kim punaḥ ayam alontyaśeṣaḥ āhosvit alontyāpavādaḥ .
Now, is this [rule] a completion-remainder of 'alo'ntyasya' (al-antya-śeṣa), or an exception to 'alo'ntyasya' (al-antya-apavāda)?
katham ca ayam taccheṣaḥ syāt katham vā tadapavādaḥ .
And how would it be a remainder of that (taccheṣa), or how an exception to that (tadapavāda)?
yadi ekam vākyam tat ca idam ca alaḥ : antyasya vidhayaḥ bhavanti ikaḥ guṇavṛddhī* alaḥ antyasya iti tataḥ ayam taccheṣaḥ .
If [it is] one sentence — both that and this: 'the operations [governed by a genitive] al are of the final; guṇa and vṛddhi [take the place] of the final al of an ik' — then this is a remainder of that (taccheṣa).
atha nānā vākyam : alaḥ antyasya vidhayaḥ bhavanti , ikaḥ guṇavṛddhī* antyasya ca anantyasya ca iti tataḥ ayam tadapavādaḥ .
But if [they are] separate sentences — 'the operations of an al are of the final', [and separately] 'iko guṇavṛddhī [applies] both to the final and to the non-final' — then this is an exception to that (tadapavāda).
kaḥ ca atra viśeṣaḥ .
And what is the difference here?
vṛddhiguṇau alaḥ antyasya iti cet midipugantalaghūpadharcchidṛśikṣiprakṣudreṣu iggrahaṇam .
If vṛddhi and guṇa are of the final of an al (alo'ntyasya), then in mid-i, pug-anta-laghu-upadhā, ṛcchi, dṛśi, kṣipra, and kṣudra the mention of 'ik' [must be made].
vṛddhiguṇau alaḥ antyasya iti cet midipugantalaghūpadharcchidṛśikṣiprakṣudreṣu iggrahaṇam kartavyam .
If vṛddhi and guṇa are of the final of an al, then in mid-i, pug-anta-laghu-upadhā, ṛcchi, dṛśi, kṣipra, and kṣudra the mention of 'ik' must be made.
mideḥ guṇaḥ ikaḥ iti vaktavyam .
It must be stated: 'the guṇa of mid is of the ik'.
anantyatvāt hi na prāpnoti .
For, because [the ik] is not final (anantyatva), it would not [otherwise] apply.
pugantalaghūpadhasya guṇaḥ ikaḥ iti vaktavyam .
It must be stated: 'the guṇa of a pug-ending / light-penultimate [stem] is of the ik'.
anantyatvāt hi na prāpnoti .
For, because [the ik] is not final, it would not [otherwise] apply.
ṛccheḥ liṭi guṇaḥ ikaḥ iti vaktavyam .
It must be stated: 'the guṇa of ṛcch before liṭ is of the ik'.
anantyatvāt hi na prāpnoti .
For, because [the ik] is not final, it would not [otherwise] apply.
ṛdṛsaḥ aṅi guṇaḥ ikaḥ iti vaktavyam .
It must be stated: 'the guṇa of ṛ and dṛś before aṅ is of the ik'.
anantyatvāt hi na prāpnoti .
For, because [the ik] is not final, it would not [otherwise] apply.
kṣiprakṣudrayoḥ guṇaḥ ikaḥ iti vaktavyam .
It must be stated: 'the guṇa of kṣipra and kṣudra is of the ik'.
anantyatvāt hi na prāpnoti .
For, because [the ik] is not final, it would not [otherwise] apply.
sarvādeśaprasaṅgaḥ ca anigantasya .
And there is the undesired consequence of a total substitution (sarvādeśa) in the case of a stem not ending in ik (an-ig-anta).
sarvādeśaḥ ca guṇaḥ ca anigantasya prāpnoti : yātā vātā .
And both a total substitution and guṇa would apply to a stem not ending in ik: yātā, vātā.
kim kāraṇam .
For what reason?
alaḥ antyasya iti ṣaṣṭhī ca eva hi antyam ikam upasaṅkrāntā , aṅgasya iti ca sthānaṣaṣṭhī .
Because the genitive in 'alo'ntyasya' has passed over to the final ik, while 'aṅgasya' is a genitive of locus (sthāna-ṣaṣṭhī).
tat yat idānīm anigantam aṅgam tasya guṇaḥ sarvādeśaḥ prāpnoti .
So, whatever aṅga now does not end in ik — its guṇa would be a total substitution (sarvādeśa).
na eṣaḥ doṣaḥ .
This is not a fault.
yathā eva hi alaḥ antyasya iti ṣaṣṭhī antyam ikam upasaṅkrāntā evam aṅgasya iti api sthānaṣaṣṭhī .
For just as the genitive in 'alo'ntyasya' has passed over to the final ik, so too 'aṅgasya' is a genitive of locus [that likewise settles on the final ik].
tat yad idānīm anigantam aṅgam , tatra ṣaṣṭhī eva na asti kutaḥ guṇaḥ kutaḥ sarvādeśaḥ .
So, for whatever aṅga now does not end in ik, there is no genitive at all; whence guṇa, whence a total substitution?
evam tarhi na ayam doṣasamuccayaḥ .
In that case, this is not a cumulation of faults (doṣa-samuccaya).
kim tarhi .
Then what [is it]?
pūrvāpekṣaḥ ayam doṣaḥ , hyarthe ca ayam caḥ paṭhitaḥ .
This fault depends on the preceding [horn] (pūrva-apekṣa), and this 'ca' [in the vārttika] is read in the sense of 'hi' (because).
midipugantalaghūpadharcchidṛśikṣiprakṣudreṣu iggrahaṇam sarvādeśaprasaṅgaḥ hi anigantasya iti .
[So it reads:] 'in mid-i… kṣudra the mention of ik [is needed], because there is the consequence of a total substitution for a non-ik-ending stem'.
mideḥ guṇaḥ ikaḥ iti vacanāt antyasya na .
From the statement 'the guṇa of mid is of the ik', it does not [apply] to the final.
antyasya iti vacanāt ikaḥ na .
From the statement 'of the final', it does not [apply] to the ik.
ucyate tu guṇaḥ .
But guṇa is still prescribed.
saḥ sarvādeśaḥ prāpnoti .
That [guṇa] would be a total substitution.
evam sarvatra .
So in every case.
astu tarhi tadapavādaḥ .
Then let it be an exception to that (tadapavāda).
igmātrasya iti cet jusisārvadhātukārdhadhātukahrasvādyoḥ guṇeṣu anantyapratiṣedhaḥ .
If [it applies] to any ik whatsoever (ig-mātra), then in the guṇas [prescribed] for jus, for a sārvadhātuka-ārdhadhātuka, for a short vowel (hrasva), and the rest, a prohibition against the non-final (anantya-pratiṣedha) [must be stated].
igmātrasya iti cet jusisārvadhātukārdhadhātukahrasvādyoḥ guṇeṣu anantyapratiṣedhaḥ vaktavyaḥ .
If [it applies] to any ik whatsoever, then in the guṇas for jus, for a sārvadhātuka-ārdhadhātuka, for a short vowel, and the rest, a prohibition against the non-final must be stated.
jusi guṇaḥ .
guṇa before jus (jusi).
saḥ yathā iha bhavati : ajuhavuḥ , abibhayuḥ , evam anenijuḥ , paryaviviṣuḥ , atra api prāpnoti .
That, just as it applies here — ajuhavuḥ, abibhayuḥ — so would it also apply here: anenijuḥ, paryaviviṣuḥ.
sārvadhātukārdhadhātukayoḥ guṇaḥ .
guṇa before a sārvadhātuka or ārdhadhātuka [affix].
saḥ yathā iha bhavati : kartā hartā nayati tarati bhavati , evam īhitā , īhitum iti atra api prāpnoti .
That, just as it applies here — kartā, hartā, nayati, tarati, bhavati — so would it also apply here: īhitā, īhitum.
hrasvasya guṇaḥ .
guṇa of a short vowel (hrasva).
saḥ yathā iha bhavati : he agne he vāyo , evam he agnicit , he somasut iti atra api prāpnoti .
That, just as it applies here — he agne, he vāyo — so would it also apply here: he agnicit, he somasut.
jasi guṇaḥ .
guṇa before jas (jasi).
saḥ yathā iha bhavati agnayaḥ , vāyavaḥ iti evam agnicitaḥ , somasutaḥ iti atra api prāpnoti .
That, just as it applies here — agnayaḥ, vāyavaḥ — so would it also apply here: agnicitaḥ, somasutaḥ.
ṛto ṅisarvanāmasthānayoḥ guṇaḥ .
guṇa of ṛ before ṅi and a sarvanāmasthāna.
saḥ yathā iha bhavati kartari kartārau kartāraḥ iti evam sukṛti sukṛtau sukṛtaḥ iti atra api prāpnoti .gheḥ ṅiti guṇaḥ .
That, just as it applies here — kartari, kartārau, kartāraḥ — so would it also apply here: sukṛti, sukṛtau, sukṛtaḥ. — guṇa of a ghi[-stem] before a ṅit [affix].
saḥ yathā iha bhavati agnaye vāyave evam agnicite somasute iti atra api prāpnoti .
That, just as it applies here — agnaye, vāyave — so would it also apply here: agnicite, somasute.
oḥ guṇaḥ .
guṇa of the [final] u (oḥ).
saḥ yathā iha bhavati bābhravyaḥ , māṇḍavyaḥ iti evam suśrut , sauśrutaḥ iti atra api prāpnoti .
That, just as it applies here — bābhravyaḥ, māṇḍavyaḥ — so would it also apply here: suśrut, sauśrutaḥ.
na eṣaḥ doṣaḥ .
This is not a fault.
pugantalaghūpadhagrahaṇam anantyaniyamārtham .
The mention of pug-anta and light-penultimate (laghu-upadhā) serves to restrict [guṇa] to the non-final (anantya-niyama).
pugantalaghūpadhagrahaṇam anantyaniyamārtham bhaviṣyati .
The mention of pug-anta-laghu-upadhā will serve to restrict [guṇa] to the non-final.
pugantalaghūpadhasya eva anantyasya na anyasya anantyasya iti .
[That is:] only of a pug-ending / light-penultimate non-final [ik], not of any other non-final [ik].
prakṛtasya eṣaḥ niyamaḥ syāt .
This restriction would be of the current [operation] (prakṛta).
kim ca prakṛtam .
And what is current?
sārvadhātukārdhadhātukayoḥ iti .
'[guṇa] before a sārvadhātuka or ārdhadhātuka'.
tena bhavet iha niyamāt na syāt īhitā , īhitum , īhitavyam iti .
By that [restriction] it would [correctly] obtain here; by the restriction it would not occur [wrongly] — īhitā, īhitum, īhitavyam.
hrasvādyoḥ guṇaḥ tu aniyataḥ .
But the guṇa of a short vowel and the rest is unrestricted (aniyata).
saḥ anantyasya api prāpnoti .
That would apply even to the non-final.
atha api evam niyamaḥ syāt .
Or even if the restriction were thus:
pugantalaghūpadhasya sārvadhātukārdhadhātukayoḥ eva iti .
'of a pug-ending / light-penultimate only before a sārvadhātuka-ārdhadhātuka'.
evam api sārvadhātukārdhadhātukayoḥ guṇaḥ aniyataḥ .
Even so, the guṇa before a sārvadhātuka or ārdhadhātuka is unrestricted.
saḥ anantyasya api prāpnoti : īhitā , īhitum īhitavyam iti .
That would apply even to the non-final: īhitā, īhitum, īhitavyam.
atha api ubhayataḥ niyamaḥ syāt : pugantalaghūpadhasya eva sārvadhātukārdhadhātukayoḥ , sārvadhātukārdhadhātukayoḥ eva pugantalaghūpadhasya iti , evam api ayam jusi guṇaḥ aniyataḥ .
Or even if the restriction were from both sides — 'of a pug-ending / light-penultimate only before a sārvadhātuka-ārdhadhātuka, and before a sārvadhātuka-ārdhadhātuka only of a pug-ending / light-penultimate' — even so this guṇa before jus is unrestricted.
saḥ anantyasya api prāpnoti : anenijuḥ , paryaviviṣuḥ iti .
That would apply even to the non-final: anenijuḥ, paryaviviṣuḥ.
evam tarhi na ayam taccheṣaḥ na api tadapavādaḥ .
In that case, this is neither a remainder of that (taccheṣa) nor an exception to that (tadapavāda).
anyat eva idam paribhāṣāntaram asambaddham anayā paribhāṣayā .
This is rather quite another paribhāṣā, unconnected with this paribhāṣā ['alo'ntyasya'].
paribhāṣāntaram iti ca matvā kroṣṭrīyāḥ paṭhanti : niyamāt ikaḥ guṇavṛddhī bhavataḥ vipratiṣedhena iti .
And, taking it to be another paribhāṣā, the Kroṣṭrīyas read: 'by restriction, guṇa and vṛddhi belong to the ik by conflict-resolution (vipratiṣedha)'.
yadi ca ayam taccheṣaḥ syāt tena eva tasya ayuktaḥ vipratiṣedhaḥ .
And if this were a remainder of that (taccheṣa), a conflict-resolution (vipratiṣedha) of it with that very [rule] would be improper.
atha api tadapavādaḥ utsargāpavādayoḥ api ayuktaḥ vipratiṣedhaḥ .
And if [it were] an exception to that (tadapavāda), a conflict-resolution between an utsarga (general rule) and its apavāda (exception) is also improper.
tatra niyamasya avakāśaḥ : rājñaḥ ka ca , rājakīyam .
There, the scope (avakāśa) of the restriction is: rājñaḥ ka ca, rājakīyam.
ikaḥ guṇavṛddhī* iti asya avakāśaḥ : cayanam , cāyakaḥ , lavanam , lāvakaḥ iti .
The scope of 'iko guṇavṛddhī' is: cayanam, cāyakaḥ, lavanam, lāvakaḥ.
iha ubhayam prāpnoti : medyati mārṣṭi iti .
Here both apply: medyati, mārṣṭi.
ikaḥ guṇavṛddhī* iti etat bhavati vipratiṣedhena .
'iko guṇavṛddhī' — this obtains by conflict-resolution (vipratiṣedha).
na eṣaḥ yuktaḥ vipratiṣedhaḥ .
This conflict-resolution is not proper.
vipratiṣedhe hi param iti ucyate , pūrvaḥ ca ayam yogaḥ paraḥ niyamaḥ .
For in a conflict (vipratiṣedha) 'the later (para)' is said [to prevail]; and this rule is the prior one, the restriction (niyama) is the later.
iṣṭavācī paraśabdaḥ .
The word 'para' denotes what is desired (iṣṭa).
vipratiṣedhe param yat iṣṭam tat bhavati .
In a conflict, 'the later' means: what is desired (iṣṭa) — that obtains.
evam api ayuktaḥ vipratiṣedhaḥ .
Even so, the conflict-resolution is improper.
dvikāryayogaḥ hi vipratiṣedhaḥ .
For a vipratiṣedha is the concurrence of two operations (dvi-kārya-yoga) [on one locus].
na ca atra ekaḥ dvikāryayuktaḥ .
And here no single [item] is subject to two operations.
na avaśyam dvikāryayogaḥ eva vipratiṣedhaḥ .
Not necessarily is a vipratiṣedha only [a case of] the concurrence of two operations.
kim tarhi. asambhavaḥ api .
Then what? Impossibility (asambhava) too [counts].
saḥ ca asti atra asambhavaḥ .
And that impossibility exists here.
kaḥ asau asmbhavaḥ .
What is that impossibility?
iha tāvat : vṛkṣebhyaḥ , plakṣebhyaḥ iti ekaḥ sthānī dvau ādeśau .
First, here: vṛkṣebhyaḥ, plakṣebhyaḥ — [there is] one substituend (sthānin), two substitutes (ādeśa).
na ca asti sambhavaḥ yat ekasya sthāninaḥ dvau ādeśau syātām .
And there is no possibility that for one substituend there be two substitutes.
iha idānīm medyati medyataḥ medyanti iti dvau sthāninau ekaḥ ādeśaḥ .
Now, here: medyati, medyataḥ, medyanti — [there are] two substituends, one substitute.
na ca asti sambhavaḥ yat dvayoḥ sthāninoḥ ekaḥ ādeśaḥ syāt iti eṣaḥ asambhavaḥ .
And there is no possibility that for two substituends there be one substitute — this is the impossibility.
satyam etasmin asambhave yuktaḥ vipratiṣedhaḥ .
True — in this [kind of] impossibility a conflict-resolution is proper.
evam api ayuktaḥ vipratiṣedhaḥ .
Even so, the conflict-resolution is improper.
dvayoḥ hi sāvakāśayoḥ samavasthitayoḥ vipratiṣedhaḥ bhavati .
For a vipratiṣedha [obtains] between two [rules] that each have [independent] scope (sāvakāśa) and stand on a par (samavasthita).
anavakāśaḥ ca ayam yogaḥ .
And this rule has no [independent] scope (anavakāśa).
nanu ca idānīm eva asya avakāśaḥ prakḷptaḥ : cayanam , cāyakaḥ , lavanam , lāvakaḥ iti .
But surely (nanu) its scope was just now established: cayanam, cāyakaḥ, lavanam, lāvakaḥ?
atra api niyamaḥ prāpnoti .
Here too the restriction (niyama) applies.
yāvatā na aprāpte niyame ayam yogaḥ ārabhyate ataḥ tadapavādaḥ ayam yogaḥ bhavati .
Inasmuch as this rule is not undertaken [only] where the restriction is inapplicable [but also where it applies], therefore this rule becomes an exception to that (tadapavāda).
utsargāpavādayoḥ ca ayuktaḥ vipratiṣedhaḥ .
And a conflict-resolution between an utsarga and an apavāda is improper.
atha api katham cit ikaḥ guṇavṛddhī* iti asya avakāśaḥ syāt , evam api yathā iha vipratiṣedhāt ikaḥ guṇaḥ bhavati : medyati medyataḥ medyanti , evam iha api syāt : anenijuḥ , paryaveviṣuḥ iti .
And even if 'iko guṇavṛddhī' somehow had a scope, even so, just as here by conflict-resolution the guṇa of the ik takes place — medyati, medyataḥ, medyanti — so it would [wrongly] happen here too: anenijuḥ, paryaveviṣuḥ.
evam tarhi vṛddhiḥ bhavati guṇaḥ bhavati iti yatra brūyāt ikaḥ iti etat tatra upasthitam draṣṭavyam .
In that case, wherever one would say 'vṛddhi takes place' or 'guṇa takes place', there this 'ik' is to be regarded as present (upasthita).
kim kṛtam bhavati .
What is thereby accomplished?
dvitīyā ṣaṣṭhī prāduḥ bhāvyate .
A second genitive (dvitīyā ṣaṣṭhī) is brought forth.
tatra kāmacāraḥ : gṛhyamāṇena vā ikam viśeṣayitum ikā vā gṛhyamāṇam .
There there is free option (kāma-cāra): either to qualify the ik by what is [otherwise] mentioned, or to qualify what is mentioned by the ik.
yāvatā kāmacāraḥ iha tāvat : midipugantalaghūpadharcchidṛśikṣiprakṣudreṣu gṛhyamāṇena ikam viśeṣayiṣyāmaḥ : eteṣām yaḥ ik iti .
Since there is free option: here, in mid-i… kṣudra, we will qualify the ik by what is mentioned — 'of these, whichever is an ik'.
iha idānīm : jusisārvadhātukārdhadhātukahrasvādyoḥ guṇeṣu ikā gṛhyamāṇam viśeṣayiṣyāmaḥ : eteṣām guṇaḥ bhavati ikaḥ .
Now here: in the guṇas for jus, sārvadhātuka-ārdhadhātuka, a short vowel and the rest, we will qualify what is mentioned by the ik — 'the guṇa of these belongs to the ik'.
igantānām iti .
'[that is,] of those ending in ik'.
atha vā sarvatra eva sthānī nirdiśyate .
Or else, everywhere it is the substituend (sthānin) alone that is specified.
iha tāvat : mideḥ iti , avibhaktikaḥ nirdeśaḥ : mida , eḥ , mideḥ , mideḥ iti .
First, here: 'mideḥ' — a case-less specification (avibhaktika-nirdeśa): mida, eḥ, mideḥ, mideḥ.
atha vā ṣaṣṭhīsamāsaḥ bhaviṣyati midaḥ iḥ , midiḥ , mideḥ iti .
Or else it will be a genitive compound (ṣaṣṭhī-samāsa): midaḥ iḥ, midiḥ, mideḥ.
pugantalaghūpadhasya iti na evam vijñāyate : pugantasya aṅgasya laghūpadhasya ca iti .
'pugantalaghūpadhasya' is not understood thus: 'of a pug-ending aṅga and of a light-penultimate [aṅga]'.
puki antaḥ pugantaḥ , laghvī upadhā laghūpadhā , pugantaḥ ca laghūpadhā ca pugantalaghūpadham pugantalaghūpadhasya iti .
[Rather:] a 'puk' at the end is 'puganta'; a light penultimate is 'laghūpadhā'; a pug-ending and a light-penultimate [together] is 'pugantalaghūpadham', [genitive] 'pugantalaghūpadhasya'.
avaśyam ca etat evam vijñeyam .
And this must necessarily be understood thus.
aṅgaviśeṣaṇe hi sati iha prasajyeta : bhinatti chinatti iti .
For if it were a qualifier of the aṅga, [guṇa] would wrongly result here: bhinatti, chinatti.
ṛccheḥ api praśliṣṭanirdeśaḥ ayam .
Of 'ṛcch' too this is a coalesced specification (praśliṣṭa-nirdeśa).
ṛcchati , ṛ , ṛ , ṝtām ṛcchatyṝtām iti .
ṛcchati; ṛ, ṛ; ṝtām; ṛcchatyṝtām.
dṛśeḥ api yogavibhāgaḥ kariṣyate .
Of 'dṛś' too a division of the rule (yoga-vibhāga) will be made.
uḥ aṅi guṇaḥ .
'uḥ aṅi guṇaḥ' (guṇa [of u] before aṅ).
uḥ aṅi guṇaḥ bhavati .
'guṇa occurs before aṅ'.
tataḥ dṛśeḥ .
Then 'dṛśeḥ' (and of dṛś).
dṛśeḥ ca aṅi guṇaḥ bhavati .
And guṇa occurs for dṛś before aṅ.
uḥ iti eva. kṣiprakṣudrayoḥ api yaṇādiparam guṇa iti iyatā siddham .
'uḥ' [carries over] indeed. For kṣipra and kṣudra too it is established simply by this much — 'guṇa of that which has a yaṇ-plus-[vowel] following' (yaṇ-ādi-para).
saḥ ayam evam siddhe sati yat pūrvagrahaṇam karoti tasya etat prayojanam ikaḥ yathā syāt anikaḥ mā bhūt iti .
So, this being thus established, the fact that he makes the prior mention [of ik] — its purpose is this: that [the operation] may be of an ik, and may not be of a non-ik (anik).