kim punaḥ idam tadbhāvitagrahaṇam : vṛddhiḥ iti evam ye ākāraikāraukārāḥ bhāvyante teṣām grahaṇam āhosvit ādaijmātrasya .
But now (kim punaḥ), is this a tadbhāvita-designation — the inclusion of those ā-, ai-, au-vowels that are produced (bhāvyante) as 'vṛddhi' [by a rule] — or is it [the designation] of merely being ā/ai/au (ādaijmātra)?
kim ca ataḥ .
And what [turns] on this?
yadi tadbhāvitagrahaṇam śālīyaḥ mālīyaḥ iti vṛddhalakṣaṇaḥ chaḥ na prāpnoti .
If [it is] a tadbhāvita-designation, then in 'śālīyaḥ', 'mālīyaḥ' the vṛddha-conditioned affix cha would not obtain.
āmramayam śālamayam vṛddhalakṣaṇaḥ mayaṭ na prāpnoti .
[In] 'āmramayam', 'śālamayam' the vṛddha-conditioned affix mayaṭ would not obtain.
āmraguptāyaniḥ śālaguptayaniḥ vṛddhalakṣaṇaḥ phiñ na prāpnoti .
[In] 'āmraguptāyaniḥ', 'śālaguptāyaniḥ' the vṛddha-conditioned affix phiñ would not obtain.
atha aijmātrasya grahaṇam sarvaḥ bhāsaḥ sarvabhāsaḥ iti uttarapadapadavṛddhau sarvam ca iti eṣaḥ vidhiḥ prāpnoti .
Now (atha) if [it is] the designation of merely being ā/ai/au (aijmātra), then in 'sarvaḥ bhāsaḥ' → 'sarvabhāsaḥ', by 'sarvaṁ ca' this rule (vidhi) concerning uttarapada-vṛddhi would [wrongly] apply.
iha ca tāvatī bhāryā asya tāvadbhāryaḥ yāvadbhāryaḥ vṛddhinimittasya iti puṃvadbhāvapratiṣedhaḥ prāpnoti .
And here — 'tāvatī bhāryā asya' → 'tāvadbhāryaḥ', 'yāvadbhāryaḥ' — by 'vṛddhinimittasya' the prohibition of the puṁvadbhāva would [wrongly] apply.
astu tarhi aijmātrasya .
Let it then (tarhi) be [the designation] of merely being ā/ai/au (aijmātra).
nanu ca uktam sarvaḥ bhāsaḥ sarvabhāsaḥ iti uttarapadapadavṛddhau sarvam ca iti eṣaḥ vidhiḥ prāpnoti .
But surely (nanu ca) it was [already] said: in 'sarvaḥ bhāsaḥ' → 'sarvabhāsaḥ', by 'sarvaṁ ca' this rule concerning uttarapada-vṛddhi would [wrongly] apply.
na eṣaḥ doṣaḥ .
This is not a fault.
na evam vijñāyate uttarapadasya vṛddhiḥ uttarapadavṛddhiḥ uttarapadavṛddhau iti .
It is not understood thus: 'the vṛddhi of the uttarapada = uttarapada-vṛddhi; [locative] uttarapadavṛddhau'.
katham tarhi .
How then (katham tarhi)?
uttarapadasya iti evam prakṛtya yā vṛddhiḥ tadvati uttarapade iti evam etat vijñāyate .
It is understood thus: 'taking up [the governing word] uttarapadasya (of the uttarapada), the vṛddhi that [is thereby prescribed] — [the rule applies] in an uttarapada possessing that [vṛddhi]'.
avaśyam ca etat evam vijñeyam .
And this must necessarily be understood thus.
tadbhāvitagrahaṇe sati api iha prasajyeta : sarvaḥ kārakaḥ sarvakārakaḥ iti .
For even when there is a tadbhāvita-designation, [the rule] would [wrongly] apply here too: 'sarvaḥ kārakaḥ' → 'sarvakārakaḥ'.
yad api ucyate iha tāvatī bhāryā asya tāvadbhāryaḥ yāvadbhāryaḥ vṛddhinimittasya iti puṃvadbhāvapratiṣedhaḥ prāpnoti iti na eṣaḥ doṣaḥ .
As for what is also said — that here 'tāvatī bhāryā asya' → 'tāvadbhāryaḥ', 'yāvadbhāryaḥ', by 'vṛddhinimittasya' the prohibition of the puṁvadbhāva would apply — that is not a fault.
na evam vijñāyate vṛddheḥ nimittam vṛddhinimittam vṛddhinimittasya iti .
It is not understood thus: 'the cause of vṛddhi = vṛddhi-nimitta; [genitive] vṛddhinimittasya'.
vṛddheḥ nimittam yasmin saḥ ayam vṛddhinimittaḥ vṛddhinimittasya iti .
[Rather:] 'that in which there is a cause of vṛddhi — this is vṛddhi-nimitta (a bahuvrīhi); [genitive] vṛddhinimittasya'.
kim ca vṛddheḥ nimittam. yaḥ asau kakāraḥ ṇakāraḥ ñakāraḥ vā .
And what is a cause of vṛddhi? That which is the letter k, or ṇ, or ñ.
atha vā yaḥ kṛtsnāyāḥ vṛddheḥ nimittam .
Or rather (atha vā), [it is] that which is the cause of the entire (kṛtsnā) vṛddhi.
kaḥ ca kṛtsnāyāḥ vṛddheḥ nimittam .
And what is the cause of the entire vṛddhi?
yaḥ trayāṇām ākāraikāraukārāṇām .
That which [is the cause] of [all] three — ā, ai, au.