atha yatra bahūnām ānantaryam kim tatra dvayoḥ dvayoḥ saṃyogasñjñā bhavati āhosvit aviśeṣeṇa .
Now (atha), where there is contiguity (ānantarya) of many (bahūnām) [consonants], does the saṁyoga-saṁjñā there apply to them two-by-two (dvayor dvayoḥ), or (āhosvit) without distinction (aviśeṣeṇa) [i.e. to the whole]?
kaḥ ca atra viśeṣaḥ .
And what difference (viśeṣa) [does it make] here?
samudāye saṃyogādilopaḥ masjeḥ .
[Vārttika] [On the view that the saṁjñā holds] of the aggregate (samudāya), the elision of the saṁyoga-initial (saṃyogādi-lopa) of masj [fails].
samudāye saṃyogādilopaḥ masjeḥ na sidhyati .
[On the view that the saṁjñā is] of the aggregate (samudāya), the elision of the saṁyoga-initial (saṃyogādi-lopa) of [the root] masj does not obtain (na sidhyati).
maṅktā maṅktum .
[The forms] maṅktā, maṅktum.
iha ca nirgleyāt , nirglāyāt , nirmleyāt , nirmlāyāt : vā anyasya saṃyogādeḥ iti ettvam na prāpnoti .
And here, in nirgleyāt, nirglāyāt, nirmleyāt, nirmlāyāt, by [the rule] ‘vā anyasya saṃyogādeḥ’ the substitution of e (et-tva) does not obtain (na prāpnoti).
iha ca saṃsvariṣīṣṭa iti ṛtaḥ ca saṃyogādeḥ iti iṭ na prāpnoti .
And here, in saṃsvariṣīṣṭa, by [the rule] ‘ṛtaś ca saṃyogādeḥ’ the augment iṭ does not obtain.
iha ca saṃsvaryate iti guṇaḥ artisaṃyogādyoḥ iti guṇaḥ na prāpnoti .
And here, in saṃsvaryate, [the point being] guṇa: by [the rule] ‘arti-saṃyogādyoḥ’ the guṇa does not obtain.
iha ca gomān karoti yavamān karoti iti saṃyogāntasya lopaḥ iti lopaḥ na prāpnoti .
And here, in gomān karoti, yavamān karoti, by [the rule] ‘saṃyogāntasya lopaḥ’ the elision (lopa) does not obtain.
iha ca nirglānaḥ , nirmlānaḥ iti saṃyogādeḥ ātaḥ dhātoḥ yaṇvataḥ iti niṣṭhānatvam na prāpnoti .
And here, in nirglānaḥ, nirmlānaḥ, by [the rule] ‘saṃyogāder āto dhātor yaṇvataḥ’ the niṣṭhā n-substitution (niṣṭhā-natva) does not obtain.
astu tarhi dvayoḥ dvayoḥ .
Then let it be (astu tarhi) two-by-two (dvayor dvayoḥ).
dvayoḥ haloḥ saṃyogaḥ iti cet dvirvacanam .
[Vārttika] If [it is said] ‘a saṁyoga [is] of two consonants (dvayor haloḥ)’, [then there is a problem with] the reduplication (dvirvacana).
dvayoḥ haloḥ saṃyogaḥ iti cet dvirvacanam na sidhyati .
If [it is said] ‘a saṁyoga is of two consonants (dvayor haloḥ)’, then the reduplication (dvirvacana) does not obtain (na sidhyati).
indram icchati indrīyati .
‘[He] desires Indra’ → indrīyati.
indrīyateḥ san : indidrīyiṣati .
Of indrīyati, the desiderative (san): indidrīyiṣati.
na ndrāḥ saṃyogādayaḥ iti dakārasya dvirvacanam na prāpnoti .
By [the rule] ‘na ndrāḥ saṃyogādayaḥ’ the reduplication of the d (da-kāra) does not obtain.
na vā ajvidheḥ .
[Vārttika] Or rather not (na vā), because of the aj-rule (aj-vidhi) [the provision concerning a vowel-initial].
na vā eṣaḥ doṣaḥ .
Or rather, this is not a fault (na vā eṣa doṣaḥ).
kim kāraṇam .
What is the reason (kāraṇa)?
ajvidheḥ .
Because of the aj-rule (aj-vidhi).
ndrāḥ saṃyogādayaḥ na dviḥ ucyante .
The [clusters] ndr [being] saṁyoga-initial (saṃyogādi) are not [what is] doubled (na dviḥ ucyante).
ajādeḥ iti vartate .
‘aj-ādi’ (of a vowel-initial) continues (vartate) [by anuvṛtti].
atha yadi eva bahūnām saṃyogasñjñā atha api dvayoḥ dvayoḥ kim gatam etat iyatā sūtreṇa āhosvit anyatarasmin pakṣe bhūyaḥ sūtram kartavyam .
Now (atha), whether the saṁyoga-saṁjñā [holds] of many (bahūnām), or also (atha api) two-by-two (dvayor dvayoḥ) — is this achieved (gatam) by this much of a sūtra (iyatā sūtreṇa), or (āhosvit) on one of the two views (anyatarasmin pakṣe) must a further (bhūyaḥ) sūtra be made (kartavyam)?
gatam iti āha .
‘It is achieved (gatam)’, he says (āha).
yada tāvat bahūnām saṃyogasñjñā tadā evam vigrahaḥ kariṣyate : avidyamānam antaram eṣām iti .
When (yadā) [it is] the saṁyoga-saṁjñā of many (bahūnām), then (tadā) the analysis (vigraha) will be made thus: ‘that among which there is no [single] interval (avidyamānam antaram eṣām)’ — thus.
yadā dvayoḥ dvayoḥ tadā evam vigrahaḥ kariṣyate : avidyamānāḥ antarā eṣām iti .
When (yadā) two-by-two (dvayor dvayoḥ), then the analysis will be made thus: ‘those among which there are no intervals (avidyamānāḥ antarā eṣām)’ — thus.
dvayoḥ ca eva antarā kaḥ cit vidyate na vā .
And of just two (dvayoḥ ca eva) — is there any (kaścit) interval (antarā) or not (na vā)?
evam api bahūnām eva prāpnoti .
Even so (evam api), [the saṁjñā] applies only to the many (bahūnām eva).
yān hi bhavān ṣaṣṭhyā pratinirdiśati eteṣām anyena vyavāye na bhavitavyam .
For those (yān) which you (bhavān) specify by the genitive (ṣaṣṭhī) [in ‘eṣām’], among them (eteṣām) there must be no intervention (vyavāya) by another (anyena).
astu tarhi samudāye sañjñā .
Then let the saṁjñā be (astu tarhi) on the aggregate (samudāya).
nanu ca uktam samudāye saṃyogādilopaḥ masjeḥ iti .
But surely (nanu ca) it was said (uktam): ‘on the aggregate, the elision of the saṁyoga-initial of masj [fails]’ — thus.
na eṣaḥ doṣaḥ .
This is not a fault.
vakṣyati etat .
This will be stated (vakṣyati) [later].
antyāt pūrvaḥ masjeḥ mit anuṣaṅgasaṃyogādilopārtham iti .
‘[The marker] before the last [phoneme] of masj is m-marked (mit) — for the sake of the elision of the appended-nasal-and-saṁyoga-initial (anuṣaṅga-saṃyogādi-lopa)’ — thus.
atha vā aviśeṣeṇa saṃyogasañjñā vijñāsyate dvayoḥ api bahūnām api .
Or else (atha vā), the saṁyoga-saṁjñā will be understood without distinction (aviśeṣeṇa) — [holding] both of two (dvayor api) and of many (bahūnām api).
tatra dvayoḥ yā saṃyogasñjñā tadāśrayaḥ lopaḥ bhaviṣyati .
Therein, the saṁyoga-saṁjñā that [holds] of two (dvayoḥ) — the elision (lopa) resting on that (tad-āśraya) will take place.
yat api ucyate iha ca nirgleyāt , nirglāyāt , nirmleyāt , nirmlāyāt : vā anyasya saṃyogādeḥ iti ettvam na prāpnoti iti aṅgena saṃyogādim viśeṣayiṣyāmaḥ .
As for what is also said — ‘here, in nirgleyāt, nirglāyāt, nirmleyāt, nirmlāyāt, by “vā anyasya saṃyogādeḥ” the e-substitution does not obtain’ — we will qualify (viśeṣayiṣyāmaḥ) the saṁyogādi by [the word] ‘aṅga’.
aṅgasya saṃyogādeḥ iti .
‘of the saṁyoga-initial of the aṅga (aṅgasya saṃyogādeḥ)’ — thus.
evam tāvat sarvam āṅgam parihṛtam .
Thus, so far, everything pertaining to the aṅga-[section rules] (āṅga) is averted (parihṛta).
yat api ucyate iha ca gomān karoti yavamān karoti iti saṃyogāntasya lopaḥ iti lopaḥ na prāpnoti iti padena saṃyogāntam viśeṣayiṣyāmaḥ .
As for what is also said — ‘here, in gomān karoti, yavamān karoti, by “saṃyogāntasya lopaḥ” the elision does not obtain’ — we will qualify (viśeṣayiṣyāmaḥ) the saṁyogānta by [the word] ‘pada’.
padasya saṃyogāntasya .
‘of the saṁyoga-ending of the pada (padasya saṃyogāntasya)’.
yat api ucyate iha ca nirglānaḥ , nirmlānaḥ iti saṃyogādeḥ ātaḥ dhātoḥ yaṇvataḥ iti niṣṭhānatvam na prāpnoti iti dhātuna saṃyogādim viśeṣayiṣyāmaḥ .
As for what is also said — ‘here, in nirglānaḥ, nirmlānaḥ, by “saṃyogāder āto dhātor yaṇvataḥ” the niṣṭhā n-substitution does not obtain’ — we will qualify (viśeṣayiṣyāmaḥ) the saṁyogādi by [the word] ‘dhātu’.
dhātoḥ saṃyogādeḥ iti
‘of the saṁyoga-initial of the dhātu (dhātoḥ saṃyogādeḥ)’ — thus.