त्यदादिषु दृशो ऽनालोचने कञ् च

The force of 'and' is that the क्विन् also comes under similar circumstances. त्यद् &c. are pronouns, for a list of which see 1.1.27. Thus त्यादृश् nom. sing. त्यादृक्, 'such-like' when it is formed by क्विन्; and त्यादृशः 'such-like' when the affix is कञ्. So also तद् + दृश् + क्विन् = तादृश् 6.3.91 nom. sing. तादृक् 6.1.68, (VIII. 2. 36 and 62), 8.4.56; and तादृशः when कञ् is the affix. So यादृक् or यादृशः 'what-like'.

What is the force of the letter ञ् of कञ्? It is for the sake of accent; the udatta is on the first syllable of those words which are formed by an affix having an indicatory ञ् or न् 6.1.117. But the indicatory न् would have given the same accent, there being no difference between कञ् and कन् in this respect. The indicatory ञ् then serves only the purpose of distinguishing the affix कञ् from कन् in sutra 4.1.15 in which कञ् is taken and not कन्. Had we not formed this separate affix, then for कञ्करप् of that sutra, we should have read कन् क्वरप् so that the feminine of words formed by कन् would have also taken long ई, so that the feminine of यावकः (याव + कन्) 5.4.29 would have been यावकी instead of यावका.

Why do we say 'when not signifying perception'? See तं पश्यति = तद्दर्शः 'who sees that'. The words त्यादृक्, तादृश् &c. are crude nouns, in which the etymological sense of the root not being visible, the act of seeing can never be denoted by these words.

Vart:- This rule applies also when the words समान and अन्य are in composition with दृश्. As सदृक् or सदृशः 'like' (समान + दृश् + क्विन् = स + दृश्) 6.3.89; so also अन्यादृशः or अन्यादृक् 'of another kind'.

Vart:- The affix क्स comes also after the root दृश्. As तादृक्षः, यादृक्षः, अन्यादृक्षः and कीदृक्षः । तद् + दृश् + क्स = ता + दृश् + क्स (VI. 3. 91.) = तादृष् + स 8.2.36 = तादृक् + स 8.2.41 = तादृक् + ष 8.3.59 = तादृक्षः ।,