There seems to be a commonplace

understanding that is an option

for writing the -s. It is difficult to
say, whether this commonplace understanding
is correct or not from the standpoint of
grammar.

Here are some simple, commonplace examples

/
/
/
/
/
These examples endorse the commonplace
understanding. But in the above examples, the
does not connote any one
specific . Rather it connotes all
the -s ! And there is a
grammatical pattern or relationship between the
 and the being
connoted. The is of the same
as of the after the
. As can be seen

in / , and are of -
in / , are of -
in / , are of -

in / , are of -
in / , are of -
explains this by the rules

(//) and (//)
= of
 = in the presence of (i.e. when followed
by) -s of (=
-s in 8 -s from 5 to 12).
Note, this excludes -s in -
s 13 and 14.

= should be of
the same as of the , which is
to the , i.e. which is after the

= applies also to
= at the end
of a .

This means that a stand-alone word or a

sentence or line of a verse should not end with
. These should end only with the
.
In the previous lesson one example given for
becoming was

(18-17
)
It was also mentioned that, here of
becomes , which has a
slightly different accent than of of

It was also mentioned there that when to write

and how to pronounce it are
points, which merit specific discussion.

In all the examples / , /

, / , /
, / whether to write
or seems to be
more the WRITING option, not necessarily a
rule for pronunciation. We can assume that
these words will be pronounced only
appropriately, even if written either way.
Nevertheless, the pronunciation of
in would
have a slightly different accent than of of
. So, there is a contention that
is not just a writing option for
writing the -s, but connotes a
different accent also.

The following is the rule for

to be . Of
course, conditions apply.

(//)

Meaning
=
= (Make) (=of ) the

The applicable condition is when

- is followed by a consonant.

Examples

, ,
, ,
, ,

The logic or application of the rule can be

extended to derive a corollary, that - at
the end of a sentence or at the end of a line of
poetry should not be written as .
At the end of a sentence or at the end of a line
of poetry, there is nothing after the -,
so, no at all. So, - should
remain - !
In the context of this discussion about
, comes to mind the word
itself. In the word
we have (- ).
May it be written as or as
? Would these have different
pronunciation ? Does it then appeal that the
be better written as
?
That suggests that one should understand the
rule about when an is better
written as .
In some texts one may find the
written as .

S
o

Here is another interesting example from






(11-28)
or

One can deliberate on some interesting

nuances.

It may again be noted that, whether it is written

as
or
the
difference would be primarily in writing. It
makes no difference in pronunciation.
For a finer observation, the of
cannot be written as
even if it would get
pronounced as such only.
 It cannot be written as ,
because, it will then miss the -
symbol , which is essential here !

Note, this option of applies for

at the end of a word, when followed by

of the next word
not when the word is stand-alone
also not of at the end of a
sentence or
of at the end of a line in a poem.

For example in


and are with

 of needs to be only.
of could as well be
written as !

Change to happens not only for

-, but also for - by the

=

= also of
= when not at the end of a
word
= when followed by of

For example, ( 2-22),
(15-1)

Rules about are part of rules of

treatment of -s or of -s with
-s in -position.

One special rules in this respect is

(
) (//)

= of
= when followed by -s of
(= , , , ,
, )
 = Not when followed by or not
for the word (This detail is beyond
the scope of Simple Sanskrit)

When a word ending with is followed by

( =) , , , ,
, , is written by .
Also, gets added before . A
coming in or getting added is called as
.

+ = ( + + + +
= + + + + / + + +
+ + ) = /

Examples from (1-26

+ = + + =
),
(1-33),
 (2-5), also (
+ = + + )

The here may be found in some

texts written as . So, ,
,
.

Having mentioned ( + =
+ + ), I should also bring to notice
two words and . Both have
their derivation from + . But in
there is no of . In there is
of , same as in . Also
could as well be written as .
Rather, it should better be written so.
The of from
suffers modification by
(//)
That is, when the following letter is
either or , the of is converted
to

Example from
(2-11)
Other examples +
= ( + + + + =
+ + + + /
+ + + + + ) =
/
=
/

Note: When the following letter is either or

, the of is converted to
according to