deriv SD cv (309) ashtadhyayi.com hei.de L 309 ETT STT a 8.2.2 ALPH OLDHOMEPAGE NEWHOMEPAGE

nalopas sup;svara;saJjJA;tug-vidhiSu kRti

नलोपः सुप्स्वरॱसञ्ज्ञाॱतुग्विधिषु कृति ONPANINI 82002

Rule nalopaHprAt... >>>>> is not /asiddha to rules not having to do with /sup, accent, technical terms, nor /tuk before a /kRt.

Usually a /tripAdI rule like nalopaHprAt... >>>>> would be /asiddha to everything before it. But this exception makes the disappearance of n न् affect some rules.

As for instance, rule AdguNaH is not in the /tripAdI. So in a case like —

rAjJAm indraH राज्ञामिन्द्रः
→ rAjan- राजन् + indras इन्द्रस्, by supodhAtupr...
→ rAja- राजॱ + indras इन्द्रस्, by nalopaHprAt... >>>>>

At this point, rule AdguNaH should ordinarily NOT trigger, because the disappearance of the n न् would be /asiddha to it, and we would then get rAjannindras (with GamohrasvAd...), which sucks. Yet, this exception allows the disappearance of n न् to be "seen" by AdguNaH, so the real form will be —

rAjJAm indraH राज्ञामिन्द्रः
→ rAjan- राजन् + indras इन्द्रस्, by supodhAtupr...
→ rAja- राजॱ + indras इन्द्रस्, by nalopaHprAt... >>>>>
→ rAjendras राजेन्द्रस्, by AdguNaH
→ !**rAjendras राजेन्द्रस् "lord of kings"

Now, there are four exceptions to the exception, and they make the dissapearance of n न् unreal again. Rule AdguNa आद्गुण is not comprised in any of those four headings, but rule atobhisa::ais is, because it is a /sup-rule. So when we form —

rAjan- राजन् + /bhis
→ rAja राज + /bhis by nalopaHprAt... >>>>>

rule atobhisa::ais will not trigger, because as far as it is concerned, nalopaHprAt... >>>>> is an /asiddha rule and the n न् is still there, so rAja राज does not end in a अ. So atobhisa::ais will not replace /bhis with ais ऐस्, and we get **rAjabhis राजभिस् "with kings".