कुत्सितानि कुत्सनैः

As वैयाकरणसूचि 'a bad or dull grammarian.' Here it might be asked is the word व्याकरणं 'grammar' a word of contempt, or the word वैयाकरण 'grammarian'? Neither 'Grammar' (it being a part of Vedanga,) nor the person who studies it i.e., the grammarian, can be an object of contempt ordinarily.

The word 'grammarian' is, however, the expression of contempt in an indirect way, thus :- The person studying grammar but not studying it well, becomes an object of contempt and such a despicable person becomes also contaminated. The word खसूचि is a term of contempt per se. It literally means, a person who on being asked a question, and not possessing ready wit and intelligence to answer it, scratches his head and contemplates vacancy (खंसूचयति) and tries to divert the questioner's attention by exclaiming 'how beautifully clear is the sky,' such a person is called खसूचिः.

Such compounds are confined to cases where the reason for the use of any particular term is to express contempt with regard to the signification of that term. So we can not form a compound of the sentence वैयाकरणश्चौरः 'the thief grammarian;' for, contempt is not expressed with regard to the signification of the word 'grammarian.' But when the term 'grammarian' itself is used in a contemptuous signification, then a compound will be formed.

This aphorism is commenced in order to introduce an exception to sútra 57, by which an adjective stands as the first member in a compound. By the present sútra, however, the attributive word will stand as the second member.

Other examples of such compounds are: याज्ञिककितवः 'one who hankers after performing sacrifices for persons for whom one ought not to perform sacrifices' मीमंसक-दुर्दुरूढः 'an unbelieving logician,' 'an athiest.'

No compound can be formed under this aphorism, if both the words are not used in an opprobatory signification as such. Therefore it is not in the following case. कुत्सितोब्राह्मणः 'the bad Brahmana' &c.,