Mutata x Mutatis

I can't give you an authoritative answer because I am not an authority.
But I would submit that mutatis mutandis is an ablative absolute.

George, thank you.
So far I understand (I am not an authority either) your explanation is correct. As ablative absolute "mutatis mutandis " indicates a "circumstance", "after having changed what has to be changed".
However, is "mutata" an acceptable alternative? In the middle of a sentence it "sounds" better to me, while the ablative absolute "sounds" better at the beginning of a sentence. I have absolutely no reason for supporting these opinions, just a "feeling".
Can somebody contribute with citations from the classics?

But how would one translate "mutata mutandis"?

in this case MUTATA is a plural neuter fot a past participle. so it meand THE THINGS CHANGED, it is a nonimative plural neuter past participle

So mutatis mutandis is a ablative absolute, meaning having changed the things that need to be changed

while mutata mutandis means , merely the same. Just with a nominative, different grammatical construction. It is possible both ways.

I disagree.

Mutata is indeed nominative, but mutandis remains ablative.

It would mean "The things changed by the the things that need to be changed."

thank you George and Tizistella for your contributions.
I moved to another land so it took so long time to answer.
Though mutata mutandis sounds fine to me, I agree with George that the construction seems syntactically wrong.
Aiwen

Good luck in your new land, Aiwen!