saṃyogasañjñāyām sahavacanam yathā anyatra .
[Vārttika] In the saṁyoga-saṁjñā, [there should be] mention of ‘saha’ (saha-vacana), as [is done] elsewhere (anyatra).
saṃyogasañjñāyām sahavacanam kartavyam .
In the saṁyoga-saṁjñā, the mention of ‘saha’ (saha-vacana) must be made (kartavya).
halaḥ anantarāḥ saṃyogaḥ saha iti vaktavyam .
It should be stated (vaktavya): ‘consonants (hal) not separated [by a vowel], together (saha), [are] saṁyoga’.
kim prayojanam .
What is the purpose (prayojana)?
sahabhūtānām saṃyogasañjñā yathā syāt ekaikasya mā bhūt iti .
So that the saṁyoga-saṁjñā may apply to [consonants] taken jointly (saha-bhūta), [and] not to each single one (ekaika) — thus.
yathā anyatra .
As elsewhere (anyatra).
tat yathā anyatra api yatra icchati sahabūtānām kāryam karoti tatra sahagrahaṇam .
That is, for instance: elsewhere too (anyatra api), where [the grammarian] wishes [it] and performs an operation (kārya) upon jointly-taken [items] (saha-bhūtānām), there [he uses] the word ‘saha’ (saha-grahaṇa).
tat yathā .
That is, for instance:
saha supā .
‘saha supā’ (‘[in compound] together with a sup-form’).
ubhe abhyastam saha iti .
‘The two together (saha) [are termed] abhyasta’ — thus.
kim ca syāt yadi ekaikasya halaḥ saṃyogasañjñā syāt .
And what would happen (kiṁ ca syāt) if the saṁyoga-saṁjñā were [to apply] to each single consonant (ekaika hal)?
iha niryāyāt , nirvāyāt , vā anyasya saṃyogādeḥ iti ettvam prasajyeta .
Here, in niryāyāt, nirvāyāt, by [the rule] ‘vā anyasya saṃyogādeḥ’ the substitution of e (et-tva) would be wrongly occasioned (prasajyeta).
iha ca saṃhṛṣīṣṭa iti ṛtaḥ ca saṃyogādeḥ iti iṭ prasajyeta .
And here, in saṃhṛṣīṣṭa, by [the rule] ‘ṛtaś ca saṃyogādeḥ’ the augment iṭ would be wrongly occasioned.
iha ca saṃhriyate iti guṇaḥ artisaṃyogādyoḥ iti guṇaḥ prasajyeta .
And here, in saṃhriyate, [the point being] guṇa: by [the rule] ‘arti-saṃyogādyoḥ’ the guṇa would be wrongly occasioned.
iha ca dṛṣat karoti samit karoti iti saṃyogāntasya lopaḥ prasajyeta .
And here, in dṛṣat karoti, samit karoti, by [the rule] ‘saṃyogāntasya lopaḥ’ the elision (lopa) [of a saṁyoga-final] would be wrongly occasioned.
iha ca śaktā vastā iti skoḥ saṃyogādyoḥ iti lopaḥ prasajyeta .
And here, in śaktā, vastā, by [the rule] ‘skoḥ saṃyogādyoḥ’ the elision (lopa) would be wrongly occasioned.
iha ca niryātaḥ , nirvātaḥ saṃyogādeḥ ātaḥ dhātoḥ yaṇvataḥ iti niṣṭhānatvam prasajyeta .
And here, in niryātaḥ, nirvātaḥ, by [the rule] ‘saṃyogāder āto dhātor yaṇvataḥ’ the n-substitution of the niṣṭhā (niṣṭhā-natva) would be wrongly occasioned.
na eṣaḥ doṣaḥ .
This is not a fault (doṣa).
yat tāvat ucyate iha tāvat niryāyāt , nirvāyāt vā anyasya saṃyogādeḥ iti ettvam prasajyeta iti .
As for what is said (yat tāvat ucyate) — namely, ‘here, in niryāyāt, nirvāyāt, by “vā anyasya saṃyogādeḥ” the e-substitution would be wrongly occasioned’ —
na evam vijñāyate saṃyogaḥ ādiḥ yasya saḥ ayam saṃyogādiḥ , saṃyogādeḥ iti .
it is not thus understood (na evaṁ vijñāyate): ‘that of which a saṁyoga is the beginning is a saṁyogādi’, [with] ‘saṃyogādeḥ’ [meaning that].
katham tarhi .
How then (kathaṁ tarhi)?
saṃyogau ādī yasya saḥ ayam saṃyogādiḥ , saṃyogādeḥ iti .
[Rather:] ‘that of which the two [consonants forming] a saṁyoga are the initial [pair] is a saṁyogādi’ — [so] ‘saṃyogādeḥ’ [means that].
evam tāvat sarvam āṅgam parihṛtam .
Thus, so far, everything pertaining to the aṅga-[section rules] (āṅga) is averted (parihṛta).
yat api ucyate iha ca dṛṣat karoti samit karoti iti saṃyogāntasya lopaḥ prasajyeta iti .
As for what is also said — ‘here too, in dṛṣat karoti, samit karoti, by “saṃyogāntasya lopaḥ” the elision would be wrongly occasioned’ —
na evam vijñāyate saṃyogaḥ antaḥ yasya tat idam saṃyogāntam , saṃyogāntasya iti .
it is not thus understood: ‘that of which a saṁyoga is the end is a saṁyogānta’, [with] ‘saṃyogāntasya’ [meaning that].
saṃyogau antau asya tad idam saṃyogāntam , saṃyogāntasya iti .
[Rather:] ‘that of which the two [consonants forming] a saṁyoga are the end[-pair] is a saṁyogānta’ — [so] ‘saṃyogāntasya’ [means that].
yat api ucyate iha ca śaktā vastā iti skoḥ saṃyogādyoḥ iti lopaḥ prasajyeta iti .
As for what is also said — ‘here too, in śaktā, vastā, by “skoḥ saṃyogādyoḥ” the elision would be wrongly occasioned’ —
na evam vijñāyate saṃyogau ādī saṃyodādī saṃyogādyoḥ iti .
it is not thus understood: ‘the two [that are] a saṁyoga are the beginning-pair — saṁyogādī — [hence] “saṃyogādyoḥ”’.
saṃyogayoḥ ādī saṃyogādī saṃyogādyoḥ iti .
[Rather:] ‘the first two (ādī) of a saṁyoga’s [members] (saṃyogayoḥ) — saṁyogādī — [hence] “saṃyogādyoḥ”’.
yat api ucyate iha ca niryātaḥ , nirvātaḥ saṃyogādeḥ ātaḥ dhātoḥ yaṇvataḥ iti niṣṭhānatvam prasajyeta iti .
As for what is also said — ‘here too, in niryātaḥ, nirvātaḥ, by “saṃyogāder āto dhātor yaṇvataḥ” the niṣṭhā n-substitution would be wrongly occasioned’ —
na evam vijñāyate saṃyogaḥ ādiḥ yasya saḥ ayam saṃyogādiḥ , saṃyogādeḥ iti .
it is not thus understood: ‘that of which a saṁyoga is the beginning is a saṁyogādi’, [with] ‘saṃyogādeḥ’ [meaning that].
saṃyogau ādī yasya saḥ ayam saṃyogādiḥ , saṃyogādeḥ iti .
[Rather:] ‘that of which the two [consonants forming] a saṁyoga are the initial [pair] is a saṁyogādi’ — [so] ‘saṃyogādeḥ’ [means that].
katham kṛtvā ekaikasya saṃyogasañjñā prāpnoti .
On what grounds (kathaṁ kṛtvā) does the saṁyoga-saṁjñā come to apply to each single [consonant] severally (ekaika)?
pratyekam vākyaparisamāptiḥ dṛṣṭā .
[Because] the completion of the sentence (vākya-parisamāpti) is seen (dṛṣṭā) with respect to each one severally (pratyekam).
tat yathā .
That is, for instance:
vṛddhiguṇasañjñe pratyekam bhavataḥ .
the two saṁjñās vṛddhi and guṇa apply severally (pratyekam).
nanu ca ayam api asti dṛṣṭāntaḥ : samudāye vākyaparisamāptiḥ iti .
But surely (nanu ca) there is also this [contrary] example: [namely one where] the completion of the sentence is in the aggregate (samudāya) — thus.
tat yathā .
That is, for instance:
gargāḥ śatam daṇḍyantām iti .
‘Let the Gargas be fined a hundred’ — thus.
arthinaḥ ca rājānaḥ hiraṇyena bhavanti na ca pratyekam daṇḍayanti .
And the kings are desirous of the gold (hiraṇya), and they do not fine [them] severally (pratyekam).
sati etasmin dṛṣṭānte yadi tatra pratyekam iti ucyate iha api sahagrahaṇam kartavyam .
This example being available, if there (tatra) ‘severally (pratyekam)’ is stated, then here too (iha api) the word ‘saha’ (saha-grahaṇa) must be used.
atha tatra antareṇa pratyekam iti vacanam pratyekam vṛddhiguṇasañjñe bhavataḥ iha api na arthaḥ sahagrahaṇena
Or (atha), if there — without the statement ‘severally (pratyekam)’ (antareṇa … vacanam) — the two saṁjñās vṛddhi and guṇa apply severally, then here too (iha api) there is no need (na arthaḥ) for the word ‘saha’ (saha-grahaṇa).