति पञ्चमी ।अङ्गस्ये॑त्यधिकृतं पञ्चम्या विपरिणम्यते, 'अत' इत्यनेन विशेष्यते । तेन तदन्तविधिः ।स्वमोर्नपुंसका॑दित्यनुवर्तते । तदाह — अतोऽङ्गादिति । अदन्तादङ्गादित्यर्थः । ज्ञानमिति । सोरमि कृते अमि पूर्वरूपमिति भावः । अमोऽम्विधानं तुस्वमोर्नपुंसका॑दिति लुङ्निवृत्त्यर्थम् । ननु 'अतो-म्' इत्येवच्छेदोऽस्तु । सोर्मकारादेशे ज्ञानमिति सिद्धेः । अमि चआदेः परस्ये॑त्यकारस्य मकारेऽन्त्यस्य मकारस्य संयोगान्तलोपेनैव ज्ञानमिति सिद्धेरिति चेत्, मैवम्-एवं सति ज्ञानमित्यत्रसुपि चे॑ति दीर्घापत्तेः । न च अदन्तसंनिपातमाश्रित्य प्रवृत्तस्य मादेशस्य तद्विघातकदीर्घनिमित्तत्वं न संभवति, संनिपातपरिभाषाविरोधादिति वाच्यं,सुपि चे॑ति दीर्घे कर्तव्ये संनिपातपरिभाषाया अप्रवृत्तेरित्युक्तत्वादित्यलम् ।हे ज्ञानेति । हे ज्ञानस् इति स्थिते सोरमि कृते पूर्वरूपेएङ्ह्रस्वा॑दिति मकारलोपे हे ज्ञानेति रूपम् । नन्वेङ्ह्रस्वादित्यत्र संबुद्ध्याक्षिप्तस्य संबुद्धयैवान्वय उचितः, ततश्च एङन्ताध्यस्वान्ताच्चाङ्गात् परा या संबुद्धिस्तदवयवस्य हलो लोप इति लभ्यते । ततश्च प्रकृते पूर्वरूपे कृते तस्य पूर्वान्तत्वाश्रयणे ज्ञानेत्यदन्तमङ्गम् । ततः परा संबुद्धिर्नास्ति, मकारमात्रस्याऽसंबुद्धित्वात्, सुस्थानिकस्याम एव संबुद्धित्वात्, अद्र्धविकारेण एकदेशविकृतन्यायानवताराच्च । न च पूर्वरूपात्प्राक्एङ्ह्रस्वा॑दित्यस्य प्रवृत्तिः किं न स्यादिति वाच्यं, परत्वात्पूर्वरूपस्यैव पूर्वं प्रवृत्तेः । न च पूर्वान्तत्वात्पूर्वरूपस्याऽङ्गन्तर्भावाज्ज्ञानेत्यदन्तमङ्गम्, परादित्वाच्च अम् इत्यस्य संबुद्धित्वं चेत्याश्रित्य तदवयवहलो मकारमात्रस्यएङ्ह्रस्वा॑दिति लोपो निर्बाध इति वाच्यम्,उभयत आश्रयणे नान्तादिव॑दिति निषेधादित्यत आह — एङ्ह्रस्वादिति हल्मात्रलोप इति । पूर्वरूपे कृते संबुद्धेर्मकारमात्रं यत् परिशिष्टं तस्यएङ्ह्रस्वा॑दिति लोप इत्यर्थः । लक्ष्यानुरोधात्संबुद्ध्याक्षिप्तमङ्गं संबुद्धौ नान्वेति, किंतु संब#उद्ध्यवयवहल्येवान्वेति । ततश्च एङन्ताद्ध्रस्वान्ताच्चाङ्गात्परो यः संबुद्ध्यवयवहल् तस्य लोप इति लभ्यते । प्रकृते च पूर्वरूपे कृतेऽपि ह्रस्वान्तादङ्गात्परत्वं संबुद्ध्यवयवस्य मकारमात्रस्य अस्त्येवेति तस्यएह्ह्रस्वा॑दिति लोपो निर्बाध इत्यन्यत्र विस्तरः ।

ato'm — After the word jñāna there is su; and when the luk-elision of that [su] by "svamor napuṃsakāt" [7.1.23] is obtained, [the present rule] "ato'm" [applies]. "ata" is in the ablative (pañcamī). The governing (adhikṛta) "aṅgasya" [6.4.1, standing in the genitive] is transformed into the ablative and is qualified by "ata"; thereby there is a tadanta-vidhi (the rule applies to what ends in a). "svamor napuṃsakāt" [7.1.23] is carried forward (anuvṛtti). He states this by "ato'ṅgāt": the meaning is "from an a-ending (adanta) aṅga." "jñānam" — when am is substituted for su, by "ami [pūrvaḥ]" there is pūrvarūpa; this is the point. But the prescription of am for the am (accusative) affix is for the purpose of nullifying the luk [that "svamor napuṃsakāt" would otherwise cause].

Objection: Let the division [of the sūtra] be simply "ato m" [taking m, not am, as the substitute]; for with m-kāra as the substitute for su, "jñānam" is established; and in the am (accusative), by "ādeḥ parasya" [1.1.54] the m substitutes the initial a-kāra of the affix, and then by saṃyogānta-lopa of the final m-kāra "jñānam" is likewise established. Response: Not so. For if it were so, in "jñānam" the undesired long vowel (dīrgha) would arise by "supi ca" [7.3.102, since the mere consonant m is a sup beginning with yañ]. And it should not be argued: "The m-substitute, which operates in dependence on the collocation (saṃnipāta) of the a-ending [aṅga], cannot become the cause (nimitta) of the long vowel that destroys that very collocation, because this conflicts with the saṃnipāta-paribhāṣā [nimittam atadvighātakam]" — because it has [already] been stated that, when the dīrgha by "supi ca" is to be effected, the saṃnipāta-paribhāṣā does not operate. Enough of this.

"he jñāna" — When "he jñāna-s" stands, once am is substituted for su and pūrvarūpa is done, by "eṅ hrasvāt" there is elision of the m-kāra; the form is "he jñāna." Objection: In "eṅ hrasvāt [saṃbuddheḥ]" it is proper that the [aṅga] implied by "saṃbuddhi" construe precisely with the saṃbuddhi; and thus what is obtained is "elision of the hal that is a member of the saṃbuddhi which follows an aṅga ending in eṅ or in a short vowel (hrasva)." And thus, in the present case, once pūrvarūpa is done — if that pūrvarūpa be taken as belonging to the end of the preceding (pūrvānta) — then "jñāna" is an a-ending aṅga, and there is no saṃbuddhi following it; for the mere m-kāra is not the saṃbuddhi (the saṃbuddhi being properly the "am" that stands in place of su), and because the maxim "ekadeśavikṛtam ananyavat" (a thing altered in one part is treated as not other) does not apply to a half-alteration. Nor should it be argued, "Why should not 'eṅ hrasvāt' operate before pūrvarūpa?" — because by paratva pūrvarūpa alone operates first. Nor should it be argued: "Since pūrvarūpa, being the end of the preceding, is included in the aṅga, 'jñāna' is an a-ending aṅga; and since 'am' is the initial-following (parādi), it is the saṃbuddhi — depending on both these, the elision by 'eṅ hrasvāt' of the hal-member of it, i.e. of the mere m-kāra, is unobstructed" — because such a double dependence is prohibited by "nāntādivat" [one and the same element cannot be treated as belonging both to the end of the preceding and to the beginning of the following]. Hence he says "eṅ hrasvāt: there is elision of just the consonant (hal-mātra-lopa)." The meaning is: once pūrvarūpa is done, the elision by "eṅ hrasvāt" is of the mere m-kāra that remains as the residue of the saṃbuddhi. In accordance with attested usage (lakṣya), the aṅga implied by "saṃbuddhi" does not construe with the saṃbuddhi [as a whole], but rather construes precisely with the hal that is a member of the saṃbuddhi. And thus what is obtained is "elision of the hal-member of the saṃbuddhi that follows an aṅga ending in eṅ or in a short vowel." And in the present case, even after pūrvarūpa is done, the mere m-kāra, being a member of the saṃbuddhi, does indeed follow an aṅga ending in a short vowel; hence its elision by "eṅ hrasvāt" is unobstructed. The full treatment is elsewhere.

SK 310 · A 7.1.19V

नपुंसकाच्च ॥ ३१० ॥

napuṃsakācca

napuṃsakāc ca — 7.1.19. And after a neuter (napuṃsaka) [stem, the auṄ becomes śī]. The substituend auṄ and the substitute śī are both carried forward by anuvṛtti; 'ca' extends the operation of the preceding rule to neuters.

Rule. After a neuter stem too, the ending auṄ is replaced by śī. Both words, auṄ (the sthānin) and śī (the substitute), are carried in by anuvṛtti from the preceding rules; the ca "also" extends to neuters the replacement that the feminine ā-stems already have. auṄ is the grammar's name for the au-ending of the nominative and accusative dual.

Example.

jñāna + auṄ → auṄ → śī; the markers Ṅ and ś are dropped → jñāna + ī.

The stem is now a bha: ī is a vowel-initial ending and not a sarvanāmasthāna. What happens next is decided by SK 311.

Siddhānta-kaumudī

क्लीबात्परस्यौङः शी स्यात् । भसंज्ञायाम् ॥

After a neuter (klība), śī is the substitute for the auṄ. [The stem is thereby] in the bha-saṃjñā [designation].

Tattvabodhinī

NSP p. 85

—नपुंसकाच्च । ‘जसः शी’ ‘औङ आपः’ इत्यतः शी औङ इति चानुवर्तत इत्यभिप्रेत्याह—क्लीवात्परस्येत्यादिना ॥—भसंज्ञायामिति । ‘सुङनपुंसकस्य’ इति पर्युदासेनासर्वनामस्थानत्वादौ किं ‘यचि भम्’ इति प्रवर्तत इति भावः

Bālamanoramā

नपुंसकाच्च - नपुंसकाच्च । 'जसः सी' त्यत्रःशी॑ति 'औङ आपः' इत्यतःऔङि॑ति चानुवर्तते, तदाह — क्लीबादिति । ओङित्यौकारविभक्तेः संज्ञेत्युक्तम् । ज्ञानं ई इति स्थिते ।

napuṃsakāc ca — "napuṃsakāc ca." From "jasaḥ śī" the word "śī," and from "auṅ āpaḥ" (A 7.1.18) the word "auṄ," are carried forward by anuvṛtti (anuvartate); this [Bhaṭṭoji] states with "klībāt…" [after a neuter]. It has been said [previously] that "auṄ" is the designation (saṃjñā) of the au-ending case-affix (aukāra-vibhakti) [i.e. the nom./acc. dual]. When [the form] "jñāna + ī" stands [after śī (= ī) has replaced the auṄ of the neuter jñāna]…

translator notes

translator k1 "bhasaṃjñāyām" is read as a supplementary remark: since śī (= ī) is a vowel-initial affix and not a sarvanāmasthāna, the preceding aṅga takes the bha-saṃjñā by "yaci bham" (A 1.4.18). b1 breaks off at "jñāna ī iti sthite," the input state for the following operation (a + ī → e by ād guṇaḥ, yielding jñāne); the apodosis is completed in the next unit and is not supplied here.
textual In b1 the digital source reads the anuvṛtti citation as "'jasaḥ sī'ty atra 'śī'ti"; the intended substitute is śī (the neuter dual substitute), read per context. The clause "auṄ iti aukāra-vibhakteḥ saṃjñā ity uktam" is rendered as transmitted.

SK 311 · A 6.4.148V

यस्येति च ॥ ३११ ॥

yasyeti ca

yasyeti ca — 6.4.148. Of a bha [aṅga], an i-varṇa or an a-varṇa [final] is elided when ī-kāra or a taddhita follows.

Rule. The final i-vowel or a-vowel of a bha stem is deleted when an ī or a taddhita affix (a secondary affix that forms a noun from a noun) follows. The word ya in the sūtra is a compound of i and a; bhasya "of a bha" is the governing heading (adhikāra); taddhite is carried in by anuvṛtti. Read in the present derivation, this rule threatens to delete the a of jñāna before ī.

Example.

jñāna + ī → SK 311 would delete the final a of the bha stem → (blocked; see below)

Vārttika: "a prohibition should be stated before the śī that replaces auṅ". So the a stays.

jñāna + ī → a + ī → e by ād guṇaḥ (A 6.1.87) → jñāne (nominative and accusative dual).

Applies when / blocked by. The deletion is blocked by the vārttika auṅaḥ śyāṃ pratiṣedhaḥ whenever the ī is the śī substituted for auṅ. Bhaṭṭoji's commentators note that the vārttika is worded in the feminine (śyām), showing that the ending śī is treated as invariably feminine; scholars discuss whether the word auṅ in it is strictly needed.

Siddhānta-kaumudī

भस्येवर्णाऽवर्णयोर्लोपः स्यादीकारे तद्धिते च परे । इत्यकारलोपे प्राप्ते ॥

Of a bha [aṅga], the i-varṇa or a-varṇa [final] undergoes elision when ī-kāra or a taddhita follows. — Thus, when the elision of the a-kāra is [about to be] obtained...

vārttika

औङः श्यां प्रतिषेधो वाच्यः

(vārttika) A prohibition [of this yasyeti-ca elision] should be stated with respect to the śī-substitute of auṅ.

(वार्तिकम्) ॥ ज्ञाने ॥

(Concluding the vārttika.) [Illustration:] jñāne.

Tattvabodhinī

NSP p. 85

—यस्येति—। इक्ष्व अक्ष्व यं तस्य यस्य । तदाह—इवर्णावर्णयोरिति । इति चेति चकारेण ‘नस्तद्धिते’ इत्यतस्तद्धितोऽनुकृष्यते तदाह—ईकारे तद्धिते चेति ॥—औङः श्यामिति । विभक्त्यपेक्षया ल्लीलिङ्गनिर्देशः । नेदं वचनं कर्तव्यम् । ‘विभाषा ङिश्योः’ इत्यतः श्यामिति प्रकृतं, ‘न संयोगात्’ इत्यतो नेति च, तत्रापि संबन्धमात्रं कर्तव्यं यस्य ईकारे तद्धिते च लोपो भवति श्यामे नेत्याकरः

Bālamanoramā

यस्येति च - यस्येति च । यस्य-ईतीति छेदः । इश्च अश्चतयोः समाहारो यं, तस्य [यस्य]=इवर्णस्य अवर्णस्य चेत्यर्थः ।भस्ये॑त्यधिकृतम् । 'नस्तद्धिते' इत्यतस्तद्धिते इत्यनुवर्तते । तदाह — भस्येत्यादिना । इत्यकारलोपे प्राप्ते इति ।सुडनपुंसकस्ये॑ति पर्युदासेन शीभावस्याऽसर्वनामस्थानतया तस्मिन्परतो भत्वादिति भावः ।औङ श्यामिति । औङो यः श्यादेशस्तस्मिन् परतोयस्येति चे॑ति लोपस्य प्रतिषेधो वक्तव्य इत्यर्थः । श्यामिति निर्देशादेव नित्यस्त्रीत्वं बोध्यम् । 'औङ्' इति तु व्यर्थमेव । 'सर्वे' इत्यादौजसः शी॑त्यस्य भादिकारेणैव व्यावृत्तिसिद्धेः । ज्ञाने इति । ज्ञान ई इति स्थिते आद्गुण इति भावः ।

yasyeti ca — "yasyeti ca": the word-division is "yasya-īti." "ya" is the samāhāra[-compound] of "i" and "a"; of that "ya" — i.e. of an i-varṇa and of an a-varṇa — that is the meaning. "bhasya" [A 6.4.129] is the governing term (adhikāra). From "nas taddhite" [A 6.4.144] "taddhite" is carried forward by anuvṛtti. That [Bhaṭṭoji] states by "bhasya..." etc.

ityakāralope prāpte ("thus, when elision of the a-kāra is obtained") — because, the śī-substitution being non-sarvanāmasthāna owing to the paryudāsa "suḍ anapuṃsakasya" [A 1.1.43], the [stem] has bha-status when that [śī] follows — that is the idea.

auṅaḥ śyām — meaning: when the śī-substitute (śyādeśa) of auṅ follows, the elision by "yasyeti ca" should be prohibited. From the very mention "śyām" (feminine), the [substitute's] invariable feminine gender is to be understood. But "auṅ" [in the vārttika] is quite pointless (vyartha), because in "sarve" etc. the exclusion (vyāvṛtti) of "jasaḥ śī" [A 7.1.17] is [already] accomplished by the "bha-ādi" mention itself [i.e. through the i-kāra of the stem]. jñāne — when jñāna-ī stands, [the e results] by ādguṇa [A 6.1.87] — that is the idea.

SK 312 · A 7.1.20V

जश्शसोः शिः ॥ ३१२ ॥

jaśśasoḥ śiḥ

jaśśasoḥ śiḥ — 7.1.20. Of the jas (nom. pl.) and the śas (acc. pl.), śi is the substitute [after a neuter]. 'klībāt' (after a neuter) is carried forward by anuvṛtti; śi (short i) is designated sarvanāmasthāna by the following sūtra 1.1.42.

Rule. After a neuter stem, the endings jas (nominative plural) and śas (accusative plural) are both replaced by śi. The marker ś is dropped; what remains is the short vowel i. The word klībāt "after a neuter" is carried in by anuvṛtti.

Example.

jñāna + jas → jas → śi → jñāna + i.

jñāna + śas → śas → śi → jñāna + i.

What the stem now does before this i depends on the next two rules.

Siddhānta-kaumudī

क्लीबादनयोः शिः स्यात् ॥

After a neuter (klība), śi is the substitute for these two [the jas and the śas].

Tattvabodhinī

NSP p. 85

—जश्शसोः—। जसा साहचर्यादिह सुवेव शस् गृह्यते । तेनेह न । कुण्डशो ददाति

Bālamanoramā

जस्शसोः शिः - बहुवचनस्य वस्नसौ । उक्तविधयोरिति । षष्ठआदिविशिष्टयोर्युष्मदस्मदोरित्यर्थः ।

jaśśasoḥ śiḥ — "bahuvacane vasnasau" [for the plural, vas and nas (are the substitutes)]. "uktavidhayoḥ" [means]: — that is to say, of yuṣmad and asmad [when they are] qualified by [being in] the genitive (ṣaṣṭhī) and so on (ṣaṣṭhy-ādi-viśiṣṭayoḥ).

translator notes

textual The Bālamanoramā block b1 is misaligned in the digital source: its pratīka header reads "jaśśasoḥ śiḥ" (matching this sūtra, A 7.1.20), but its body ("bahuvacane vasnasau… ṣaṣṭhy-ādi-viśiṣṭayor yuṣmad-asmadoḥ") comments on a different rule — "bahuvacane vasnasau" (A 8.1.23), on the substitutes vas/nas for yuṣmad and asmad in the plural of the genitive etc. The transmitted text is translated as given; it is not emended, and no genuine gloss of jaśśasoḥ śiḥ is present in the source block.
textual Source spelling "ṣaṣṭhā-di" (षष्ठआदि) read as ṣaṣṭhy-ādi per context.

SK 313 · A 1.1.42सर्वनामस्थानसंज्ञा

शि सर्वनामस्थानम् ॥ ३१३ ॥

śi sarvanāmasthānam

śi sarvanāmasthānam — 1.1.42. [The affix] śi is [designated] sarvanāmasthāna.

Rule. The affix śi has the name sarvanāmasthāna. This is a saṃjñā rule (a naming rule). You met the sarvanāmasthāna in chapter 8: the first five endings su, au, jas, am, auṭ, before which a stem is not a bha and is not a pada, and before which several strengthening rules fire. That earlier naming rule, suḍ anapuṃsakasya (A 1.1.43), explicitly excludes neuters, so without SK 313 the neuter śi would not have the name at all.

Example.

jñāna + i (the i is śi) → śi is a sarvanāmasthāna → the stem is not a bha, and rules conditioned by "a following sarvanāmasthāna" may now apply (SK 314, SK 317).

Siddhānta-kaumudī

शि इत्येतदुक्तसंज्ञं स्यात् ॥

This [affix] śi has the aforementioned designation (uktasaṃjña) [i.e. sarvanāmasthāna].

Tattvabodhinī

NSP p. 85

—शि सर्वनामस्थानम् । महासंज्ञाकरणं पूर्वाचार्यानुरोधेन

Bālamanoramā

शि सर्वनामस्थानम् - शिसर्वनामस्थानम् । उक्तसंज्ञामिति । सर्वनामस्थानसंज्ञकमित्यर्थः । अनपुंसकस्येति पर्युदासाच्छीत्यस्य सर्वनामस्थानत्वेऽप्राप्ते वचनम् ।

śi sarvanāmasthānam — "śi sarvanāmasthānam." "uktasaṃjñam" [in the Kaumudī] means: it bears the designation sarvanāmasthāna (sarvanāmasthāna-saṃjñaka) — that is the sense. Because of the exclusion (paryudāsa) [expressed by] "anapuṃsakasya" ("of a non-neuter," in the following sūtra "suḍ anapuṃsakasya," A 1.1.43), the sarvanāmasthāna-hood of "śi" is not [otherwise] obtained; hence this statement [is made — that is, sūtra 1.1.42 is required to confer sarvanāmasthāna on śi, which occurs in the neuter].

SK 314 · A 7.1.72V

नपुंसकस्य झलचः ॥ ३१४ ॥

napuṃsakasya jhalacaḥ

napuṃsakasya jhalacaḥ — 7.1.72. To a neuter [aṅga] ending in a jhal or in a vowel (ac), the augment num is added when a sarvanāmasthāna follows.

Rule. A neuter aṅga ending in a jhal consonant or in a vowel (ac) takes the augment num when a sarvanāmasthāna follows. An augment (āgama) is a sound added to a form, not a substitute for anything. Num is n with the markers u and m; the word num is carried in by anuvṛtti from idito num (A 7.1.58). Because it is marked with m (it is mit), num is inserted after the last vowel of the stem. Jhalac is a compound of jhal and ac; by tadanta-vidhi the rule applies to a stem ending in either.

Example.

jñāna + i (śi, a sarvanāmasthāna by SK 313; the stem ends in a vowel) → num is inserted after the last vowel → jñānan + i

jñānan + i → the penultimate vowel (upadhā, the vowel before the final consonant n) is lengthened by sarvanāmasthāne ca (A 6.4.8) → jñānān + i → jñānāni (nominative plural).

The accusative plural is the same: jñānāni.

Applies when / blocked by. Only before a sarvanāmasthāna; before other vowel-initial endings SK 320 takes over for ik-stems (i, u, ṛ).

The paradigm of jñāna is now complete in its neuter-specific part. "The rest is like rāma", Bhaṭṭoji says: the instrumental onward are jñānena, jñānābhyām and so on, exactly as in chapter 8. So too dhana "wealth", vana "forest", phala "fruit".

	singular	dual	plural
nominative	jñānam	jñāne	jñānāni
accusative	jñānam	jñāne	jñānāni
vocative	he jñāna	jñāne	jñānāni
other cases	like rāma	like rāma	like rāma

Siddhānta-kaumudī

झलन्तस्याऽजन्तस्य च क्लीबस्य नुमागमः स्यात्सर्वनामस्थाने परे । उपधादीर्घः । ज्ञानानि । पुनस्तद्वत् । शेषं रामवत् । एवं धनवनफलादयः ॥

To a neuter (klība) [aṅga] ending in a jhal-consonant or in a vowel (ac), the augment num is added when a sarvanāmasthāna follows. [Then] lengthening of the penult (upadhā-dīrgha).

[nom./acc. pl.:] jñānāni. — Again like that [the accusative like the nominative]. The rest [of the paradigm declines] like rāma. Likewise dhana, vana, phala, etc.

Tattvabodhinī

NSP p. 85

—नपुंसकस्य । ‘इदितो नुम् धातोः’ इत्यतो नुमनुवर्तते । ‘उगिदचाम्’—इत्यतः सर्वनामस्थाने इति च । ‘अङ्गस्य’ इति चाधिकृतम् । तथाच झलञ्भ्यां नपुंसकमङ्गं विशिष्यते, विशेषणेन च तदन्तविधिर्भवतीत्याह—झलन्तस्येत्यादि

Bālamanoramā

नपुंसकस्य झलचः - नपुंसकस्य । झल्व अच्चेति समाहारद्वन्द्वः । तेन च अङ्गस्येत्यधिकृतं विशेष्यते । तदन्तविधिः ।इदितो नु॑मित्यतो नुमित्यनुवर्तते । तदाह — झलन्तस्येत्यादिना । मित्त्वादन्त्यादचः परः । उपधादीर्घ इति । ज्ञानन् इ इति स्थितेसर्वनामस्थाने चे॑ति दीर्घ इत्यर्थः । पुनस्तद्वदिति । अमौट्शस्सु ज्ञानं ज्ञाने ज्ञानानि इति क्रमेण रूपाणीत्यर्थः । शेषं रामवदिति । शिष्यत इति शेषम् । कर्मणि घञ् ।घञजबन्ताः पुंसी॑ति तु प्रायिकमिति भावः ।

napuṃsakasya jhalacaḥ — "napuṃsakasya." "jhalac" is a samāhāra-dvandva of "jhal" and "ac." By it the governing "aṅgasya" is qualified; the tadanta-vidhi [applies]. From "idito num" [A 7.1.58], "num" is carried forward by anuvṛtti. That [Bhaṭṭoji] states by "jhalantasya..." etc. Being mit, [num] comes after the last vowel [of the aṅga].

upadhādīrghaḥ — When jñānan-i stands, the lengthening is by "sarvanāmasthāne ca" [A 6.4.8] — that is the meaning. punas tadvat ("again like that") — meaning: in am, auṭ, and śas [the neuter nom./acc.], the forms in order are jñānam, jñāne, jñānāni. śeṣaṃ rāmavat ("the rest like rāma") — "śeṣa" [means] "what remains (śiṣyate)," with ghañ in the objective sense (karmaṇi); [the rule] "words ending in ghañ, ac, ap are masculine" is only a general tendency (prāyika) [so śeṣa may here be neuter] — that is the idea.

SK 315 · A 7.1.25V

अद्ड् डतरादिभ्यः पञ्चभ्यः ॥ ३१५ ॥

adḍ ḍatarādibhyaḥ pañcabhyaḥ

adḍ ḍatarādibhyaḥ pañcabhyaḥ — 7.1.25. After the five [pronouns] ḍatara etc., adḍ (ad, ḍ-marked) is substituted for su and am [in the neuter].

Rule. After the five neuter pronouns ḍatara and the rest, the endings su and am are replaced by adḍ. The substitute is ad; the ḍ is a marker, so the substitute is ḍit, "marked with ḍ", and that marker matters for SK 316. The five are ḍatara, ḍatama, anya, anyatara, itara, read from the sarvādi list (the list of pronoun stems beginning with sarva); ḍatara and ḍatama are really the affixes ḍatarac and ḍatamac, so words ending in them (such as katara, katama) are included by tadanta-vidhi. The words su and am come by anuvṛtti from SK 319.

Example.

katara + su → su → adḍ; the marker ḍ is dropped → katara + ad.

katara + am → likewise → katara + ad.

Applies when / blocked by. The vārttika ekatarāt pratiṣedhaḥ (given under SK 316) excludes ekatara "one of two".

Watch out. The sūtra writes adḍ exactly as it stands, though two ordinary changes are due. The d before the marker ḍ would become ḍ (ṣṭutva, the change of a dental to the matching retroflex), and that final ḍ would then be dropped as the last consonant of a cluster (saṃyogānta-lopa). Bhaṭṭoji's commentators, following Kaiyaṭa, note that both are deliberately left undone, so that the substitute ad and its marker ḍ can be read off.

Siddhānta-kaumudī

एभ्यः क्लीबेभ्यः स्वमोरद्डादेशः स्यात् ॥

After these five neuters, the substitute adḍ is [substituted] for su and am.

Tattvabodhinī

NSP p. 85

—अद्डुत-रादिभ्यः । पञ्चभ्य इति किम् । नेमं तिष्ठति । नेमं पश्य । डतरादयो डतरडतमेतरान्यान्यतरेति सर्वादिषु पठिताः ॥—अद्डादेशः स्यादिति । जिघृक्षितादेशस्वरूपप्रतिपादनाय द्युत्वं न कृतम्

Bālamanoramā

अद्ड् डतरादिभ्यः पञ्चभ्यः - अद्ड्डतरादिभ्यः । 'अद्ड्-डतरादिभ्य' इति छेदः । दस्य ष्टुत्वेन डकारः, डस्य संयोगान्तलोपश्च आदेशस्वरूपावगतये न कृत इति कैयटः । डतर, डतम, अन्य, अन्यतर, इतर इति डतरादयः सर्वादिगणपठिताः । अत्र डक्त्रडतमौ प्रत्ययौ । अतस्तदन्तग्रहणं ।स्वमोर्नपुंसका॑दिति सूत्रमनुवर्तते तदाह — एभ्य इत्यादिना ।

adḍ ḍatarādibhyaḥ pañcabhyaḥ — "adḍ-ḍatarādibhyaḥ": the word-division is "adḍ / ḍatarādibhyaḥ." According to Kaiyaṭa, the ḍ-kāra [in "adḍ"], which arises by the ṣṭutva of d, and the elision of that ḍ as a conjunct-final (saṃyogānta-lopa), have not been carried out [in the sūtra's wording] so that the form of the substitute may be recognized. — ḍatara, ḍatama, anya, anyatara, itara: these are the "ḍatara etc.," read in the sarvādi-gaṇa. Among them, ḍatarac and ḍatamac are suffixes; hence the tadanta-grahaṇa [words ending in them are included]. The sūtra "svamor napuṃsakāt" [A 7.1.23] is carried forward by anuvṛtti; that [Bhaṭṭoji] states by "ebhyaḥ..." etc.

translator notes

textual The source reads 'ḍaktra-ḍatamau pratyayau' (ḍaktra); this is a slip for ḍatarac, read here as ḍatarac and ḍatamac (the two suffixes underlying ḍatara and ḍatama). Rendered accordingly.

SK 316 · A 6.4.143V

टेः ॥ ३१६ ॥

ṭeḥ

ṭeḥ — 6.4.143. When a ḍit affix follows, the ṭi (the final vowel of a bha [stem] together with what follows it) is elided.

Rule. Before a ḍit affix, the ṭi of a bha stem is deleted. The ṭi of a form is its last vowel together with whatever follows that vowel; in katara the ṭi is the final a. The stem is a bha because ad is a vowel-initial ending that is not a sarvanāmasthāna. The final d is optionally written t at the end of an utterance.

Example.

katara + ad (ad is ḍit) → the ṭi, the final a, is deleted → katar + ad → katarad, or at a pause katarat (nominative and accusative singular).

Dual: katare; plural: katarāṇi — these follow SK 310 and SK 312–314 like jñāna.

Vocative: he katarat. Because the ṭi is gone, neither the lengthening of prathamayoḥ (SK 164) nor the vocative deletion of eṅ hrasvāt (SK 193) has anything to act on.

The accusative is the same; the rest of the paradigm is like the masculine.

Applies when / blocked by. Only for a bha stem: the counter-example is pañcamaḥ, whose stem is not a bha before its ending and so keeps its ṭi. Likewise katamat, anyat, anyatarat, itarat. But anyatama is not one of the five, so its neuter is simply anyatamam.

Vārttika (SK 316.k2): "a prohibition should be stated after ekatara." So ekatara takes the ordinary am of SK 309: ekataram.

Watch out. Here Bhaṭṭoji begins the story of ajara "unageing", a neuter a-stem that can take the substitute jaras (from chapter 8). In the singular, once su has become am by SK 309, the jaras substitution does not happen: by the saṃnipāta-paribhāṣā (an operation that depends on a given combination may not destroy that combination), the am that arose in dependence on the a-final stem cannot now trigger a change of that stem. So ajaram. In the dual, jaras wins by paratva (the later rule prevails): ajarasī beside ajare, and since ajaras now ends in a jhal, it takes num by SK 314 before the plural śi — which is where the next rule comes in.

Siddhānta-kaumudī

डिति परे भस्य टेर्लोपः स्यात् । वाऽवसाने ॥ कतरत् । कतरद् । कतरे । कतराणि । भस्येति किम् । पञ्चमः । टेर्लुप्तत्वात् प्रथमयोः SK 164 इति पूर्वसवर्णदीर्घः एङ्ह्रस्वात् SK 193 इति संबुद्धिलोपश्च न च भवति । हे कतरत् । पुनस्तद्वत् । शेषं पुंवत् ॥ कतमत् । अन्यत् । अन्यतरत् । इतरत् । अन्यतमशब्दस्य तु अन्यतममित्येव ।

When a ḍit [affix] follows, the ṭi of a bha [stem] is elided. Optionally at the end of an utterance (avasāne).

[Neuter of katara:] katarat / katarad [nom./acc. sg.]. katare [du.]. katarāṇi [pl.]. — Why "of a bha"? [Counter-example:] pañcamaḥ [where, not being bha, the ṭi is not elided]. — Because the ṭi is elided, neither the prior-savarṇa-dīrgha by "prathamayoḥ" (SK 164) nor the elision of the sambuddhi (vocative-sg ending) by "eṅ hrasvāt [sambuddheḥ]" (SK 193) occurs. [voc. sg.:] he katarat. Again like that [the accusative like the nominative]. The rest [declines] like the masculine. — [Likewise:] katamat. anyat. anyatarat. itarat. But of the word anyatama, [the neuter is] simply anyatamam.

vārttika

एकतरात्प्रतिषेधो वक्तव्यः

(vārttika) A prohibition [of this operation] should be stated after ekatara.

(वार्तिकम्) ॥ एकतरम् । सोरमादेशे कृते संनिपातपरिभाषया न जरस् । अजरम् । अजरसी । अजरे । परत्वाज्जरसि कृते झलन्तत्वान्नुम् ॥

(Concluding the vārttika.) [Hence:] ekataram [not the pronominal form]. — When the am-substitute [for su] is made, by the saṃnipāta-paribhāṣā the jaras-substitution does not occur [in the singular]: [thus] ajaram. [But] ajarasī, ajare [du.] — when, by being para, the jaras-substitution is made, num [is added] because [the stem then] ends in a jhal-consonant.

Tattvabodhinī

NSP p. 85

—टेः । ‘तिर्विशतेः’—इत्यतो डितीत्यनुवर्तते ‘भस्य’ इति चाधिकृतं तदाह—डिति परे भस्येति । भस्य किम् । पञ्चमः । अत्र डटो मडागमे भलाभावादिलोपो न भवति । किंतु पदत्वात् नलोप एव ॥ अद्डो डित्करणस्य प्रयोजनमाह—टेर्लुप्तत्वादित्यादि । ननु पूर्वसर्वर्णदीर्घाभावाय दादेश एव कियतां किमद्डादेशेनेत्याशङ्कयाह—एङ्ग्रस्वादित्यादि । डादेशे नु हे कतरेति स्यादिति भावः ॥—अन्यतमशब्दस्य त्विति । एवंच ‘सामान्यादिष्वन्यतमत्तमः’ इत्यादिप्रयोगाः प्रामादिका एवेति भावः ॥—अजरमिति । अविद्यमाना जरा यस्य तत् । ‘गोल्लियोः’ इत्युपसर्जनहस्वे ‘अतोऽम्’ ॥—परत्वादिति । अजर शि इति स्थिते यद्यपि जरसादेशात्प्रागेव ‘नपुंसकस्य झलचः’ इत्यजन्तलक्षणो नुमागमः स्यात्स चाङ्गभक्तोऽङ्गमेव न व्यवदध्यात् । अवयवस्य नु जराशब्दस्य व्यवधायक एवेति निर्दिश्यमानस्यादेशो विधीयमानो न प्राप्नोति, तथापि यस्मादन्यादचः परस्तस्यैवान्तावयवो मित्स्यादिति स्वमते त्ववयवावयवः समुदायस्याप्यवयव इत्यभ्युपगमेन कथंचिञ्जरसादेशे जातेऽपि सान्तत्वाभावात् ‘सान्तमहतः’—इति दीर्घो न स्यादिति भावः

SK 317 · A 6.4.10V

सान्तमहतः संयोगस्य ॥ ३१७ ॥

sāntamahataḥ saṃyogasya

sāntamahataḥ saṃyogasya (6.4.10) — For the n (nakāra) belonging to a conjunct ending in s (sānta saṃyoga) or to mahat, its upadhā (immediately preceding vowel) becomes long (dīrgha) before a sarvanāmasthāna affix that is not the sambuddhi (vocative singular).

Rule. For the n that belongs to a consonant cluster ending in s, or to mahat, the vowel immediately before that n is lengthened when a sarvanāmasthāna follows, unless that sarvanāmasthāna is the vocative singular. Three words are carried in by anuvṛtti: na "of the n", dīrgha "long" (from ḍhralope pūrvasya, A 6.3.111) and the condition sarvanāmasthāne cāsaṃbuddhau (A 6.4.8). Saṃyogasya and mahataḥ are partitive genitives: "the n that is part of the cluster / of mahat."

Example.

ajara + śi → jaras replaces the stem-final → ajaras + i → num by SK 314 (the stem ends in a jhal) → ajarans + i

ajarans + i → the vowel before the n of the s-final cluster is lengthened → ajarāns + i

ajarāns + i → n → anusvāra by naś cāpadāntasya (A 8.3.24) → ajarāṃsi (nominative and accusative plural); beside it, without jaras, ajarāṇi.

Accusative singular: ajara + am → luk is due by SK 319; its exception am by SK 309 is due; but jaras is later than both and wins by paratva → ajaras + am → ajarasam. And now the am is not deleted: jaras arose in dependence on the combination with am, so by the saṃnipāta-paribhāṣā it cannot cause the luk of that very am. Beside it, without jaras, ajaram.

The full paradigm, each cell "with jaras / without":

	singular	dual	plural
nominative	ajaram	ajarasī / ajare	ajarāṃsi / ajarāṇi
accusative	ajarasam / ajaram	ajarasī / ajare	ajarāṃsi / ajarāṇi
instrumental	ajarasā / ajareṇa
dative	ajarase / ajarāya
ablative	ajarasaḥ / ajarāt
genitive	ajarasaḥ / ajarasya	ajarasoḥ / ajarayoḥ
locative	ajarasi / ajare	ajarasoḥ / ajarayoḥ

The oblique cases are "like the masculine" of chapter 8.

Watch out. The word upadhā in this rule means simply "the vowel just before", Bhaṭṭoji's commentators observe, not the technical penultimate-of-the-word.

The irregular neuters. By paddanno… (SK 228) four neuter a-stems replace their stem, from the accusative plural (śas) onward, with a shorter form: hṛdaya "heart" → hṛd, udaka "water" → udan, āsya "mouth" → āsan, and by the vārttika on that rule māṃsa "flesh" → māṃs. In the nominative series (su to auṭ) each is regular, like jñāna; the substitution is optional, and without it the whole word is like jñāna.

	hṛdaya → hṛd	udaka → udan	āsya → āsan	māṃsa → māṃs
accusative plural (śi)	hṛndi	udāni	āsāni	māṃsi
instrumental singular	hṛdā	udnā	āsnā	māṃsā
instrumental dual	hṛdbhyām	udabhyām	āsabhyām	mānbhyām
dative singular	hṛde	udne	āsne
ablative / genitive singular	hṛdaḥ	udnaḥ	āsnaḥ
genitive / locative dual	hṛdoḥ	udnoḥ	āsnoḥ
genitive plural	hṛdām
locative singular	hṛdi	udani / udni	āsni / āsani
locative plural	hṛtsu		āsasu

How the forms arise, as Bhaṭṭoji's commentators trace them:

hṛdaya + śas → śi → hṛd substituted → num after the ṛ by SK 314 → n → anusvāra by naś cāpadāntasya, then assimilated to the following d → hṛndi.

udaka + śi → udan → the vowel before the final n is lengthened by sarvanāmasthāne ca → udāni; here allopo'naḥ (SK 234, the deletion of the a of a final an in a bha) does not apply, because śi is a sarvanāmasthāna.

udaka + ā (instrumental) → udan → the a of an is deleted by SK 234 → udnā.

udaka + bhyām → udan → before bhyām the stem is a pada, so its final n is deleted by na lopaḥ prātipadikāntasya (A 8.2.7) → udabhyām.

Locative singular udani / udni: the a-deletion is optional before ṅi (by vibhāṣā ṅiśyoḥ, A 6.4.136).

māṃsa + bhyām → māṃs → the s is dropped as the last member of a cluster (saṃyogānta-lopa) → the cause of the anusvāra is gone, so the nasal reverts to n → mānbhyām; the n is not deleted, because the cluster-final deletion is asiddha (treated as not having happened) for that rule.

Watch out. Bhaṭṭoji adds that the list in paddanno… is really "of this type", so that hṛd and the others may be used even in the nominative series, as in the Bhāṣya's māṃspacanī "a pot for cooking flesh". Scholars discuss how far these substitutes belong to the classical language and not only to the Veda; Bhaṭṭoji's conclusion is that, following usage, pad and the rest may be employed in the classical language too. This closes the a-stems: ity adantāḥ.

Siddhānta-kaumudī

सान्तसंयोगस्य महतश्च यो नकारस्तस्योपधाया दीर्घः स्यादसंबुद्धौ सर्वनामस्थाने परे । अजरांसि । अजराणि । अमि लुकोऽपवादमम्भावं बाधित्वा परत्वाज्जरस् । ततः संनिपातपरिभाषया न लुक् । अजरसम् । अजरम् । अजरसी । अजरे । अजरांसि । अजराणि । शेषं पुंवत् । पद्दन्न SK 228 इति हृदयोदकास्यानां हृद् उदन् आसन् । हृन्दि । हृदा । हृद्भ्यामित्यादि । उदानि । उद्गा । उदभ्यामित्यादि । आसानि । आस्ना । आसभ्यामित्यादि । मांसि । मांसा । मान्भ्यामित्यादि । वस्तुतस्तु प्रभृतिग्रहणं प्रकारार्थमित्युक्तम् । अत एव भाष्ये मांस्पचन्या उखाया इत्युदाहृतम् । अयस्मयादित्वेन भत्वात्संयोगान्तलोपो न । पद्दन्न SK 228 इत्यत्र हि छन्दसीत्यनुवर्तितं वृत्तौ तथापि अपोभि SK 442 इत्यत्र मासश्छन्दसीति वार्तिके छन्दोग्रहणसामर्थ्याल्लोकेऽपि क्वचिदिति कैयटोक्तरीत्या प्रयोगमनुसृत्य पदादयः प्रयोक्तव्या इति बोध्यम् ॥

For the n that belongs to a conjunct ending in s (sānta saṃyoga) or to mahat, the upadhā (preceding vowel) becomes long before a sarvanāmasthāna [affix] that is not the sambuddhi. [Nom./acc. pl.:] ajarāṃsi / ajarāṇi.

In am [accusative sg.], the substitute jaras occurs by paratva, setting aside the am-substitute (am-bhāva) — which [am-substitute is itself] an exception to luk. Thereupon, by the sannipāta-paribhāṣā, there is no luk [of the am]. Acc. sg.: ajarasam / ajaram. Nom./acc. du.: ajarasī / ajare. Nom./acc. pl.: ajarāṃsi / ajarāṇi. The rest [of the oblique cases] are like the masculine.

[Irregular neuters.] By "paddanno…" (SK 228) the substitutes for hṛdaya, udaka, and āsya are hṛd, udan, and āsan [respectively]. [Of hṛdaya:] hṛndi; hṛdā; hṛdbhyām, and so on. [Of udaka:] udāni; udnā; udabhyām, and so on. [Of āsya:] āsāni; āsnā; āsabhyām, and so on. [Of māṃsa:] māṃsi; māṃsā; mānbhyām, and so on.

But in truth, the mention of "prabhṛti" (and the rest) [in the substitute-rule] is meant to indicate "of this type" (prakāra), as has been said. Precisely for this reason, in the Bhāṣya "māṃspacanyā ukhāyāḥ" is cited [as an example]. Because [the māṃs-substitute] is bha-designated (bhatva) by belonging to the ayasmayādi group, saṃyogāntalopa does not occur. For under "paddanno…" (SK 228), "chandasi" (in the Vedic) is carried into the Vṛtti; nevertheless, under "apo bhi" (SK 442), in the vārttika "māsaś chandasi," by the force of the mention of "chandas," [it is inferred that these forms occur] "also in the ordinary language, sometimes," in the manner stated by Kaiyaṭa; so, following usage, the substitutes pad etc. may be employed [in the classical language too]. This should be understood.

Tattvabodhinī

NSP p. 85–86

—सान्तमहतः—। अत्र ‘नोपधायाः’ ‘सर्वनामस्थाने चासंदुद्धौ इत्यनुवर्तते । सान्तेति लुप्तपृष्ठीकं संयोगान्तस्येत्यनेन समानाधिकरणमिति व्याचष्टे—सान्तसंयोगस्येत्यादि ॥ —तस्योपधाया इति । तत्पूर्वस्येत्यर्थः ॥—अमि लुकोऽपवादमित्यादि । एतेन स्वमोरमादेशे कृते वा जरसिति प्राचो प्रन्थः प्रत्युक्तः ॥—मांस्पचन्या इति । पच्यतेऽस्यामिति पचनी ‘करणाधिकरणयोश्च’ इति ल्युद्ध । टित्वान्कीप् । मांसस्य पचनी मांस्पचनी । अत्र इत्यो लुका लुप्तत्वात् प्रत्ययलक्षणं नेति प्रभृतिग्रहणस्य प्रकारार्थत्वं विना मांसशब्दस्य मांसित्यादेशो न सिध्येदिति भावः ॥ ननु पृषोदरादिसूत्रे ‘मांसस्य पचि ल्युद्धयोः’ इति वक्ष्यमाणत्वादन्तलोपेनाप्येतत् रूपं सिद्धमिति चेत् । अत्राहुः । ‘पृषोदरादीनि यथोपदिष्टम्’ इत्यस्योत्तरपदाधिकारस्थत्वात् यदुत्तरपदं मांस्पचनमित्यादि तत्रैवान्तलोपः स्यात् । अत्र हि कीवन्तमुत्तरपदं न तु युद्धन्तमिति नास्त्येवान्लोप इति ॥—मासशब्दसीति । मासशब्दस्य तकारः स्याद्भादौ प्रत्यये छन्दसीति वार्तिकार्थः । ‘माद्भिः शरद्भिः दुरोदरं तव’ इत्युदाहरणम् ॥—हस्वो नपुंसके—। इह हस्वश्रुत्योपस्थितेनाच इत्यनेन प्रातिपदिकविशेषणात्तदन्तविधिरित्याह—अजन्तस्येति । प्रातिपदिकस्याच इति वैयधिकरण्येन व्याख्यायां तु सुवाक्याह्वाणकुलमित्यत्रातिप्रसङ्गः स्यात् । एतच्च ‘अचश्च’ इति सूत्र एवास्माभिः स्पष्टीकृतम् ॥ प्रातिपदिकस्येति किम् । काण्डे । कुञ्जे ॥—ज्ञानचदिति । श्रीपाणीत्यादौ ‘एकाजुत्तरपदे—’ इति णत्वं तु विशेषः । श्रीपेणेत्यत्रापीनादेशेन सहाद्गुणे कृते एकादेशस्य पूर्वान्तत्वेन ग्रहणात् ‘अचः परस्मिन्—’ इति सूत्रे पूर्वस्माद्विधिः पूर्वविधिरिति पञ्चमीसमासपक्षाश्रयेण स्थानिवत्त्वाद्वा एकाजुत्तरपदत्वमस्तीति स्यादेव णत्वम् ॥—संनिपातेति । अवर्णमाश्रित्य कृतो यादेशः कथमवर्णलोपे निमित्तं स्यात् । न च ‘सुपि च’ इति दीर्घार्थं संनिपातपरिभाषाया अनित्यत्वाभ्युपगम आवश्यक एवेति वाच्यम् । ‘कष्टाय—’ इति निर्देशेन दीर्घविधौ अनित्यत्वाभ्युपगमेऽप्यवर्णलोपे कार्ये तदनभ्युपगमात् । कृतेऽपि दीर्घे हस्वव्यक्तयपायेऽप्यत्वजातेरनपायादिति दिक्—॥ एतेन श्रीपशब्दान्कयि श्रीप्येति केषांचिद्व्याख्यानं परास्तम्

Bālamanoramā

सान्तमहतः संयोगस्य - सान्त महतः ।सर्वनामस्थाने चासंबुद्धौ इति, 'नोपधाया' इति चानुवर्तते ।ने॑ति लुप्तषष्ठीकं पदम् ।ढ्रलोपे पूर्वस्ये॑त्यतो 'दीर्घ' इत्यनुवर्तते । नकारस्य उपधाया दीर्घ इति लभ्यते ।संयोगस्ये॑त्यवयवषष्ठन्तं नकारेऽन्वेति ।सान्ते॑ति षष्ठन्तं पृथक्पदम् । आर्ष षष्ठआ लुक् । सान्तस्येति लभ्यते । तच्च संयोगेऽभेदेनान्वेति-सान्तो यः संयोग इति । अत एवाऽसामर्थ्यान्महच्छब्देन तस्य न समासः । 'महत' इत्यप्यवयवषष्ठन्तम् । तच्च नकारेऽन्वेति । तदाह-सान्त-संयोगस्येत्यादिना । अजरांसीति । दीर्घे सतिनश्चपदान्तस्ये॑त्यनुस्वारः । अत्र उपधाया इति पूर्वत्वमात्रोपलक्षणं, पारिभाषिकोपधात्वस्याऽसंभवात् । अथ द्वितीयैकवचने रूपं दर्शयितुमाह — अमि लुक इति । अजर अमिति स्थितेस्वमोर्नपुंसका॑दिति सुक् प्राप्तः, तं बाधित्वा तदपवादोऽतोमित्यम्भावः प्राप्तः, तं बाधित्वाविप्रतिषेधे पर॑मिति परत्वाज्जरस् । अजरसमिति । वस्तुस्थितिकथनमेतत् । ननु लुगपवादस्याऽम्भावस्य जरसादेशेन बाधितत्वात्अपवादे निषिध्दे पुनरुत्सर्गस्य स्थिति॑रिति न्यायेनाऽमो लुक्कुतो न स्यादित्यत आह — तत इति ।ततो न लु॑गित्यन्वयः । जरसादेशानन्तरममो लुङ्न भवतीत्यर्थः । कुत इत्यत आह — संनिपातेति । अम्संनिपातमाश्रित्य प्रवृत्तस्य जरसस्तल्लुकि निमित्तत्वाऽभावादिति भावः । शेषं पुंवत् । अजरसा-अजरेण । अजरसे-अजराय । अजरसः-अजरात् । अजरसः-अजरस्य । अजरसोःअजरयोः । अजरसि-अजरे । ह्मदयोदकास्यशब्दाः सुटि ज्ञानवत् । शसादौ विशेषमाह — पद्दन्निति । ह्मन्दीति । ह्मदयशब्दाच्छसः शिभावे ह्मदादेशे 'नपुंसकस्य झलचः' इति ऋकारात् परतो नुमिनश्चपदान्तस्ये॑त्यनुस्वारे तस्य परसवर्णे नकारे रूपम् । इत्यादीति । ह्मदे । ह्मदः । ह्मदः । ह्मदोः । ह्मदाम् । ह्मदि । ह्मदोः । ह्मत्सु । ह्मदभावपक्षे ज्ञानवत् । उदकशब्दः सुटि ज्ञानवत् । शसादौ विशेषमाह — उदानीति । शसः शिभावे उदन्नादेशेसर्वनामस्थाने चे॑ति दीर्घः । 'अल्लोपोऽन' इति तु न, शेः सर्वनामस्थानत्वात् । उद्नेति । उदक-आ इति स्थिते उदन्नादेशे अल्लोपः । उदभ्यामिति । उदन्नादेशेन लोपः प्रातिपदिकान्तस्ये॑ति नलोपः,स्वादिष्वसर्वनामस्थाने॑ इति पदत्वात् । इत्यादीति । उद्गे । उद्गः । उद्गः । उद्गोः । उदनि — उद्गि । उद्गोः । उदन्नभावपक्षे ज्ञानवत् । आस्यशब्दः सुटि ज्ञानवत् । शसादौ विशेषमाह — आसानीत्यादि । उदन्नादेशवद्रूपाणि । इत्यादीति । आस्ने । आस्नः । आस्नः । आस्नोः । आस्नि-आसनि । आस्नोः । आससु । आसन्न-भावपक्षे ज्ञानवत् । मांसशब्दोऽपि सुटि ज्ञानवत् ।मांसपृतनासानूना॑मिति शसादौ 'मांस' आदेशः । अत्र नकारस्यनश्चापदान्तस्ये॑ति कृतानुस्वारस्य निर्देशः । अत एवाह — मान्भ्यामिति । मांस्ादेशे सकारस्य संयोगान्तलोपे सति निमित्ताऽपायादनुस्वारनिवृत्तौ रूपम् । संयोगान्तलोपस्याऽसिद्धत्वान्न लोपो न । अथ सुठपि ह्मदाद्यादेशं साधयितुमाह — वस्तुतस्त्विति । इत्युक्तमिति । 'ककुद्दोषणी' इति भाष्यप्रयोगात्प्रभृतिग्रहणस्य प्रकारार्थत्वमजन्तपुंलिङ्गाधिकारे स्वयमुक्तमित्यर्थः । ननु प्रभृतिग्रहणस्य प्रकारार्थत्वेऽपि प्रत्ययत्वेन सादृश्यविवक्षायां प्रथमैकवचने ह्मदिति प्रयोगोऽनुपपन्नः, सोर्लुका लुप्तत्वेन प्रत्ययलक्षणस्याप्यभावात्, तदनित्यत्वाश्रयणे च मानाऽभावादित्यत आह-एत एवेति । मांस्पचन्या इति । पच्यते अस्यामुखायामिति पचनी । अधिकरणे ल्युट्, अनादेशः । टित्त्वात् ङीप् । मांसस्य पचनीति षष्ठीसमासः । अत्र ङसो लुका लुप्तत्वात्प्रत्ययलक्षणाऽभावे प्रत्ययपरत्वाऽभावात् मांसादेशो न स्यात् । अतो ह्मदाद्यादेशविधौन लुमते॑ति निषेधस्याऽनित्यत्वमाश्रीयत इत्यर्थः । ननु 'मांस्पचन्या' इत्यत्र अन्तर्वर्तिनं ङसं लुप्तमाश्रित्य मांसित्यस्यास्ति पदत्वम्,सुप्तिङ्न्त॑मिति पदसंज्ञायाः प्रकृतिप्रत्ययधर्मत्वेन केवलाङ्गधर्मत्वाऽभावेनाऽत्रन लुमते॑ति निषेधस्याऽप्रवृत्तेः । अन्यथा 'राजपुरुष' इत्यत्र कथं नलोपः । ततश्चात्र संयोगान्तलोपो दुर्वार इत्यत्र आह — भत्वात्संयोगान्तलोपो नेति । ननु यजादिस्वादिप्रत्यये परे विधीयमानाया भसंज्ञायाः केवलाङ्गधर्मत्वात्तत्र लुका लुप्ते प्रत्ययलक्षणनिषेधात्कथमिह भसंज्ञेत्यत आह — अयस्मयादित्वेनेति । मांसादेशस्याऽयस्मयादिगणपठितत्वात्अयस्मयादीनि छन्दसी॑नि भत्वमित्यर्थः । ततश्च वैदिकप्रक्रियायामेव तदुपन्यासो युज्यत इत्याक्षेपः । परिहरति — तथापीति । 'पद्दन्नो' इति सूत्रे छन्दोग्रहणानुवृत्तावपि लोकेऽपि क्वचिदित्यन्वयः । कुतो लोकेऽपि प्रयोग इत्यत आह — अपो भीत्यादीति ।अपो भी॑ति सूत्रम् । अपस्तकारः स्याद्भादौ प्रत्ययपरे इत्यर्थः । तत्रास्ति वार्तिकं — ॒मासश्छन्दसी॑ति । मासित्यस्य तकारः स्याद्भादिप्रत्यये परे छन्दसीति तदर्थः । ऋग्वेदे 'माद्भिः शरद्भिः' इत्यादिमन्त्रमुदाहरणम् । यदिपद्दन्नि॑ति छन्दोमात्रविषयं स्यात्तदा मासित्यादेशस्य छन्दोमात्रविषयत्वादलौकिकत्वान्मासश्छन्दसीति सस्य तकारविधौ छन्दौग्रहणं व्यर्थं स्यात् । अतो लोकेऽपि क्वचिदिति कैयटोक्तरीत्यापद्दन्नि॑त्यस्य लोकेऽपि प्रवृत्तिमनुमत्य पदाद्यादेशाः प्रयोक्तुं योग्या इत्यर्थः । इत्यदन्ताः ।

sāntamahataḥ saṃyogasya — "sarvanāmasthāne cāsaṃbuddhau" [A 6.4.8] and "n[opadhāyāḥ]" [A 6.4.7] are carried forward (anuvṛtti). "na" is a word with an elided genitive [= "of the n" (nasya)]. From "ḍhralope pūrvasya" [A 6.3.111] "dīrgha" is carried forward. Thus is obtained: "the upadhā of the n becomes long." "saṃyogasya" is a partitive genitive construing with the n [= the n that is part of the conjunct]. "sānta" is a separate word in the genitive; the elision of its genitive [ending] is an ārṣa (archaic) usage — "sāntasya" is [thereby] obtained, and this construes with the conjunct without distinction [= "the conjunct which ends in s"]. Precisely for this reason — for want of syntactic connection (asāmarthya) — it does not compound with the word "mahat." "mahataḥ" too is a partitive genitive, construing with the n. He states this by "sānta-saṃyogasya…" etc.

On ajarāṃsi: the dīrgha having occurred, anusvāra by "naś cāpadāntasya" (A 8.3.24). Here "upadhā" merely indicates "the immediately preceding," since technical upadhā-hood (pāribhāṣika) is impossible.

Now, to show the form in the accusative singular, he says "in am, [blocking] luk." When "ajara + am" stands: luk is due by "svamor napuṃsakāt" [A 7.1.23]; setting it aside, its exception — the am-substitute by "ato 'm" [A 7.1.24] — is due; setting that aside, jaras occurs by paratva ("vipratiṣedhe param," A 1.4.2). On ajarasam: this states the actual situation. Objection: since the am-substitute, [itself] the exception to luk, has been set aside by the jaras-substitute, then — by the maxim "when the exception is prohibited, the general rule reasserts itself" — why would luk of the am not occur? Response ("tataḥ"): construe "then no luk"; i.e., after the jaras-substitute, luk of the am does not occur. Why ("sannipāta")? Because jaras, which operated in dependence on the conjunction (sannipāta) with am, cannot be a cause for the luk of that very am — this is the point [the sannipāta-paribhāṣā: an operation conditioned by an element does not then destroy that element].

"The rest [are] like the masculine": inst. sg. ajarasā / ajareṇa; dat. ajarase / ajarāya; abl. ajarasaḥ / ajarāt; gen. ajarasaḥ / ajarasya; gen./loc. du. ajarasoḥ / ajarayoḥ; loc. sg. ajarasi / ajare [each: with the jaras-substitute / without it].

The words hṛdaya, udaka, and āsya, in the su-series (sarvanāmasthāna), are like jñāna [i.e. regular]. He states the peculiarity from śas onward with "paddan[no]…": On hṛndi: for the word hṛdaya, śi in place of śas, the hṛd-substitute, num after the ṛ by "napuṃsakasya jhalacaḥ" [A 7.1.72], anusvāra by "naś cāpadāntasya," and then, with the n becoming parasavarṇa, the form [hṛndi]. And so on: hṛde; hṛdaḥ; hṛdaḥ; hṛdoḥ; hṛdām; hṛdi; hṛdoḥ; hṛtsu. On the option without the hṛd-substitute, like jñāna.

The word udaka, in the su-series, is like jñāna. He states the peculiarity from śas onward: On udāni: with śi in place of śas, the udan-substitute, and dīrgha by "sarvanāmasthāne ca" [A 6.4.8]; but "allopo 'naḥ" does not [apply], since śi is a sarvanāmasthāna. On udnā: with "udaka + ā" standing, the udan-substitute, then al-lopa. On udabhyām: with the udan-substitute, n-lopa by "na lopaḥ prātipadikāntasya" [A 8.2.7], since [before bhyām] there is pada-hood by "svādiṣv asarvanāmasthāne" [A 1.4.17]. And so on: udne; udnaḥ; udnaḥ; udnoḥ; loc. sg. udani / udni; udnoḥ. On the option without the udan-substitute, like jñāna.

The word āsya, in the su-series, is like jñāna. He states the peculiarity from śas onward: āsāni etc. — forms like those of the udan-substitute. And so on: āsne; āsnaḥ; āsnaḥ; āsnoḥ; loc. sg. āsni / āsani; āsnoḥ; āsasu. On the option without the āsan-substitute, like jñāna.

The word māṃsa too, in the su-series, is like jñāna; in śas etc., the substitute māṃs by "māṃspṛtanāsānūnām…" Here the n [of the substitute] is specified as one in which anusvāra has already been made by "naś cāpadāntasya." Precisely so he says mānbhyām: in the māṃs-substitute, when the s undergoes saṃyogāntalopa, the cause [of the anusvāra] being gone, anusvāra reverts [to n] — the form [mānbhyām]. Because saṃyogāntalopa is asiddha, the n-lopa [by "na lopaḥ prātipadikāntasya"] does not occur.

Now, to establish the hṛd- etc. substitutes even in the su-series, he says "vastutas tu." On "ity uktam": that the "prabhṛti" (etc.) mention has the sense "of this type" (prakāra) was stated by himself in the section on vowel-ending masculines, on the strength of the Bhāṣya usage "kakuddoṣaṇī." Objection: even granting that "prabhṛti" means "of this type," if the resemblance is intended in respect of the affix, then the usage "hṛd" in the nominative singular is unaccountable — for, the su having been elided by luk, even pratyayalakṣaṇa [treating the affix as still present] is absent, and there is no authority for taking [that prohibition] as non-obligatory (anitya). To this he says "ata eva."

On māṃspacanī: "that (pot) in which [flesh] is cooked" = pacanī — lyuṬ in the locative sense (adhikaraṇa), with the ana-substitute; because it is ṭit, ṅīp [feminine]; "the cooker of flesh," a genitive compound (ṣaṣṭhī-samāsa). Here, the ṅas [genitive] having been elided by luk, and pratyayalakṣaṇa being thereby absent, there is no "following affix," so the māṃs-substitute should not occur. Therefore, in enjoining the hṛd- etc. substitutes, the prohibition "na lumatāṅgasya" [A 1.1.63, that luk-elided affixes do not condition operations] is taken to be non-obligatory (anitya).

Objection: in "māṃspacanī," relying on the internal elided ṅas, "māṃs" does have pada-hood; and since the pada-designation by "suptiṅantam padam" [A 1.4.14] is a property of stem-and-affix together and not a property of the bare aṅga, the prohibition "na lumatā…" does not apply here [so pada-operations proceed]. Otherwise, in "rājapuruṣa," how would the n-lopa [of rājan] occur? And consequently the saṃyogāntalopa here [in māṃs] would be hard to prevent. To this he says "because of bhatva, no saṃyogāntalopa." Objection: since the bha-designation (enjoined before a vowel-initial sup affix) is a property of the bare aṅga, and here, [the affix] being elided by luk, pratyayalakṣaṇa is prohibited — how is there bha-designation here? To this he says "by belonging to the ayasmayādi [group]": since the māṃs-substitute is listed in the ayasmayādi group, there is bhatva by "ayasmayādīni chandasi." And consequently — [since "chandasi"] — this belongs properly only to the Vedic derivation: such is the objection.

He resolves it with "tathāpi." Although "chandasi" is carried into the sūtra "paddanno…," [construe] "also in the ordinary language, sometimes." Why usage in the ordinary language too? He says "apo bhi" etc. "apo bhi" is a sūtra: "ap gets t before a bha-initial affix" — that is its meaning. There is a vārttika there: "māsaś chandasi" — its meaning: "mās gets t before a bha-initial affix, in the Vedic." The example is the Ṛgvedic mantra "mādbhiḥ śaradbhiḥ" etc. If "paddan…" applied only to the Vedic domain, then, the mās-substitute being confined to the Vedic and hence non-classical, the mention of "chandas" in "māsaś chandasi" (which enjoins t for the s) would be useless. Therefore, per Kaiyaṭa's principle "also in the ordinary language, sometimes," conceding that "paddan…" operates in the classical language too, the substitutes pad etc. are fit to be employed. That is the meaning.

Thus the a-ending [neuters].

Footnotes (NSP 1915 ed.)

NSP p. 86 १ प्रातिपदिकस्येति—ननु क्षीवदर्थं वाचकतासंबन्धेन वर्तमानस्याजन्तस्य इत्स इत्युक्ते धातुतिङन्तादौ असंभवात्सामर्थ्येनैव प्रातिपदिके लब्धे पुनः प्रातिपदिकग्रहणं व्यर्थम्, काण्डे इत्यादौ तु तस्य शक्तिप्रधानतया क्षीवदर्थकत्वाभावेन न दोष इति वाच्यम् । न, स्पष्टार्थत्वात्प्रातिपदिकग्रहणस्य । सर्वं चेदं भाष्ये स्पष्टम् इति शब्देन्दुशेखरे निरूपितम् । २ स्वमोरिति—अयं च लुक् विभक्तिनिमत्तकार्याणां वाधकः । अन्तरङ्गानपीति न्यायात् । ३ विभक्ताविति—सुपीति वक्तव्ये विभक्तिग्रहणं चिन्त्यप्रयोजनम् । नामधातौ तिङि क्रियावाचकत्वेन नपुंसकत्वाभावात् इति केचिदाहुः । ४ विप्रतिषेधेनेति—औकारस्य वृद्धित्वेऽपि पृथग्ग्रहणं गुणवृद्धिशब्दाभ्यां तद्भावितयोरेव ग्रहणमिति शापनार्थम्, तेन पतानि, द्वे कुले इति सिद्धम् । अन्यथा अत्वं बाधित्वा पूर्वं नुमापत्तिः ।

translator notes

textual The digital source shows a recurrent OCR corruption of the conjunct द्न (dn) as द्ग/ग in the udan-substitute forms: 'udgā/udge/udgaḥ/udgoḥ/udgi' for udnā/udne/udnaḥ/udnoḥ/udni, and 'hṛndi' is printed as ह्मन्दि (ह्म for ह्ऋ). The udn- forms are given here per the commentary's explicit derivation ('udaka + ā, udan-substitute, al-lopa → udnā'). In the Kaumudī, 'svamor napuṃsakāt … luk' is printed 'suk' (ल mis-read as स); luk is intended.

SK 318 · A 1.2.47V

ह्रस्वो नपुंसके प्रातिपदिकस्य ॥ ३१८ ॥

hrasvo napuṃsake prātipadikasya

hrasvo napuṃsake prātipadikasya — 1.2.47. In the neuter, a vowel-ending prātipadika is shortened (made hrasva).

Rule. In the neuter, a prātipadika (a nominal stem: a meaningful item that is neither a root nor an affix) ending in a vowel is made short (hrasva). Only a vowel can be shortened, so the rule is read of a stem ending in a vowel (tadanta-vidhi).

Example.

śrīpā (neuter; formed from śrī + the root pā "protect" with a zero-affix, viṭ or kvip — an affix that adds no sound of its own — like viśvapā) → final ā → a → śrīpa

śrīpa + su → am by SK 309 → pūrvarūpa → śrīpam (nominative and accusative singular).

Plural: śrīpa + śi → num, lengthening → śrīpāṇi (the n becomes ṇ after the r of śrī, even across the two members, by ekāj uttarapade ṇaḥ, A 8.4.12).

Instrumental: śrīpeṇa. Dative: śrīpa + ṅe → ya for ṅe → a lengthened by supi ca (A 7.3.102) → śrīpāya.

The rest is like jñāna.

Applies when / blocked by. Bhaṭṭoji's commentators note that the rule does not apply to something that is a prātipadika only by courtesy, such as kul- + e in kule, where the final e is a sandhi vowel counted as the stem's end; the repetition of the word prātipadika in the sūtra signals this.

Watch out. In śrīpāya the stem ends in ā again, and pā is still a root, so āto dhātoḥ (SK 240), which deletes the final ā of a root-stem before a vowel-initial ending, seems due. It does not apply, by the saṃnipāta-paribhāṣā: the substitute ya arose in dependence on the a-final stem and cannot be the cause of deleting that very vowel. Scholars discuss the exact reasoning; the form śrīpāya is not in doubt. This closes the ā-stems: ity ādantāḥ.

Siddhānta-kaumudī

क्लीबे प्रातिपदिकस्याऽजन्तस्य ह्रस्वः स्यात् । श्रीपम् । ज्ञानवत् । श्रीपाय । अत्र संनिपातपरिभाषया आतो धातोः SK 240 इत्याकारलोपो न ॥

In the neuter (klība), a vowel-ending prātipadika undergoes shortening (hrasva). — śrīpam [nominative/accusative singular]; [the rest is] like jñāna. — śrīpāya [dative singular]. Here, by the saṃnipāta-paribhāṣā, the elision of ā taught by "āto dhātoḥ" (SK 240) does not [apply].

Bālamanoramā

ह्रस्वो नपुंसके प्रातिपदिकस्य - अथ आदन्ताः । श्रियं पातीति श्रीपाशब्दो विआपाशब्दवद्विजन्तः क्विबन्तो वा । तस्य न पुंसकत्वे ह्रस्वविधानमाह — ह्रस्वो नपुंसके । ह्रस्वश्रुत्योपस्तितेनाऽच इत्यनेन प्रातिपदिकस्य विशेषणात्तदन्तविधिरित्याह — क्लीब इत्यादिना । नच कुले इति द्विवचने एकादेशस्य पूर्वान्तत्वेन ग्रहणादजन्तप्रातिपदिकत्वाद्ध्रस्वः स्यादिति वाच्यम्, अर्थवदधातुरित्यतः प्रातिपदिकग्रहणानुवृत्तौ पुनः प्रातिपदिकग्रहणेनाऽन्तवद्भावतः प्रातिपदिकत्वे ह्रस्वाऽभावबोधनात् । ज्ञानवदिति । ह्रस्वविधानाद्दीर्घान्तत्वप्रयुक्तो न कश्चिद्विशेष इति भावः ।जश्शसोः शिः॑ । श्रीपाणीति रूपम् । भिन्नपदस्थत्वेऽपि 'एकाजुत्तरपदे णः' इति णत्वप्रवृत्तेः । श्रीपेण । इनादेशे गुणे तस्य पूर्वान्तत्वादुत्तरपदस्य एकाच्त्वात्स्यादेव णत्वम् । श्रीपायेति । श्रीपाशब्दस्य 'ह्रस्वो नपुंसके' इति ह्रस्वत्वे ङेर्यादेशेसुपि चे॑ति दीर्घे रूपम् । संनिपातपरिभाषा तु कष्टायेति निर्देशान्न प्रवर्तत इति प्रागुक्तम् । नन्वत्र ह्रस्वत्वे कृतेऽपिपे॑त्यस्य एकदेशविकृतन्यायेन धातुत्वानपायाद्दीर्घे कृते आकारान्तत्वाच्च 'आतो धातोः' इत्याल्लोपः स्यात्, यादेशस्य स्वतो यकारादितया स्थानिवत्त्वेन स्वादिप्रत्ययतया च तस्मिन् परे भत्वस्यापि सत्त्वादित्यत आह-अत्र संनिपातेति । ननूपजीव्यविघातकं प्रति उपजीवकं निमित्तं न भवतीति संनिपातपरिभाषया लभ्यते । प्रकृतेच अदन्तमुपजीव्य प्रवृत्तस्य यादेशस्य आल्लोपं प्रति कथं न निमित्तत्वम् । यादेशस्य आकारमुपजीव्य प्रवृत्तत्वाऽभावेन आकारलोपं प्रति निमित्तत्वे बाधकाऽभावादिति चेत्, मैवम्-यादेशस्तावद्ध्रस्वमवर्णमुपजीव्य प्रवर्तते, तद्विधावत इत्यनुवृत्तेः । ततश्च ह्रस्वत्वमवर्णत्वं च समुदितं यादेशस्योपजीव्यम् । तत्र कष्टायेति निर्देशात्संनिपातपरिभाषां बाधित्वा कृते ।ञपि दीर्घे ह्रस्वत्वांश एव निवृत्तः । अवर्णत्वांशस्त्वनुवृत्त एव । तस्याप्याल्लोपेन निवृत्तौ उपजीव्यविघातः स्यादेवेति भवेदेव संनिपातपरिभाषाविरोधः । अतो न भवत्याल्लोप इति कौस्तुभे समाहितम् 'इको गुणवृद्धी' इत्यत्र । वस्तुतस्त्वातो धातोरित्यत्र लक्षणप्रतिपदोक्त परिभाषया प्रतिपदोक्त एवाकारान्तदातुर्गृह्रते । इह तु पाधातोह्र्यस्वत्वे तु पुनर्दीर्घे सति अवगम्यमानं पास्वरूपं लाक्षणिकमेवेति न तस्यात्र ग्रहणमित्यास्तां तावत् । इत्यादन्ताः ।

hrasvo napuṃsake prātipadikasya — Now the ā-ending [stems]. The word śrīpā, "one who protects (pāti) prosperity (śrī)," like the word viśvapā, ends in the affix viṭ or the affix kvip. To prescribe the shortening for it when it is neuter, he [Bhaṭṭoji] states "hrasvo napuṃsake." Because the prātipadika is qualified by "ac" (a vowel) — brought to mind through the word "hrasva" (only a vowel being shortenable) — the tadantavidhi [applies, i.e. a prātipadika ending in a vowel]; this he states by "klībe" etc. Nor should it be objected that in kule [nominative/accusative dual of kula], since the single-substitute (ekādeśa) is treated as belonging to the end of the preceding member (pūrvānta) and so [kul + e] is a vowel-ending prātipadika, shortening should apply — because, when the term "prātipadika" is carried forward from "arthavad adhātuḥ ..." (the prātipadika definition), its repeated mention [in this sūtra] indicates that when [something is] a prātipadika only through antavadbhāva (being treated as the end-portion), shortening does not apply. "[like] jñāna": because of the prescription of shortening, no special feature arises from [the stem's] ending in a long vowel [and śrīpā behaves just like jñāna].

"jaśśasoḥ śiḥ" [nom./acc. pl. neuter]: the form is śrīpāṇi. Even though [the r and the n] stand in different words, ṇatva applies by "ekājuttarapade ṇaḥ" (A 8.4.12). śrīpeṇa [instrumental singular]: when the substitute ina [for the ending ṭā] is made and guṇa [applies], since that [guṇa vowel] belongs to the end of the preceding member (pūrvānta) and the second member (uttarapada) is ekāc, ṇatva certainly applies. "śrīpāya": the word śrīpā is shortened by "hrasvo napuṃsake," then the dative ṅe is replaced by ya [by "ṅeryaḥ"], then by "supi ca" (A 7.3.102) [the a is] lengthened — this yields the form. But the saṃnipāta-paribhāṣā does not operate here, on account of the formation "kaṣṭāya," as was stated earlier.

Objection: Even after shortening is done here, since by the maxim that a partial modification does not destroy [an item's identity] (ekadeśavikṛtanyāya) "pā" does not lose its dhātu-status, and, once lengthening is done, [the stem] ends in ā, the elision of ā by "āto dhātoḥ" should apply; moreover, since the ya-substitute is itself y-initial, by sthānivadbhāva, and as a sup-affix (svādi), before it the conditions for bha-status too obtain [which would license āllopa]. Anticipating this he says "atra saṃnipāta[paribhāṣayā] ...".

Objection [continued]: By the saṃnipāta-paribhāṣā one obtains [the maxim] that what depends on something (upajīvaka) cannot be the cause (nimitta) for the destruction of that on which it depends (upajīvya). And in the present case, the ya-substitute, which has operated in dependence on the a-ending [stem], how is it not a cause for the elision of ā? If it be said that, since the ya-substitute did not operate in dependence on the ā [but on a], there is no obstacle to its being a cause for the elision of ā — not so. The ya-substitute operates in dependence on the short a-vowel (avarṇa), because "ataḥ" is carried forward in [the rule prescribing] that operation. And therefore both the shortness and the a-quality together are what the ya-substitute depends upon. There, because of the formation "kaṣṭāya," when — overriding the saṃnipāta-paribhāṣā — lengthening ["supi ca"] is applied, only the "shortness" component is removed, while the "a-quality" component still remains. If that too were removed by the elision of ā, there would indeed be destruction of the upajīvya, and hence a conflict with the saṃnipāta-paribhāṣā. Therefore the elision of ā does not take place — thus it is resolved in the Kaustubha, under "iko guṇavṛddhī."

In truth, however, in "āto dhātoḥ," by the paribhāṣā [distinguishing] lakṣaṇa- and pratipadokta- [forms], only a dhātu expressly (pratipadokta) taught as ending in ā is taken. But here, the form "pā" that is understood [in śrīpāya] after the shortening of the dhātu pā and again its lengthening is merely one arrived at by rule (lākṣaṇika); so it is not taken here. Let this suffice. — Thus the ā-ending [stems].

translator notes

textual The source reads the garbled 'viāpāśabda' (viāpā); it is read here as viśvapā (the standard comparandum, 'one who protects all,' a viṭ/kvip-ending word parallel to śrīpā). Rendered accordingly.

SK 319 · A 7.1.23V

स्वमोर्नपुंसकात् ॥ ३१९ ॥

svamornapuṃsakāt

svamor napuṃsakāt — 7.1.23. After a neuter [aṅga], su and am undergo luk (elision).

Rule. After a neuter aṅga (a stem that an ending is being attached to), the endings su (nominative singular) and am (accusative singular) undergo luk. Luk is the deletion of a whole affix, leaving nothing; the word luk is carried into this rule by anuvṛtti from the earlier rule ṣaḍbhyo luk (A 7.1.22).

Example.

vāri + su → su is deleted by luk → vāri (nominative singular).

vāri + am → am is deleted by luk → vāri (accusative singular).

Applies when / blocked by. Blocked after an a-stem by SK 309, and after the five pronouns of SK 315. Bhaṭṭoji's commentators make one point explicit: luk deletes the whole of am, not just its first sound. The paribhāṣā ādeḥ parasya (A 1.1.54), which normally lets a substitute replace only the first sound of a following element, does not apply, because luk is by definition the elision of the entire affix; it is a sarvādeśa, a substitute for the whole.

Siddhānta-kaumudī

क्लीबादङ्गात्स्वमोर्लुक् स्यात् । वारि ॥

After a neuter (klība) aṅga, luk (elision) of su and am occurs. [nom./acc. sg.:] vāri.

Tattvabodhinī

NSP p. 86

—स्वमोर्नपुंसकात् । अयं लुक् पूर्वविप्रतिषेधेन त्यदाद्यत्वस्य किमः कादेशस्य च वाधकः । परत्वाद्धि त्यदाद्यत्वे ‘तदोः—’ इति सत्वे सोरम्भावे च संकुलमिति स्यात् । इष्यते तु तत्कुलमिति

Bālamanoramā

स्वमोर्नपुंसकात् - अथ वारिशब्दप्रक्रियां दर्शियितुमाह — स्वमोर्नपुंसकात् । 'षड्भ्यो लुक्' इत्यतो लुगित्यनुवर्तते । इत्याह — क्लीवादित्यादिना । वारीति । सोरमश्च लुकि रूपम् । नचआदेः परस्ये॑त्यमोऽकारस्यैव लुक् स्यान्न तु मकारस्यापीति शङ्क्यं, प्रत्ययस्य लोप एव हि लुगित्युच्यते । अम् इति समुदाय एवेह प्रत्ययो नतु तदेकदेशभूतमकारमात्रम् । अतो लुगमः सर्वादेश एव भवति ।

svamor napuṃsakāt — Now, to display the derivation of the word vāri, [Bhaṭṭoji] says "svamor napuṃsakāt." From "ṣaḍbhyo luk" [A 7.1.22], "luk" is carried forward by anuvṛtti. This he states by "klībāt..." etc. vāri — the form on the luk of su and am. Nor should it be doubted that, by "ādeḥ parasya" [A 1.1.54], only the a-kāra of am [would undergo] luk and not the m-kāra too; for luk is declared [to be] precisely the elision of the [whole] pratyaya (suffix). Here the aggregate "am" itself is the suffix, not merely the a-kāra which is one part of it. Hence the luk of am is a substitution for the whole (sarvādeśa).

SK 320 · A 7.1.73V

इकोऽचि विभक्तौ ॥ ३२० ॥

iko'ci vibhaktau

iko'ci vibhaktau — 7.1.73. For a neuter [aṅga] ending in an ik-vowel, the augment num is added when a vowel-initial (ac) vibhakti follows.

Rule. A neuter aṅga ending in an ik vowel (i, u, ṛ, ḷ) takes the augment num when a vowel-initial case-ending (vibhakti) follows. Num is carried in by anuvṛtti from idito num dhātoḥ (A 7.1.58), and napuṃsakasya from SK 314. Being mit, num goes after the last vowel of the stem.

Example.

vāri + auṄ → śī by SK 310 → vāri + ī → num → vārin + ī → n → ṇ after the r (the change carries across the num, by aṭkupvāṅnumvyavāye 'pi) → vāriṇī (nominative and accusative dual).

vāri + jas → śi by SK 312 → vāri + i → num → vārin + i → the vowel before n lengthened by sarvanāmasthāne ca → ṇatva → vārīṇi (nominative and accusative plural).

Instrumental: vāri + ṭā → ṭā → nā by āṅo nā (SK 244) → num → ṇatva → vāriṇā.

Dative: vāri + ṅe → num → vāriṇe; ablative and genitive vāriṇaḥ; genitive and locative dual vāriṇoḥ; locative vāriṇi.

Genitive plural: vāri + ām → not num but the augment nuṭ (the n that begins the ending, giving nām) → the stem-vowel is lengthened before nām by nāmi (SK 209) → vārīṇām.

Before a consonant-initial ending: like hari (vāribhyām, vāribhiḥ, vāriṣu …).

Applies when / blocked by. Only before a vibhakti, a case-ending. Bhaṭṭoji's commentators give the reason: madhu "wine" forms mādhava "belonging to wine" with the taddhita affix aṇ, which is vowel-initial; had the rule said merely "before a vowel", num would enter there and give a wrong form.

Vārttika (SK 320.k2): "num prevails over vṛddhi, the substitution of au (auttva), the treatment as a tṛ-stem (tṛjvadbhāva) and guṇa, by pūrvavipratiṣedha." Ordinarily, when two rules conflict, the later one in the Aṣṭādhyāyī wins (paratva). Pūrvavipratiṣedha is the reverse: the earlier rule is made to win. So in the dative vāri + ṅe, the guṇa of gher ṅiti (SK 245) is later and would give vāraye; but num is made to prevail → vāriṇe. Likewise in the ablative, genitive and dual against guṇa and yaṇ, and in the locative against the au of acca gheḥ. Bhaṭṭoji's commentators list where each loser still has its own field: vṛddhi in gāvau, auttva in harau, tṛjvadbhāva in kroṣṭrā, guṇa in haraye.

Watch out. Two points on the paradigm.

First, the genitive plural. Num is applicable here too, and is later than nuṭ; but the form taken is with nuṭ. The difference: num becomes part of the stem, so a stem in -in would not be "vowel-final" and nāmi could not lengthen it; with nuṭ the stem stays vāri and is lengthened to vārī. Hence vārīṇām.

Second, the vocative. he vāri + su → su deleted by SK 319. Ordinarily a deleted (luk) affix leaves no trace for stem-operations — this is the prohibition na lumatāṅgasya (SK 263). But Bhaṭṭoji treats that prohibition as anitya (not binding in every case), so in one alternative the vocative guṇa of hrasvasya guṇaḥ (A 7.3.108) does apply: he vāre beside he vāri. The word ac in the present sūtra is taken as the hint (jñāpaka) that the prohibition is not binding.

vāri	singular	dual	plural
nominative / accusative	vāri	vāriṇī	vārīṇi
vocative	he vāre / he vāri	vāriṇī	vārīṇi
instrumental	vāriṇā	like hari	like hari
dative	vāriṇe	like hari	like hari
ablative	vāriṇaḥ	like hari	like hari
genitive	vāriṇaḥ	vāriṇoḥ	vārīṇām
locative	vāriṇi	vāriṇoḥ	like hari

Siddhānta-kaumudī

इगन्तस्य क्लीबस्य नुमागमः स्यादचि विभक्तौ । वारिणी । वारीणि । न लुमता SK 263 इति निषेधस्याऽनित्यत्वात्पक्षे संबुद्धिनिमित्तो गुणः । हे वारे! । हे वारि । आङो ना SK 244 ॥ वारिणा । घेर्ङिति SK 245 इति गुणे प्राप्ते ।

For a neuter [aṅga] ending in an ik-vowel, the augment num is added when a vowel-initial vibhakti follows. — vāriṇī [nom./acc. dual]; vārīṇi [nom./acc. plural]. Because the prohibition [of pratyayalakṣaṇa] by "na lumatāṅgasya" (SK 263) is non-obligatory (anitya), in one alternative there is guṇa conditioned by the sambuddhi (vocative singular): [thus] he vāre! — [and in the other] he vāri. — "āṅo nā" (SK 244) [applies for the instrumental]: vāriṇā. — When guṇa is obtained by "gher ṅiti" (SK 245) [in the dative etc., the following vārttika answers it].

vārttika

वृद्ध्यौत्त्वतृज्वद्भावगुणेभ्यो नुम्पूर्वविप्रतिषेधेन

(vārttika) num [prevails] over vṛddhi, the u-substitution (auttva), the tṛjvadbhāva, and guṇa, by the principle of the prior [rule] prevailing (pūrvavipratiṣedha).

(वार्तिकम्) ॥ वारिणे । वारिणः । वारिणोः । नुमचिरेति नुट् । नामी SK 209 इति दीर्घः । वारीणाम् । वारिणि । वारिणोः । हलादौ हरिवत् ॥

(This was a vārttika.) — vāriṇe [dative singular]; vāriṇaḥ [ablative/genitive singular]; vāriṇoḥ [genitive/locative dual]. — [For the genitive plural, vāri + ām:] although num [is applicable] by "iko'ci [vibhaktau]," the augment nuṭ [is applied]; then by "nāmi" (SK 209) [the aṅga vowel is] lengthened: vārīṇām. — vāriṇi [locative singular]; vāriṇoḥ [genitive/locative dual]. Before a consonant-initial [ending] (halādau), [it declines] like hari.

Tattvabodhinī

NSP p. 86–87

—इकोऽचि—। विभक्तौ किम् । मधु मयं तस्येदं माधवम् । अत्र नुमि सति टिलोपः स्यात् ॥—वृद्ध्यौत्वेति । अतिसखिनीत्यत्र ‘सख्युरसंदुद्धौ’ इति णिद्धद्भावाद्रृद्धिः प्राप्ता, वारिणीत्यत्र तु ‘अच्च घेः’ इत्यौत्वम् । प्रियक्रोष्टुनीत्यादौ तृज्वद्भावः प्राप्तः । ननु नुम्नटोः को विशेषस्तत्राह—नामीति दीर्घ इति । नुमस्त्वङ्गभक्तत्वात्तस्मिन्सति दीर्घो न स्यादिति भावः

Bālamanoramā

इकोऽचि विभक्तौ - इकोऽचि । 'इदितो नुम् धातोः' इत्यतो नुमित्यनुवर्तते । 'नपुंसकस्य झलचः' इत्यतोनपुंसकस्ये॑त्यनुवर्तते,अङ्गस्ये॑त्यदिकृतमिका विशेष्यते, ततस्तदन्तविधिः, तदाह — इगन्तस्येत्यादिना । अचि विभक्ताविति । अजादौ विभक्तावित्यर्थः ।इकोऽचि सुपी॑त्येव सुवचम् । विभक्तौ किम् मधु=मद्यं, तस्येदं माधवम् । अणि परे नुमि टिलोपेमाध॑मिति स्यात् । वारिणी इति । वारि-औ इति स्थिते शीभावे नुमिअट्कुप्वाङिति णत्वे रूपम् । वारीणीति । जश्शसोः शिभावे नुमिसर्वनामस्थाने चे॑ति दीर्घे णत्वे रूपम् । हे वारि सु इत्यत्र सोर्लुकि प्रक्रियां दर्शयति — पक्ष इति । 'ह्रस्वस्य गुण' इति सम्बुद्धिनिमित्तको गुणः कदाचिद्भवतीत्यर्थः । नन्विह सम्बुद्धेर्लुका लुप्तवान्न लुमतेति प्रत्ययलक्षणनिषेधात्कथं गुण इत्यत आह-न लुमतेतिनिषेधस्यानित्य्त्वादिति । अत्र च 'इकोऽचि विभाक्तौ' इत्यत्राज्ग्रहणं ज्ञापकम् । हलादिषु भ्यामादिषु सत्यपि नुमिन लोपः प्रातिपदिकान्तस्ये॑ति तस्य लोपसम्भवादचीति व्यर्थम् । न च सम्बुद्धिव्यावृत्त्यर्थमज्ग्रहणं, तुत्र नुमि सतिन ङिसम्बुद्धयो॑रिति निषेधे सति नकारश्रवणप्रसङ्गादिति वाच्यं, सम्बुद्धेर्लुका लुप्ततया प्रत्ययलक्षणाभावेन तत्र नुमः । प्राप्तेरेवाऽभावात् ।न लुमते॑ति निषेधस्याऽनित्यत्वे तु सम्बुद्धौ प्रत्ययलक्षणेन प्राप्तं नुमं वारयितुमज्ग्रहणमर्थवदिति भवत्यज्ग्रहणंन लुमते॑त्यस्यानित्यत्वे लिङ्गमित्याहुः । अत एवइकोऽची॑ति सूत्रे हे त्रपो इति, एङ्ह्रस्वादिति सूत्रे हे त्रपु इति च भाष्यं सङ्गच्छते । आङो नेति । रूपे विशेषाऽभावेऽपि नुमपेक्षया परत्वेन नाभावस्यैव न्याय्यत्वादिति भावः । ङसिङसोर्विशेषमाह-घेरिति । नुमं बाधित्वा परत्वाद्गुणे प्राप्त इत्यर्थः ।वृद्ध्यौत्त्वेति । वार्तिकम् । वृद्ध्यादीनां क्रमेण-गावौ हरौ क्रोष्ट्रा हरये इत्यवकाशः । नुमोऽवकाशो वारीणि इति । अतिसखीनीत्यत्र जश्शसोः 'सख्युरसम्बुद्धौ' इति णित्त्वाद्वृद्धिः परत्वान्नुमं बाधित्वा प्राप्ता । वारिणीत्यत्र ङौ तु 'अच्च घेः' इत्यौत्त्वं प्राप्तम् । प्रियक्रोष्टूनीत्यत्र जश्शसोस्तृज्वत्त्वं प्राप्तम् । वारिशब्दान्ङ्यादौ गुणः प्राप्तः । अत्र पूर्वविप्रतिषेधान्नुमेवेत्यर्थः । वारिणे इति । ङयि गुणं बाधित्वा नुमि णत्वे रूपम् । वारिण इति । ङसिङसोर्गुणं बाधित्वा नुमि णत्वे रूपम् । वारिणोरिति । ओसि यणं बाधित्वा नुमि णत्वे रूपम् । वारिण इति । ङसिङसोर्गुणं बाधित्वा नुमि णत्वे रूपम् । वारिणोरिति । ओसि यणं बाधित्वा नुमि णत्वे रूपम् । वारि-आमित्यत्र परत्वान्नुटं बाधित्वा नुमि प्राप्त आह — नुमचिरेति । नुडिति । नुम्नुटोः को विशेष इत्यत आह-नामीति दीर्घ इति । नुमि तु सति तस्याङ्गभक्तत्वा॑न्नामी॑ति दीर्घो न स्यादिति भावः । वारिणीति । ङौ 'अच्च घेः' इत्यौत्त्वं परमपि बाधित्वावृद्ध्यौत्त्वे॑ति पूर्वविप्रतिषेधान्नुम् । न विद्यते आदिः= उत्पत्तिः यस्य सः अनादिः=ईआरः । अनादिः अविद्या । अनाद#इ ब्राहृ । त्रिलिङ्गोऽयं विशेष्यनिघ्नः । तस्य नपुंसकत्वे प्रथमाद्वितीययोर्वारिवद्रूपाणि ।

iko'ci vibhaktau — iko'ci. From "idito num dhātoḥ" (A 7.1.58), "num" is carried forward (anuvṛtti); from "napuṃsakasya jhalacaḥ" (A 7.1.72), "napuṃsakasya" (of the neuter) is carried forward. The governing heading "aṅgasya" is qualified by "ik" [an aṅga ending in ik]; hence the tadantavidhi; this he states by "igantasya" etc. "aci vibhaktau" means: when a vowel-initial (ajādi) vibhakti follows — [otherwise] it could easily have been stated as "iko'ci supi." Why "vibhakti"? [Consider] madhu = wine (madya); "that which pertains to it" = mādhava [by the taddhita aṇ]. [Without the restriction to a vibhakti,] when the aṇ follows, num [would be inserted], and after ṭi-elision a wrong form would result.

"vāriṇī": from vāri + au, when au is replaced by ī (śī), then num [is added], then by "aṭkupvāṅ ... [num]" ṇatva [is done] — this is the form. "vārīṇi": for jas/śas, when śi is substituted, then num, then lengthening by "sarvanāmasthāne ca" (A 6.4.8), then ṇatva — this is the form.

In "he vāri su," where su undergoes luk, he shows the derivation by "pakṣe": that is, by "hrasvasya guṇaḥ" (A 7.3.108) guṇa conditioned by the sambuddhi (vocative) sometimes occurs. Objection: Here, since the sambuddhi (su) is elided by luk, how can there be guṇa, given the prohibition of pratyayalakṣaṇa by "na lumatā[ṅgasya]" (A 1.1.63)? To this he says: "because the prohibition by 'na lumatā' is non-obligatory (anitya)." And here the mention of "ac" in "iko'ci vibhaktau" is an indicator (jñāpaka) [of this non-obligatoriness]: for even if num were present before the consonant-initial endings bhyām etc., its [final n] could be elided by "nalopaḥ prātipadikāntasya" (A 8.2.7), so the word "ac" would [otherwise] be purposeless. Nor should it be said that the mention of "ac" serves to exclude the sambuddhi — [on the reasoning that,] if num were present there, then, given the prohibition by "na ṅisambuddhyoḥ," an [unwanted] n would be heard — because, the sambuddhi (su) being elided by luk, there is no pratyayalakṣaṇa, and so num does not even arise there in the first place. But if the prohibition by "na lumatā" is non-obligatory, then, in order to ward off the num that would [otherwise] arise in the sambuddhi through pratyayalakṣaṇa, the mention of "ac" becomes meaningful; thus, they say, the mention of "ac" is a mark (liṅga) of the non-obligatoriness of "na lumatā." For this very reason the Bhāṣya's "he trapo" under the sūtra "iko'ci [vibhaktau]" and "he trapu" under the sūtra "eṅ hrasvāt [sambuddheḥ]" are mutually consistent.

"āṅo nā": the idea is that, although there is no difference in the resulting form, since the nā-substitution is later (para) relative to num, the nā- substitution alone is proper [for the instrumental singular: vāriṇā].

He states the special point regarding ṅasi and ṅas [ablative/genitive singular] by "gher [ṅiti]": that is, guṇa is [prima facie] obtained, overriding num, by being para [and the following vārttika reasserts num]. "vṛddhyauttva ...": [this is] a vārttika. The scopes (avakāśa) of vṛddhi etc., respectively, are: gāvau (vṛddhi), harau (auttva), kroṣṭrā (tṛjvadbhāva), haraye (guṇa); the scope of num is vārīṇi. In atisakhīni, for jas/śas, by "sakhyurasambuddhau" (A 7.1.92) [the affix becomes] ṇit, so vṛddhi, being para, is obtained overriding num. In vāriṇi, in the locative singular (ṅau), the auttva by "acca gheḥ" is obtained. In priyakroṣṭūni, for jas/śas, the tṛjvadbhāva is obtained. From the word vāri, before ṅe etc. (ṅyādi), guṇa is obtained. Here, by the prior [rule] prevailing (pūrvavipratiṣedha), num alone [applies] — such is the meaning.

"vāriṇe": in the dative singular (ṅe), overriding guṇa, by num and then ṇatva, the form. "vāriṇaḥ": in the ablative/genitive singular (ṅasi/ṅas), overriding guṇa, by num and ṇatva, the form. "vāriṇoḥ": in the [genitive/locative] dual (os), overriding yaṇ, by num and ṇatva, the form. [The source repeats these ablative/genitive-singular and dual glosses.] In vāri + ām [genitive plural], num being [prima facie] obtained by overriding nuṭ through being para, he states [that nonetheless] "nuṭ" [applies]. As to what difference there is between num and nuṭ, he says: the lengthening by "nāmi." The idea: were num applied, since its n belongs to the aṅga (aṅgabhakta), the lengthening by "nāmi" would not take place [and the wrong short form would result; hence nuṭ, giving vārīṇām]. "vāriṇi": in the locative singular (ṅau), overriding even the auttva by "acca gheḥ," though it is para, num [applies] by the pūrvavipratiṣedha of "vṛddhyauttva ...".

"That which has no beginning (ādi = origin)" = anādi = īśvara; anādi [also =] avidyā; brahman is beginningless. This [word anādi] is of three genders (triliṅga), dependent on its qualificand (viśeṣyanighna); when it is neuter, its nominative and accusative forms are like vāri.

Footnotes (NSP 1915 ed.)

NSP p. 87 १ पुंवदिति—अयं च व्याप्तिन्यायेन ह्रस्त्वनुभोरभांवातिदेशः । वृत्तीयादौ पुंसि विहितस्यातिदेश्यस्य भावस्याभावात् । २ भाषितपुंस्कमिति—यन्निमित्तमुपादाय पुंसि शब्दः प्रवर्तते । क्वीवृत्तौ तदेव स्यादुक्तपुंस्कं तदुच्यते ॥ पीछवृंक्षः फलं पीछ पीछने नहि पीछवे । वृक्षे निमित्तं पीछत्वं तज्जत्वं तत्फले पुनः ॥

translator notes

translator In the genitive plural (vāri + ām), num (A 7.1.73) and the augment nuṭ (A 7.1.54) compete. Although num is para, the correct form vārīṇām — with a long ī produced by the lengthening 'nāmi' (SK 209 = A 6.4.3) — requires the augment nuṭ: were num applied, its inserted n would be part of the aṅga (aṅgabhakta) and would not trigger 'nāmi.' The Kaumudī's compressed 'num ... nuṭ' is thus read as: num is obtained prima facie but nuṭ is the operation actually applied.
textual The source b1 repeats the glosses of vāriṇaḥ (ablative/genitive singular, 'overriding guṇa') and vāriṇoḥ (dual, 'overriding yaṇ') verbatim; the repetition is not reproduced twice in the English. Several forms in the Devanāgarī are lightly garbled by digitization (e.g. 'īśvara' appears as 'īārah', 'brahma' as 'brāhṛ', 'aṇi pare numi ṭilope' + a truncated result word); the evident readings are followed.

SK 321 · A 7.1.74V

तृतीयादिषु भाषितपुंस्कं पुंवद्गालवस्य ॥ ३२१ ॥

tṛtīyādiṣu bhāṣitapuṃskaṃ puṃvadgālavasya

tṛtīyādiṣu bhāṣitapuṃskaṃ puṃvad gālavasya — 7.1.74. In the third and following cases (from the instrumental on), before a vowel[-initial affix], a neuter word that is bhāṣita-puṃska (used, with the same ground of application, also in the masculine) behaves as masculine (puṃvat), in Gālava's opinion [hence optionally].

Rule. From the instrumental (the third case, tṛtīyā) onward, before a vowel-initial ending, a neuter ik-stem that is bhāṣitapuṃska behaves as masculine (puṃvat) — in the opinion of Gālava, which makes the option free. A word is bhāṣitapuṃska when it is also used in the masculine with the same pravṛtti-nimitta, the ground on which the word is applied to a thing (the property, such as pot-ness for ghaṭa, that makes the word fit). "Behaving as masculine" means: no shortening by SK 318 and no num by SK 320. Iko'ci and napuṃsakasya come by anuvṛtti from SK 320 and SK 314.

Example.

anādi "beginningless" (masculine, feminine or neuter alike, always on the ground of having no origin — so it is bhāṣitapuṃska):

dative, masculine option: anādi + ṅe → no num → guṇa by gher ṅiti (SK 245) → anādaye.

dative, neuter option: anādi + ṅe → num → anādine.

So too ablative and genitive anādeḥ / anādinaḥ; genitive and locative dual anādyoḥ / anādinoḥ. In the genitive plural only anādīnām, the two options giving the same form. The nominative and accusative, and all consonant-initial endings, are like vāri.

Applies when / blocked by. Only with identity of ground. Bhaṭṭoji's own contrast: pīlu the tree is masculine; its fruit, also called pīlu (the affix aṇ that would form the fruit-name is deleted by phale luk, A 4.3.163), is neuter. The tree-word is applied on the ground of being that kind of tree, the fruit-word on the ground of being that tree's fruit. The grounds differ, so the fruit takes no masculine forms: dative pīlune, never pīlave. A verse Bhaṭṭoji's commentators quote sums it up: pīlu the tree, pīlu the fruit; pīlune, not pīlave.

Siddhānta-kaumudī

प्रवृत्तिनिमित्तैक्ये भाषितपुंस्कमिगन्तं क्लीबं पुंवद्वा स्याट्टादावचि । अनादये । अनादिने । इत्यादि । शेषं वारिवत् ॥ पीलुर्वृक्षस्तत्फलं पीलु तस्मै पीलुने । अत्र न पुंवत् । प्रवृत्तिनिमित्तभेदात् ॥

When there is unity of the ground-of-application (pravṛtti-nimitta) [in the masculine and the neuter], a neuter (klība) [word] ending in ik that is bhāṣita-puṃska optionally behaves as masculine (puṃvat) before a vowel (ac) beginning the ṭā-series affixes (i.e. from the instrumental singular ṭā onward). [Dative:] anādaye (puṃvat) / anādine (non-puṃvat), and so on. The rest [of the paradigm is] like vāri. — "pīlu [is] a tree, its fruit [is] pīlu; for that [fruit], pīlune [not pīlave]." Here it does not behave as masculine, because of the difference in the ground-of-application (pravṛtti-nimitta-bheda).

Tattvabodhinī

NSP p. 87

—तृतीयादिषु—। यद्यत्र भाषितः पुमान् येन शब्देन स भाषितपुंस्कः शब्द इति विज्ञायेत तदा पीलुने इत्यादावतिप्रसङ्गः स्यात्, अतो व्याचष्टे—प्रवृत्तिनिमित्तैक्य इति । अयं भावः । भाषितः पुमान् यस्मिन् अर्थे तत् भाषितपुंस्कं प्रवृत्तिनिमित्तं तदस्यास्तीति अर्शआदित्यादच् । तेनैकस्मिन् प्रवृत्तिनिमित्ते भाषितपुंस्कं यच्छब्दस्वरूपं तल्लभ्यत इति । ‘इकोऽचि विभक्तौ’ इत्यतोऽचीत्यनुवर्तनादाह—टादावचीति । इगन्तं किम् । सोमपेन कुलेन । अचि किम् । प्रामणिभ्यां कुलाभ्याम् । टादौ किम् । अनादिनी । अनादीनि ॥—तत्फलमिति । पीलोः फलं पीलु । ‘फले लुक्’ इति ओरबो लुक् ॥—प्रवृत्तिनिमित्तभेदादिति । पीलुशब्दस्य हि वृक्षत्वव्याप्यजातिर्वृक्षे प्रवृत्तिनिमित्तम्, फले तु फलत्वव्याप्यजातिर्वृक्षे विशेषप्रभवत्वं वा । उभययापि पुंनपुंसकयोर्नैकं प्रवृत्तिनिमित्तमिति भावः

Bālamanoramā

तृतीयाऽऽदिषु भाषितपुंस्कं पुंवद्गालवस्य - टादिषु अचिविशेषमाह — तृतीयादिषु । भाषितः पुमान् येन प्रवृत्तिनिमित्तेन तत्-भाषितपुंस्कं, तदस्यास्तीति अर्शाअद्यच् । शब्दस्वरूपं विशेष्यम् । पुंस्त्वे नपुंसकत्वे च एकप्रवृत्तिनिमित्तकमिति यावत् ।इकोऽचि विभक्तौ इत्यतइकोऽची॑ति 'नपुंसकस्य झलचः' इत्यतोनपुंसकस्ये॑ति चानुवर्तते । षष्ठी च प्रथमया विपरिणम्यते । तदाह-प्रवृत्तिनिमित्तैक्य इत्यादिना । पुंवद्वेति । गालवग्रहणादिति भावः । अचीति । अजादावित्यर्थः । पुंवत्त्वे ह्रस्वनुमोरभावः फलति । घटपटादिशब्दास्तावद्घटत्वपटत्वादिरूपेणैव तत्तद्व्यकिंत प्रत्याययन्ति, ननु द्रव्यत्वपृथिबीत्वादिरूपेणेति निर्विवादम् । ततश्च यद्विशेषणं पुरस्कृत्य घटादिशब्दास्तत्तद्व्यक्तिषु प्रयुज्यन्ते तद्विशेषणं प्रवृत्तिनिमित्तमित्युच्यते । वाच्यतावच्छेदकमिति यावत् । एवंच नपुंसकत्वे लिङ्गान्तरे च यस्य एकमेव वाच्यतावच्छेदकं तच्छब्दस्वरूपं भाषितपुंस्कशब्देन विवक्षितम् । अनादिशब्दश्च उत्पत्त्यभावात्मकमनादित्वं पुरस्कृत्य स्त्रीपुंनपुंसकतत्तद्व्यक्तिप्रत्यायक इति भवति तस्य प्रवृत्तिनिमित्तैक्ये भाषुतपुंस्कता । अतस्तस्य टादावचि पुंवत्त्वविकल्प इत्यभिप्रेत्योदाहरति — अनादये अदादिने इति । पुंवत्त्वे नुमोऽप्रवृत्तेधेर्ङिती॑ति गुणः । पुंवत्त्वाऽभावे तु नुमिति भावः । इत्यादीति । अनादेः-अनादिनः । अनाद्योः-अनादिनोः । आमि तु अनादीनामित्येव । शेषं वारिवदिति । प्रथमाद्वितीययोभ्र्यामादौ हलि च वारिवदित्यर्थः ।प्रवृत्तिनिमित्तैक्य॑ इत्यस्य प्रयोजनं दर्शयितुमाह — पीलुर्वृक्ष इति । यदा वृक्षविशेषः पीलुशब्दवाच्यस्तदा पुंलिङ्गः पीलुशब्दः, यदा पीलुजन्यफलं पीलुशब्दवाच्यं तदा नपुंसकलिङ्गोऽयम् । 'फले लुक्' इत्यणो लुक् । अत्र फले वाच्ये पुंवत्त्वं नेत्यर्थः । कुत इत्यत आह-प्रवृत्तिनिमित्तभेदादिति । वृक्षत्वव्याप्यजातिविशेषात्मकं पीलुत्वं वृक्षविशेषे वाच्ये प्रवृत्तिनिमित्तम् । फलविशेषे तु वाच्ये फलत्वव्याप्यजातिविशेषात्मकं पीलुत्वं प्रवृत्तिनिमित्तमिति प्रवृत्तिनिमित्तभेदादित्यर्थः । तदुक्तम् — ॒पीलुर्वृक्षः फलं पीलु पीलुने नतु पीलवे । वृक्षे निमित्तं पीलुत्वं, तज्जत्वं तत्फले पुनः ।॑ इति ।

tṛtīyādiṣu bhāṣitapuṃskaṃ puṃvad gālavasya — He states a special [rule] regarding a vowel (ac) that begins the ṭā-series (ṭādiṣu aci): "tṛtīyādiṣu." "bhāṣita-puṃska": that ground-of-application (pravṛtti-nimitta) by which the masculine has been expressed (bhāṣita) is "bhāṣita-puṃska"; and "that which has this" [is meant], by the arśa-ādi affix ac. The qualificand (viśeṣya) is the word-form itself (śabda-svarūpa) — that is to say, [a word] having one and the same ground-of-application in both the masculine and the neuter. From "iko'ci vibhaktau" [7.1.73] the phrase "iko'ci" is carried forward, and from "napuṃsakasya jhalacaḥ" [7.1.72] the word "napuṃsakasya" is carried forward; and the genitive [napuṃsakasya] is transformed into the nominative (prathamā). He states this by "pravṛtti-nimitta-aikye…" etc. "puṃvad vā (optionally as masculine)" — because of the mention of Gālava [which makes it optional]; this is the point. "aci (before a vowel)" — meaning "before [an affix] beginning with a vowel (aj-ādau)." The result of behaving as masculine (puṃvattva) is the absence of the shortening (hrasva) and of the num-augment.

It is undisputed that words such as ghaṭa, paṭa, etc. denote their respective individuals precisely under the form of pot-ness (ghaṭatva), cloth-ness (paṭatva), etc., and not under the form of substance-ness (dravyatva), earth-ness (pṛthivītva), etc. And thus, that qualifier (viśeṣaṇa), foregrounding which the words ghaṭa etc. are applied to their respective individuals, is called the ground-of-application (pravṛtti-nimitta) — that is to say, the delimitor of denotability (vācyatāvacchedaka). And thus, the word-form that has one and the same delimitor-of-denotability in the neuter and in the other gender is what is intended by the term "bhāṣita-puṃska." And the word "anādi" (beginningless), foregrounding "beginninglessness" (anāditva), which consists in the absence of origination, denotes individuals of feminine, masculine, and neuter [gender alike]; hence, there being unity of the ground-of-application, it possesses the property of being bhāṣita-puṃska. Therefore, intending that for it there is an option of behaving as masculine before a vowel of the ṭā-series, he exemplifies: "anādaye, anādine." On [the option of] behaving as masculine, since the num-augment does not apply, there is guṇa by "gher ṅiti" [7.3.111 → anādaye]; but in the absence of [behaving as] masculine, there is num [→ anādine]. This is the point.

"and so on (ityādi)": [ablative/genitive singular] anādeḥ (puṃvat) / anādinaḥ (non-puṃvat); [genitive/locative dual] anādyoḥ / anādinoḥ; but in the ām (genitive plural) it is only anādīnām [both ways]. "the rest like vāri": meaning, in the nominative and accusative, and before [affixes] beginning with bhyām etc. and beginning with a consonant (hal), [the forms are] like vāri.

To show the purpose of [the qualification] "unity of ground-of-application," he says "pīlur vṛkṣaḥ": when a particular tree is denoted by the word pīlu, the word pīlu is masculine; when the fruit produced from the pīlu is denoted by the word pīlu, it is neuter. By "phale luk" [4.3.163] the aṆ [affix] undergoes luk-elision [so tree-name and fruit-name are formally identical]. Here, when the fruit is denoted, [the word] does not behave as masculine — this is the meaning. To the [question] "why?" he says "because of the difference in the ground-of-application (pravṛtti-nimitta-bheda)": when the particular tree is denoted, the ground-of-application is pīlu-ness (pīlutva), consisting in a particular universal (jāti) pervaded by tree-ness (vṛkṣatva-vyāpya); but when the particular fruit is denoted, the ground-of-application is pīlu-ness consisting in a particular universal pervaded by fruit-ness (phalatva-vyāpya) — thus there is a difference in the ground-of-application; this is the meaning. As it has been said [in a verse]: "pīlu [is] the tree, pīlu [is] the fruit; [the dative is] pīlune, not pīlave. In [the case of] the tree the ground is pīlu-ness; but in its fruit, [the ground is] being-produced-from-it (tajjatva)."

translator notes

textual In "ghaṭapaṭādiśabdāḥ … ghaṭatvapaṭatvādirūpeṇaiva … nanu dravyatvapṛthivītvādirūpeṇa," the digital source reads "nanu," but the sense requires "na tu" ("not, however, under the form of substance-ness…"); the translation follows "na tu."

SK 322 · A 7.1.75V

अस्थिदधिसक्थ्यक्ष्णामनङुदात्तः ॥ ३२२ ॥

asthidadhisakthyakṣṇāmanaṅudāttaḥ

asthidadhisakthyakṣṇām anaṅ udāttaḥ (7.1.75) — For asthi, dadhi, sakthi, akṣi, [the substitute] anaṅ [replaces the final] before a vowel-initial ṭā-ādi ending (i.e. from the instrumental onward), and it is udātta-accented.

Rule. For asthi "bone", dadhi "curd", sakthi "thigh" and akṣi "eye", the substitute anaṅ replaces the final vowel before a vowel-initial ending from the instrumental onward, and it is udātta. In anaṅ the ṅ is a marker and the last a is for pronunciation; the substitute is an. Because it is ṅit, it replaces only the final sound of the stem (by ṅic ca, A 1.1.53). This is an apavāda to the num of SK 320. Once the stem ends in an and is a bha, allopo'naḥ (SK 234) deletes the a of an.

Example.

dadhi + ṭā → final i → an → dadhan + ā → the a of an deleted by SK 234 → dadhnā (instrumental singular).

Dative dadhne; ablative dadhnaḥ; genitive dadhnaḥ; genitive and locative dual dadhnoḥ; locative singular dadhni or dadhani, the a-deletion being optional before ṅi by vibhāṣā ṅiśyoḥ (A 6.4.136). The rest is like vāri: dadhi, dadhinī, dadhīni. So too asthi, sakthi, akṣi.

Applies when / blocked by. Also for a compound ending in one of the four (tadanta), because the whole compound is the aṅga: atidadhi "that which has surpassed curd" → instrumental atidadhnā, even when the compound is masculine (atidadhnā brāhmaṇena). But a masculine dadhi (root dhā + affix ki) takes no anaṅ, because the rule's napuṃsakasya requires asthi and the rest to be neuter; its instrumental is dadhinā (nā for ṭā, SK 244).

Watch out. Anaṅ does not touch the nominative and accusative, which are not "from the instrumental onward".

This closes the i-stems. Bhaṭṭoji now runs the remaining vowel-stems through the same three rules — SK 320 (num), SK 321 (masculine option), SK 318 (shortening) — and the tṛjvadbhāva of chapter 8.

ī-stems. sudhī "of good mind" is shortened by SK 318 to sudhi and goes like vāri: sudhi, sudhinī (num wins over the iyaṅ substitute by paratva), sudhīni, vocative he sudhe / he sudhi. It is bhāṣitapuṃska (the ground, "thinking well" or "having good understanding", is the same in every gender), so instrumental sudhiyā (masculine option) or sudhinā (num). pradhī likewise: pradhyā (masculine option; here yaṇ applies by er anekācaḥ, A 6.4.82, since the exception na bhūsudhiyoḥ names only bhū and sudhī) or pradhinā.

u-stems. madhu "honey": madhu, madhunī, madhūni, vocative he madho / he madhu. So ambu "water" and the like. madhu has no masculine option: as a neuter it means liquor or flower-nectar, as a masculine the spring or the month Caitra — different grounds; and madhu "wine of the grape" is neuter only. sānu "ridge" optionally takes the substitute snu from śas on (by the vārttika māṃsapṛtanāsānūnām… on SK 228): plural snūni / sānūni; being masculine-or-neuter with one ground, it does have the masculine option.

priyakroṣṭu "whose jackal is dear" (from kroṣṭu "jackal", which in chapter 8 may be treated like the tṛ-stem kroṣṭṛ, tṛjvadbhāva, before a sarvanāmasthāna): priyakroṣṭu, dual priyakroṣṭunī. Plural: before śi, a sarvanāmasthāna, tṛjvadbhāva is due and is later; but by the vārttika of SK 320 num prevails by pūrvavipratiṣedha → priyakroṣṭūni. From the instrumental on, three forms can arise:

priyakroṣṭu	masculine + tṛ-treatment	masculine, no tṛ-treatment	neuter (num)
instrumental	priyakroṣṭrā	priyakroṣṭunā	priyakroṣṭunā
dative	priyakroṣṭre	priyakroṣṭave	priyakroṣṭune
ablative / genitive	priyakroṣṭuḥ	priyakroṣṭoḥ	priyakroṣṭunaḥ
genitive / locative dual	priyakroṣṭroḥ	priyakroṣṭvoḥ	priyakroṣṭunoḥ

In the masculine-plus-tṛ column there is no num, because the word is being treated as non-neuter. Genitive plural: priyakroṣṭūnām, with nuṭ. Before consonant-initial endings: like madhu. Bhaṭṭoji's commentators add why pūrvavipratiṣedha, and not merely the obligatory nature of num, is invoked: what is set aside in such a conflict stays set aside, so tṛjvadbhāva cannot return once num has won.

ū-stems. sulū "one who cuts well" (root lū + kvip) is shortened to sulu: sulu, sulunī (num wins by paratva over the yaṇ of oḥ supi, A 6.4.83), sulūni. Instrumental: masculine option sulvā (no shortening, no num, so the ū becomes v by oḥ supi) or neuter sulunā. Dative sulve / sulune, and so on — two forms in each vowel-initial case.

ṛ-stems. dhātṛ "the sustainer": dhātṛ, dual dhātṛṇī (num, then n → ṇ after ṛ), plural dhātṝṇi (num, lengthening by sarvanāmasthāne ca, ṇatva). The anaṅ of the masculine dhātā does not appear, because su has been deleted by luk and na lumatāṅgasya blocks it; yet, that prohibition being anitya, the vocative has he dhātaḥ (with guṇa) beside he dhātṛ. It is bhāṣitapuṃska (the ground, "being one who sustains", is the same), so:

dhātṛ	masculine option	neuter (num)
instrumental	dhātrā	dhātṛṇā
dative	dhātre	dhātṛṇe
ablative / genitive	dhātuḥ	dhātṛṇaḥ
genitive / locative dual	dhātroḥ	dhātṛṇoḥ
locative	dhātari	dhātṛṇi

Genitive plural dhātṝṇām with nuṭ. So too jñātṛ, kartṛ and the rest.

Siddhānta-kaumudī

एषामनङ् स्याट्टादावचि स चोदात्तः । अल्लोपोऽनः SK 234 ॥ दध्ना । दध्ने । दध्नः । दध्नः । दध्नोः । दध्नोः । दध्नि । दधनि । शेषं वारिवत् । एवमस्थिसक्थ्यक्षि । तदन्तस्याऽप्यनङ् । अतिदध्ना ॥ सुधि । सुधिनी । सुधिनि । हे सुधे । हे सुधि । सुधिया । सुधिना । प्रध्या । प्रधिना ॥ मधु । मधुनी । मधूनि । हे मधो । हे मधु । एवमम्ब्वादयः ॥ सानुशब्दस्य स्नुर्वा । स्नूनि । सानूनि । प्रियक्रोष्टु । प्रियक्रोष्टुनी । तृज्वद्भावात्पूर्वविप्रतिषेधेन नुम् । प्रियक्रोष्टूनि । टादौ पुंवत्पक्षे प्रियक्रोष्ट्रा । प्रियक्रोष्टुना । प्रियक्रोष्ट्रे । प्रियक्रोष्टवे । अन्यत्र तृज्वद्भावात्पूर्वविप्रतिषेधेन नुमेव । प्रियक्रोष्टुना । प्रियक्रोष्टुने । नुमचिरेति नुट् । प्रियक्रोष्टूनाम् ॥ सुलु । सुलुनी । सुलूनि । पुनस्तद्वत् । सुल्वा । सुलुना । धातृ । धातृणी । धातॄणि । हे धातः । हे धातृ । धात्रा । धातृणा । एवं ज्ञातृकर्त्रादयः ॥

For these [asthi, dadhi, sakthi, akṣi], anaṅ is the substitute before a ṭā-ādi vowel[-initial ending] (ṭādāv aci), and it (anaṅ) is udātta. [Then] "allopo'naḥ" (SK 234) [applies: the a of the sequence "an" is elided in the bha-context]. [Forms of dadhi:] dadhnā [instrumental sg]; dadhne [dative sg]; dadhnaḥ [ablative sg]; dadhnaḥ [genitive sg]; dadhnoḥ [genitive/locative dual]; dadhnoḥ; dadhni / dadhani [locative sg, with the a-elision optional]. The rest [declines] like vāri. Similarly asthi, sakthi, akṣi. Also for [a word] ending in these (tadanta), anaṅ [applies]: [e.g.] atidadhnā [instrumental sg of atidadhi].

[ī-ending neuters:] sudhi [nom./acc. sg]; sudhinī [dual]; sudhīni [pl.]; he sudhe / he sudhi [vocative sg]; sudhiyā [instrumental sg, puṃvat option] / sudhinā [with num]; [likewise] pradhyā [puṃvat option, with yaṇ] / pradhinā [with num].

[u-ending neuters:] madhu [nom./acc. sg]; madhunī [dual]; madhūni [pl.]; he madho / he madhu [vocative sg]. Similarly ambu and the like. For the word sānu, [there is] snu optionally: snūni / sānūni [nom./acc. pl.]. priyakroṣṭu; priyakroṣṭunī [dual]. By tṛjvad-bhāva [treating kroṣṭu like a tṛ-stem], through pūrva- vipratiṣedha [the prior rule prevailing], num [is preferred]: priyakroṣṭūni [nom./acc. pl.]. Before a ṭā-ādi ending, in the puṃvat option: priyakroṣṭrā [instrumental sg] / priyakroṣṭunā; [dative sg:] priyakroṣṭre / priyakroṣṭave. Elsewhere [non-puṃvat], by tṛjvad-bhāva through pūrva-vipratiṣedha, num alone: priyakroṣṭunā [instrumental sg]; priyakroṣṭune [dative sg]. By "num-aci..." [the cited rule] the augment nuṭ [before ām]: priyakroṣṭūnām [genitive pl.].

[ū-ending neuters:] sulu [nom./acc. sg]; sulunī [dual]; sulūni [pl.]; again as before [in the ṭā-ādi options]: sulvā [puṃvat] / sulunā [with num]. [ṛ-ending neuters:] dhātṛ [nom./acc. sg]; dhātṛṇī [dual]; dhātṝṇi [pl.]; he dhātaḥ / he dhātṛ [vocative sg]; dhātrā [puṃvat] / dhātṛṇā [with num]. Similarly jñātṛ, kartṛ etc.

Tattvabodhinī

NSP p. 87–88

—अस्थिदधि—। ‘इकोऽचि—’ इति नुमि प्राप्ते विधिरयम्, नकारादकार उच्चारणार्थः । उकारस्त्वन्तादेशार्थः । ‘नब्विषयस्यानिसन्तस्य’ इति फिदसूत्रेणास्थ्यादय एते आद्युदात्ताः । तत्रान्तस्थानुदात्तेकारस्य विधीयमानोऽनङ् ‘स्थानेऽन्तरतमः’ इत्यनुदात्तः स्यादित्युदात्त उच्यते, तच्चोदात्तत्वमस्थानि दधनि इत्यादावल्लोपाभावपक्षे स्फुटम्, दध्ना दध्ने इत्यादावनडोऽकारलोपे ‘अनुदात्तस्य च यत्रोदात्तलोपः’ इत्युदात्तनिवृत्तिस्वरेण विभक्त्युदात्तत्वं प्रयोजनमिति बोध्यम् । तृतीयादिष्वित्यनुवर्तते अचीति च, तदाह—टादावचीति । टादौ किम् । दधिनी । दधीनि । अचि किम् । दधिभ्याम् ॥—तदन्तस्यापीति । आङ्गत्वादिति भावः ॥—अतिदध्नेति । दधि अतिक्रान्तेनेत्यर्थः । स्त्रियामतिदध्नेत्येव । संनिपातपरिभाषया बहिरङ्गपरिभाषया च डीपोऽप्रवृत्तेः । प्राचा तु प्रियदध्ना ब्राह्मणेनेत्युक्तं । स्त्रियां तु प्रियदध्न्या प्रियदध्न्यै इत्याद्यपि कैश्चिदुक्तम् । तदसत् । उरः प्रभृतिषु दधिशब्दस्य पाठाद्बहुब्रीहौ नित्यं कप्यनङः प्रसक्त्यभावात् । उक्तपरिभाषाभ्यां डीपः प्रवृत्तेर्दूरापास्तत्वाच्चेति दिक् ॥—सुधिनी इति । परत्वान्नुमा इयङ् बाध्यते ॥—सुधियेति । शोभनज्ञानवत्त्वं प्रवृत्तिनिमित्तं पुंनपुंसकयोरेकमेवेति भाषितपुंस्कत्वात् ‘तृतीयादिषु—’ इति पुंवत्पक्षे नुमभावात् ‘न भूसुधियोः’ इति यण्निषेधाच्चेयङ् ॥—प्रध्येति । अत्रापि प्रकृष्टज्ञानवत्त्वं पुंनपुंसकयोरेकमेवेति भाषितपुंस्कत्वात् तृतीयादिष्विति पुंवत्पक्षे यण् । नपुंसकपक्षे तु नुमिति बोध्यम् ॥ बह्वधः श्रेयस्यो यस्य तद्बहुश्रेयसी कुलमित्यत्र नपुंसकहस्त्वं न । इयसो बहुब्रीहेनेति हस्त्वमात्रस्य प्रतिषेधादित्येके । अन्ये तूपसर्जनहस्त एव निषिध्यते । नपुंसकहस्त्वं तु स्यादेव । बहुश्रेयसि बहुश्रेयसिनी इत्याहुः ॥—मध्विति । ‘मधु मये पुष्परसे’ ‘मधुर्वसन्ते चैत्रे च’ । इह पुंनपुंसकयोरेकं प्रवृत्तिनिमित्तं नास्ति, किंतु मद्यत्ववसन्तत्वादिरूपं भिन्नभिन्नमेव ॥ तथाच भाषितपुंस्कत्वाभावान्मधुने मधुनः मधुनोरित्येव भवति, न तु मधवे मधोरित्यादीति दिक् ॥—स्रुवेति । ‘मांसपृतनासानूनाम्’ इति वार्तिककारोक्तयेति भावः ॥ ‘सुः प्रस्थः सानुरस्त्रियाम्’ इत्युभयलिङ्गः सानुशब्दः, तस्य नपुंसकत्वे रूपमाह—स्रूनि । सानूनीति । पुंसि तु स्रून् । सानून् । इत्यादि ॥ सुत्वेति । शोभनलवनकर्तृत्वं पुंनपुंसकयोरेकमेवेति भाषितपुंस्कत्वात्पुंवत्पक्षे नुमभावात् ‘ओः सुपि’ इति यण् ॥—सुलुनेति । यणं बाधित्वा परत्वान्नुम् ॥—धात्रेति । धारणपोषणकर्तृत्वं पुंनपुंसकयोरेकमेवेति पुंवत्पक्षे यण् ॥—एचः—। आदिश्यत इत्यादेशः हस्त्वश्चासावादेशश्च हस्तादेशः, निर्धारणे सप्तमी जातावेकवचनमतो व्याचष्टे—आदिश्यमानेषु हस्तेषु इति । एचां पूर्वभागोऽकारसदृशः, उत्तरस्तु इवर्णोवर्णसदृशस्तत्रोभयान्तरतमस्य हस्तस्याभावात्पर्यायेण अकारः स्यादिकारोकारौ च स्याताम्, तथाच मा कदाप्युकारो भूदिति नियमार्थं परिभाषेत्यभिप्रेत्याह—इगेव स्यादिति । आन्तरतम्यादेकारैकारयोरिकारः । ओकारौकारयोस्तु उकारः । एकारान्तस्योदाहरणं तु इः स्मृतो येन सः स्मृतेः । शोभनः स्मृतेः यस्य तत् सुस्मृतीत्यादि ॥ एतच्च परिभाषासूत्रमपार्थकम् । तथाच वार्तिककृतोक्तं ‘सिद्धमेङः सस्थानलात्’ ‘ऐच्चेश्वोत्तरभूयस्त्वात्’ इति । अस्यार्थः । शब्दपरविप्रतिषेधेन एङ् उत्तरभागान्तरतमौ इउवर्णावेवेति सिद्धम् । ऐच्चेश्वेति चकारो भिन्नकमः उत्तरभूयस्त्वाच्चेति हेतोरनन्तरं बोध्यः । अर्धमात्रा अवर्णस्य, अध्यर्धमात्रा इवर्णोवर्णयोरित्युत्तरभागाधिक्यान्मल्लप्रामादिवद्भूयसा व्यपदेशेनापि इकारोकारौ भविष्यत इति

Bālamanoramā

अस्थिदधिसक्थ्यक्ष्णामनङुदात्तः - अस्थि, दधि, सक्थि, आक्षि एतेषां प्रथमाद्वितीययोर्वारिवद्रूपाणि । टादावचि विशेषमाह — अस्थिदधि । तृतीयादिष्विति, अचीति चानुवर्तते । तदाह — एषामित्यादिना । नुमोऽपवादः । अनङि हकार इत्, अकार उच्चारणार्थः । ङित्त्वादन्तादेशः । दधनि दध्नि इति । 'विभाषा ङिश्योः' इत्याल्लोपविकल्प इति भावः । तदन्तस्यापीति । आङ्गत्वादिति भावः । अतिदध्नेति । दधि अतिक्रान्तं कुलमतिदधि । अत्रापि नपुंसकस्येति संबध्यते । ततश्च धाञः 'आदृगमहन' इति किप्रत्यये दधिशब्दस्य पुंस्त्वे दधिनेत्येव । नपुंसकस्येति श्रूयमाणमस्थ्यादिभिरेवान्वेति । तेनातिदध्ना ब्राआहृणेनेत्यादि सिद्धम् । इति इदन्ताः ।अथ ईदन्ताः । सु ध्यायतीति, सु=शोभना धीर्यस्येति॑वा विग्रहे सुधीशब्दस्य 'ह्रस्वो नपुंसके' इति ह्रस्वत्वे वारिवद्रूपाणीत्याह — सुधि सुधिनी इत्यादि । परत्वान्नुमा इयङ् बाध्यत इति भावः । सुधिया सुधिनेति । सुध्यातृत्वस्य शोभनज्ञानवत्त्वस्य वा प्रवृत्तिनिमित्तस्य पुंसि नपुंसके च एकत्वात्पुंवत्त्वविकल्पः । एवं प्रधीशब्दः । तत्रनभूसुधियो॑रिति निषेधाऽभावादेरनेकाचेति यण् । इति ईदन्ताः । अथ उदन्ताः । मध्विति । मधु मद्ये पुष्परसे॑मधुर्वसन्ते चैत्रे च॑ इति कोशान्मधुशब्दस्य पुंनपुंसकयोः मद्यत्ववसन्तत्वादिरूपप्रवृत्तिनिमित्तभेदान्न पुंवत्त्वविकल्पः । भृद्वीकाविकारवाचिनो मधुशब्दस्य तु नित्यनपुंसकत्वान्न पुंवत्त्वमिति विवेकः । सानुशब्दस्य स्नुर्वेति । 'पद्दन्' इति सूत्रेमांसपृतनासानूनां मांस्पृत्स्नबो वाच्याः॑ इति वार्तिका॑दिति शेषः । स्नूनि सानूनीति — शसि रूपं, शसादावेव स्नुविधेः । प्रभृतिग्रहणस्य प्रकारार्थत्वे सुठपि स्नुर्भवति । अस्य चस्नुः प्रस्थः सानुरस्त्रिया॑मिति पुंनपुंसकत्वाद्भाषितपुंस्कत्वादस्त्येव पुंवत्त्वविकल्पः । प्रियक्रोष्टु प्रियक्रोष्टुनी इति । प्रियक्रोष्टा यस्येति विग्रहः । असर्वनामस्थानत्वान्न तृज्वत्वम् । अथ जश्शसोः शिभावे सति सर्वनामस्थानत्वान्नुमं बाधित्वा परत्बात्तृज्वत्त्वे प्राप्ते आह — तृज्वद्भावादिति ।वृद्ध्यौत्त्वे॑ति वार्तिकादिति भावः । प्रियक्रोष्टूनीति । जश्शसोः शिभावे नुमिसर्वनामस्थाने चे॑ति दीर्घे रूपम् । नच नित्यत्वादेव नुम् सिद्धेः किं पूर्वविप्रतिषेधेनेति वाच्यं, नित्यत्वान्नुमि कृतेऽपि 'यदागमाः' इति न्यायेन 'तृज्वत्क्रोष्टुः' इत्यस्य नुम्विशिष्टस्य ग्रहणापत्तौ पुनस्तृज्वत्त्वापत्तेः । पूर्वविप्रतिषेधमाश्रित्य तृज्वत्त्वं बाधित्वा नुमि कृते तु न पुनस्तृज्वत्त्वम्,विप्रतिषेधे यद्बाधितं तद्बाधितमेवे॑ति न्यायादित्यलम् । पुंवत्पक्षे इति । तत्रापि तृज्वत्त्वपक्ष इत्यर्थः । प्रियक्रोष्ट्रेति । पुंवत्त्वे तृज्वत्त्वे च सति रूपम् । अनपुंसकत्वान्न नुम् । प्रयिक्रोष्टुनेति । पुंवत्त्वे, तदभावे च तृज्वत्त्वाऽभावे रूपम् । पुंवत्वाऽभावपक्षेऽपि नुमं बाधित्वा परत्वान्नात्वमेव । प्रियक्रोष्ट्रे इति । पुंवत्त्वे तृज्वत्त्वे यण् । अनपुंसकत्वान्न नुम् । प्रियक्रोष्टवे इति । पुंवत्त्वे तृज्वत्त्वाऽभावे रूपम् । अन्यत्रेति । पुंवत्त्वाऽभावपक्ष इत्यर्थः । प्रियक्रोष्टुनेति । पुंवत्त्वतृज्वत्त्वयोरभावे रूपम् । तथा ङयि त्रीणि रूपाणि । एवं ङसिङसोः । प्रियक्रोष्टुः प्रियक्रोष्टोः प्रियक्रोष्टुनः । प्रियक्रोष्ट्रोः-प्रियक्रोष्ट्वोः-प्रियक्रोष्टुनि । भ्यामादौ हलि मधुवत् । इत्युदन्ताः । अथ ऊदन्ताः । सुल्विति । सुष्ठु लुनातीति क्विप् । 'ह्रस्वो नपुंसके' इति ह्रस्वः । सुलुनी इति ।ओः सुपी॑ति यणं बाधित्वा परत्वान्नुम् । सुल्वेति । शोभनलवनकर्तृत्वं प्रवृत्तिनिमित्तमेकमिति पुंवत्त्वविकल्पः । पुंवत्त्वे ह्रस्वाऽभावेनाऽघित्वान्नाभावो न । नुमभावश्च ।ओः सुपी॑ति यण् । पुंवत्त्वाऽभावपक्षे तु यणं बाधित्वा नुम् । ङेप्रभृतिषु तु पुंवत्त्वाऽभावेवृद्ध्यौत्वे॑ति पूर्वविप्रतिषेधेन नुमि सुलुने इति , पुंवत्त्वे तु 'सुल्वे' इत्यादि रूपद्वयम् । इत्यूदन्ताः । अथ ऋदन्ताः । धातृ इति । दधातीति धातृ । 'न लुमता' इति निषेधादनङ् न । धातृणी इति ।इकोऽची॑ति नुमिऋवर्णान्नस्ये॑ति णत्वम् । धातृणीति । जश्शसोः शिभावे नुमिसर्वनामस्थाने चे॑ति दीर्घे णत्वम् ।न लुमते॑ति निषेधस्याऽनित्यत्वात्संबुद्धिनिमित्तको ह्रस्वस्य पक्षे गुण इत्याह-हे धातः हे धातृ इति । धारणकर्तृत्वरूपप्रवृत्तिनिमित्तैक्याट्टादावचि पुंवत्त्वविकल्प इत्याह — धात्रा-धातृणेति । धात्रे-धातृणे । धातुः-धातृणः । धात्रोः-धातृणोः ।नुमचिते॑ति नुट् । धातृणाम् । धातरि-दातृणि । इत्यृन्ताः ।

asthidadhisakthyakṣṇām anaṅ udāttaḥ — asthi, dadhi, sakthi, akṣi — of these, in the first and second [cases] (nominative and accusative), the forms are like vāri. He states the special [treatment] before a ṭā-ādi vowel[-ending]: "asthidadhi..." [the rule]. "In the third [case] and following (tṛtīyādiṣu)" and "before a vowel (aci)" are carried forward (anuvṛtti). He states this with "eṣām..." etc. [anaṅ] is an exception (apavāda) to num. In "anaṅ," the ṅa-kāra is an it-marker (it), [and] the [final] a-kāra is for the sake of pronunciation (uccāraṇārtha) [so the operative substitute is "an"]. Because [anaṅ] is ṅit, it is an antādeśa (a substitute for the final [i], by "ṅic ca" A 1.1.53). "dadhani / dadhni" [locative sg] — By "vibhāṣā ṅiśyoḥ" (A 6.4.136) the a-elision (allopa) is optional — this is the idea. "tadantasyāpi" (also for a word ending in these) — because of being [part of] the aṅga (aṅgatva) — this is the idea. "atidadhnā" — "the family that has surpassed dadhi" (dadhi atikrāntaṃ kulam) is atidadhi. Here too, "of the neuter (napuṃsakasya)" is construed. And therefore, [for a] dadhi [formed] from the root dhā(ñ) by the ki suffix (by "ā-dṛ-gama-hana[ja]..."), when that word dadhi is masculine, [the instrumental] is dadhinā alone [with num, no anaṅ]. The "napuṃsakasya" that is heard [in the governing context] construes only with asthi etc.; thereby "atidadhnā brāhmaṇena" and the like is established [i.e. a tadanta like atidadhi takes anaṅ even when the whole compound is masculine]. Thus the i-ending [neuter stems].

Now the ī-ending [neuter stems]. In the analysis "su(ṣṭhu) dhyāyati" ("thinks well") or "su = śobhanā dhīr yasya" ("whose intellect is good," bahuvrīhi), the word sudhī, by "hrasvo napuṃsake" (A 1.2.47) undergoing shortening (ī → i), has forms like vāri; he states this — "sudhi, sudhinī," etc. Because of posteriority (paratva), by num, iyaṅ is set aside [in the dual sudhinī] — this is the idea. "sudhiyā / sudhinā" [instrumental sg] — Because the ground of application (pravṛtti-nimitta) — [either] "thinking well" (su-dhyātṛtva) or "having good knowledge" (śobhana-jñānavattva) — is one and the same in the masculine and the neuter, there is the option of masculine-like treatment (puṃvad-bhāva-vikalpa). Likewise the word pradhī: there, because the prohibition of "na bhūsudhiyoḥ" (A 6.4.85) is absent [pradhī being neither bhū nor sudhī], by "er anekācaḥ" (A 6.4.82) yaṇ [applies → pradhyā]. Thus the ī-ending [neuter stems].

Now the u-ending [neuter stems]. "madhu" — According to the lexicons (kośa) — "madhu [is neuter] in the sense of liquor (madya) and flower-nectar (puṣpa-rasa)" and "madhu [is masculine] in [the sense of] spring (vasanta) and [the month] Caitra" — the word madhu has different grounds of application in the masculine and the neuter (being-liquor versus being-spring, etc.); therefore there is no puṃvat option. But the word madhu denoting a product of the grape (mṛdvīkā-vikāra) is permanently neuter (nitya-napuṃsaka), so there is no puṃvat [treatment] — this is the distinction (viveka). "sānu-śabdasya snur vā" — [This is] by the vārttika "māṃsa-pṛtanā-sānūnāṃ māṃs-pṛt-snavo vācyāḥ" ("for māṃsa, pṛtanā, sānu the substitutes māṃs, pṛt, snu are to be prescribed") on the rule "pad-dan..." (A 6.1.63) — this is to be supplied. "snūni / sānūni" — [these are] the form in śas, since the snu-substitution is [prescribed] only before śas etc. If the "prabhṛti" (etc.) mention is taken to mean "of that kind" (prakārārtha), then snu occurs even in su(ṭ) [the nominative]. And because this [sānu], by [the lexicon] "snuḥ, prasthaḥ, sānur astriyām" [sānu being masc./neut., not feminine], is masculine-and-neuter (puṃnapuṃsaka) and thus bhāṣita-puṃska [spoken of also as masculine], there certainly is a puṃvat option.

"priyakroṣṭu / priyakroṣṭunī" — the analysis is "priyaḥ kroṣṭā yasya" ("whose jackal (kroṣṭṛ) is dear," bahuvrīhi). Because [ṭā etc.] are non-sarvanāmasthāna, there is no tṛjvat-treatment [there]. Now, when jas and śas become śi (by "jaś-śasoḥ śiḥ" A 7.1.20, for the neuter) — since śi is sarvanāmasthāna, [tṛjvat,] setting aside num and by posteriority (paratva) being obtained — he says "tṛjvadbhāvāt...": [tṛjvat] is by the vārttika "vṛddhy-auttve..." — this is the idea. "priyakroṣṭūni" — When jas/śas become śi, with num, and by "sarvanāmasthāne ca" (A 6.4.8) the dīrgha [u → ū], [this] form [results]. Nor should it be objected: "since num is established by its obligatoriness (nityatva) alone, what need of pūrva-vipratiṣedha?" — because, even when num is done by [its] nityatva, by the maxim "yad-āgamāḥ [tad-guṇī-bhūtās tad-grahaṇena gṛhyante]" [an augment becomes subordinate to what it augments and is included in its mention], the [term] "tṛjvat kroṣṭuḥ" would then include the num-possessing [form], and thus tṛjvat would again arise. But when, resorting to pūrva-vipratiṣedha, tṛjvat is set aside and num is done, there is no recurrence of tṛjvat — by the maxim "in a vipratiṣedha, what is set aside stays set aside (vipratiṣedhe yad bādhitaṃ tad bādhitam eva)." Enough.

"puṃvat-pakṣe" — meaning, therein too, the tṛjvat option. "priyakroṣṭrā" — the form when there is puṃvattva and tṛjvattva [both]; because [treated as] non-neuter (anapuṃsaka), no num. "priyakroṣṭunā" — the form in puṃvattva [without tṛjvat], and in its (puṃvat's) absence with the absence of tṛjvat. Even in the non-puṃvat option, by paratva, num alone [applies]. "priyakroṣṭre" [dative sg] — In puṃvattva and tṛjvattva, yaṇ [ṛ → r before e]; because non-neuter, no num. "priyakroṣṭave" [dative sg] — the form in puṃvattva with the absence of tṛjvat. "anyatra" — meaning, the non-puṃvat option. "priyakroṣṭune" [dative sg] — the form in the absence of both puṃvattva and tṛjvattva. Likewise in the locative (ṅi), three forms. Likewise in ṅasi and ṅas [ablative/genitive sg]: priyakroṣṭuḥ, priyakroṣṭoḥ, priyakroṣṭunaḥ. [In the genitive/locative dual:] priyakroṣṭroḥ, priyakroṣṭvoḥ, priyakroṣṭunoḥ. Before bhyām etc. (consonant- initial, hali), [it declines] like madhu. Thus the u-ending [neuter stems].

Now the ū-ending [neuter stems]. "sulu" — "one who cuts well" (suṣṭhu lunāti), [with] kvip; by "hrasvo napuṃsake" (A 1.2.47) the shortening [ū → u]. "sulunī" [dual] — By "oḥ supi" (A 6.4.83) yaṇ [would apply], but setting it aside, by paratva, num [→ sulunī]. "sulvā" [instrumental sg] — Because the ground of application, "being a good cutter" (śobhana-lavana-kartṛtva), is one and the same [in masculine and neuter], there is the puṃvat option. In puṃvattva, since there is no shortening (so the stem remains ū and is non-ghi), [the ghi-conditioned operation does] not [apply], and num too is absent; [hence] by "oḥ supi" (A 6.4.83) yaṇ [→ sulvā]. But in the non-puṃvat option, setting aside yaṇ, num [→ sulunā]. In ṅe and the following [dative etc.], in the non-puṃvat option, by "vṛddhy-auttve..." through pūrva-vipratiṣedha, with num, [the form is] sulune; while in the puṃvat option, "sulve" etc. — [thus] two forms. Thus the ū-ending [neuter stems].

Now the ṛ-ending [neuter stems]. "dhātṛ" — "that which sustains/places" (dadhāti), hence dhātṛ. By the prohibition "na lumatā[ṅgasya]" (A 1.1.63) anaṅ does not [apply]. "dhātṛṇī" [dual] — when num [is added, by the cited rule "iko'ci..."], by "ṛ-varṇāt... nasya [ṇaḥ]" the ṇatva [n → ṇ, → dhātṛṇī]. "dhātṝṇi" [pl.] — When jas/śas become śi, with num, and by "sarvanāmasthāne ca" (A 6.4.8) the dīrgha [ṛ → ṝ], the ṇatva [→ dhātṝṇi]. Because the prohibition "na lumatā[ṅgasya]" is non-obligatory (anitya), there is, in the alternative, by "hrasvasya guṇaḥ" (A 7.3.108) the guṇa conditioned by the sambuddhi (vocative sg); he states this — "he dhātaḥ [with guṇa] / he dhātṛ [with the short vowel]." Because the ground of application, "being an agent of sustaining/holding" (dhāraṇa-kartṛtva), is one and the same [in masculine and neuter], before a ṭā-ādi vowel there is the puṃvat option; he states this — "dhātrā [puṃvat] / dhātṛṇā [with num]." [dative:] dhātre / dhātṛṇe; [ablative/genitive sg:] dhātuḥ / dhātṛṇaḥ; [genitive/locative dual:] dhātroḥ / dhātṛṇoḥ. By "num-aci..." [the cited rule] the augment nuṭ [→ dhātṝṇām, genitive pl.]. [locative sg:] dhātari [puṃvat, with guṇa] / dhātṛṇi [with num]. Thus the ṛ-ending [neuter stems].

Footnotes (NSP 1915 ed.)

NSP p. 88 १ ठ इति—इस्तु न विहितः, शुद्ध, रेढीलाचसिद्ध्यापत्तेः । २ उपदेश इति—एतच्च औपदेशिकादादित्ववलक्षणया लभ्यते । ननु औपदेशिकप्रायोगिकयोर्मध्ये औपदेशिकस्य ग्रहणमिति परिभाषयैव सिद्धे लक्षणा आवृत्तिर्वा व्यर्थेति वाच्यम्, न ‘अत्वसन्तस्य’ इति सूत्रभाष्यविरोधेन तस्या अनङ्गीकारात् । अतएव तत्र तत्र सूत्रकृता कृतमुपदेशग्रहणं चरितार्थम् । ३ घः स्यादिति—गकारस्तु न विहितः, शुग्र इत्यादौ भष्ट्रभावानापत्तेः । ४ भूपिति—श्रीमत्येव अल्पमुच्चित्तं भष्ट्रप्रवाह्यां किं विन्यमेन तीर्थकृता Kosha

translator notes

textual In 'anaṅi the source reads 'hakāra it,' but anaṅ contains no ha; the evident reading is 'ṅakāra it' (the ṅa-kāra is the it-marker, making the substitute ṅit), as required by the following 'ṅittvād antādeśaḥ.' Rendered accordingly.
textual The rule prescribing the nuṭ augment before ām (genitive pl.) is cited in the source as 'num-aci...' (written 'numacire'/'numacite'), which does not match a known pratīka and appears corrupt; it evidently stands for the nuṭ-augment injunction (the resulting forms priyakroṣṭūnām, dhātṝṇām are secure). Likewise the num-injunction for dhātṛṇī cited as 'iko'ci' is uncertain in the source. Preserved as digitized; no reference invented.
textual The digital source is inconsistent in marking dīrgha ṝ / ū in several ṛ- and u-stem paradigm forms (e.g. writes 'dhātṛṇi'/'dātṛṇi' for dhātṝṇi/dhātṛṇi, 'dadhinā' contexts); the grammatically required forms of the paradigm are given, since these are the evident intent of the derivation. Also 'mṛdvīkā' (grape) and 'brāhmaṇa' appear garbled ('bhṛdvīkā', 'brāآहृ-') and are read to their intended forms. The clause on the instrumental non-puṃvat option is compressed in the source ('nātvam eva'); rendered per the Kaumudī's explicit statement that num alone applies (priyakroṣṭunā).

SK 323 · A 1.1.48ह्रस्वादेशनिर्णयपरिभाषा

एच इग्घ्रस्वादेशे ॥ ३२३ ॥

eca igghrasvādeśe

eca igghrasvādeśe — 1.1.48. When a short (hrasva) substitute is enjoined for an ec (e, o, ai, au), the substitute is an ik (the corresponding short i/u), not the a-vowel. [A restrictive paribhāṣā determining the short substitute of an ec.]

Rule. When a short vowel is prescribed as substitute for an ec vowel (e, o, ai, au), the substitute is an ik vowel (i or u), and never a. This is a paribhāṣā of the restrictive kind (niyama): it does not prescribe a new substitute but narrows the choice. Bhaṭṭoji's commentators explain why a was a live danger: the first part of each ec vowel resembles a and the second part resembles i or u, so without this rule a would be as close a match as i or u. With a excluded, the pairing follows by itself: e and ai → i; o and au → u. No rule of one-to-one correspondence is needed.

Example.

pradyo "whose sky is exalted" (neuter) → SK 318 demands a short vowel for o → by SK 323 the substitute is u → pradyu

pradyu then goes like vāri: pradyu, dual pradyunī, plural pradyūni, instrumental pradyunā, and so on.

prarai "whose wealth is exalted" (neuter) → ai → i → prari; prariṇī, prarīṇi, prariṇā.

sunau "having a good ship" (neuter) → au → u → sunu; sununī, sunūni, sununā, dative sunune.

For an e-stem Bhaṭṭoji's commentators suggest smṛte or susmṛti, to be worked out the same way.

Applies when / blocked by. No masculine option (SK 321) for pradyu: the masculine word is pradyo, ending in o, while the neuter word is pradyu, ending in u; since the ik-stem is a different word, it is not bhāṣitapuṃska. Scholars discuss this, some holding that a stem altered in one sound is still the same word and so does have the option. The same applies to prari and sunu.

Watch out. prari keeps one feature of rai. Before a consonant-initial ending, rāyo hali (from chapter 8) turns the final of rai into ā, and it applies here too, because a thing altered in one part is treated as the same thing (ekadeśavikṛtam ananyavat): prarābhyām, prarābhiḥ. In the nominative singular there is no consonant-initial ending, su having been deleted, so no ā: prari. In the genitive plural the augment is nuṭ (prevailing over num by pūrvavipratiṣedha), and then not the ā of rāyo hali but the lengthening of nāmi (SK 209): prarīṇām. The reason is the saṃnipāta-paribhāṣā: nuṭ came in because the stem ended in a short vowel and cannot be the cause of a change that removes that short ending; nāmi, on the other hand, was framed precisely to lengthen before nām, and that purpose overrides the paribhāṣā, as was said under rāma in chapter 8. Scholars discuss this; another view gives prarāṇām.

This closes the chapter: ity ajantā napuṃsakaliṅgāḥ, "so far the vowel-stem neuters".

Siddhānta-kaumudī

आदिश्यमानेषु ह्रस्वेषु एच इगेव स्यात् । प्रद्यु । प्रद्युनी । प्रद्यूनि । प्रद्युनेत्यादि । इह न पुंवत् । यदिगन्तं प्रद्यु इति तस्य भाषितपुंस्कत्वाऽभावात् । एवमग्रेऽपि । प्ररि । प्ररिणी । प्ररीणि । प्ररिणा । एकदेशविकृतस्याऽनन्यत्वात् रायो हलि इत्यात्वम् । प्रराभ्याम् । प्रराभिः । नुमिचिरेति नुट्यात्वे प्रराणामिति माधवः । वस्तुतस्तु संनिपातपरिभाषया नुट्यात्वं न । नामि SK 209 इति दीर्घस्त्वारम्भसामर्थ्यात्परिभाषां बाधत इत्युक्तम् । प्ररीणाम् । सुनु । सुनुनी । सुनूनि । सुनुना । सुनुने । इत्यादि ॥

When short [vowels] are enjoined as substitutes (ādiśyamāna), in place of an ec it is precisely an ik [that is the substitute]. [The o-ending neuter "pradyu," from "pradyo":] pradyu [nom./acc. sg.]. pradyunī [du.]. pradyūni [pl.]. pradyunā [instr. sg.], and so forth. — Here there is no puṃvadbhāva (treatment as masculine), because the ik-ending [stem] "pradyu" is not a bhāṣita-puṃska (a word that denotes the masculine in the same form). Likewise further on. [The ai-ending neuter "prari," from "prarai":] prari. prariṇī [du.]. prarīṇi [pl.]. prariṇā [instr. sg.]. — Because a thing partly modified is non-different [from itself] (ekadeśa-vikṛtasya ananyatvāt), the ā-substitution (āttva) by "rāyo hali" [applies before hal-initial endings]. prarābhyām. prarābhiḥ. — By "num-aci ra[…]," upon the nuṭ [and then] the ā-substitution, [we get] "prarāṇām," according to Mādhava. But in truth, by the sannipāta-paribhāṣā, the ā-substitution upon the nuṭ does not [occur]; rather, as has been said, the lengthening (dīrgha) by "nāmi" (SK 209), through the force of its rule's having been undertaken (ārambha-sāmarthya), sets aside the paribhāṣā [→ prarīṇām]. prarīṇām [gen. pl.]. [The au-ending neuter "sunu," from "sunau":] sunu. sununī [du.]. sunūni [pl.]. sununā [instr. sg.]. sunune [dat. sg.], and so forth.

Tattvabodhinī

alignment inferredNSP p. 88

—प्रद्युनेति । ननु प्रकृष्टस्वर्गवत्त्वादिकं यत्प्रवृत्तिनिमित्तं तत् पुंनपुंसकयोः समानमिति भाषितपुंस्कलात् पक्षे पुंवद्भावोऽत्र स्यादेवेत्याशङ्कायामाह—यदिगन्तमिति । एतच्च ‘रा दाने’ इति धातौ अतिरि ब्राह्मणकुलमिति प्रकम्य माधवेन स्पष्टीकृतम् ॥ कथं तर्हि प्राचा प्रथवा प्रराया सुनावेत्युदाहृतमिति चेदत्राहुः । प्रकृष्टस्वर्गवत्त्वादिप्रवृत्तिनिमित्तैक्यात्सुबोशब्दो भाषितपुंस्कः स एव इदानीमिगन्तस्तथाच प्रद्युशब्दोऽपि भाषितपुंस्क एव एकदेशविकृतस्यानन्यत्वादतः पुंवद्भावो भवतीति । इत्थं च पुंवद्भावः एजन्तेषु क्लीवेषु माधवमते नास्ति मतान्तरे त्वस्तीति बोध्यम् ॥—प्ररीति । प्रकृष्टा रा यस्य तत् प्ररीति । शोभना नार्यस्य तत् सुनु ॥ ॥ इति तत्त्वबोधिन्यामजन्तनपुंसकलिङ्गप्रकरणम् ॥ हो ढः । ‘झलो झलि’ ‘पदस्य’ ‘स्कोः संयोगाद्योरन्ते च’ इत्यतो झलीति पदस्यान्त इति चानुवर्तते । तदाह—झलीत्यादि । झलि परतः पदान्ते वा विद्यमानस्य हस्येत्यर्थः ॥—लिङ्गिति । ‘लिह आखादने’ क्विप् ॥—लिट्त्विति । ढस्य जश्त्वेन डः, तस्य ‘खरि च’ इति चत्वेन टः । तस्यासिद्धत्वात् ‘चयो द्वितीयाः—’ इति पक्षे टस्य ठो न । सस्य ष्टुत्वं तु न भवति । ‘न पदान्ताद्योः—’ इति निषेधात् ॥ लिट्त्विति । ढस्य जश्त्वेन डकारे कृते चत्वस्यासिद्धत्वात्ततः प्रागेव ‘डः सि—’ इति पक्षे धुद् । तस्य चत्वेन तकारः, ततो डस्य चत्वेन टः । धुदश्चत्वस्यासिद्धत्वात्पक्षे ‘चयो द्वितीयाः—’ इति तस्य थो न । ष्टुत्वं तु तकारस्य न शङ्क्यमेव । ‘न पदान्तात्—’ इति निषेधस्याधुनैवोक्तत्वादिति

Bālamanoramā

एच इग्घ्रस्वादेशे - अथ ओदन्ताः । प्रकृष्टा द्यौर्यस्येति बहुव्रीहौ प्रद्योशब्दस्य 'ह्रस्वो नपुंसके' इति ह्रस्वः प्राप्नुवन्नेचो ह्रस्वाऽभावात्तेषां द्विस्थानत्वेन अ, इ, उ, ऋ, लृ, इत्येतेषां ह्रस्वानामन्तरतमत्वाऽभावादन्तरस्थानसाम्याश्रयेण अवर्णादिषु यस्य कस्यचिदनियमेन पर्यायेण वा प्राप्ताविदमारभ्यते — एच इक् । आदिश्यते इत्यादेशः । कर्मणि घञ् । तस्य ह्रस्वपदेन सह कर्मधारयः विशेष्यस्यार्षः पूर्वनिपातः । आदेश इति निर्धारणसप्तमी । सौत्रमेकवचनम् । तदाह — आदिश्यमानेष्वित्यादिना । 'मध्ये' इत्यपपाठः, तद्योगे षष्ठआ एवौचित्यात् । इगेवेति । तेन अकारव्यावृत्तिः फलतीति भावः । यद्यपीकश्चत्वारः, एचोऽप्येवं, तथापि स्थान्यादेशानां यथासङ्ख्यं न भवति । न ह्रयमपूर्वविधिः, किन्तु नियमविधिः । यताप्राप्तमेव नियम्यते । एचां हि पूर्वभागोऽवर्णसदृशः । उत्तरभागस्तु इवर्णोवर्णसदृशः । तत्पर पूर्वभागसादृश्यमवर्णस्यास्ति । तस्य च इग्ग्रहणेन निवृत्तौ इवर्णसादृश्यमात्रमादाय एकारस्य ऐकारस्य च इवर्णः, उवर्णसादृस्यादोकारस्य औकारस्य च उवर्ण इति व्यवस्था न्यायप्राप्ता । यताप्राप्तमेव च नियम्यत इति न यतासङ्ख्यम् । ततश्च प्रद्योशब्दे ओकारस्य उकारो ह्रस्व इत्यभिप्रेत्योदाहरति — प्रद्यु इत्यादि । ननुं पुंनपुंसकयोः प्रकृष्टस्वर्गवत्त्वमेकमेव प्रवृत्तिनिमित्तमिति टादौ पुंवत्त्वविकल्पः कुतो नेत्यत आह — इह न पुंवदिति । कुत इत्यत आह — यदिगन्तमिति । प्रद्योशब्द ओदन्तः पुंसि । प्रद्युशब्दस्तु उदन्तो नपुंसके । तथाच पुंसि प्रद्योशब्दस्य भाषितपुंस्कत्वेऽपि नपुंसके प्रद्युशब्दस्य तदपेक्षया भिन्नत्वेन भाषितपुंस्कत्वाऽभावान्न पुंवत्वमित्यर्थः । केचित्तु पुंसि यः प्रद्योशब्द ओदन्तः स एवेदानीं नपुंसकः, तस्य ह्रस्वान्तत्वेऽपि एकदेशविकृतस्याऽनन्यत्वात्, अतः पुंवत्वविकल्पोऽस्त्येवेत्याहुः । एवमग्रेऽपीति । प्ररि, सूवु इत्यादावपीत्यर्थः । इत्योदन्ताः । अथ ऐदन्ताः । एकारान्तस्योदाहरणं तु स्मृत इः कामो येन स स्मृतेः । सु=शोभनः स्मृतेर्यस्य तत् 'सुस्मृति' इत्यादि बोध्यम् । प्ररीति । प्रकृष्टो रा=धनं यस्य इति बहुव्रीहौ प्ररैशब्दः । तस्य नपुंसकह्रस्वत्वेन इकारः । सुटि वारिवत् । सोर्लुप्तत्वात्रायो हली॑त्यात्वं न, टादावचि पुंवत्त्वविकल्पः प्रद्युशब्दवत् । भ्यामादौ हलि विशेषमाह — रायो हलीत्यात्वमिति । ननु रैशब्दस्य ऐदन्तस्य बिहितमात्वं कथमिदन्तस्येत्यत आह — एकदेशविकृकतस्यानन्यत्वादिति । आमि विशेषमाह — नुमचिरेति । नुटिरायो हली॑त्यात्वे प्रराणामित्यन्वयः । ननु प्ररि-आमिति स्थिते नुटं बाधित्वा परत्वान्नुमि तस्याङ्गभक्तत्वाद्धलादिविभक्त्यभावात्कथमात्वमित्यत आह — नुमचिरेति । पूर्वविप्रतिषेधान्नुमं बाधित्वा नुठआत्वं निर्बाधमिति भावः । संनिपातेति । ह्रस्वान्तत्वमुपजीव्य प्रवृत्तस्य नुटस्तद्विघातकमात्वं प्रति निमित्तत्वाऽसंभवादिति भावः । ननु तर्हि ह्रस्वान्तत्वमुपजीव्य प्रवृत्तस्य नुटस्तद्विघातकंनामी॑ति दीर्घं प्रति कथं निमित्तत्वमित्यत आह — नामीति दीर्घस्त्विति । इत्युक्तमिति । 'रामशब्दाधिकारे' इति शेषः । इत्यैदन्ताः । अथ औदन्ताः । सु=शोभना नौर्यस्येति विग्रहे बहुव्रीहौ 'ह्रस्वो नपुंसके' इति ह्रस्व उकार इति मत्वाह — सुनु इति । इत्यौदन्ताः॥*****इति बालमनोरमायामजन्ता नपुंसकलिङ्गाः*****अथाऽलुक्समासप्रकरणम् । — — — — — — — — —

eca igghrasvādeśe — Now the words ending in o. In the bahuvrīhi "prakṛṣṭā dyaur yasya" (he for whom the sky is exalted → pradyo), for the word "pradyo" the shortening (hrasva) by "hrasvo napuṃsake" applies; but since an ec has no short counterpart — the ec [vowels], being of two positions (dvi-sthānatva), have no closest homogeneity (antaratamatva) with any of the short vowels a, i, u, ṛ, ḷ — and therefore, relying on similarity of the [latter] position (antara-sthāna-sāmya), when any [short vowel] among the a-varṇa etc. could apply without restriction (aniyamena) or by turns (paryāyeṇa), this [rule] is undertaken: "eca ik."

"ādeśa" [means] "that which is enjoined (ādiśyate)"; [it is formed with] ghañ in the objective sense (karmaṇi). It forms a karmadhāraya with the word "hrasva"; the placing-first of the qualificand (viśeṣya, giving "hrasvādeśe") is an archaic (ārṣa) word-order (pūrva-nipāta). "ādeśe" is a locative of specification (nirdhāraṇa-saptamī). The singular is that of the sūtra-idiom (sautra). This he [Bhaṭṭoji] states with "ādiśyamāneṣu…" etc. "madhye" [as a variant reading] is a corrupt reading (apapāṭha), since in construction with it a genitive (ṣaṣṭhī) alone would be appropriate.

"iga eva" (precisely an ik) — thereby the exclusion of the a-kāra (a-kāra-vyāvṛtti) results. This is the purport. Although the ik [vowels] are four [i, u, ṛ, ḷ] and the ec [vowels] likewise [e, o, ai, au], nevertheless there is no respective correspondence (yathāsaṅkhya) between the originals (sthānin) and the substitutes (ādeśa). For this is not a fresh injunction (apūrva-vidhi) but a restrictive injunction (niyama-vidhi): only what is [already] obtained [otherwise] is restricted. For the first part (pūrva-bhāga) of the ec [vowels] resembles the a-varṇa, while the latter part (uttara-bhāga) resembles the i-varṇa or u-varṇa. There [without the rule], the a-varṇa has resemblance to the first part; and when that is excluded by the taking of "ik," then, taking only the i-varṇa/u-varṇa resemblance, the arrangement (vyavasthā) is obtained by reasoning (nyāya-prāptā): for e-kāra and ai-kāra, the i-varṇa; and, by u-varṇa resemblance, for o-kāra and au-kāra, the u-varṇa. And since only what is [already] obtained is restricted, there is no [need for] respective correspondence (yathāsaṅkhya). And therefore, intending that in the word "pradyo" the short substitute of the o-kāra is u-kāra, he gives the example "pradyu…" etc.

Objection: Since for both the masculine and the neuter the single conditioning ground (pravṛtti-nimitta) is [the same, viz.] "having an exalted heaven (prakṛṣṭa-svarga-vattva)," why is there not the optional puṃvadbhāva in the ṭā [instr.] etc.? In reply he says "iha na puṃvat" (here there is no puṃvadbhāva). To "why?" he says "yad igantam." The word "pradyo" is o-ending in the masculine, but the word "pradyu" is u-ending in the neuter; and thus, although "pradyo" is a bhāṣita-puṃska in the masculine, "pradyu" in the neuter, being different from it, is not a bhāṣita-puṃska; hence there is no puṃvadbhāva. This is the meaning. But some say: the very word "pradyo," which is o-ending in the masculine, is now [the same word, in the] neuter; and although it ends in a short [vowel], because a thing partly modified is non-different (ekadeśa-vikṛtasya ananyatvāt), therefore the optional puṃvadbhāva does indeed exist. "likewise further on" — meaning also in [the examples] "prari, sunu," etc. — Thus [end] the words ending in o.

Now the words ending in ai. As for an example of an e-ending [neuter stem]: "smṛta iḥ (= kāmaḥ) yena saḥ" [= smṛte, "he by whom Kāma has been remembered"]; and "su-smṛti" (that whose smṛti is good, su = auspicious), etc., should be understood. "prari" — in the bahuvrīhi "prakṛṣṭo rā (= wealth, dhana) yasya," [there is] the word "prarai"; by the neuter shortening [the ai becomes] i-kāra [→ prari]. In the sup [endings prari declines] like "vāri" [neuter i-stem]. Because the su is elided [in the nom. sg.], the ā-substitution (āttva) by "rāyo hali" does not [apply, for want of a hal-initial ending]; in the ṭā etc. before a vowel (aci), the [question of] optional puṃvadbhāva [is] as with the word "pradyu." For the hal-initial [endings] beginning with bhyām he states the special point: "the ā-substitution (āttva) by 'rāyo hali'" [→ prarābhyām]. Objection: The āttva is enjoined for the word "rai," which is ai-ending; how [does it apply] to [prari, now] i-ending? In reply he says "ekadeśa-vikṛtasya ananyatvāt" (a thing partly modified is non-different).

For the ām [gen. pl.] he states the special point: "num-aci ra." The construction is: upon the nuṭ [and then] the ā-substitution (āttva) by "rāyo hali," [we get] "prarāṇām" [Mādhava's view]. Objection: When "prari + ām" stands, if — setting aside the nuṭ, because it is subsequent (paratvāt) — the num is applied, then, since num is part of the aṅga (aṅga-bhakta), there is no hal-initial vibhakti [following]; so how can there be the āttva? In reply he says "num-aci ra": by prior-superordination (pūrva-vipratiṣedha), setting aside the num, the nuṭ-and-āttva [operates] unobstructed. This is the purport. "sannipāta" [the sannipāta-paribhāṣā] — because the nuṭ, which operated depending on the [stem's] short-endingness (hrasvāntatva), cannot be the cause (nimitta) of the ā-substitution that would destroy that very short-endingness. This is the purport. Objection: Then how can the nuṭ, which operated depending on the short-endingness, be the cause of the lengthening (dīrgha) by "nāmi" — which likewise destroys it? In reply he says "nāmi iti dīrghas tu…" "as has been said" — [supply:] "in the section on the word 'rāma' [SK 209]." — Thus [end] the ai-ending words.

Now the words ending in au. In the analysis "su (= good) nau (ship) yasya" (that which has a good ship), a bahuvrīhi [neuter], by "hrasvo napuṃsake" the short [substitute of au] is u-kāra; so considering, he says "sunu." — Thus [end] the words ending in au.

Thus, in the Bālamanoramā, the neuter vowel-ending [stems are concluded]. Now the section on aluk compounds (aluk-samāsa-prakaraṇa) [begins].

translator notes

textual The source notes a variant reading "madhye" in Bhaṭṭoji's text and rejects it as a corrupt reading (apapāṭha); this is reported, not adopted. In "prari, sunu, etc." the second word is written sūvu in the source, evidently for sunu (the example of the k-block). Long vowels are frequently written short in the digital paradigm forms.

← all prakaraṇas outline →