साहित्य कण्टकोद्धारः
 
इति प्रयोगः । अत्र विवाहशब्दात् [^128]ठन्निञि प्रत्यये वृद्धौ सत्यां टिड्ढाणञ्

(४-१-१५) इत्यादिसूत्रेण डीपि वैवाहिकी इति स्यात् । बहुवचने च वैवाहिक्य

इति भवितव्यम् । तत् कथं वैवाहिकाः इति प्रयोगः इति चेत् --सत्यम् ।

प्रमाद एवायमिति बहवः । अथ वा विवाहशब्दात् संबन्धार्थे अणि डीपि वैवाही

इति स्त्रियां रूपम् । ततः स्वार्थे कनि (न सामिवचने (५-४-५) इति प्रतिषेधेन

ज्ञापिते) केऽण: (७-४-१३) इतिसूत्रेण ईकारस्य ह्रस्वे टाबन्तं रूपं ( पुत्रिका

कुमारिका इतिवत् वैवाहिका इति) कथंचित् साधनीयमित्येके ।
 

ननु
 

निजामयोध्यामपि पावनीमयं
 

भवन्मयो [^129] ध्यायति नावनीपतिः ॥ (नैषधे १२ - ५ )
 
33
 

 
इति श्रीहर्षप्रयोगः कथम् । अनत्र भवत्या विकार इति विग्रहे मयद्ट् प्रत्यये

( मयट् वा एतयोरित्यादिसूत्रेण --४-१-१४३) कथं [^130 ]पुंवद्भावः । तस्य ठक्-

छसोश्चेति वार्त्तिकरीत्या भावत्काः भवदीयाः इत्यत्रैव संभवात् ।
 

[^131,
 
]अन्यत्न
 

 
[^128]. MSS. read : kani here. This should be due to mistake of some

scribe or other. Later the word kani in this context occurs in the text. But
in vaivä
in vaivāhika the suffix should be tṭhañ. So I surmised tṭhañi. Mallinātha in

his commentary on the Kumāra-VII.2, explaining vaivāhika says: vivāhah
ḥ
prayojanam eşṣām iti vaivāhikāni. Prayojanam ( 5.1.109) iti tṭhañ. On prayojana of

the rule 5.1.109, Bhattṭṭoji says : prayojanam = phalam, kāraņam ca.
 
ṇam ca.
 
[^129]. See also Naişṣadha III.113 (bhavadviyoga), IV.121 (bhavadvidhā) VIII.73

(bhavadakşṣivāsī). See also the Kādambariī :
 

atimahat khalu bhavaddarśanaāt prabhṛti me kut ühalam asmin
ūhalam asmin
(p. 291 ; N.S.P. 1948).

[^130]. There seems to have been some difficulty in having a correct interpret-

ation of the rule regarding the pumṃvadbhāva (i.e. retaining the masculine stem,

though the person referred to may be a female in a given context, as is clear

from the vigrahaväākya). Some earlier writers quoted the following rule:
sarvanä
sarvanāmnaḥ samāse purvamūrvaṃ pumṃvat,
 
and noted it to be a vä
and noted it to be a vārttika. But there is no vārttika like this traceable. It was

to the credit of Bhattṭṭoji, it seems, who pointed out the inexistence of such a
vä
vārttika, and made clear that it was an Işțṣṭi of Patañjali in the form of sarvanamno
vrttimäāmno
vṛttimātre pumvadbhaṃvadbhāvaḥ.
 

 
See his S.K. under TṬhakchasoś ca (on 6.3.35, – Tasilādişṣu etc.) and the

P.M. in this context. The Iştiṣṭi : sarvanāmno vṛttimäātre pumvadbhaṃvadbhāvaḥ is found

in the Mahābhāsṣya under 2.2.26, and under 5.3.28. See also Note 132.

[^131]. The pūrvapakşṣa raised here is owing to the ignorance of the Istṣṭi, and

consequently is based on the view that pumṃvadbhāva is not possible in all the

cases, but possible only in bhaāvatka and bhavadiīya (the cases of tṭhak and chas

suffixes). See the Venṇīsamṃhāra V.9 (bhavatiīsutakşṣayakarahḥ), and the Sākuntala :

after V.24 (atrabhavatiīpratyayāt). See also Jagaddhara on Venisamṇīsaṃhāra V.9.