नलोपः प्रातिपदिकान्तस्य

The न् at the end of a nominal-stem, which is a पद -- शेषो घ्यसखि 1.4.7, is elided.
The word पदस्य 'of a Pada' is understood in this sutra. Thus राजा, राजभ्याम्, राजभिः, राजता, राजतरः, राजतमः ॥ The Nominal stem राजन् gets the designation of Pada, before these affixes, by 1.4.17.

Why do we say 'of a Pratipadika or Nominal stem'? Observe अहन्नहिम् ॥ Here अहन् is a verb, the 3rd Person Singular Imperfect (लङ्) of the root हन् ॥

Why do we say 'at the end'? If the word अन्तस्य had not been used in the sutra, then the sutra would have stood thus नलोपः प्रातिपदिकस्य; and as the word पदस्य is understood here, the sutra would have meant, there is elision of न्, where ever it may be, of a Pada called stem. So that the न of नराभ्याम् would also have required elision. In fact, the genitive case here in पदस्य is not sthana shashthi, but viseshana shashthi, a नलोप अन्तग्रहणं पदाधिकारस्य विशेषणत्वात् ॥

Question: But even if you use the word अन्त in the sutra, it is compounded with the word प्रातिपदिक, and the sense of the sutra will be "न् which is at the end of a pratipadika, which (pratipadika) is a portion of a pada" &c. and not "न् which is at the end of a pada". So that the rule will not apply to अहन्नराभ्यां but will apply to राजानौ &c? Answer:- The word प्रातिपदिक is not compounded, with the word अन्त in the sutra. It is used without any case-affix, on the analogy of Chhandas usage. In fact, it is in the genitive case, the affix being elided by 7.1.39.

Vart:- The prohibition must be stated with regard to the elision of the न of अहन् ॥ As अहः, In अहर् the case-affix सु is luk-elided by 7.1.23, the pratyaya-lakshana is prohibited by 1.1.63, and hence the न् of अहन is changed to र् by 8.2.69. अहोभ्याम्, अहोभिः ॥ For the rules 8.2.68 and 8.2.69 by which the final of अहन् is changed to र्, are asiddha with regard to this present rule requiring elision of न्, hence this vartika.

There is no necessity of this vartika, for the subsequent rules 8.2.69, 8.2.68 will debar नलोप ॥ Answer:- But रु and र are considered asiddha for the purposes of न elision. The रु and र would have debarred न elision, had they otherwise found no scope. But they have their scope. Question: Where have they their scope? Answer:- In the penultimate अ i.e. in the अ preceding the न् ॥ Question: The very fact that the author has used the word अहन् in the sutra 8.2.68, shows that रु does not replace अ but न् ॥ Answer:- If so, then र will find scope in the Vocative, हे अहन् where न् is retained by 8.2.8, and it will be this न् which will be replaced by र्, as ह अहर् and so also हे दीर्घाहो निदाघ !

The word दीर्घाहन् is a Bahuvrihi 2.2.24, the Vocative affix is elided 6.1.68, and the न् changed to र् by 8.2.68, and it is changed to उ 6.1.114. In हे अहन! the न् is not elided by the option of the Vartika under 8.2.8.

To remove these objections, they say, the word अहन् which is used in 8.2.68 is in nominative singular without the elision of न्, and it is to be repeated as अहन् अहन् ॥ The one indicates the exact form, showing that the न् is not elided; and by the second word the रु is ordained for this final न् ॥