mentioned as an exception in Sûtra 174, 9. The same applies to II, 3, 4, védî íti asyâ´m, Samh. védyasyâ´m. The pragrihya î ought not to have been changed into a semivowel, but the fact that it had been changed irregularly, was again duly registered in Sûtra 174, 5. These two pragrihya î therefore, which have really to be pronounced short, were irregularly changed in the Samhitâ into the semivowel; and as this semivowel, like all semivowels, may take vyavâya, the same object was attained as if it had been written by a short vowel. With regard to pragrihya û, no such indication is given by the Samhitâ text; but in such passages as I, 46, 13, sambhû íti sam-bhû â´ gatam, Samh. sambhû â´ gatam; V, 43, 4, bâhû´ íti ádrim, Samh. bâhû´ ádrim, the pragrihya û of the dual can be used as short, like the û of madhû atra, given as an example by the commentators of Pânini.

To Professor Kuhn, I believe, belongs the merit of having extended this rule to final â. That the â of the dual may become short, was mentioned in the Prâtisâkhya, Sûtra 309, though in none of the passages there mentioned is there any metrical necessity for this shortening (see p. lii). This being the case, it is impossible to deny that where this â is followed by a vowel, and where Sandhi between the two vowels is impossible, the final â may be treated as short. Whether it must be so treated, depends on the view which we take of the Vedic metres, and will have to be discussed hereafter.

I agree with Professor Kuhn when he scans:

VI, 63, 1. kv̆ă tyâ̄ vālgû̄ pŭrŭ-hû̄tâ̆ ādyā, (Samh. puru-hûtâdya); and not kv̆ā ty̆â̄ vālgû̄ pŭrŭhû̄tâ̄dyā, although we might quote other verses as ending with an epitritus primus.

IV, 3, 13. mâ̄ vēsāsyă pră-mĭnătāh mâ̆ â̄pēh, (Samh. mâpeh,) although the dispondeus is possible.

I, 77, 1. kăthâ̄ dâ̄sēmă āgnăyē kâ̆ āsmai, (Samh. kâsmai.)

VI, 24, 5. āryāh văsāsyă părĭ-ētâ̆ āstī.

Even in a compound like tvâ-ûta, I should shorten the first vowel, e. g.

X, 148, 1. tmănâ̄ tănâ̄ sănŭyâ̄mă tvâ̆-û̄tâ̄h,

although the passage is not mentioned by the Prâtisâkhya

p. lxxxvii

among those where a short final vowel in the eighth place is not lengthened when a short syllable follows a.

But when we come to the second pâda of a Gâyatrî, and find there a long â, and that long â not followed by a vowel, I cannot agree with Professor Kuhn, that the long â, even under such circumstances, ought to be shortened. We may scan:

V, 5, 7. vâ̄tāsyă pātmăn î̄lĭtâ̄ dāivyâ̄ hōtâ̄râ̄ mănŭshāh.

The same choriambic ending occurs even in the last pâda of a Gâyatrî, and is perfectly free from objection at the end of the other pâdas.

So, again, we may admit the shortening of au to o in sâno avye and sâno avyaye, as quoted in the Prâtisâkhya, 174 and 177, but this would not justify the shortening of au to av in Anushtubh verses, such as