iha kasmāt na bhavati : laigavāyanaḥ , kāmayate .
Here, why does [the prohibition] not take effect: laigavāyanaḥ, kāmayate?
taddhitakāmyoḥ ikprakaraṇāt .
For a taddhita [affix] and for kāmyac, [the prohibition does not reach them,] because [they fall] under the ik-heading (ik-prakaraṇa).
iglakṣaṇayoḥ guṇavṛddhyoḥ pratiṣedhaḥ na ca ete iglakṣaṇe .
The prohibition is [only] of the guṇa and vṛddhi that are ik-occasioned (iglakṣaṇa); and these two [in the examples] are not ik-occasioned.
lakārasya ṅittvāt ādeśeṣu sthānivadbhāvaprasaṅgaḥ .
Because the lakāra is ṅit, there arises the undesired consequence (prasaṅga) of sthānivadbhāva (the substitute counting as its substituend) in the substitutes [of the L-affix].
lakārasya ṅittvāt ādeśeṣu sthānivadbhāvaḥ prāpnoti : acinavam asunavam akaravam .
Because the lakāra is ṅit, sthānivadbhāva would obtain in the substitutes: acinavam, asunavam, akaravam.
lakārasya ṅittvāt ādeśeṣu sthānivadbhāvaprasaṅgaḥ iti cet yāsuṭaḥ ṅidvacanāt siddham .
If [it be objected] that 'because the lakāra is ṅit there is the undesired consequence of sthānivadbhāva in the substitutes,' [reply:] it is secured (siddham) from the ṅit-statement of yāsuṭ (yāsuṭ-ṅidvacana).
yat ayam yāsuṭaḥ ṅidvacanam śāsti tat jñāpayati ācāryaḥ na ṅidādeśāḥ ṅitaḥ bhavanti iti .
The fact that the teacher (ācārya, = Pāṇini) teaches the ṅit-statement of yāsuṭ makes known (jñāpayati): 'the substitutes of a ṅit do not [themselves] become ṅit' — thus.
yadi etat jñāpyate katham nityam ṅitaḥ itaḥ ca iti .
If this is indicated [as a jñāpaka], how [are the ṅit-operations] invariable (nityam): 'ṅitaḥ,' 'itaś ca' — thus?
ṅitaḥ yat kāryam tat bhavati ṅiti yat kāryam tat na bhavati iti .
The operation that belongs to a ṅit [element] (ṅitaḥ, gen.) — that occurs; the operation conditioned when a ṅit follows (ṅiti, loc.) — that does not occur — thus.
kim vaktavyam etat .
Is this to be stated [explicitly]?
na hi .
No indeed (na hi).
katham anucyamānam gaṃsyate .
How, being unstated (anucyamānam), will it be arrived at (gaṃsyate)?
yāsuṭaḥ eva ṅidvacanāt .
From the very ṅit-statement of yāsuṭ (yāsuṭ-ṅidvacana).
aparyāptaḥ ca eva hi yāsuṭ samudāyasya ṅittve ṅitam ca enam karoti .
For yāsuṭ is indeed insufficient (aparyāpta) for the ṅit-ness of the whole aggregate (samudāya), and [yet the statement] makes this [aggregate] ṅit.
tasya etat prayojanam ṅitaḥ yat kāryam tat yathā syāt ṅiti yat kāryam tat mā bhūt iti .
This is its purpose (prayojana): that the operation belonging to a ṅit [element] should apply, [but] the operation conditioned when a ṅit follows should not occur — thus.