दाण्डिनायन-हास्तिनायन-आथर्वणिक-जैह्माशिनेय-वासिनायनि-भ्रौणहत्य-धैवत्य-सारव-ऐक्ष्वाक-मैत्रेय-हिरण्मयानि

These words are thus derived (1 and 2) दाण्डिनायन and हास्तिनायन from दण्डिन् and हस्तिन् belonging to नडादि class. The affix is फक् 4.2.91. If they do not belong to that class, the affix is added irregularly : दण्डिनोऽपत्यं = दाण्डिनायनः &c. The final इन् is not elided. (3) अथर्वन् belongs to Vasantadi class 4.2.63. The science or work of Atharvan Rishi is also called Atharvan. He who studies that work is called Atharvanika: the final is not elided before the इक् affix. (4 and 5) The descendants of जिह्माशिन् and वासिन् are Jaihmasineya and Vasinayani, the former with the affix ढक् of the Subhradi class 4.1.123, and the latter with the affix फिञ् of 4.1.157. The finals of the stems are not dropped. (6 and 7) These are derived from भ्रूणहन् and धीवन् with the affix ष्यञ्, and न् being replaced by त = भ्रूणघ्नो भावः, धीव्नो भावः ॥ हन् takes त before affixes having an indicatory ण or ञ् by 7.3.32: it might be said त would be added to भ्रूणहन् before ष्यञ् by that rule. That rule is, however, confined to affixes which come after roots only, and not to Taddhita affixes. That rule does not apply to cases like भ्रौणघ्नी, वार्त्रघ्नः ॥ The त in Bhraunhatya is therefore, an irregularity. (8) सारव is from सरयू with the affix अण्, the final अयू being elided, सरय्वां भवः = सारवमुदकं ॥ (9) The son of इक्ष्वाकु, with अञ् affix 4.1.168, the final उ is elided, or ईक्ष्वाकुषु जनपदेष् भवः = ऐक्षाकः with अण् affix 4.2.132. Accent on the first or the final. The irregularity consists in the elision of final उ ॥ As one word is ऐक्ष्वाकः and the other ऐक्ष्वाकः, the sutra ought to have read this word twice, strictly speaking. The single reading may be justified on the ground, that the sutra gives ऐक्ष्वाक without any accent (eka-sruti), and consequently includes both (एकश्रुतिः स्वर सर्वनाम) ॥

(10) मैत्रेय is from मित्रयु of Grishtyadi class 4.1.136, and takes ढञ् as मित्रयु + एय, here 6.4.146, requires Guna, but 6.4.146, prevents it, and requires lopa of उ, but 7.3.2, required the substitution of इय for यु ॥ The irregularity consists in eliding यु altogether as मैत्रेय, the अ cannot be elided by 6.4.148, before एय, as the lopa of यु is considered asiddha 6.4.22; however the result is the same, for अ + ए = ए by 6.1.97; the single substitute being the form of the subsequent. The plural of मैत्रेय will be मित्रयवः (the plural of मित्रयु); as it belongs or Yaskadi class and loses the affix in the plural 2.4.63. Another form of this word is मैत्रेयिक formed under 7.3.2. It might be objected that had मित्रयु been read in Bidadi class 4.1.104, it would have taken the affix अञ्, and the form मैत्रेय would have been evolved regularly: as मित्रयु + अञ् = मित्र + इय 7.3.2 + अ = मैत्रेयः ॥ This would have prevented also the necessity of including this word in the Yaskadi class 2.4.63, for then by 2.4.63, अञ् formed words would lose the affix in the plural and we would have got the form मित्रयवः in the plural. So far it would have been all right, but if मैत्रेय were to be formed with अञ् affix, as proposed, then the संघ derivative of this word would have required to be formed with अण् affix under 4.3.127, and not with वुञ् under 4.3.126; but we require वुञ्, as मैत्रेयकः संघः ॥ (11) हिरण्मय from हिरण्य with मयट् with the elision of य, हिरण्यस्य विकारः = हिरण्मयः ॥,