धि च

Karika:-

धि सकारे सिचो लोपश्चकाद्धीति प्रयोजनम् ।
आशाध्वं तु कथं जशत्वं सकारस्य भविष्यति ॥
सर्वमेवं प्रसिद्धं स्याच्छुतिश्चापि न विद्यते ।
लङश्चापि न मूर्द्धन्ये ग्रहणं सेटि दुष्यति ॥
घसिभसोर्न सिध्येत तस्मात्सिज्ग्रहणं न तत् ।
छान्दसो वर्णलोपो वा यथेष्कर्त्तारमध्वरे ॥

As अलविध्वम्, अलविढ्वम्, अपविध्वम्, अपविढ्वम् for अलविस्ध्वम् and अपविस्ध्वम् ॥ Had this स् (of सिच्) not been elided; then स् would be first changed to ष्, and then to a letter of जश् class 8.4.53, ध् would never be heard even optionally, though so required by 8.3.79, but the forms would be always with ढ, as अलविड्ढ्वम् &c. ॥

From an ishti, the elision of स् is confined to the स् of the Aorist सिच्, and not to any other स् ॥ Thus स् is not elided in चकाद्धि in चकाद्धि पलितं शिरः (हे शिरः पलितं सच् चकाद्धि शोभस्वेत्यर्थः). It is the Imperative of चकास् the सिप् is changed to हि, and हि to धि 6.4.101, and स् to द by 8.4.53. Similarly it does not apply to पयस् धावति, where स is changed to रु and then to उ 6.1.114 = पयो धावति ॥ The elision of स् in सग्धिः from घस् with क्तिन्, and in बब्धाम् from भस् in the Imperative with ताम्, is a Vedic diversity. But according to Patanjali चकाधि is the proper form; while in पयो धावति the antaranga रु debars this bahiranga स् elision.

Objection:- If so, how do you form आशाध्वं, by the elision स् of शास्; for स् would not be elided? Answer:- The स् is not here elided but changed to जश् letter, by 8.2.39. Objection:- If so, स् may always be changed to जश् letter, and there is no need of eliding it; in pronouncing, it will make no difference, whether you pronounce with one consonant or two, e.g. आशाद्ध्वम् or आशाध्वं ॥ Moreover by so doing, you will shorten the sutra 8.3.78, by omitting the word लुङ् from it. For the forms like अच्योड्ढ्वम्, अप्लोड्ढ्वम्, will be evolved regularly by changing स् of सिच् to ष्; and the ध after it will be changed to ढ, and then ष् changed to ड् by जश्त्व 8.4.53. Answer:- So far it will be all right, but in सेट् Aorist we shall never get the alternative forms अलविध्वम् &c, though we may get the form अलविड्ढ्वम् 8.3.79. Therefore, the word सिच् should be taken.

Objection:- If सिच् is to be taken here, then the स् of घस् and भस् will not be dropped, and we shall not get the forms सग्धिः and बब्धां in the passages सग्धिश्च मे सपितिश्च मे, and बब्धां ते हरीधामाः ॥ Therefore, the present sutra should not be confined to सिच् only. Answer:- We shall explain सग्धिः by saying, that it is a word derived from सघ्, and so also बब्धां from the root बन्ध ॥

[N. B.- The word सग्धिः is generally thus derived; अद् + क्तिन् = घस् + ति 2.4.39 = घ्स् + ति 6.4.100 = घ् + ति 8.2.26. Had the present rule been confined to सिच्, the स् could not have been elided by 8.2.26. See 6.4.100, where these two forms are developed]. Or we may explain these forms as Vedic irregularity, by which letters are sometimes dropped, and so घस् and भस् have lost their स् ॥ That letters are sometimes dropped in the Chhandas, we see in passages like the following इष्कर्त्तारमध्वरे for निष्कर्त्तारमध्वरे; तुभ्येदमग्ने for तुभ्यमिदमग्ने; आम्बानां चरुः for नाम्बानां चरुः; अव्याधिनी रुगणः or अव्याधिनीः सुगणाः ॥

The above discussion is summarised in the following

Karika:- धिसकारे सिचोलोपश्चकाद्धीति प्रयोजनम्, \This rule is confined to the elision of the सिच् only, for the sake of preserving the स् in चकाद्धि\ ॥

आशाध्वं तु कथं ? जश्त्वं सकारस्य भविष्यति ॥ \How then do you form आशाध्वं by the elision of स्? The स is not elided but changed to a जश् letter\.

सर्वमेवं प्रसिद्धं स्याच्, छ्रुति श्चापि न विद्यते । लुङश्चापि न मूर्धन्ये ग्रहणं सेटि दुष्यति ॥ \If this be so, then let जश् come every where, for there is no difference in sound, moreover this will shorten 8.3.78 by omitting the word लुङ् from it. The जश् cannot come every where, as the difficulty will be in सेट् Aorist\. घसि भसोर्म सिध्येत, तस्मात् सिज् ग्रहणं न तत् । \The forms सग्धिः and बब्धां could not be formed from घस् and भस् if the elision of स् were confined to सिच्. Hence सिच् should not be read into this sutra.\

छान्दसो वर्णलोपो वा यथेष्कर्त्तारमध्वरे \The elision of स् in सग्धिः and बब्धां will be explained as a Vedic anomaly, for letters are often dropped in Vedic forms, as in इष्कर्त्तारमध्वरे instead of निष्कर्त्तारमध्वरे ॥\,