Fix han+kvip and vocative mat/hat

[yajnadevam]

Summary

• Keep 6.4.15 dirgha in place for kvip in general.
• Skip 6.4.15 only when the dhatu is han.
• Add vocative singular handling for -mat -> -man (e.g., mAmat -> mAman).
• Add vocative singular handling for -hat -> -han (e.g., mAmahat -> mAmahan).
• Regression tests for han+kvip and both vocative cases.

Tests

• cargo test -p vidyut-prakriya kvip_han_stem
• cargo test -p vidyut-prakriya satf_yanluk_mat_voc
• cargo test -p vidyut-prakriya satf_yanluk_hat_voc

Fixes #224

[akprasad]

thanks for the PR, will take a look this weekend

[tbdasap]

@yajnadevam : Are you able to run cargo test successfully on your local development ?

[yajnadevam]

@yajnadevam : Are you able to run cargo test successfully on your local development ?

Yes. I am able to run the test. Updated the PR. Kept the han exception in the 6.4.15 block.

[tbdasap]

W.r.t Handle mat -> man vocative

The test case uses mA (adAdi) + yaNluk + Satf and expects mAman.
Is there a shastric reference for this ? Curious about the motivation.
It seems to violate the intent of नाभ्यस्ताच्छतुः

[yajnadevam]

W.r.t Handle mat -> man vocative

The test case uses mA (adAdi) + yaNluk + Satf and expects mAman. Is there a shastric reference for this ? Curious about the motivation. It seems to violate the intent of नाभ्यस्ताच्छतुः

I essentially followed Ashtadhyayi.com:
https://ashtadhyayi.com/dhatu/02.0057?tab=yangluk_krut&scroll=dhatuform-1020057-yangluk_krut-शतृ&scrollcolor=cyan&scrolloffset=400

Im not certain of the nuances of 7.1.78. ashtadhyayi.com seems to prohibit नुम् for reduplicated main stems but not intensives. see √हु. It is possibly because the आतिदेशिकधातुः = जोहूय is no longer just a reduplicated stem. It is a different root already: 3.1.32 सनाद्यन्ता धातवः

1.1.62 प्रत्ययलोपे प्रत्ययलक्षणम् (“even when an affix is elided, operations conditioned by it still take effect”).
So the system can treat the śatṛ as coming after yaṅ (though lopped) rather than “directly after abhyasta.”

[tbdasap]

1.1.62 प्रत्ययलोपे प्रत्ययलक्षणम् (“even when an affix is elided, operations conditioned by it still take effect”).

Good observation. IMO the primary effect is dhatu abhyasa for yaN even if luk.

Reference: See 14th pdf page (page with number 12) example from this PDF from 1929.

It declines बोभुवत् which is भु+यङ्लुक् like मरुत्

I essentially followed Ashtadhyayi.com:
https://ashtadhyayi.com/dhatu/02.0057?tab=yangluk_krut&scroll=dhatuform-1020057-yangluk_krut-शतृ&scrollcolor=cyan&scrolloffset=400
Im not certain of the nuances of 7.1.78. ashtadhyayi.com seems to prohibit नुम् for reduplicated main stems but not intensives. see √हु. It is possibly because the आतिदेशिकधातुः = जोहूय is no longer just a reduplicated stem. It is a different root already: 3.1.32 सनाद्यन्ता धातवः

@neeleshb : Please help clarify the above. बोभुवत् मामत् perhaps should decline like दधत् due to नाभ्यस्ताच्छतुः

[neeleshb]

नाभ्यस्ताच्छतुः is indeed applicable and बोभुवत् is the correct प्रथमा-एकवचनम्, the forms would be like ददत्. I will fix the website soon.

[yajnadevam]

Thanks for the clarification @neeleshb and thanks for catching this @tbdasap

I have updated the code to incorporate 7.1.78 num blocking for reduplicated stems for sarvanāmasthāna.

@tbdasap here is pointing to the vocative, which should still be num agama

Can you clarify if vocative also should be blocked even though its not sarvanāmasthāna ? You have it for Voc. dadat https://ashtadhyayi.com/dhatu/03.0010?tab=krut&scroll=dhatuform-1030010-krut-शतृ&scrollcolor=cyan&scrolloffset=400

W.r.t Handle mat -> man vocative

The test case uses mA (adAdi) + yaNluk + Satf and expects mAman. Is there a shastric reference for this ? Curious about the motivation. It seems to violate the intent of नाभ्यस्ताच्छतुः

[yajnadevam]

Updated here #226

Now, both nom and voc check for yaN or yaNluk and block num-agama