clarification

[Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian]

Ravi <miinalochanii at YAHOO.COM> wrote:

> In the shrImukham to the commentary on shrI nilakanTha dIkshita's
> AnandasAgarastavaH which emphasizes on sharaNagati to ambaL and
arguing
> on the difficulty of other methods, kAnchi periyava says that this
> argumentation style falls under ths type
> "apashavo vaa anye go ashvebhyaH"

I was hoping someone would reply to this, I am confused by the
statement myself, Anyway my understanding:

apashavah - plural, nominative of a-pashu = not animal.
go = root for bull.
ashva = root for horse
anye = nominative plural of anya (anya = other is declined like
sa=he).

asvebhayaH taken alone is either the dative or ablative plural of
ashva
which would mean "to horses" or "from horses". But I don't see how the
compound with the root go and ashva can be written as go + ashva = go
ashva.  For example if we want to form a compound bAla + ashva it
would become bAlAshva. So go + ashva = gA ashva or is the rule of
external sandhi not applicable here?

Can anyone tell me what I am missing here? pashavaH and anye should be
grouped together since they have the same case ending. Literally it
seems to mean

>From bulls and horses, others (are) not animals
or
To Bulls and horses, others (are) not animals.

I am unable to grasp the idiom in either case :-).

Rama