chunk 51: 84040 stozz, STunA, doublings chunk 51: 84040 stozz, STunA, doublings→ FAKE RULES --------------------------------
84040
84041
84042 But no after wordfinal
84043
84044 after
84045 Wordfinal
84046 After
84047 before non-vowel.
84048
84053 serious to
84054 Delete fake h of the stammer.
84055 before
84056 Before pause too. But that's optional.
84057
84058 Before a
84059 But optionally if wordfinal.
84060
84061 After
84062 After stop, replace
84063
84065 , optionally delete a
84068
^ 
stu means "
So this rule replaces
This change happens to the
Example of
Example of
Example of
Example of
Why didn't the
See exception zAt.
^ The expression
The STu letters are
So the stu (namely
Examples of
Examples of
Examples of
See also exceptions napadAntATToranAm and toSSi.
^ 
Exception to STunA. There is no STunA for the stu that follows a wordfinal Tu.
Examples with the words
Why do we say " nAm aside"?
We can get a wordfinal Tu before nAm only when nAm follows
See also DassidhuT.
yaronu is optional. May I say
Yes you may.
^ Exception to STunA.
So no Tu replacement in --
Careful. Rule stozz has no analogous exception, so wordfinal tu doesn't stay before
^ Exception to stozz.
Notice that STunA has no similar exception -- the tu do NOT stay after
^ As in --
Wait. "Optionally", you say? I never saw anything like
You may PRONOUNCE
Shouldn't monusvA and anusvA change
Nope. Rule cantgoback forbids that. You must pronounce and spell
The original rule changes all yar letters, so why do you say that it only works on
I failed to find examples of the other yar reaching this rule. As far as I know there ain't any.
^ We may, if we want, replace such a consonant with its double consonant .
For instance, the word
You may say
In the manuscript spelling age, however, some people wrote
^ The rule is optional according to
See exception nAdinyA right below.
Even though pronouncing
If I can trust my ears, when chanting, this option appears to be always taken when the yar is after a short and before a yaN. So, my advice is that you should always chant
yar means "all consonants except
No. Later grammarians say that
^ Exception to anacica. This rule makes it ungrammatical to double the first
When the eating is meant literally, this rule won't work. So we may say either --
or
^ (See also jhalAMjazonte rule above, "wordfinal serious to jaz".)
So the serious letters
And
And
For examples of
ashtadhyayidotcom on jhalAM jaz jhazi
Why didn't you show any examples of this rule working on wordfinal letters?
I didn't find any examples. Rule jhalAJjazonte already turned those letters into a jaz two chapters ago.
^ In more words --
"
Examples with roots reduplicating by
KAZIKA abhyAse vartamAnAnAM jhalAM carAdezo bhavati, cakArAj jazca. cikhaniSati. cicchitsati. TiThakArayiSati. tiSThAsati. piphakArayiSati. bubhUSati. jighatsati. DhuDhaukiSate. prakRticarAM prakRticaro bhavanti. cicISati. TiTIkiSate. titaniSati. prakRtijazAM prakRtijazo bhavanti. jijaniSate. bubudhe. dadau. DiDye.
You said above that rule hrasvaH turned
No, it's rule hrasvaH that did the work of replacing. See --
Rule hrasvaH says --
replace long vowel with short
Rule eca::igghra is a talkaround rule that clarifies --
when hrasvaH says " replace
What does the "
It means "replace
I can't imagine how the five letters
Neither could I, the first time I saw it. Yet, if you know how trickles work, you can figure that out with a bit of patience, a pencil and the back of an envelope. I'm not depriving you of the pleasure of solving this puzzle yourself.
How much did you take to solve the puzzle yourself?
A week. That's why I give this as an exercise to juniors, not freshmen.
^ All stops, wordfinal or not, before khar, turn into the most-alike of
Examples --
ap- + sup' →
KAZIKA khari ca parato jhalAM carAdezo bhavati. jazgrahaNaM na anuvartate, pUrvasUtre ca anukRStatvAt. bhettA. bhettum. bhettavyam. yuyutsate. Aripsate. Alipsate.
^ Addition to kharica.
Examples:
You say this rule is optional. May I say
Sure you may.
So, may I write
Ganz verboten! Spelling tradition forbids that.
Then, why does my dictionary show
Because a dictionary shows nounbases the way they look before you add a su and a pause after them.
^ Example --
KAZIKA aNaH apragRhyasaMjJasya avasAne vartamAnasya vA anunAsikAdezo bhavati. dadhi~, dadhi. madhu~, madhu. kumArI~, kumArI. aNaH iti kim? kartR. hartR. apragRhyasya iti kim? agnI. vAyU.
KAZIKA aNaH apragRhyasaMjJasya avasAne vartamAnasya vA anunAsikAdezo bhavati. dadhi~, dadhi. madhu~, madhu. kumArI~, kumArI. aNaH iti kim? kartR. hartR. apragRhyasya iti kim? agnI. vAyU.
^ In more words:
" before ku, replace M with
" before cu, replace M with
" before Tu, replace M with
" before tu, replace M with
" before pu, replace M with
Example with a wordfinal
Example with a nonwordfinal
Example with a nonwordfinal
See optional exception vApadAntasya.
^ The previous rule anusvA says that you must replace M, when it is before most consonants, with a nasalized similar of the consonant.
This rule says that when the M is wordfinal you may, if you wish, not do that replacement. You may pronounce the anusvAra sound as an anusvAra sound. So you may say either --
or
My personal advice is:
PLEASE FORGET THAT THIS OPTIONAL EXCEPTION EXISTS, AND APPLY anusvA ALWAYS, NO MATTER IF THE M IS wordfinal OR NOT.
Why do you advise such a thing?
Because mostly everybody who talks Sanskrit nowadays says
In that case, why did
My guess is that in his time, some people, when talking fast, always said
See also
^ This is the same thing as saying --
" Before
That nasalized
Examples of
Examples of
KAZIKA ta-vargasya lakAre parataH para-savarN'-Adezo bhavati. agnicil lunAti. somasul lunAti. bhavAl~ lunAti. mahAl~ lunAti.
Now. What is that "nasalized ell" sound? Is it hard to say?
Not hard to say. If you try to say "main language" in English fast, it is quite unlikely that you will manage to say the n letter as a normal English N sound. Automatically and without you noticing, your tongue, while saying the
How must I spell that "nasalized ell" sound? Your "theoretically" word above is giving me the creeps.
Grammarians say that you must write a moondot above the ell. Yet, a long tradition allows you to not do that, and to instead write
I tried that in inria reader and it did not work.
There, you are supposed to type
Am I allowed to spell
No. Because you may not spell with the letter
If the principle "spell as you talk" is so to be taken seriously, why then I am allowed to spell
Long story short, most typewriters and most print fonts have no moondot, and it's hard to type in computer keyboards.
^ 
Example --
ud +
This works only on
ud + 
Also, even
KAZIKA savarNaH iti vartate. udaH uttarayoH sthA stambha ity etayoH pUrva-savarN´Adezo bhavati. utthAtA. utthAtum. utthAtavyam. stambheH khalv api uttambhitA. uttambhitum. uttambhitavyam. sthA-stambhoH iti kim? utsnAtA. udaH pUrva-savarna-tve skandez chandasy upasaGkhyAnam. agne dUram utkandaH. roge ca iti vaktavyam. utkandako nAma rogaH. kandater vA dhAtv-antarasya etad rUpam.
^ Examples --
If we don't take the option --
I never heard that option.
Neither did I. Even though the rule is optional, please treat it as compulsory. In writing, you'll never see the alternative
^ According to
amauTchaS
In the alternative --
Even thought the rule is optional according to
See also rule zituk, that manages
KAZIKA jhayaH iti vartate, anyatarasyAm iti ca. jhaya uttarasya zakArasya aTi parataH chakarAdezo bhavati anyatarasyAm. vAk chete, vAk zete. agnicic chete, agnicit zete. somasuc chete, somasut zete. zvaliT chete, zvaliT zete. triSTup chete, triSTup zete. chatvam amIti vaktavyam. kiM prayojanam? tacchlokena, tacchmazruNA ity evam artham.
Wait. There is a word
Oops, I forgot. It boils down to saying that the
never
^ 
So, here, we may delete the second
ud +
And here we may delete
This deletion is optional, so we may still say
KAZIKA halaH iti vartate, anyatarasyAm iti ca. hala uttarasya jharo jhari savarNe parato lopo bhavati anyatarasyAm. pratttam, avatttam ityatra trayastakArAH, kramajazcaturthaH. tatra madhyamasya madhyamayor vA lopo bhavati. maruttttaH ityatra catvArastakArAH kramajaH paJcamaH. tatra madhyamasya madhyamayoH madhyamAnAM vA lopo bhavati. marucchabdasya hi upasaGkhyAnasAmarthyAt aca upasargAt taH iti tatvaM bhavati. jharaH iti kim? zArGgam. jhari iti kim? priyapaJcJA. allopasya ca pUrvatra asiddhe na sthAnivatiti sthAnivadbhAvapratiSedhAt cakArasya JakAre lopaH syAt. savarNe iti kim? tarptA taptum. tarptavyam. savarNagrahaNasAmarthyAtiha saGkhyAtAnudezo na bhavati, savarNamAtre lopo vijJAyate. tena ziNDhi, piNDhi iti DhakAre DakArasya lopo bhavati.
^ Exception to tulyAsya. This rule states that, in spite of the fact that grammar rules such as tulyAsya and others consider
The
The
Notice that the rule is badly written. In writing, the rule appears to be made of two equal
The kAzikA explains this rule very succintly:
KAZIKA akAro vivRtaH saMvRto bhavati
chunk 51: 84040 stozz, STunA, doublings