deriv SD cv (327) ashtadhyayi.com hei.de L 327 ETT STT a 7.1.21 ALPH OLDHOMEPAGE NEWHOMEPAGE

aSTAbhya:: auz

अष्टाभ्य‌ औश् ONPANINI 71021

After aSTan- अष्टन् "eight", if it has been replaced with aSTA- अष्टाॱ, (replace /jas /zas) with auz औश्.

Exception by anticipation to SaDbhyoluk >.

Only example:

aSTan- अष्टन् (any gender) + /jas OR /zas
→ aSTA- अष्टाॱ + /jas OR /zas by aSTana::Av...
→ aSTA- अष्टाॱ + auz औश् by this rule
→ aSTau अष्टौ by vRddhireci
→ !**aSTau अष्टौ mfn " s o eight"

Why is the replacement auz औश् instead of just /au?

Because if it were /au (1) AdeHparasya would have made aSTauH and (2) << napuMsakAcca would have made aSTe in the neuter.

Why do we say "only if it has been replaced with aSTA- अष्टाॱ"?

When we don't make the optional aSTana::Av... work, we get —

aSTan- अष्टन् (any gender) + /jas or /zas
→ !**aSTa अष्ट, by SaDbhyoluk >

Why did you translate "only if it has been replaced with aSTA- अष्टाॱ"?

Because this sUtra has aSTAbhyaH अष्टाभ्यः, not aSTabhyaH अष्टभ्यः. If sUtra aSTana::Av... were compulsory, saying aSTabhyaH अष्टभ्यः or aSTaNaH अष्टणः here would have sufficed, and would have saved some /mAtrA. See pANini's razor.

But /jas and /zas start with vowels, so aSTana::Av... should not make aSTA- अष्टाॱ.

Again, the very fact that there is aSTA अष्टा here shows that aSTana::Av... may make aSTA- अष्टाॱ even though /jas and /zas start with vowels.

I sort of smell of circular logic somewhere.

I find your lack of faith disturbing. namo pANinaye नमो पाणिनये