atha vṛddhigrahaṇam kimartham .
Now (atha), for what purpose is the mention of vṛddhi (vṛddhi-grahaṇa)?
kim viśeṣeṇa vṛddhigrahaṇam codyate na punaḥ guṇagrahaṇam api .
Why is it particularly the mention of vṛddhi that is questioned, and not also the mention of guṇa?
yadi kim cit guṇagrahaṇasya prayojanam asti vṛddhigrahaṇasya api tat bhavitum arhati .
If there is some purpose for the mention of guṇa, that (purpose) ought to belong to the mention of vṛddhi as well.
kaḥ vā viśeṣaḥ .
Or (vā), what is the difference?
ayam asti viśeṣaḥ .
There is this difference.
guṇavidhau na kva cit sthānī nirdiśyate .
In the rule enjoining guṇa (guṇa-vidhi), nowhere is the sthānin (the substituend) specified.
tatra avaśyam sthāninirdeśārtham guṇagrahaṇam kartavyam .
There, the mention of guṇa must necessarily be made in order to specify the sthānin (sthāni-nirdeśa).
vṛddhividhau punaḥ sarvatra eva sthānī nirdiśyate .
But (punaḥ) in the rule enjoining vṛddhi (vṛddhi-vidhi), the sthānin is specified everywhere.
acaḥ ñṇiti ataḥ upadhāyāḥ taddhiteṣu acām ādeḥ iti .
[As in:] ‘acaḥ ñṇiti’ (of an ac, when ñit/ṇit [follows]), ‘ataḥ upadhāyāḥ’ (of the penultimate a), ‘taddhiteṣu acām ādeḥ’ (of the first of the vowels, among the taddhitas) — thus.
ataḥ uttaram paṭhati .
To this he (Kātyāyana) recites the reply (uttara):
vṛddhigrahaṇam uttarārtham .
The mention of vṛddhi is for the sake of what follows (uttara-artha).
vṛddhigrahaṇam kriyate uttarārtham .
The mention of vṛddhi is made for the sake of what follows.
kṅiti iti pratiṣedham vakṣyati .
He will state a prohibition (pratiṣedha) by ‘kṅiti’ (when [an affix marked] k or ṅ [follows]).
saḥ vṛddheḥ api yathā syāt .
[This is] so that it (the prohibition) should apply to vṛddhi as well.
kaḥ ca idānīm kṅitpratyayeṣu vṛddheḥ prasaṅgaḥ yāvatā ñṇiti iti ucyate .
And now what occasion (prasaṅga) is there for vṛddhi before kṅit affixes, inasmuch as (yāvatā) it is stated ‘when ñit/ṇit [follows]’ (ñṇiti)?
tat ca mṛjyartham .
And that (vṛddhi-mention) is for the sake of mṛj (mṛji-artha) — the root mṛj.
mṛjeḥ vṛddhiḥ aviśeṣeṇa ucyate .
For mṛj, vṛddhi is stated without qualification (aviśeṣeṇa).
sā kṅiti mā bhūt : mṛṣṭaḥ , mṛṣṭavān iti .
That (vṛddhi) should not occur when kṅit [follows]: [as in] mṛṣṭaḥ, mṛṣṭavān.
ihārtham ca api mṛjyartham vṛddhigrahaṇam kartavyam .
And also for the present purpose (iha-artha) — for mṛj — the mention of vṛddhi must be made.
mṛjeḥ vṛddhiḥ aviśeṣeṇa ucyate .
For mṛj, vṛddhi is stated without qualification (aviśeṣeṇa).
sā ikaḥ yathā syāt .
That (vṛddhi) should apply to the ik [vowel].
anikāḥ mā bhūt iti .
It should not [apply] to what is not ik (anik) — thus.
mṛjyartham iti cet yogavibhāgāt siddham .
If [you say it is] for the sake of mṛj — [then it is] already accomplished (siddha) by splitting the rule (yoga-vibhāga).
mṛjyartham iti cet yogavibhāgaḥ kariṣyate .
If [it is said to be] for the sake of mṛj, a division of the rule (yoga-vibhāga) will be made.
mṛjeḥ vṛddhiḥ .
[First:] ‘For mṛj, vṛddhi’ (mṛjeḥ vṛddhiḥ).
tataḥ ñṇiti .
Then: ‘when ñit/ṇit [follows]’ (ñṇiti).
ñiti ṇiti ca vṛddhiḥ bhavati .
And vṛddhi occurs when [an affix marked] ñit or ṇit [follows].
acaḥ iti eva .
‘Of an ac’ (acaḥ) — just so (i.e. it continues by anuvṛtti).
yadi acaḥ vṛddhiḥ ucyate nyamārṭ : aṭaḥ api vṛddhiḥ prāpnoti .
If vṛddhi is stated ‘of an ac’ (acaḥ), [then in] nyamārṭ, vṛddhi would apply also to the aṭ.
aṭi ca uktam .
And regarding aṭ (aṭi) it has [already] been said (uktam).
kim uktam. anantyavikāre antyasadeśasya kāryam bhavati iti .
What has been said? — ‘In a modification not [affecting] the final (anantya-vikāra), the operation belongs to that which is next to the final (antya-sadeśa)’ — thus.
vṛddhipratiṣedhānupapattiḥ tu ikprakaraṇāt .
But (tu) the prohibition of vṛddhi is inapplicable (anupapatti), because of the ik-context (ik-prakaraṇa).
vṛddheḥ tu pratiṣedhaḥ na upapadyate .
But (tu) the prohibition of vṛddhi is not tenable (na upapadyate).
kim kāraṇam .
For what reason?
ikprakaraṇāt .
Because of the ik-context (ik-prakaraṇa).
iglakṣaṇayoḥ guṇavṛddhyoḥ pratiṣedhaḥ na ca evam sati mṛjeḥ iglakṣaṇā vṛddhiḥ bhavati .
The prohibition is of guṇa and vṛddhi that are ik-characterized (ig-lakṣaṇa); and this being so, the vṛddhi of mṛj is not ik-characterized (ig-lakṣaṇā).
tasmāt mṛjeḥ iglakṣaṇā vṛddhiḥ eṣitavyā .
Therefore the vṛddhi of mṛj must be sought as ik-characterized (ig-lakṣaṇā).
evam tarhi iha anye vaiyākaraṇāḥ mṛjeḥ ajādau saṅkrame vibhāṣā vṛddhim ārabhante : parimṛjanti parimārjanti parimṛjantu parimārjantu parimamṛjatuḥ , parimamārjatuḥ ityādyartham .
In that case (evam tarhi), here other grammarians (anye vaiyākaraṇāḥ) introduce (ārabhante) an optional (vibhāṣā) vṛddhi of mṛj in the saṅkrama (transition), before a vowel (ajādi), for the sake of forms such as: parimṛjanti / parimārjanti, parimṛjantu / parimārjantu, parimamṛjatuḥ / parimamārjatuḥ, and so on.
tat iha api sādhyam .
That is to be accomplished here too (iha api).
tasmin sādhye yogavibhāgaḥ kariṣyate .
For accomplishing that (tasmin sādhye), a division of the rule (yoga-vibhāga) will be made.
mṛjeḥ vṛddhiḥ acaḥ bhavati .
[First:] ‘For mṛj, vṛddhi occurs, of an ac’ (mṛjeḥ vṛddhiḥ acaḥ).
tataḥ aci kṅiti .
Then: ‘when a vowel [follows], [even] kṅit’ (aci kṅiti).
ajādau ca kṅiti mṛjeḥ vṛddhiḥ bhavati : parimārjanti parimārjantu .
And when a vowel-initial (ajādi) kṅit [affix follows], vṛddhi of mṛj occurs: parimārjanti, parimārjantu.
kimartham idam .
For what purpose is this?
niyamārtham : ajādau eva kṅiti na anyatra .
For the sake of restriction (niyama): only (eva) when a vowel-initial kṅit [follows], not elsewhere (na anyatra).
kva anyatra mā bhūt .
Where else should it (vṛddhi) not occur?
mṛṣṭaḥ , mṛṣṭavān iti .
[In] mṛṣṭaḥ, mṛṣṭavān — thus.
tataḥ vā .
Then (the next), or (vā):
vā aci kṅiti mṛjeḥ vṛddhiḥ bhavati .
Optionally (vā), when a vowel-initial kṅit [follows], the vṛddhi of mṛj occurs.
parimṛjanti , parimārjanti , parimamṛjatuḥ , parimamārjatuḥ iti .
parimṛjanti, parimārjanti, parimamṛjatuḥ, parimamārjatuḥ — thus.
ihārtham eva sijartham vṛddhigrahaṇam kartavyam .
The mention of vṛddhi must be made just for the present purpose (iha-artha), for the sake of sic (sij-artha, the aorist affix sic).
sici vṛddhiḥ aviśeṣeṇa ucyate .
In [the presence of] sic, vṛddhi is stated without qualification (aviśeṣeṇa).
sā ikaḥ yathā syāt , anikaḥ mā bhūt iti .
That should apply to the ik, [and] should not [apply] to what is not ik (anik) — thus.
kasya punaḥ anikaḥ prāpnoti .
But of what non-ik (anik) would it apply?
akārasya : acikīrṣīt , ajihīrṣīt .
Of an a-vowel (akāra): [as in] acikīrṣīt, ajihīrṣīt.
na etat asti .
This is not [a valid case].
lopaḥ atra bādhakaḥ bhaviṣyati .
Here elision (lopa) will be the preventer (bādhaka).
ākārasya tarhi prāpnoti : ayāsīt , avāsīt .
Then it would apply to an ā-vowel (ākāra): [as in] ayāsīt, avāsīt.
na asti atra viśeṣaḥ satyām vṛddhau asatyām vā .
There is no difference here whether vṛddhi occurs or does not occur (satyām vṛddhau asatyām vā).
sandhyakṣarasya tarhi prāpnoti .
Then it would apply to a diphthong (sandhyakṣara).
na eva sandhyakṣaram antyam asti .
There is simply no diphthong that is final (antya).
nanu ca idam asti ḍhalope kṛte udavoḍhām udavoḍham udavoḍha iti .
But surely (nanu ca) this exists — when ḍha-elision (ḍha-lopa) has been done: udavoḍhām, udavoḍham, udavoḍha — thus.
na etat asti .
This is not [valid].
asiddhaḥ ḍhalopaḥ .
The ḍha-elision is asiddha (treated as not having taken effect).
tasya asiddhatvāt na etat antyam bhavati .
Because of its being asiddha, this (the diphthong) is not the final.
vyañjanasya tarhi prāpnoti : abhaitsīt , acchaitsīt .
Then it would apply to a consonant (vyañjana): [as in] abhaitsīt, acchaitsīt.
halantalakṣaṇā vṛddhiḥ bādhikā bhaviṣyati .
The vṛddhi characterized by [being] hal-final (halanta-lakṣaṇā) will be the preventer (bādhikā).
yatra tarhi sā pratiṣidhyate : akoṣīt , amoṣīt .
Then where that (hal-final vṛddhi) is prohibited: akoṣīt, amoṣīt.
sici vṛddheḥ api eṣaḥ pratiṣedhaḥ .
This prohibition is of the vṛddhi in sic (sici vṛddheḥ) too.
lakṣaṇam hi nāma dhvanati bhramati muhūrtam api na avatiṣṭhate .
For a defining rule (lakṣaṇa), indeed, resounds and wanders about (dhvanati bhramati), and does not stay put even for a moment (muhūrtam api na avatiṣṭhate).
atha vā sici vṛddhiḥ parasmaipadeṣu iti sici vṛddhiḥ prāpnoti .
Or else (atha vā): by ‘sici vṛddhiḥ parasmaipadeṣu’ the vṛddhi in sic applies.
tasyāḥ halantalakṣaṇā vṛddhiḥ bādhikā .
Of that, the hal-final-characterized vṛddhi (halanta-lakṣaṇā) is the preventer (bādhikā).
tasyāḥ api na iṭi iti pratiṣedhaḥ .
And of that too there is the prohibition ‘na iṭi’ (not before an iṭ-[augment]).
asti punaḥ kva cid anyatra api apavāde pratiṣiddhe utsargaḥ api na bhavati .
But is there anywhere else too some [case] where, when an exception (apavāda) is prohibited, the general rule (utsarga) also does not take effect?
asti iti āha .
He says (āha): ‘There is.’
sujāte* aśvasūnṛte , adhvaryo* adribhiḥ sutam , śukram te* anyat iti .
[As in] ‘sujāte aśvasūnṛte’, ‘adhvaryo adribhiḥ sutam’, ‘śukram te anyat’ — thus.
pūrvarūpatve pratiṣiddhe ayādayaḥ api na bhavanti .
When the pūrva-rūpa (single-substitute like the prior form) is prohibited, the ay-ādi (ay, etc.) substitutes also do not occur.
uttarārtham eva tarhi sijartham vṛddhigrahaṇam kartavyam .
So then (tarhi), the mention of vṛddhi must be made for the sake of what follows (uttara-artha), for the sake of sic (sij-artha).
sici vṛddhiḥ aviśeṣeṇa ucyate .
In sic, vṛddhi is stated without qualification (aviśeṣeṇa).
sā kṅiti mā bhūt nyanuvīt , nyadhuvīt .
That should not occur when kṅit [follows]: nyanuvīt, nyadhuvīt.
na etat asti prayojanam .
This is not a [valid] purpose.
antaraṅgatvāt atra uvaṅādeśe kṛte anantyatvāt vṛddhiḥ na bhaviṣyati .
Because of being antaraṅga (inner-strength), when the uvaṅ-substitution (uvaṅ-ādeśa) has been done here, vṛddhi will not occur, owing to non-finality (anantyatva).
yadi tarhi sici antaraṅgam bhavati , akārṣīt , ahārṣīt : guṇe kṛte raparatve ca anantyatvāt vṛddhiḥ na prāpnoti .
If then [it] is antaraṅga with respect to sic — [as in] akārṣīt, ahārṣīt — once guṇa has been done and the ra-para (ṛ → ar), vṛddhi would not apply, owing to non-finality.
mā bhūt evam .
Let it not be so.
halantasya iti evam bhaviṣyati .
By ‘of a hal-final’ (halantasya) it will occur thus.
iha tarhi : nyastārīt , vyadārīt : guṇe raparatve ca anantyatvāt vṛddhiḥ na prāpnoti .
Then here: nyastārīt, vyadārīt — once guṇa and the ra-para [are done], vṛddhi would not apply, owing to non-finality.
halantalakṣaṇāyāḥ ca na iṭi iti pratiṣedhaḥ .
And of the hal-final-characterized [vṛddhi] there is the prohibition ‘na iṭi’ (not before an iṭ).
mā bhūt evam .
Let it not be so.
rlāntasya iti evam bhaviṣyati .
By ‘of an ṛ/ḷ-final’ (rlāntasya) it will occur thus.
iha tarhi : alāvīt apāvīt : guṇe kṛte avādeśe ca anantyatvāt vṛddhiḥ na prāpnoti .
Then here: alāvīt, apāvīt — once guṇa has been done and the av-substitution (av-ādeśa, o → av), vṛddhi would not apply, owing to non-finality.
halantalakṣaṇāyāḥ ca na iṭi iti pratiṣedhaḥ .
And of the hal-final-characterized [vṛddhi] there is the prohibition ‘na iṭi’ (not before an iṭ).
mā bhūt evam .
Let it not be so.
rlāntasya iti evam bhaviṣyati .
By ‘of an ṛ/ḷ-final’ (rlāntasya) it will occur thus.
rlāntasya iti ucyate na ca idam rlāntam .
‘Of an ṛ/ḷ-final’ (rlāntasya) is stated, but this is not ṛ/ḷ-final.
rlāntasya iti atra vakāraḥ api nirdiśyate .
In ‘rlāntasya’ here the letter v (vakāra) too is indicated.
kim vakāraḥ na śrūyate .
Is the letter v not heard (na śrūyate)?
luptanirdiṣtaḥ vakāraḥ .
The v is indicated by elision (lupta-nirdiṣṭa).
yadi evam mā bhavān mavīt : atra api prāpnoti .
If so, [then in] ‘mā bhavān mavīt’ — here too it (vṛddhi) would apply.
avimavyoḥ iti vakṣyāmi .
I will state ‘of av and mav’ (avi-mavyoḥ).
tat vaktavyam .
That must be stated (vaktavya).
ṇiśvibhyām tau nimātavyau .
By means of ṇi and śvi (ṇiśvi), those two are to be provided (nimātavya).
yadi api etat ucyate atha vā etarhi ṇiśvyoḥ pratiṣedhaḥ na vaktavyaḥ bhavati .
Even if this is stated, or rather (atha vā), in that case (etarhi) the prohibition regarding ṇi and śvi (ṇiśvi) need not be stated.
guṇe kṛte ayādeśe ca yāntānam na iti pratiṣedhaḥ bhaviṣyati .
Once guṇa has been done and the ay-substitution (ay-ādeśa, e → ay), the prohibition ‘not of the y-final ones’ (yāntānām na) will apply.
evam tarhi ācāryapravṛttiḥ jñāpayati na sici antaraṅgam bhavati iti yat ayam ataḥ halādeḥ laghoḥ iti akāragrahaṇam karoti .
In that case, the teacher's own procedure (ācārya-pravṛtti) makes known (jñāpayati) that ‘[it] is not antaraṅga with respect to sic’ — in that (yat) he makes the mention of the a-vowel (akāra-grahaṇa) in ‘ataḥ’ within ‘halādeḥ laghoḥ’.
katham kṛtvā jñāpakam .
How does [that] make it an indicator (jñāpaka)?
akāragrahaṇasya etat prayojanam iha mā bhūt : akoṣīt , amoṣīt .
This is the purpose of the mention of ‘a’ (akāra-grahaṇa): that [vṛddhi] should not occur here — akoṣīt, amoṣīt.
yadi sici antaraṅgam syāt akāragrahaṇam anarthakam syāt .
If [it] were antaraṅga with respect to sic, the mention of ‘a’ would be purposeless (anarthaka).
guṇe kṛte alaghutvāt vṛddhiḥ na bhaviṣyati .
Once guṇa has been done, because of non-lightness (alaghutva), vṛddhi would not occur [anyway].
paśyati tu ācāryaḥ na sici antaraṅgam bhavati iti .
But the teacher sees (paśyati) that ‘[it] is not antaraṅga with respect to sic’.
tataḥ akāragrahaṇam karoti .
Therefore he makes the mention of ‘a’.
na etat asti jñāpakam .
This is not an indicator (jñāpaka).
asti anyat etasya vacane prayojanam .
There is another purpose in stating this.
yatra guṇaḥ pratiṣidhyate tadartham etat syāt : nyakuṭīt , nyapuṭīt iti .
Where guṇa is prohibited, this would be for that purpose: nyakuṭīt, nyapuṭīt — thus.
yat tarhi ṇiśvyoḥ pratiṣedham śāsti tena na iha antaraṅgam asti iti darśayati .
So then, by the very fact that he teaches (śāsti) the prohibition regarding ṇi and śvi, by that he shows (darśayati) that ‘there is no antaraṅga here’.
yat ca karoti akāragrahaṇam laghoḥ iti kṛte api .
And [there is the fact] that he makes the mention of ‘a’ (akāra-grahaṇa), even though ‘laghoḥ (of the light [syllable])’ is [already] provided.
tasmāt iglakṣaṇā vṛddhiḥ .
Therefore the vṛddhi is ik-characterized (ig-lakṣaṇā).
tasmāt iglakṣaṇā vṛddhiḥ āstheyā .
Therefore the ik-characterized (ig-lakṣaṇā) vṛddhi is to be maintained (āstheyā).