deriv SD cv (627) ashtadhyayi.com hei.de L 627 ETT STT a 3.1.45 ALPH OLDHOMEPAGE NEWHOMEPAGE

zala:: ig-upadhAd aniTaH ksaH

शल‌ इगुपधादनिटः क्सः ONPANINI 31045

After an /aniT root that ends with /ik + /zal, (replace /cli) with /ksa.

This debars the usual /sic. This "ksa" affix is /kit to prevent gbS.

Some such roots are duh दुह् lih लिह् diz दिश् dviS द्विष्.

lih लिह् before /luG
→ alih अलिह् by luGlaGlRGkSvaD...
→ alih अलिह् + /ksa by this rule
→ (there is no gbS because /ksa is /kit)
→ alig अलिग् + sa स by jhalAJjazjhaz...
→ alik अलिक् + sa स by kharica
→ alik अलिक् + Sa ष with /Satvam
→ !**alikSa- अलिक्षॱ + /luG

The final (z श् S ष् h ह्) of the root will combine with the sa स affix into kSa क्ष. So all of these words have kSa क्ष inside. You might call them "kSa-aorists" for that reason. But we can show respect to /pANini by calling them sa-aorists because they have "ksa" affix.

Some more examples —

diz दिश् + /luG /tip
→ **adikSa- अदिक्षॱ + /t'''
→ !**adikSat अदिक्षत् "he just pointed (at / out)"

diz दिश् + /luG /mas
→ **adikSa- अदिक्षॱ + /ma'''
→ !**adikSAma अदिक्षाम "we just pointed"

duh दुह् + /luG /tip → !**adhukSat अधुक्षत् "he just milked", with throwback

lih लिह् + /luG /tip → **alikSa- अलिक्षॱ + /t''' → !**alikSat अलिक्षत् "he just licked"

dviS द्विष् + /luG /tip
→ **advikSa- अद्विक्षॱ + /t'''
→ !**advikSat अद्विक्षत् "he just hated" (not same as the /laG, **adveT अद्वेट्)

Why "/zal"?

As bhid भिद् chid छिद् do not end in /zal, they take /sic normally, even though they are igupadha इगुपध /aniT roots —

**abhaitsIt अभैत्सीत्

**acchaitsIt अच्छैत्सीत्.

Why "/ik"?

dah दह् gets /sic, even though it is a /zal-ender /aniT —

dah दह् + /luG /tip → !**adhAkSIt अधाक्षीत् "he just burnt", with throwback

Why "/aniT" ?

The /seT roots still get /sic even if they are igupadha इगुपध /zal-enders —

muS मुष् + /luG /mas
→ amuS अमुष् + /iT + /sic + /ma'''
→ !**amoSiSma अमोषिष्म

!**amoSiSus अमोषिषुस्

But that /sic will sometimes get zapped by another rule —

kuS कुष् + /luG /tip → **akoSIt अकोषीत्, with iTa::ITi

**amoSIt अमोषीत्

You said that the end of the root always turns into k क् making kSa क्ष. However, by rule sassyArdhadhAt..., a root ending in s स् should make tsa त्स. Shouldn't you show an example of that?

No, you should. Because the burden of the proof falls on the accuser. Look for an /aniT root that ends in s स् and has an /ik as /upadhA. You will be able to make your tsa त्स example after you find one.