The cases of SOI which we find in samāsa derivations are few and fairly simple. I will not be discussing them in this thesis. In taddhita derivations, we come across examples of SOI between rules teaching affixation. Consider the derivation of autsa ‘male offspring of utsa’ (cf. 4.1.92 tasyāpatyam ‘his offspring’). Three rules teach the addition of three different affixes:
4.1.83 prāg dīvyato’ṇ: the taddhita affix aṆ is added to denote senses taught in rules from here up to 4.4.2 tena dīvyati khanati jayati jitam.
4.1.86 utsādibhyo’ñ: the taddhita affix aÑ is added to denote senses taught in rules from here up to 4.4.2 tena dīvyati khanati jayati jitam after forms of stem belonging to the list headed by utsa.
4.1.95 ata iñ: the taddhita affix iÑ is added to denote ‘his offspring’ after forms of nominal stems ending in a.
Now let us write down the conditions in which these rules apply. Remember that, as always, we write the sounds outside brackets and their characteristics inside brackets.
107
4.1.83
-ending in a
-ending in any other sound
4.1.86
-ending in a (utsādi class)
-ending in any other sound (utsādi class)
4.1.95
-ending in a
Upon comparing the conditions written in bold, we see that 4.1.86 is more specific that the other two rules, on account of the condition ‘utsādi class’. We get the correct form: [utsa + Ṅas] + aÑ 🡪 autsa ‘offspring of utsa’ (2.4.71 supo dhātuprātipadikayoḥ, 7.2.117 taddhiteṣv acām ādeḥ, 6.4.148 yasyeti ca).
On 4.1.86, the Kāśikā says aṇas tadapavādānāṁ ca bādhakaḥ, implying that this rule is an exception of both 4.1.83 and exceptions of 4.1.83 such as 4.1.95.
The other examples in the taddhita section are quite similar to this one, so we shall not look at them.39
This brings us to the end of this chapter, and also to the end of our study of examples of conflict from sandhi, subanta, taddhita and samāsa derivations. In the following chapter, we shall look at examples from tiṅanta and kr̥danta derivations.
108