प्रत्यय-उत्तरपदयोश् च

As त्वदीयः, मदीयः, with the affix छ 4.2.114, (I. I. 74) त्वत्तरः (= अतिशयेन त्वं), मत्तरः, त्वद्यति (= त्वामिच्छति), मद्यति; त्वद्यते (= त्वमिवाचरते), मद्यते ॥ Similarly when a second member of the compound follows. As तव पुत्रः = त्वत्पुत्रः, मत्पुत्रः ॥ त्वं नाथोऽस्य = त्वन्नाथः, मन्नाथः ॥ When more than one individual is signified, the substitution does not take place, as युष्मदीयं (= युष्माकमिदं), अस्मदीयं; युष्मत्पुत्रः (= युष्माकं पुत्रः), अस्मत्पुत्रः ॥

The sutra 7.2.97 referred to the vibhaktis or case-endings, as that word from 7.2.84 governs these sutras, the present sutra refers to other affixes, and to compounds. It might be objected, that even before other affixes and compounds these words had in them vibhaktis, though those vibhaktis were elided when these affixes were added or when the words became part of a compound; and that having in them suppressed vibhaktis, the substitutions would take place in spite of this sutra. This objection is not valid, for there the vibhaktis have been elided. But is not elision a Bahiranga and the substitute an antaranga process; and should not, therefore, the substitute come first and then the vibhakti elided? The substitution specially taught in this sutra is, therefore, a jnapaka and proves the existence of the following maxim :- अन्तरङ्गानपि विधीन् बहिरङ्गोलुग्बाधते 'a bahiranga substitution of लुक् supersedes even antaranga rules'. Thus गोमान् प्रियोऽस्य = गोमत्प्रियः, here the antaranga नुम् augment is superseded by the bahiranga लुक् ॥ This sutra further indicates, that all other substitutes of 'yushmad' and 'asmad' which take place in the singular, such as तव, मम, तुभ्य, मह्य, त्व, अह, do not take effect, before general affixes or in compounds, but that त्व and म are the only substitutes there even. As तुभ्यं हितं = त्वद्धितं, मद्धितं ॥ तव पुत्रः = त्वत्पुत्रः, मत्पुत्रः ॥,