deriv SD cv (226) ashtadhyayi.com hei.de L 226 ETT STT a 7.1.94 ALPH OLDHOMEPAGE NEWHOMEPAGE

Rd;uzanas; purudaMzo;'nehasAJ ca

ऋदुशनस्पुरुदंशोॱऽनेहसां च ONPANINI 71094

R ऋ, and also the as अस् of /uzanas-, purudaMzas- पुरुदंशस् and anehas- अनेहस्, combined with non-/sambuddhi /su, all make A आ.

hole rewrite this pageso thatit agrees with sup tables

Examples —

pitR- पितृॱ m + /su → **pitA पिता

mAtR- मातृॱ f + /su → !**mAtA माता

svasR- स्वसृॱ f + /su → !**svasA स्वसा

**kartA कर्ता

**zAstA शास्ता

uzanas- उशनस् m + /su → **uzanA उशना

!**purudaMzA पुरुदंशा

!**anehA अनेहा

Why "non-/sambuddhi"?

If the /su is the /sambuddhi, then halGyAbbhyodIrgh... erases the /su, that's all —

he **pitar

he **uzanas

he kartar

he purudaMzaH

You cheated in your translation, the original does not say "replace with A and erase the /su", it just says "replace with /anaG".

I indeed cheated. Yet, "replace with /anaG" boils down "replace with A and erase the /su".

**pazya —

pitR- m + /su
→ pit- + /anaG + /su by this rule
→ pit- + /anaG + /su by Gicca
→ pitan- + /su jbj
→ pitA by the same steps in **rAjA
→ !**pitA " s father"

This is making my head hurt. /pANini is using half a dozen rules just to turn R into A . Couldn't he just have said ur At for "replace R with A "?

No, because then uraNraparaH would have messed things up.

Okay, I rephrase — Couldn't he have got the same effect using less rules?

Yes he could, but that would have made this sUtra longer, and see, the poor student was supposed to memorize all sUtras by heart, so the shorter they are, the better. Again, see ASHAP.