इन्-हन्-पूष-अर्यम्णां शौ

According to the maxim (See 6.4.14 also) that \अन्, इन्, अस्, मन ग्रहणान्यर्थवता चानर्थकेन च तदन्त विधिं प्रयोजयन्ति\, the employment of इन् in this sutra includes and means \words ending in the syllable इन्\ ॥ As regards the rest (हन् &c.), the affix शि (Neuter Plural) is never added to them alone, but when they are parts of a compound. Thus हन् is a noun formed by the addition of the affix क्विप् to the root हन्; and the affix Kvip is added to it only then, when it is preceded by another word like \Brahma\ &c. See 3.2.87. Similarly the words पूषन् and अर्यमन् are masculine and cannot take the Neuter plural affix शि in their original state. They must be parts of a neuter compound, to admit this affix. Hence we have used words \when the stem ends in इन् &c.\

Thus बहुदण्डीनि and बहुच्छत्रीणि । बहुवृत्रहाणि । बहुभ्रूणहाणि । बहुपूषाणि । बह्वर्यमाणि ॥ सिद्धे सत्यारम्भो नियमार्थः । इन्हन्पूषार्यम्णामुपधायाः शावेव दीर्घो भवति नान्यत्र । दण्डिनौ ॥ छत्रिणौ । वृत्रहणौ । पूषणौ । अर्यमणौ ॥

Though this result could have been obtained by 6.4.8, the special mention of these words shows that except in Accusative and Nominative Plural the lengthening does not take place in other strong cases. As दण्डिनौ, छत्रिणौ, वृत्रहणौ, पूषणौ, अर्यमणौ ॥

Karika :- Regarding the rule of lengthening taught about इन् &c here, let the wise reader, after making a restrictive rule with regard to सुट् (sarvanamasthana) affixes in general, make again another rule regarding the affix शि in particular, (i. e., make a yoga-vibhaga) By so doing, the form भ्रूणहनि (Locative singular) of the Acharya, will not be found fault with.

2. (But if yoga-vibhaga be not made) then I rule that the anuvritti of सुट् being dropped, let the rule be made with regard to शि affix in general (without regarding it as a Sarvanamasthana affix). And as the rule of lengthening applies to penultimates, there would arise no fault, if the vowel of हन् is lengthened before the demonstrative affix य (in words like वृत्रहायते = वृत्रहा इव आचरति, This refers to 7.4.25).

3. Or if the anuvritti of सुट् (Sarvanamasthana) be taken into this Sutra, because of the context, then the mention of शि in this Sutra, (would be redundant, because the word Sarvanamasthana includes it, so far as the strong cases are concerned) but it would find scope and utility in preventing the lengthening in those cases to which the context of Sarvanamasthana does not apply. That is, the Sarvanamasthana will be restricted with regard to इन् &c to the affix शि and not to सुट् affixes generally.

Note :- शि is the affix of the Nominative and Accusative Plural in Neuter 7.1.20. It is a Sarvanamasthana by 1.1.42. But the word Sarvanamasthana may be read into this sutra from the preceding 6.4.8. What is then the necessity of employing शि in this? The above karika answers this.

In the case of हन् ending words, the subsequent rule 6.4.15, which required the lengthening of the penultimate vowel before an affix having an indicatory क् or ङ्, is however debarred by the present restrictive rule. Thus the Locative Singular (ङि) is वृत्रहनि, and भ्रूणहनि ॥ How do you make this? By splitting up the present sutra into two parts, the first part being इन् हन् पूषार्यम्णाम्, and the second being शौ ॥ It would then mean :- (1) The penultimate vowel is lengthened, in strong cases only and no where else, when the stem ends in इन् or हन् or in पूषन् or अर्यमम् ॥ (2) So also it is lengthened before the strong case शि and no where else. These two restrictive rules therefore, would debar all other rules of penultimate lengthening which would otherwise have been applicable. But a rule which does not relate to penultimate vowel, is not debarred by this restriction, but does take effect. Thus वृत्रहायते, भ्रूणहायते denominative verbs in क्यङ् ॥

Or even though the Sarvanamasthana may be read into the sutra by anuvritti, yet this may be considered a Restrictive Rule in general, and not only with regard to शि considered a Sarvanamasthana or a Neuter affix शि is the Sarvanamasthana affix of the Neuter : which has no other Sarvanamasthana, therefore, it is a general Niyama and not only a Sarvanamasthana or a Neuter niyama. Therefore in this niyama the word \नपुंसकस्य\ - \of the Neuter\ - is not to be taken.

For if it be taken, then the Sutra would mean, the neuter stems in इन् &c are lengthened in शि only and no where else. The result would be that in examples like भ्रूणहनि ब्राह्मणकुले (locative singular), there would be no lengthening at all (i.e. we shall never have the form भ्रूणहानि in locative singular by force of 6.4.15; moreover, by so doing, there would arise this anomaly also, that words other than Neuter would also not be lengthened.

The force of the definition of Sarvanamasthana applies to Neuter also in certain cases, therefore, any rule (niyama) made with regard to Sarvanamasthana would apply to Neuter also.,