When the preceding Vocative is in the plural number, it is optionally considered as non-existent, if the subsequent Vocative, in apposition with it, is a specific term.,
This ordains option, where the last sutra would have made the consideration of the first vocative as existent compulsory. Thus दे꣡वाः श꣡रण्याः or दे꣡वा श॒॒र॒॒ण्याः॒॒ ॥ ब्रा꣡ह्मणा वै꣡याकरणाः or ब्रा꣡ह्मणा वै॒॒या॒॒क॒॒र॒॒णाः॒॒ ॥
The anuvritti of सामान्यवचनम् is understood here; the second vocative, therefore, must be a विशेषवचन, as being the correlative of the former: where is then the necessity of employing the word विशेषवचने in the sutra? This word is used in the aphorism for the sake of precision only.
Why do we say 'in the plural number'? Observe मा꣡णवक ज॒॒टि॒॒ल॒॒क॒॒ ॥ No option is allowed here, and the preceding vocative is always considered as existent and so rule 8.1.73 applies.
The sutras 8.1.73 and 8.1.74 as enunciated by Panini are:- 73. नामन्त्रिते समानाधिकरणे; 74. सामान्यवचनं विभाषितं विशेषवचने (i. e. 8.1.73. The preceding Vocative is not considered as non-existent, if the subsequent word is a Vocative in apposition with it. 74. Optionally so, if the preceding vocative is a general term and the subsequent vocative is a particular term). Patanjali made the amendment by adding सामान्यवचने to 73 also, and the author of Kasika has added बहुवचनम् to 74 from the commentary of Patanjali and has omitted सामान्यवचनं from it: though he reads its anuvritti.,