A general rule, therefore, in our sense of the word, that the eighth syllable in hendecasyllabics and dodecasyllabics, the tenth syllable in hendecasyllabics and dodecasyllabics, and the sixth syllable in octosyllabics should be lengthened, rests in no sense on the authority of ancient grammarians. Even as a mere observation, they restrict it by the condition that the next syllable must be short, in order to provoke the lengthening of the preceding syllable, thereby sanctioning, of course, many exceptions; and they then proceed to quote a number of cases where, in spite of all, the short syllable remains short a. In some of these quotations they are no doubt wrong, but in most of them their statement cannot be disputed.

As to the eighth syllable being short in hendecasyllabics and dodecasyllabics, they quote such verses as,

VI, 66, 4. āntār (íti) sāntăh ăvādyâ̄nĭ pŭnâ̄nâ̄h.

Thus we see that in VI, 44. 9, vārshî̄yāh văyāh krĭnŭhĭ săkî̄bhīh, hi remains short; while in VI, 25, 3, găhĭ vri̅shnyâ̄nĭ krĭnŭhî̄ părâ̄kāh, it is lengthened in the Samhitâ, the only difference being that in the second passage the accent is on hí.

As to the tenth syllable being short in a dodecabyllabic, they quote

II, 27, 14. ădĭtē mītră vărŭnă ŭtă mrĭlā.

As to the tenth syllable being short in a hendecasyllabic, they quote

II, 20, 1. v̆ayām tē văyăh īndră vīddhĭ sŭ nāh.

As to the sixth syllable being short in an octosyllabic, they quote

VIII, 23, 26. măhāh vīsvâ̄n ăbhĭ sătāh.

A large number of similar exceptions are collected from

[paragraph continues] 528, 3 to 534, 94, and this does not include any cases where the ninth, the eleventh, or the seventh syllable is long, instead of being short, while it does include cases where the eighth syllable is long, though the ninth is not short, or, at least, is not short according to the views of the collectors of these passages. See Sûtra 522, 6.

Besides the cases mentioned by the Prâtisâkhya itself, where a short syllable, though occupying a place which would seem to require lengthening, remains short, there are many others which the Prâtisâkhya does not mention, because, from its point of view, there was no necessity for doing so. The Prâtisâkhya has been blamed a for omitting such cases as I, 93, 6, urum yagñâya kakrathŭr u lokam; or I, 96, 1, devâ agnim dhârayan drăvinodâm. But though occupying the eighth place, and though followed by a short syllable, these syllables could never fall under the general observation of the Prâtisâkhya, because that general observation refers to final vowels only, but not to short syllables in general. Similar cases are I, 107, 1a; 122, 9; 130, 10; 152, 6; 154, 1; 158, 5a; 163, 2; 167, 10a; 171, 4; 173, 6; 179, 1a; 182, 8a; 186, 6, &c.