Thanks, I did not realize the text had māha- in place of mahā-.

‘mahārāja’ is an –a stem due to ‘rājā’hassakhibhyaṣṭac’ (5.4.91), which carries over ‘tatpuruṣa’ from ‘tatpuruṣasyāṅguleḥ saṃkhyā'vyayādeḥ’ (5.4.86). The rule ‘nastaddhite’ (6.4.144) accounts for elision of ‘n’ in mahārājan + [ṭ]a[c].

On May 24, 2016 6:57 AM, "Ashok Aklujkar" <ashok.aklujkar@gmail.com> wrote:
Probably “mā” in the place of “ma” in the second half of the first word.

a.a.


On May 23, 2016, at 6:16 PM, Nityanand Misra <nmisra@gmail.com> wrote:

On 24 May 2016 at 01:44, Manu Francis <manufrancis@gmail.com> wrote:
siṃhavarmma-māhārājasya [sic] vijayasaṃvatsare ekādaśe pauṣyamāse kṛṣṇapakṣe daśamyām mayā dattā tāṃpra [sic] paṭṭikā.

What is wrong with siṃhavarmma-māhārājasya?