deriv SD cv (315) ashtadhyayi.com hei.de L 315 ETT STT a 6.4.128 ALPH OLDHOMEPAGE NEWHOMEPAGE

maghavA bahulam

मघवा बहुलम् ONPANINI 64128

("tu") crazily replaces /maghavan-.

So there are two nounbases. /maghavat- works like **hanumat- हनुमत् —

maghavAn मघवान्, maghavantau मघवन्तौ, maghavantaH मघवन्तः.

maghavantam मघवन्तम्, maghavantau मघवन्तौ, maghavataH मघवतः.

maghavatA मघवता.

maghavatI मघवती.

mAghavatam माघवतम्.

And /maghavan- works mostly like **rAjan- राजन् —

!**maghavA मघवा

maghavAnau मघवानौ

maghavAnaH मघवानः

the difference being that whimpy rAjan राजन् becomes rAjJ राज्ञ् as in **rAjJas राज्ञस्, while whimpy /maghavan- becomes maghon मघोन् as in **maghonas मघोनस्.

Even though this /pANini rule treats maghavat- मघवत् as an anomalous replacement of maghavan- मघवन्, if we fancy that the old meaning was "abundant in gifting", "generous", then historically the original was maghavat- मघवत् built from magha- मघॱ + /matup, and the maghavan मघवन् is its anomalous replacement. /pANini doesn't care about, history however, and treats maghavan- मघवन् as the original to save space.

The form **maghavAn मघवान् appears in the /mahAbhArata —

devAs tv asmAn AdadhIraJ jananyAM; dharmo vAyur maghavAn azvinau ca देवास्त्वस्मानादधीरञ्जनन्यांॱ धर्मो वायुर्मघवानश्विनौ च

I don't think it appears in the /veda.

Where does the "tu" in your translation come from? /kAzikA says "tr". I think you cheated.

Someone is cheating here, it is just not clear who or about what.

The /kAzikA says that there is tR , but the example it gives is maghavAn , as it it were tu . That is inconsistent. We are forced to choose: either tR is a mistake, or maghavAn is a mistake for maghavan. I chose the former. Your mileage may vary.