After a consonant there is the elision of the nominative affix s and the tense-affix ti and si (when reduced to the form of t and s ) being consonants; and so also after the long vowels ī and ā of the feminine (affix ṅī and āp ), there is the elision of the nominative affix s,
The sutra translated literally means :- After a word ending in a consonant, or ङी, or आप् when a long vowel, the affixes सु, ति and सि when reduced to a single consonant affix (अपृक्तं हल्) are elided. But ति and सि are elided only after a consonant and hence we have translated it as above. As examples of the elision of सु after a consonant:- राजन् + स् = राजान् 6.4.8 + ० = राजा, तक्षा, उखास्रत्, पर्णध्वत् ॥ After a ङी :- कुमारी, गौरी, शार्ङ्गरवी ॥ After आप् :- खट्वा, बहुराजा, कारीषगन्धा ॥ The elision of ति and सि takes place only after consonants :-as, अबिभर्भवान् (भृ + लङ् + तिप् = अ + भृ + श्लु + त् = अ + भृ + भृ + त् 6.1.10 = अ + भर् + भृ + त् 7.4.66 and 1.1.51 = अ + बि + भर् + त् 7.4.60 = अ + ब + भृ + त् 8.4.54 = अ + बि + भृ + त् 7.4.76 = अ + बि + भर् + त् 7.3.84 = अबिभर् + त् = अबिभर् ॥ So also अजागर् भवान् ॥ In both these cases त् of the Imperfect has been elided. The स् is elided in the following:- अभिनोऽत्र, अच्छिनोऽत्र ॥ (भिद् + लङ् + सिप् ॥ The द् is changed into र् by 8.2.75 and स् is elided by this rule).
Why do we say \after a consonant, or a feminine affix ई and आ\? Observe ग्रामणीः, सेनानीः ॥ Why do we say \after a long vowelled feminine affix\? Observe निष्कौशाम्बिः, अतिखट्वः, where the feminine affixes have been shortened. Why do we say \when followed by सु, ति and सि\? Observe अभैत्सीत् ॥ The सि being read along with ति, does not include सिच्, but refers to सिप् only. Why do we say 'when reduced to a single letter'? Observe भिनत्ति, छिनत्ति ॥ Why do we say 'the consonant is elided'? Observe बिभेद, चिच्छेद ॥ Here the aprikta affix अ of the Perfect is not elided : though it being the substitute of ति is like ति, and ought to have been elided, had the word हल् not been used in the sutra.
Why has the elision of स् (सु), त् (तिप्) and स् (सिप्) been ordained after consonants, as they would of themselves have been dropped by 8.2.23, being the finals of a compound consonant? Then the forms राजा, तक्षा could not be evolved. As राजन् + स् = राजान् + स् 6.4.8 = राजान्स् and by eliding स् by Rule 8.2.23, the form would have become राजान्, and the final न् could not have been elided by 8.2.7; for it is a maxim enunciated in the very opening of the Second chapter of the 8th Book, that in the last three chapters of that Book (2nd, 3rd and 4th Books), a subsequent rule is as if it had not taken effect, so far as any preceding rule is concerned; therefore, the rule 8.2.7 ordaining the elision of न्, does not find scope, since 8.2.23 (ordaining elision of स्) is considered as if it had not taken effect. So also in the case of उखास्रत् and पर्णध्वत् ॥ उखा + स्रन्ग् + क्विप् 3.2.76 = उखा + स्रस् (the nasal being elided by 6.4.24); now add सु, we have उखास्रस् + स् = उखास्रस्स; elide the final स् not by this rule, but by 8.2.23, we have उखास्रस्, here we cannot change the स् into द् by 8.2.72 for स् is not final in a pada, for Rule 8.2.23 is considered as not to have taken effect. So also in the case of अभिनोऽत्र ॥ The word अभिनः is 2nd. Person singular of the Imperfect of भिद् of Rudhadi class. Thus भिद् + लङ् + सिप् = अ + भिद् + श्नम् + स् = अ + भिनद् + स् = अभिनर् + स् (द changed to र् by 8.2.75) = अभिनर्स् ॥ If we elide the final स् of the conjunct by 8.2.23, then in अभिनर् + अत्र, the र् would not be changed into उ to form अभिनोऽत्र by 6.1.113 since the elision of स् is considered as to have not taken effect when applying this rule. So also in अबिभर् भवान्, by Rule 8.2.24, there would be no lopa even, for संयोगान्तलोप rule is restricted by रात्सस्य 8.2.24, i. e. स् only and no other consonant is elided after र्, therefore there will be no elision of त् in अबिभर्त् by 8.2.23.,