The forms of सन्स्त् (2.74) should be fixed.

[neeleshb]

The verb सन्स्त् (2.74) has a 3-letter संयोग - न् + स् + त् . Now, whether the last 2 letters "स् + त्" can be separately called a संयोग or not is debatable and both views exist.
How does that matter?
If स् + त् is considered a संयोग on its own, then स्कोः संयोगाद्योरन्ते च will remove the स्, giving forms like सन्ति / सन्त्ति ।
And if स् + त् is not considered a संयोग then we will get current forms, संस्ति / संस्त्ति ।

Both the pathways should be supported.

[akprasad]

@vipranarayan14 this seems like a good first issue! If you're interested, I'll help you through it.

[vipranarayan14]

Yeah I will take this up!

[akprasad]

@vipranarayan14 how is this going?

[vipranarayan14]

@akprasad I'm currently tied up. I don't think I can take this up any time soon. Sorry.

[akprasad]

@vipranarayan14 no problem! I'm clearing out some old issues. Let me know if you have time for this. If not, I'll try to get to it in the next week.

[akprasad]

both views exist

@neeleshb Can you provide citations for each of these views? Whenever we change the prakriya, we log the authority behind the change, both for error tracking and for better educating the user.

[neeleshb]

Pasting my own commentary as an image. Reference from Bhashya is also provided. (Sutra 1.1.7 हलोऽनन्तराः संयोगः)
Also, तत्त्वबोधिनी has this line in this context - "यत्र बहवः हलः संश्लिष्टाः, तत्र द्वयोः बहूनां च अविशेषेण संज्ञा, इति स्थितम् आकरे" ।

[neeleshb]

Also a direct reference for this use-case is in 7.4.53 यीवर्णयोर्दीधीवेव्योः in SK

सन्ति ... सन्तः । संस्तन्ति । बहूनां समवाये द्वयोः संयोगसंज्ञा नेत्याश्रित्य स्कोः-[(कौमुदी-३८०)](https://ashtadhyayi.com/sutraani/sk380) इति लोपाभावात् । संस्ति । संस्तः इत्येके ।