A preceding Vocative, when it conveys a general idea, is not to be considered as if non-existent for the purposes of the subsequent Vocative, which stands in apposition with the former.,
This sutra prevents the operation of the last sutra in the particular case when the two Vocatives are in apposition, and the second qualifies the first. Thus अ꣡ग्ने गृ॒॒ह॒॒प॒॒ते॒॒, मा꣡णवकज॒॒टि॒॒ल॒॒का॒॒ध्या॒॒प॒॒क॒॒ ॥ The first vocative being considered as existing, second vocative loses its accent.
Why do we say 'the vocative subsequent'? Observe देवदत्त प꣡चसि here the verb does not lose its accent. Why do we say 'standing in apposition or समानाधिकरणे? Observe दे꣡वदत्त प꣡ण्डित यज्ञदत्त, here the word पण्डित qualifies यज्ञदत्त, and is not in apposition with देवदत्त, and hence it retains its accent.
Why do we say सामान्यवचनम् 'which is a generic word'? The rule will not apply when the Vocatives are synonyms. Thus अ꣡घ्न्ये दे꣡वि स꣡रस्वति ई꣡डे का꣡व्ये वि꣡हव्ये एतानि ते अघ्न्ये नामानि ॥ All these Vocatives are synonyms of Saraswati, and hence all retain their accent of the Vocative 6.1.198. According to Padamanjari the reading given in Taittariya Brahmanam is:- इडे रत्नेऽदिते सरस्वति प्रिये प्रेयसि महि विश्रुते, एतानि ते अघ्निये नामानि ॥ सामान्यवचनम् means 'a generic term'. When the first is a generic term, and the second is a specific term, (विशेष वचन) qualifying the first, and both are in the singular number, there the present rule will apply.,