नलोपः सुप्-स्वर-सञ्ज्ञा-तुग्-विधिषु कृति

The word विधि in the sutra applies to all the four words preceding it: as सुब्विधि, स्वरविधि &c. The force of the Genitive compound in स्वरविधि, संज्ञाविधि, तुग्विधि is that of ordaining the existence of something: e.g. when an accent is to be given to a word, or a particular designation is to be given to it or when त् is to be added to it, (भावसाधन) ॥ The compound सुब्विधि means however, the rule relating to the case-endings themselves, as well as, the rule which would apply to a word, when a case-ending follows (कर्मसाधन) ॥

(1) सुब्विधि :- As राजभिः, तक्षभिः ॥ Here the elision of न् of राजन् and तक्षन् being asiddha, the भिस् is not changed to ऐस् by 7.1.9. So also राजभ्याम्, तक्षभ्यां, राजसु, तक्षसु ॥ Here the finals of राज and तक्ष are not lengthened before भ्यां by सुपिच 7.3.102 and nor changed to ए before सु by 7.3.103: as in नराभ्यां and नरेषु of the stem ending in अ ॥

(2) स्वरविधि :- As रा꣡जवती and not राजवती꣡ ॥ For the elision of न् being asiddha, the rule 6.1.220, does not apply, for the word is considered not to end in अवती but न्वती ॥ Similarly in पञ्चार्मम् and दशार्मम्, the elision of न being asiddha, the first member does not become ady-udatta by 6.2.90. Similarly पञ्चवीजी : the elision of न् being asiddha, the first member does not retain its original accent as required by 6.2.29.

The word राजन् is first acute, as it is formed by the affix कनिन् (Unadi I. 156). राजवती is formed by adding ङीप् to the मतुप् ending word, by 4.1.6. पञ्चार्मम् is a compound under rule 2.1.50 of पञ्चन् + अर्म, and when न् is elided, the first member becomes a word ending in अ and would require the accent of 6.2.90.

(3) संज्ञाविधि :- As पञ्च ब्राह्मण्यः, दश ब्राह्मण्यः ॥ The elision of म् being asiddha, the words पंच and दश are still called shash though they no longer end in न् (ष्णान्ता षट् 1.1.24). Being called षष्, they do not take टाप् in the feminine 4.1.10.

According to the Vartikakara, there is no necessity of using the word संज्ञा in the sutra (संज्ञा ग्रहणानर्थक्यं च नन्निमित्तंत्वाल्लोपस्य), because the elision of न् is caused by reason of its having such a designation (as षट्). Thus without its having the name of षट् there would be no elision of जस् and शस्, without such elision, there is no pada sanjna of these words, and unless these words get Pada designation, there can be no elision of न् by 8.2.7. The shash designation, however, would not be retained by these words after taking plural affixes, when feminine affixes are to be added to them, but for this sutra. The पञ्चन् and दशन् ending in न् would require ङीप् in the feminine, which is however prohibited, for when जस् and न् are elided, the words end in अ and require टाप् for their feminine, which is also prohibited, because, by the present sutra the word still retains its designation of षट् ॥

Question: How can this be the purpose of this sutra? There are two views as regard definitions (संज्ञा), the one is that a particular name is given to a thing once for all, prior to any operations; and operations are performed afterwards upon it or with it, as occasions arise. This view is embodied in the maxim यथोद्देशं संज्ञापरिभाषम् 'Sanjna, and Paribhashas remain where they are taught.' The other view is that the sanjna sutra is to be read with every particular operative sutra, and the sanjna given to the word afresh, with every new operation. In other words, the sanjna sutra becomes identified with a vidhi sutra, every time that a vidhi is to be applied. This is embodied in the maxim कार्यकालं संज्ञापरिभाषम् \Sanjnas and Paribhasas are attracted by or unite with the rules that enjoin certain operations.\ In the first view, the षट् sanjna will be good throughout, both for the purposes of eliding जस् and शस् and for prohibiting टाप् ॥ Hence thus sutra is not necessary in that view. But in the other view, the sutra is necessary. For if the view be taken that a sanjna is to be applied with regard to each operation, then that षट् sanjna which had taken effect for the purposes of eliding जस् and शस्, will no longer hold good for the purposes of preventing the application of the feminine affix. Hence, the word संज्ञा is taken in this sutra, to prevent the application of the second view.

(4) तुग्विधिः - Thus वृत्रहभ्यां, वृत्रहभिः ॥ On account of the elision of म् being asiddha, the तुक् augment is not added, though required by 6.1.71. (ह्रस्वस्य पिति कृति तुक्) ॥

Some hold that तुक् need not be read in the sutra. They argue in this way:- There is this maxim सन्निपातलक्षणो विधिरनिमित्तं तद्विघातस्य \That which is taught in a rule, the application of which is occasioned by the combination of two things, does not become the cause of the destruction of that combination\. Now the elision of न् of वृत्रहन् took place because of the case affix भ्यां, this elision cannot be the cause of adding तुक् ॥ Or the तुक् being a बहिरङ्ग operation would be asiddha with regard to the antaranga elision of न् ॥ This opinion is, however, not sound. The employment of तुक् in this sutra indicates, that the two maxims above referred to, are not of universal application i.e. they are anitya.

Why do we say before a Krit-affix? Observe वृत्रहच्छत्रम्, वृत्रहच्छाया ॥ Here तुक् is added by 6.1.73.

The elision of न् taught by 8.2.7 &c would be asiddha by the general rule 8.2.1; the specification of the four cases in which it is asiddha shows that it is a restrictive or niyama rule. That is, the elision of न् is considered asiddha only with regard to these four rules, and no other. It is not asiddha in राजीयते (राजन् + क्यच् + ते = राज + य + ते = राजीयते) 3.1.8, 7.4.33. There would not have been long ई had the नलोप been asiddha. So also राजायते there is lengthening, 7.4.25 and राजाश्च there is ekadesa 6.1.101.,