Vaiyākaraṇa-siddhānta-kaumudī — tiṅantaṇicprakaraṇam

SK 2575 · A 1.4.55कारकसंज्ञा

तत्प्रयोजको हेतुश्च ॥ २५७५ ॥

tatprayojako hetuśca

tatprayojako hetuś ca — The prompter (prayojaka) of that [agent (kartṛ) named in the preceding sūtra, svatantraḥ kartā, SK 559] is called hetu, and also [kartṛ — the designation of the preceding sūtra svatantraḥ kartā, SK 559, which the ca adds (samuccaya)].

Rule. The one who prompts (prayojaka) the agent is given the name hetu. He is also given the name kartṛ, "agent". Bhaṭṭoji's gloss: "what prompts the agent receives the designation hetu and also the designation kartṛ".

The word tat, "that", points back to the agent of the preceding sūtra, svatantraḥ kartā (SK 559). Bhaṭṭoji's commentators agree on this. The one prompted is called the prayojya, "the one to be prompted".

Example.

"Yajñadatta makes Devadatta cook": pac + ṇic.

→ Devadatta does the cooking; he is the agent by SK 559

→ Yajñadatta sets that agent going; by this rule he is hetu

→ by this rule he is also kartṛ.

In bhāvayati likewise: the one who impels is hetu and kartṛ; the one who becomes is the prompted agent.

Applies when / blocked by. Why two names? One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators explains. Only Devadatta is the locus of the cooking, so without this rule the prompter would not be kartṛ. And without the name hetu, his being a cause would be credited to the prompted agent.

The other commentator gives each name its use. The name hetu is used in SK 2594 and SK 2595 (hetubhaye, "when the fear comes from the hetu"). The name kartṛ lets the lakāra express the prompter, by SK 2152 (laḥ karmaṇi ca…).

How does the word ca add the second name? One commentator says ca gathers in the name kartṛ from SK 559. The other says ca sets aside the heading by which a thing takes only one name. Both reach the same double name.

Watch out. There are now two agents in the sentence. The prompted one is the agent of the root's own action. The prompter, being kartṛ too, is the one the lakāra expresses: in bhāvayati the ending -ti speaks of him.

Siddhānta-kaumudī

कर्तुः प्रयोजको हेतुसंज्ञः कर्तृसंज्ञश्च स्यात् ॥

What prompts the agent (kartuḥ prayojakaḥ) receives the designation hetu and also the designation kartṛ.

Tattvabodhinī

NSP p. 437–438

तत्प्रयोजको हेतुश्च ॥ तच्छब्देन ‘स्वतन्त्रः कर्ता’ इति पूर्वसूत्रोपात्तः कर्ता परामृश्यते । तस्य कर्तुः प्रयोजकः प्रेरकः, तद्व्यापारानुकूलव्यापारवानित्यर्थः । चकारः एकसंज्ञाधिकारवाधनार्थस्तदाह—हेतुसंज्ञः कर्तृसंज्ञश्चेति । हेतुसंज्ञायाः प्रयोजनं ‘भीस्म्योर्हेतुभये’ ‘भियो हेतुभये षुक्’ इत्यादौ प्रयोजकस्य हेतुत्वेन व्यवहारः । कर्तृसंज्ञायास्तु ‘लः कर्मणि च भावे च—’ इति सूत्रेण प्रयोजके वाच्ये लकारादयः

Bālamanoramā

तत्प्रयोजको हेतुश्च - अथहेतुमति चे॑ति णिज्विधिं वक्ष्यन् हेतुसंज्ञामाह — तत्प्रयोजको हेतुश्च ।स्वतन्त्रः कर्ते॑ति पूर्वसूत्रोपात्तः कर्ता तच्छब्देन परामृश्यते । तस्य कर्तुः प्रयोजकः प्रवर्तयिता - तत्प्रयोजकः । तदाह — कर्तुः प्रयोजको हेतुसंज्ञ इति । चकारः पूर्वसूत्रोपात्तां कर्तृसंज्ञां समुच्चिनोति । तदाह — कर्तृसंज्ञश्चेति.देवदत्तः पचति, तं प्रेरयति यज्ञदत्त इत्यत्र देवदत्तस्यैव पाकानुकूलव्यापारात्मकपचधात्वर्थाश्रयत्वरूपकर्तृत्वसत्त्वात्प्रयोजकस्य तदभावादिह कर्तृसंज्ञाविधिः । प्रयोजकस्य प्रयोज्यकर्त्रा अन्यथासिद्धत्वाद्धेतुत्वाऽप्राप्तौ हेतुसंज्ञाविधिः ।

translator notes

commentary BM: the word tat refers back to the kartṛ taken up in the preceding sūtra svatantraḥ kartā; tatprayojaka = the one who sets that agent going (pravartayitā); the ca gathers (samuccinoti) the designation kartṛ from the preceding sūtra. The kartṛ designation is taught because in 'Yajñadatta impels Devadatta, who cooks' only Devadatta is the locus of the activity that is the meaning of pac, so the prompter would not be kartṛ; the hetu designation is taught because the prompter's being a cause would otherwise be accounted for by the prompted agent. Followed: 'of that [agent]' and the bracketed kartṛ, added by the ca (samuccaya; BM speaks of gathering, not of anuvṛtti).
commentary TB (sk.2575.t1, re-filed from the tail of sk.2574.t1 on 2026-10-05): tat refers to the kartṛ of svatantraḥ kartā; the prayojaka is the one who impels (preraka), whose activity is conducive to that [agent's] activity; the ca sets aside the governing rule that a thing takes only one designation (ekasaṃjñādhikāra), hence 'hetusaṃjñaḥ kartṛsaṃjñaś ca'. Purpose of hetu: the prompter is spoken of as hetu in bhīsmyor hetubhaye (SK 2594) and bhiyo hetubhaye ṣuk (SK 2595); purpose of kartṛ: the lakāras etc. by laḥ karmaṇi ca bhāve ca… (SK 2152) when the prompter is to be expressed. Agrees with BM on tat; followed. TB's account of the ca (setting aside the ekasaṃjñā rule) differs in emphasis from BM's (gathering the kartṛ designation); both yield the double designation, which is all the English states.
textual Collation (batch06), NSP p. 428 (scan page-0438): the print heads this section 'tiṅante ṇyantaprakriyā 51'; our prakaraṇa name tiṅantaṇicprakaraṇam and number 54 follow the Wikisource style and our own numbering. Informational; the kaumudī text of this unit agrees with the print.

SK 2576 · A 3.1.26V

हेतुमति च ॥ २५७६ ॥

hetumati ca

hetumati ca — And [ṇic — carried forward (anuvṛtti) from satyāpapāśa…curādibhyo ṇic, SK 2563 — comes after a dhātu — dhātoḥ carried forward (anuvṛtti) from dhātor ekāco halādeḥ kriyāsamabhihāre yaṅ, SK 2629 —] when [an activity] that has the hetu [as its locus] (hetumat) [is to be expressed].

Rule. The affix ṇic comes after a root when the hetumat is to be expressed. Hetumat means "that which has the hetu", namely the prompter's activity: directing (preṣaṇa) and the like. Bhaṭṭoji's gloss: "when the activity of the prompter, directing and the like, is to be expressed, ṇic comes after a dhātu".

"Ṇic" is carried forward from SK 2563, and "after a dhātu" (dhātoḥ) from SK 2629, taught later. One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators gives both, and explains hetumat as the activity that has the prompter as its locus.

Example.

bhavantaṃ prerayati, "he impels [someone] who is becoming":

bhū + ṇic (this rule); ṇ and c are markers → bhū-i

→ ṇic is marked with ṇ, so the final ū takes vṛddhi (SK 254) → bhau-i

→ au before a vowel becomes āv (SK 61) → bhāvi

→ bhāvi ends in ṇic, so it is a dhātu (SK 2304)

→ laṭ, the ending tip, the class-sign śap (SK 2167) → bhāvi + a + ti

→ guṇa of the i before śap (SK 2168) → bhāve + a + ti

→ ay for e before a vowel (SK 61) → bhāvayati.

With the ātmanepada:

bhāvi + laṭ, fruit for the agent → ātmanepada by ṇicaś ca (SK 2564) → bhāvayate.

Liṭ: ām after the ṇic-stem (SK 2306), then the auxiliary bhū in liṭ (chapter 44) → bhāvayāṃ babhūva.

Applies when / blocked by. "And the like" (ādi) widens the sense. Both of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators list what it covers:

preṣaṇa, a command to an inferior, such as a servant;
adhyeṣaṇā, a request to an equal or superior, such as a teacher;
anumati, consent, such as a king's;
upadeśa, instruction.

One of them, the Bālamanoramā, illustrates upadeśa: telling a fever-patient to drink a decoction. It adds that even holding back someone fleeing from being killed is a prompter's activity. The other, the Tattvabodhinī, adds anugraha, a favour. Which kind is meant is known from context.

The Tattvabodhinī also says that the prompter may be sentient or not. It may also be a result: bhikṣā vāsayati, "alms make him stay". He also contrasts ṇic with loṭ. Ṇic expresses the prompter's activity together with the prompted one's activity. Loṭ expresses the prompter's activity alone.

Why bhāvayāṃ babhūva, without the ātmanepada? One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators answers: the auxiliary bhū is not an ātmanepadin root. Whether the ātmanepada should appear here, scholars discuss this.

Watch out. This ṇic is not the curādi ṇic of SK 2563. That one adds no meaning. This one, called hetumaṇṇic, adds the prompter's activity. Both make a ṇic-final dhātu, and both use the same machinery after that.

Siddhānta-kaumudī

प्रयोजकव्यापारेप्रेषणादौ वाच्ये धातोर्णिच् स्यात् । भवन्तं प्रेरयति भावयति । णिचश्च - SK 2564 इति कर्तृगे फले आत्मनेपदम् । भावयते । भावयांबभूव ॥

When the activity of the prompter (prayojaka), directing (preṣaṇa) and the like, is to be expressed, ṇic comes after a dhātu. bhavantaṃ prerayati ('he impels [someone] who is becoming') → bhāvayati [bhū + ṇic → bhāvi, by vṛddhi and the substitution āv]. By ṇicaś ca (SK 2564), when the fruit [of the action] accrues to the agent (kartṛga phala), the ātmanepada [comes]: bhāvayate. bhāvayāṃ babhūva [liṭ: the auxiliary bhū takes no ātmanepada, bhū not being an ātmanepadin root].

Tattvabodhinī

NSP p. 438

—हेतुमति च । स्वनिष्ठाधारतानिरूपिताधेयतासंबन्धेन हेतुर्यत्रास्ति स हेतुमान्व्यापारः तस्मिन्वाच्ये णिजित्याहुः ॥—प्रयोजकव्यापार इति । प्रयोजकश्चेतनाचेतनसाधारण्येन विवक्षितः स च क्वचित्सिद्धः क्वचित्फलरूपः । देवदत्तः पाचयति गमयतीत्यादौ सिद्धः । भिक्षा वासयति संग्रामो वासयतीत्यादौ तु फलरूपः ॥—प्रेषणादाविति । भृत्यादेर्निकृष्टस्य प्रवर्तना प्रेषणा । आज्ञेत्यर्थः । आदिशब्देनाध्येषणानुमत्यादीनामुपादानम् । समानस्याधिकस्य वा ऋत्विगाचार्यादेः प्रवर्तना अध्येषणम् । प्रार्थनेत्यर्थः । अनुमतिस्तु राजादेः संमतिः, तां विना यागादिक्रिया न निष्पद्यत इत्यनुमतिमात्रेण राजादिः प्रयोजकः । अनुमत्यादीत्यादिशब्देनात्रोपदेशानुग्रहयोरुपादानम् । ज्वरितः कषायं पिबेदित्युपदेशमात्रेण वैद्यादिः प्रयोजकः । यस्तु केनचिद्धन्तुमिष्टं पलायमानं निरुणाद्धि सोऽपि हन्तुरनुग्राहकत्वेन प्रयोजकः । सर्वेऽप्येते विशेषाः कथं णिच्प्रत्ययगम्या इति चेत् । अत्राहुः । सर्वानुगतं प्रवर्तनासामान्यं णिचोऽर्थः, विशेषास्त्वर्थप्रकरणादिगम्या इति । नन्वेवं णिचो लोडादीनां च पर्यायता स्यात्ततश्च इदानीं पृच्छतु भवानिति वक्तव्ये प्रच्छयतीति णिजपि प्रयुज्येतेति चेत् । भैवम् । कर्तुः प्रयोजको हि हेतुः प्रैषविषयो यः संबोध्यो देवदत्तादिः स तु नाद्यापि प्रश्नकर्तृत्वेनावधारितः । तथा च प्रयोज्यप्रवृत्त्युपहिता या प्रयोजकनिष्ठप्रवृत्तिः सा णिजर्थस्तदनुपहिता प्रयोजकप्रवृत्तिस्तु लोडर्थ इत्युभयोर्भेदः । उक्तं च—‘द्रव्यमात्रस्य तु प्रैषे पृच्छादेर्लोड् विधीयते । सक्रियस्य प्रयोगस्तु यदा स विषयो णिचः’ इति । अस्यार्थः—कर्तृत्वेनानवधारितस्य देवदत्तादेस्तु प्रैषे प्रच्छ ज्ञीप्सायामित्यादेर्लोड् भवति । प्रयोज्यप्रवृत्त्युपहितप्रवृत्त्याश्रयस्य प्रयुक्तिस्तु यदा स्याण्णिचो विषय इति । किं च प्रयोक्तृनिष्ठा प्रयुक्तिर्लोडर्थः प्रयोज्यप्रयोक्तृकर्तृका तु णिजर्थः । पच देवदत्तेत्यत्र हि वक्तैव प्रेरकः । पाचयतीत्यादौ वक्तृभिन्नः पाचयामीत्यादौ तु वक्तेति दिक्

Bālamanoramā

हेतुमति च - हेतुमति च ।सत्यापपाशे॑त्यतो णिजित्यनुवर्तते ।हेतुः प्रयोजकः = आधारतया अस्यास्तीति हेतुमान् = प्रयोजकनिष्ठः प्रेषणादिव्यापारः, तस्मिन् वाच्ये णिच् स्यादित्यर्थः ।धातोरेकाचो हलादे॑रिति धातोरित्यनुवर्तते । तदाह - प्रयोजकव्यापार #इति । प्रेषणादावित्यादिशब्देन अध्येषणानुमत्युपदेशादीनां ग्रहणम् । तत्र भृत्यादेर्निकृष्टस्य प्रवर्तना प्रेषणम् । आज्ञेत्यर्थः । समानस्याऽधिकस्य च सख्याचार्यादेः प्रवर्तना- अध्येषणा । अनुमति — राजादेः सम्मतिः । ज्वरितस्य कषायपाने हितावबोधनेन प्रवर्तना — उपदेशः । हननाद्भीत्या पलायमानस्य निरोधाचरणमपि प्रयोजकव्यापारः । प्रयोजकनिष्ठप्रवर्तनायां णिजिति फलितम् । एते तु विशेषाः प्रकरणादिना अवगम्यन्ते । 'कुलालो घटं करोती' त्यत्र तु न णिच्, प्रयोज्यप्रयोजकोभयसमभिव्याहार एव तत्प्रवृत्तेरित्यन्यत्र विस्तरः । भवन्तमिति । देवदत्तो यज्वा भवति । तं प्रेरयति याजक इत्याद्यर्थे भूधात्वर्थस्यभवनस्य मुख्यकर्ता यज्वा, तस्य यज्वभवने प्रवर्तयिता याजकादिः प्रयोजकः, तन्निष्ठायां प्रेरणायां भूधातोर्णिच् । वृद्ध्यावादेशौ । भावीति णिजन्तम् । तस्माद्भवनानुकूलव्यापारार्थकाल्लटिभावयती॑ति रूपम् । भवन्तं प्रेरयतीति फलितोऽर्थः । भावयांबभूवेति । कर्तृगामिन्यपि क्रियाफले भूधातोरनात्मनेपदित्वादनुप्रयुज्यमानादपि नात्मनेपदमिति भावः ।

translator notes

commentary BM: ṇic is carried forward (anuvartate) from satyāpapāśa…; dhātoḥ is carried forward from dhātor ekāco halādeḥ…; hetumat = that which has the hetu (the prayojaka) as its locus (ādhāratayā), i.e. the activity of directing etc. residing in the prayojaka. Followed: both anuvṛttis and the gloss of hetumat in sutra_en.
commentary BM: by 'ādi' in preṣaṇādau are included request (adhyeṣaṇā), permission (anumati), instruction (upadeśa) and the like: preṣaṇa is setting an inferior (a servant etc.) going, i.e. a command; adhyeṣaṇā is setting an equal or superior going; anumati is a king's consent; upadeśa is setting a fever-patient to drink a decoction by teaching him what is good for him; even obstructing one who flees from being killed is a prompter's activity. ṇic comes when the impelling residing in the prompter is meant; the particular kinds are known from context. Followed: 'and the like'.
commentary BM on bhāvayati: bhū + ṇic, vṛddhi and āv give the ṇic-final bhāvi, whence laṭ bhāvayati, meaning 'impels one who is becoming'. On bhāvayāṃ babhūva: though the fruit goes to the agent, the anuprayukta bhū takes no ātmanepada, since bhū is not an ātmanepadin. Followed for both brackets.
commentary TB: the prayojaka is meant as either sentient or insentient, and either already established (devadattaḥ pācayati) or of the nature of a result (bhikṣā vāsayati, 'alms make him stay'); preṣaṇa is the command to an inferior, adhyeṣaṇā the request to an equal or superior (an officiant, a teacher), anumati the consent of a king without which a sacrifice cannot proceed, and 'ādi' further includes upadeśa and anugraha; the general meaning of ṇic is impelling as such (pravartanāsāmānya), the particulars being known from meaning and context. ṇic differs from loṭ: ṇic denotes the prompter's activity as accompanied by the prompted one's activity, loṭ the prompter's activity not so accompanied (verse cited: 'dravyamātrasya tu praiṣe…'). Agrees with BM on 'and the like'; the rest is recorded.
textual Collation (batch06), NSP p. 428 (scan page-0438): the print, like ours, reads 'bhāvayate | bhāvayāṃbabhūva'; Wikisource reads the ātmanepada 'bhāvayāmbabhūve'. The BM transmission is split on the same point: our BM argues that the anuprayukta bhū takes no ātmanepada because bhū is not an ātmanepadin, while the Wikisource BM argues that it does take the ātmanepada because the ṇic-final takes the ātmanepada when the fruit goes to the agent (WS uttara-2/0097–0098). The English follows ours and the print.

SK 2577 · A 7.4.80V

ओः पुयण्ज्यपरे ॥ २५७७ ॥

oḥ puyaṇjyapare

oḥ puyaṇjy apare — For the u [of the abhyāsa — abhyāsasya carried forward (anuvṛtti) from atra lopo 'bhyāsasya, SK 2620 — of an aṅga (aṅgasya, the governing rule) before san — sani carried forward (anuvṛtti) from sanyataḥ, SK 2317 —, i — it carried forward (anuvṛtti) from bhṛñām it, SK 2496 — is substituted] when a labial (pu), a yaṇ or j that is followed by a (apare) follows.

Rule. The u of an abhyāsa is replaced by i before san. The condition: the next sound is a labial (pu, the p-class), a yaṇ (y, v, r, l) or j, and an a-vowel follows that sound. Bhaṭṭoji's gloss: "for the u of an abhyāsa that is part of an aṅga followed by san, i is substituted when a labial, a yaṇ or j, followed by an a-vowel, follows".

Carried forward: "before san" (sani) from SK 2317; "of the abhyāsa" from SK 2620, taught later; "i" (it) from SK 2496. "Of the aṅga" is the heading; the aṅga is the base to which an affix is added. Bhaṭṭoji's commentators give all of these.

Example.

bhū + ṇic + luṅ → caṅ replaces cli (SK 2312) → bhū i a t

→ doubling is due (SK 2315). While it is due, no vowel-substitute is made before ṇi. So bhū is doubled before its vṛddhi → bhū bhū i a t

→ the abhyāsa's vowel is shortened (SK 2180), and bh becomes b (SK 2182) → bu bhū i a t

→ vṛddhi (SK 254) and āv (SK 61) in the second member → bu bhāv i a t

→ the ṇi is deleted (SK 2313) → bu bhāv a t

→ the penultimate ā is shortened (SK 2314) → bu bhav a t

→ a light a follows the abhyāsa: sanvadbhāva (SK 2316). But SK 2317 needs an a in the abhyāsa, and bu has u

→ this rule: the u of bu stands before bh, a labial, followed by a → bi bhav a t

→ the light i is lengthened (SK 2318) → bī bhav a t

→ the augment aṭ (SK 2206) → abībhavat.

Bhaṭṭoji's other forms: apīpavat (pūṅ, labial p), amīmavat (mūṅ, labial m), ayīyavat (yu), arīravat (ru), alīlavat (lūñ), ajījavat (ju). Bhaṭṭoji's commentators identify the roots. One of them notes that ju is a root found only in the sūtras (sautra).

Applies when / blocked by. The step "doubled before vṛddhi" rests on a principle the commentators use throughout this chapter. It is dvitve kārye ṇāv ajādeśo na: "while doubling is due, no vowel-substitute is made before ṇi". One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators gives it here, for abībhavat.

Bhaṭṭoji's commentators raise an objection. The shortening of ā to a is a substitute. If it were treated like the original (sthānivadbhāva), no light syllable would follow the abhyāsa, and sanvadbhāva would fail. They answer: "by the very undertaking of the rule" (ārambhasāmarthya), sthānivadbhāva does not apply here. Otherwise the rule would have nothing to do.

One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators gives two counter-examples. Why "followed by a"? bubhūṣati: the bh is followed by ū. Why "a labial, a yaṇ or j"? ūrṇunaviṣati: the u stands before n.

Watch out. The rule is taught for san. In the aorist it works only through sanvadbhāva. So all the conditions of SK 2316 must hold too.

Siddhānta-kaumudī

सनि परे यदङ्गं तदवयवाभ्यासोकारस्येत्वं स्यात्पवर्गयण्जकारेष्ववर्णपरेषु परतः । अबीभवत् । अपीपवत् । मूङ् । अमीमवत् । अयीयवत् । अरीरवत् । अलीलवत् । अजीजवत् ॥

For the u of an abhyāsa that is part of an aṅga followed by san, i is substituted when a labial (pavarga), a yaṇ or j, [itself] followed by an a-vowel (avarṇa), follows. abībhavat [luṅ of ṇyanta bhū: bhū is doubled before vṛddhi and āv, since a substitute for a vowel before ṇi is not made when doubling is to be done; after the shortening of the penultimate the abhyāsa has no a, so sanyataḥ (SK 2317) does not apply; through sanvadbhāva this rule gives i, which is then lengthened]. apīpavat [pūṅ]. mūṅ: amīmavat. ayīyavat [yu]. arīravat [ru]. alīlavat [lūñ]. ajījavat [ju].

Tattvabodhinī

alignment inferredNSP p. 438–440

—ओः पुयणजि—। पुयणजीनि समाहारद्वन्द्वात्सप्तम्येकवचनम् । अपर इति बहुव्रीहिः । ‘अत्र लोपोऽभ्यासस्य’ इत्यतः अभ्यासस्येत्यनुवर्तते । ‘भृञामित्’ इत्यत इद्ग्रहणं ‘सन्यतः’ इत्यतः सनीति च । अङ्गस्येति तु अधिक्रियत एव तदेतदभिप्रेत्याह—सनि परे यदङ्गमित्यादि । अपरे किम् । बुभूषति । पवर्गयण्जीति किम् । ऊर्णुनविषति ॥—अवीभवदित्यादि । भू सत्तायाम् । पूङ् पवने । मूङ् वन्धने । यु मिश्रणादौ । रु शब्दे । लूञ् छेदने । जु गतौ । सौत्रोऽयं धातुः ‘जुचंकम्य’—इत्यत्र निर्दिष्टः । ननु भू भू इति द्वित्वोत्तरं वृद्ध्यावादेशौ भवतस्ततः कृतस्य ‘णौ चङि’—इति ह्रस्वस्य स्थानिवद्भावेन लघुपरलाभावात्सन्वद्भावाप्रवृत्त्याऽवीभवदित्यादावभ्यासोवर्णस्येत्वं दुर्लभमिति चेत् । अत्राहुः । आरम्भसामर्थ्यादेव न स्थानिवत्त्वमिति ॥—स्रवतिशृणोति—अपर इत्यनुवर्तते नतु पुयण्जीति, पवर्गजकारयोरसंभवाद्यणः संभवेऽप्यव्यभिचारात्तदाह—अवर्णपरे धात्वक्षरे इति । अक्षरशब्दोऽत्र वर्णपरः । अवर्णपरे किम् । शुश्रूषति । शृणोत्यादेरुदाहरणं तु । अशिश्रवत् । अशुश्रवत् । अदिद्रवत् । अदुद्रवत् । अपिप्रवत् । अपुप्रवत् । अचिच्यवत् । अचुच्यवत् ॥—अङुढौकादिति । ढौकृ गतौ । चङ्परे णौ यदङ्गं तस्य योऽभ्यासो लघुपर इति पक्षाश्रयेणाह—अचीचकासदिति ॥—मतान्तर इति । ‘अङ्गं यत्र द्विरुच्यते’ इति मते चङ्परे णौ यल्लघु तत्परो योऽङ्गस्याभ्यास इति मते चेत्यर्थः ॥—सुब्धातुप्रकरण इति । अतितिरायत् । अससध्रायत् । अविविष्वद्रायत् । अदिदेवद्रायत् । इत्याद्युदाहरिष्यत इत्यर्थः ॥—वृद्धिं बाधित्वेति । ‘ण्यल्लोपावियङ्’—इत्यादिवचनाणिलोपांशप्रत्याख्यानपक्षेऽपवादत्वाद्वेत्यर्थः ॥—असंभव इति । तथा च अचुचोरदित्येव रूपमिति भावः ॥—ण्याकृतिनिर्देशादिति । चङ्परे णावित्यत्र चङ्परे णित्वे इत्यर्थः । तेन णिद्वये सत्यपि णित्वं चङ्परमस्तीति ह्रस्वदीर्घयोरस्ति संभव इति भावः । एतेन अवीवदद्वीणां परिवादकेनेत्यादौ सन्वद्भावो व्याख्यातस्तत्रापीत्थमेव, पूर्वपक्षसिद्धान्तयोस्तुल्यत्वात् ॥—णौ च—। विभाषा श्वेरित्यनुवर्तते । संश्वङोरिति णावित्यस्य विशेषणं ‘ह्वः संप्र’—इत्यतः संप्रसारणमनुवर्तत एवेत्याह—सन्परे चङ्परे इति ॥—वचनादिति । इयं च परिभाषा ‘लिट्यभ्यासस्योभयेषाम्’ इत्यत्र वच्यादीनां ग्रह्यादीनामनुवृत्त्यैवेष्टसिद्धानुभयेषांग्रहणसामर्थ्याल्लभ्यते । अन्यथा वव्रश्चेत्यत्र हलादिः शेषे कृते वस्य संप्रसारणं स्यादित्याहुः ॥—स्तम्भुसिवु—। स्तम्भुः सौत्रः । षिवु तन्तुसंताने । षह मर्षणे । स्तम्भतेः ‘स्तम्भेः’ इत्यनेन प्राप्तिरन्ययोस्तु ‘परिनिविभ्यः’—इत्यनेनेति विवेकः ॥—आटिटत् । आशिशदिति । णिचा सह द्वित्वात्सन्वद्भावो नेति तद्विषये विहितो यो ‘दीर्घो लघोः’ इति दीर्घः स न प्रवर्तते ॥—ऋदित्करणाल्लिङ्गादिति । यदि पूर्वं द्विर्वचनं भवेत्तदा णिशब्दस्य द्वित्वे सत्युपधाह्रस्वस्याप्राप्तेस्तत्प्रतिषेधार्थमृदित्करणं व्यर्थं स्यादतस्तदुक्तेऽर्थं ज्ञापकमेव ॥—एजादावेधताविति । ‘एत्येधत्यूठ्सु’ इति सूत्रे एजाद्योरेत्येधत्योरिति व्याख्यातत्वादिति भावः । न च मा भवान्प्रेदिधदित्यत्र ‘णौ चङि’—इति ह्रस्वे कृते नायमेधतिरिति वृद्धेरप्रवृत्तौ किमेधतेरेजादिविशेषणेनेति वाच्यम् । एकदेशविकृतस्यानन्यत्वात् । न चैवमपि ‘अजादेर्द्वितीयस्य’ इति धिशब्दस्थाने धिधिशब्दादेशे सति वल्लसोरिव प्रकृतिप्रत्ययविभागसंमोह इति वाच्यम् । ‘द्विःप्रयोगो द्विर्वचनं पाष्ठम्’ इति भाष्ये सिद्धान्तितत्वात् । अन्यथा इहैव प्रेदिधदित्यत्र णिलोपो न स्यात् । जिघांसतीत्यादौ सनः सकारेण विशिष्टस्य द्वित्वे कृते कुत्वं च न स्यादिति दिक् ॥—उब्ज आर्जव इति । अयमुपध्मानीयोपध इति वार्तिककृतोक्तम् । तस्य ‘झलां जंश् झशि’ इति जश्त्वेन वकारे कृते उब्जिता । उब्जितमिति रूपम् । एतच्चायोगवाहानां शर्षु पाठस्य फलम् । भाष्यकारादयस्तूपध्मानीयोपधपाठे उब्जिजिषतीति रूपं न सिध्येत् । यदि ‘पूर्वत्रासिद्धीयमद्विर्वचने’ इत्याश्रित्य वकारोत्तरं द्वित्वं क्रियते, यदि वा अस्यानित्यतामाश्रित्य वकारात्पूर्वमेवोपध्मानीयस्य द्वित्वमुभय- थापि इष्टरूपासिद्धिः, आद्ये उविञ्जिषति, द्वितीये तूपध्मानीयस्याच्छात्तदादेः ‘अजादेर्द्वितीयस्य’ इति द्वित्वे हलादिःशेषे द्वितीयोपध्मानीयस्य जश्त्वेन वकारे पश्चात्प्रथमस्यापि तथैव वकारे उव्ञिषतीत्यापत्तेः । ततश्चेष्टसिद्धये दकारोपधोऽयं स्वीकार्यः । भुजन्युञ्जाविति निपातनादुपधादकारस्य वोमवतीति वाक्यं कल्प्यते, तच्च ‘स्तोः श्रुना श्रुः’ इत्यस्याप्रे । तद्-यमर्थः । श्रुना योगे उद्जेदकारस्य वकार इति । अभ्युद्गः समुद्गः इत्यत्र तु उञ्जिता उञ्जितुमित्यत्रेव चवर्गयोगो ना-स्तीति न वकारः । दकारोपधे चास्मिन्स्वीकृते ‘न न्द्राः’ इति निषेधाज्जिशब्दस्य द्वित्वे ततो वकारे च उञ्जिजिषतीति सिध्यति रूपम् । न च ‘पूर्वत्रासिद्धीयमद्विर्वचने’ इति वकारोत्तरं द्विर्वचने सति स्यादेवानिष्टमिति वाच्यम् । द्विर्वचने हि त्रैपादिकं सिद्धं न तु तन्निषेधेऽपि । तथा च निषेधे त्रिपादीस्थस्यासिद्धत्वात् ‘न न्द्राः’ इति निषेधः प्रवर्तते । यद्वा तादृ-शवाक्यमिह न कल्प्यते किं तु ‘भुजन्युञ्जौ’— इति निपातनेन दस्य व इति । न चैवं वकारसहितस्य द्वित्वप्रसङ्गः । धातौ दकारोच्चारणसामर्थ्यात् । न चाभ्युद्ग इत्यादावपि वकारश्रवणप्रसङ्गः । अकुलविषय एव वकारनिपातनाभ्युपगमात् । यद्वा अभ्युद्ग इत्यादि रूपं द्वयुपसर्गाद्गमेर्डप्रत्यये ज्ञेयम् । उद्जेस्तु घनि अनभिधानात् प्रयोगाभाव इति वदन्ति । तदेत-द्भाष्यादिमतमभिप्रेत्याह—उपदेशे दकारोपध इत्यादि । अजादेरित्येवेति । ‘न न्द्राः’ इत्यत्र अजादेरित्यनुव-र्तते, तेन आदिभूतादचः परा एव नदरा द्विर्नोच्यन्ते नान्ये इत्यर्थः । ननु लावस्थायामेव अडिति भाष्यकारोक्तपक्षे आदिप्रपदित्यत्र अजादित्यमस्त्येव न्याय्यश्च प्रथममद्परत्वादन्तरङ्गलाच्चेति चेत् । अत्राहुः । द्वितीयस्येत्यप्यत्रानुवर्तते तत्सामर्थ्याच्च नित्यं द्वितीयस्येति तदर्थः । तेन लावस्थायामटि कृतेऽपि धातुसंज्ञाप्रवृत्तिकाले अजादित्याभावान्नोक्तदोषः । नित्यं द्वितीयस्यैकाचो ये नदरास्तेषामेव निषेधात् । न चैवं नित्यं द्वितीयस्येति व्याख्ययैव इष्टसिद्धावजादेरित्यस्यात्रानुवृ-त्तिमोस्त्विति वाच्यम् । इन्दिद्रीयिषतीत्यत्र दकारस्यापि द्वित्वनिषेधापत्तेः । अजादेरित्युक्तौ लादिभूतादचः परत्वं दकारस्य नेति सिद्धमिष्टम् । न च अजादेरित्युक्तावपि चन्दिद्रीयिषतीत्यत्र दोषः स्यादेव, आद्ययवस्य हल्लान्नकारस्य द्वित्वनिषे-धाप्रसङ्गादिति वाच्यम् । अजादेरिति कर्मधारयात् पञ्चमीत्युक्तत्वात् । इह च एकदेशे स्वरितत्वं प्रतिज्ञाय अच इत्येवा-नुवर्त्यताम् । अथवा आदेरित्यस्याप्यनुवर्तनमस्तु तस्य नावयवपरत्वं, किंतु पूर्ववर्तिमात्रपरत्वं शब्दाधिकाराश्रयाणादिति ज्ञेयम् ॥ नन्वेवमुत्तरार्थतया द्वितीयस्येति ग्रहणस्य सार्थकत्वे स्थिते द्वितीयस्येति न वक्तव्यमिति भाष्यं विरुध्येतेति चेत् । मैवम् । यस्मिन्सूत्रे पठितं तत्र मास्त्विति तदाशयात् । न च अजादेरित्येतावत्युक्ते यस्य कस्यचिदेकाचो द्वित्वं स्यादिति वाच्यम् । प्रथमस्यैकाचः पूर्वेणैव सिद्धेः पुनरारम्भो द्वितीयस्य द्वित्वार्थमिति सुवचत्वात्

Bālamanoramā

ओः पुयण्ज्यपरे - ओः पुयण् । 'उ॑ इत्यस्यओ' रिति षष्ठी ।पुयण्जी॑ति छेदः । पुश्च यण् च ज् चेति समाहारद्वन्द्वात्सप्तमी । अः परो यस्मादिति बहुव्रीहिः । 'सन्यतः' इत्यस्मात्सनित्यनुवर्तते । अङ्गस्येत्यधिकृतम् । 'अत्र लोपः' इत्यस्मादभ्यासस्येति, भृञामिदित्यस्मादिदिति चानुवर्तते । तदाह — सनि परे इत्यादिना । अबीभवदिति । भू इ अत् इति स्थिते द्वित्वे कार्ये णौ अच आदेशस्य निषेधाद्वृद्ध्यावादेशाभ्यां प्रागेवभू॑इत्यस्य द्वित्वे उत्तरखण्डस्य वृद्ध्यावादेशयोः कृतयोरुपधाह्रस्वेऽभ्यासेऽकाराऽभावेन 'सन्यतः' इत्यस्याऽप्रवृत्त्या सन्वत्त्वादनेने इत्त्वे दीर्घ इति भावः । अपीपवदिति । पूङ्धातो रूपम् । मूङित्यस्माद्धातोरमीमवदिति रूपमित्यर्थः । अयीयवदिति । युधातो रूपम् । अरीरवदिति । रुधातो रूपम् । अलीलवदिति । लूञ्धातो रूपम् । अजीजवदिति । जुः सौत्रो धातुर्जुचङ्क्रम्येत्यत्र निर्दिष्टः । ननु भू भू इति द्वित्वोत्तरं वृद्ध्यावादेशयोः कृतयोरुपधाह्रस्वे तस्य स्थानिवत्त्वेन लघुपरत्वाऽभावात्सन्वत्त्वाऽप्रसक्त्या कथमिहाभ्यासोवर्णस्य इत्त्वमिति चेन्न, आरम्भसामर्थ्यादेव स्थानिवत्त्वाप्रवृत्तेरित्यलम् ।

translator notes

commentary BM: 'oḥ' is a sixth-case word (ṣaṣṭhyanta) from u; puyaṇji is a samāhāra-dvandva (pu, yaṇ and j), a seventh-case word (saptamyanta); apare is a bahuvrīhi, 'after which a stands'; sani is carried forward (anuvartate) from sanyataḥ; aṅgasya is the governing rule; abhyāsasya from atra lopo 'bhyāsasya and it from bhṛñām it are carried forward. Followed: all three anuvṛttis and the adhikāra in sutra_en.
commentary TB, printed under sk.2577.t1: the same anuvṛttis (abhyāsasya from atra lopo 'bhyāsasya, it from bhṛñām it, sani from sanyataḥ; aṅgasya governing); counter-examples: apare kim? bubhūṣati; pavargayaṇji kim? ūrṇunaviṣati. Agrees with BM; followed.
commentary BM on abībhavat: in bhū i at, since a substitute for a vowel is prohibited before ṇi when doubling is to be done, bhū is doubled before vṛddhi and āv; after vṛddhi and āv in the second member and the shortening of the penultimate, the abhyāsa has no a, so sanyataḥ does not operate; through sanvadbhāva (sanvattvāt) i comes by this rule, and then lengthening. Objection: the shortening, being sthānivat, leaves no light syllable after the abhyāsa, so sanvadbhāva would fail; answer: by the very undertaking of the rule (ārambhasāmarthya) sthānivadbhāva does not apply. Followed for the bracket on abībhavat.
commentary TB (sk.2577.t1) identifies the roots: bhū sattāyām, pūṅ pavane, mūṅ bandhane, yu miśraṇādau, ru śabde, lūñ chedane (OCR 'dvan'), ju gatau — a sūtra-root (sautra) named in 'jucaṅkramya…'; it raises the same sthānivadbhāva objection as BM and gives the same answer (ārambhasāmarthya). Agrees with BM; followed for the root labels.
translator The bracket on abībhavat renders BM's derivation (the kaumudī gives only the forms); the rule names in it are left as BM gives them, with sanyataḥ numbered. The bracketed root names after the other forms follow BM and TB.

SK 2578 · A 7.4.81V

स्रवतिशृणोतिद्रवतिप्रवतिप्लवतिच्यवतीनां वा ॥ २५७८ ॥

sravatiśṛṇotidravatipravatiplavaticyavatīnāṃ vā

sravatiśṛṇotidravatipravatiplavaticyavatīnāṃ vā — For [the u of the abhyāsa of] sru, śru, dru, pru, plu and cyu, [i is] optionally [substituted before san when a syllable of the dhātu followed by a follows — apare carried forward (anuvṛtti) from oḥ puyaṇjy apare, SK 2577, but not puyaṇji].

Rule. For the six roots sru, śru, dru, pru, plu and cyu, the i for the abhyāsa's u is optional. The condition: before san, a syllable of the root followed by an a-vowel comes next (dhātvakṣara). "Followed by a" (apare) is carried forward from SK 2577, but not "a labial, a yaṇ or j". One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators says why: after these roots' u a labial or j is impossible, and a yaṇ is always there.

Example.

sru + ṇic + luṅ → caṅ (SK 2312) → sru i a t

→ doubling comes before the vowel-substitute, as with bhū → sru sru i a t

→ only the first consonant stays in the abhyāsa (SK 2179) → su sru i a t

→ vṛddhi (SK 254) and āv (SK 61) in the second member → su srāv i a t

→ the ṇi is deleted (SK 2313), the penultimate shortened (SK 2314) → su srav a t

→ this rule, optionally: i for that u → si srav a t, or su srav a t

→ the abhyāsa stands before the cluster sr, so it is heavy (SK 32) and is not lengthened

→ the augment aṭ → asisravat or asusravat.

One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators gives the other pairs: aśiśravat / aśuśravat, adidravat / adudravat, apipravat / apupravat, acicyavat / acucyavat. He gives a counter-example for "followed by a": śuśrūṣati.

One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators adds that two consonants intervene here, so there is no sanvadbhāva. How that fits the i of asisravat, scholars discuss this. What is certain is the point above: the abhyāsa is heavy, so it is not lengthened.

Recalled: SK 2572, nāglopiśāsvṛditām. Bhaṭṭoji recalls the rule that forbids the shortening of SK 2314 for an aglopin, for śās, and for a root marked with ṛ.

śās + ṇic + luṅ → śās i a t → the ṇi is deleted

→ SK 2572: the ā is not shortened → śās a t

→ doubling; the abhyāsa's vowel is shortened → śa śās a t

→ a heavy ā follows the abhyāsa, so no sanvadbhāva → aśaśāsat.

Likewise aḍuḍhaukat, from ḍhaukṛ, which is marked with ṛ.

From cakāsṛ, also marked with ṛ, Bhaṭṭoji gives acīcakāsat and, "on another view", acacakāsat. These are the two construals of SK 2316 met in chapter 44. Bhaṭṭoji's commentators say which view gives which form. In both, SK 2572 keeps the ā long: ca cakās a t.

If the abhyāsa need only be followed by a light syllable, the light ca of cakās qualifies. So sanvadbhāva: i for a (SK 2317), lengthened (SK 2318) → acīcakāsat.
If the light syllable must be the one standing before ṇi, that is kās, which is heavy. So there is no sanvadbhāva → acacakāsat.

The aglopin, Bhaṭṭoji says, "will be exemplified in the section on nominal roots" (subdhātu). One commentator, the Bālamanoramā, notes that one example, mā bhavān ūnanat, was given earlier. Both say more, such as atitirāyat, will follow there.

Recalled: ṇic after a ṇic-final. Bhaṭṭoji now takes a causative of a curādi root.

cur + ṇic (SK 2563) → guṇa (SK 2189) → cori

→ the causative ṇic (SK 2576) → cori + i

→ two rules meet. Vṛddhi of the first i (SK 254) would give corāyayati. Deletion of that ṇi (SK 2313) would give corayati

→ the deletion wins, "by pūrvavipratiṣedha, or because it is an exception (apavāda)" → cor + i

→ corayati.

Pūrvavipratiṣedha is the reverse of the normal order: in a conflict the earlier rule wins. One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators identifies the source: the vārttika ṇyallopāv iyaṅyaṇguṇavṛddhidīrghebhyaḥ pūrvavipratiṣedhena, which you met under SK 2313. The other commentator says "or because it is an exception" serves those who reject the ṇi-deletion part of that vārttika.

In luṅ:

cor i a t → the second ṇi is deleted

→ shortening by SK 2314 → cur a t

→ doubling → cu cur a t

→ lengthening by SK 2318 → cū cur a t

→ acūcurat.

But the stem has lost a ṇi, whose i is an ak. So it is an aglopin, and SK 2572 and SK 2316 should block both operations. Bhaṭṭoji answers: "ṇi" in SK 2314 is mentioned as a class (ākṛti). Bhaṭṭoji's commentators explain. The first ṇi is not followed by caṅ; the second has an aglopin base. But "ṇi-hood", shared by both, is followed by caṅ. Otherwise, one of them says, the form would be acucorat. Whether the class-reading holds, scholars discuss this.

Watch out. For these six roots the option is only between i and u in the abhyāsa. Neither is lengthened, because a cluster follows the abhyāsa in every one of them.

Siddhānta-kaumudī

एषामभ्यासोकारस्येत्वं वा स्यात्सन्यवर्णपरे धात्वपक्षे परे । असिस्रवत् । असुस्रवत् । नाग्लेपि - SK 2572 इति ह्रस्वनिषेधः । अशशासत् । अडुढौकत् । अचीचकासत् । मतान्तरे । अचचकासत् । अग्लोपीति नुब्धातुप्रकरणे उदाहरिष्यते । ण्यन्ताण्णिच् । पूर्वविप्रतिषेधादपवादत्वाद्वा वृद्धिं बाधित्वा णिलोपः । चोरयति । णौचङि - SK 2314 इति ह्रस्वः । दीर्घो लघोः SK 2318 । न चाग्लोपित्वाद्द्वयोरप्यसंभवः, ण्याकृतिनिर्देशात् । अचूचुरत् ॥

For the u of the abhyāsa of these [roots], i is optionally substituted when, san following, a syllable of the dhātu (dhātvakṣara) that is followed by an a-vowel (avarṇa) follows. asisravat. asusravat [sru; the abhyāsa, followed by two consonants, is not followed by a light syllable, so there is no sanvadbhāva]. By nāglopiśāsvṛditām (SK 2572), shortening [of the penultimate] is prohibited: aśaśāsat [śās]. aḍuḍhaukat [ḍhaukṛ, which is ṛ-marked]. acīcakāsat [cakāsṛ, on the view that the abhyāsa of the aṅga before ṇi followed by caṅ need only be followed by a light syllable]. On another view: acacakāsat. aglopi [in that rule — a stem that has undergone deletion of an ak] will be exemplified in the section on nominal roots (subdhātu). ṇic after a ṇic-final [stem, cori + ṇic]: by pūrvavipratiṣedha, or because it is an exception (apavāda), deletion of ṇi [by ṇer aniṭi, SK 2313] sets aside vṛddhi [of the i of the first ṇi by aco ñṇiti, SK 254]: corayati. [In luṅ:] shortening by ṇau caṅy upadhāyā hrasvaḥ (SK 2314); [lengthening of the abhyāsa by] dīrgho laghoḥ (SK 2318). Nor can it be said that, because [the stem] has undergone deletion of an ak (aglopin), neither of the two [operations] is possible, since ṇi [in ṇau caṅi] is mentioned as a class (ākṛti): acūcurat.

Bālamanoramā

स्रवतिशृणोतिद्रवतिप्रवतिप्लवतिच्यवतीनां वा - स्रवतिशृणोति । अपर इत्यनुवर्तते, न तु पुयण्जीति, पवर्गजकारयोरसंभवात्,स्रवत्यादौ यणः सत्त्वेऽप्यव्यभिचारात् । तदाह — अवर्णपरे धात्वक्षरे इति । अक्षरशब्दो वर्णपरः । असिस्रवत् असुस्रवदिति । द्विहल्व्यधानेन लघुपरकत्वाऽभावान्न सन्वत्त्वमिति भावः । अशिश्रवत् अशुश्रवत् ।अदिद्रवत् अदुद्रवत् । अपिप्रवत् अपुप्रवत् । अपिप्लवत् अपुप्लवत् । अचिच्यवत् ।अचुच्यवत् । अथ शासुधातोरशशासदित्यत्राह — नाग्लोपीति । अडुढौकदिति । ढौकृ गतावित्यस्य ऋदित्त्वादिति भावः । अचीचकासदिति । चकासृ दीप्तौ । ऋदित्त्वान्नोपधाह्रस्वः ।चङ्परे णौ यदङ्गं तस्य योऽभ्यासो लघुपर॑ इति पक्षे सन्वत्त्वम्, अभ्यासदीर्घश्चेति भावः । मतान्तरे त्विति ।अङ्गं यत्र द्विरुच्यते॑ इति मते॑ चङ् परेणौ यल्लघु तत्परो योऽङगस्य अभ्यास॑ इति मते चेत्यर्थः । अग्लोपीतीति । अग्लोपिन उपधाह्रस्वनिषेधे मा भवानूननदिति उदाहृतम् । अतितिरायदित्याद्युदाहरणान्तरं सुब्धातुनिरूपणे वक्ष्यते इत्यर्थः । ननु 'चुर स्तेये' इत्यस्मात्स्वार्थे णिचि उपधागुणेचोरि इति रूपम्,तस्माद्धेतुमण्णौ प्रथमस्य णेर्लोपे सतिचोरिट इत्येव हेतुण्ण्यन्तम् । तस्माल्लटि तिपि शपि गुणे अयादेशेचोरयती॑त्येव रूपम#इष्यते । तन्नोपपद्यते, हेतुमण्णौ परे प्रथमस्य णेर्लोपं बाधित्वा परत्वाद्वृद्धावायादेशे चोराय् इ इत्यस्माल्लटि चोराययतीत्यापत्तेरित्यत आह — ण्यन्ताण्णिचीति । ण्यन्ताण्णिचि वृद्धिं बाधित्वा णिलोप इत्यन्वयः । कुत इत्यत आह — पूर्वविप्रतिषेधादिति ।ण्यल्लोपावियङ्यण्गुणवृद्धिदीर्घेभ्यः पूर्वविप्रतिषेधेने॑ति वार्तिकेनेति भावः । अपवादत्वाद्वेति । 'कमु कान्तौ' इति धातौ द्विधा प्रपञ्चितत्वादिति भावः । अथ ण्यन्ताण्णौ ततो हेतुमण्णेर्लोपे चुरित्यस्य द्वित्वे सन्वद्भावविषयत्वाह — दीर्घो लघोरिति । तथा च अचूचुरदिति सिद्धम् । ननु उपदाह्रस्वोऽभ्यासदीर्घश्चेति द्वयमपि चङ्परे णौ विहितं, तदुभयमप्यत्र प्रत्ययलक्षणमाश्रित्य प्रथमणिचमादाय न संभवति, तस्य द्वितीयणिचा व्यवहितत्वेन चङ्परकत्वाऽभावात् । नापि द्वितीयणिचमादायतदुभयसंभवः, द्वितीयणिच्प्रकृतेः प्रथमसंभवो न शङ्क्य इत्यर्थः । कुत इत्यत आह — ण्याकृतिनिर्देशादिति ।चङ्परे णा॑वित्यत्र णावित्यस्य चङ्परकणित्त्वजात्याश्रयैकाऽनेकणिज्व्यक्तिपरकत्वं विवक्षितम् । तथा च णिद्वयस्य चङ्परकत्वाऽभावेऽपि णित्वस्य चङ्परकत्वमस्तीति ह्रस्वदीर्घयोरस्ति प्रवृत्तिरिति भावः । अत्र जातिन#इर्देशोऽयुक्त इति शब्देन्दुशेखरे प्रपञ्चितम् ।टु ओ इआ गतिवृद्धयोः॑ अस्माद्धेतुमण्णौ वृद्ध्यायादेशयोः श्वायीत्यस्माल्लडादौ श्वाययतीति रूपम् । लुङि चङि अश्वि इ अ त् इति स्थिते विशेषमाह —

translator notes

commentary BM: 'apare' is carried forward (anuvartate), but not 'puyaṇji', since a labial or j is impossible [after these roots' u], and a yaṇ, though present, is invariable; hence 'avarṇapare dhātvakṣare'; akṣara here means a sound (varṇa). Followed: the anuvṛtti bracket in sutra_en.
commentary TB, printed under sk.2577.t1: the same — apare carried forward, not puyaṇji; counter-example avarṇapare kim? śuśrūṣati; examples for the other roots: aśiśravat, aśuśravat, adidravat, adudravat, apipravat, apupravat, acicyavat, acucyavat. Agrees with BM; followed.
commentary BM on asisravat, asusravat: because two consonants intervene, [the abhyāsa] is not followed by a light syllable, so there is no sanvadbhāva. Followed for the bracket.
translator BM's remark, reproduced in the bracket on asusravat, sits uneasily with two things. (a) The sūtra's own condition is 'sani', which in caṅ is reached only through sanvadbhāva (sanval laghuni caṅpare 'naglope), so 'no sanvadbhāva' leaves the i of asisravat unexplained. (b) BM itself, under SK 2582 (on asasmarat), says that by the evidence (jñāpaka) of at smṛdṝtvara… the abhyāsa counts as followed by a light syllable even when several consonants intervene ('anekahalvyavadhāne 'pi laghuparatvam'), 'as was said before'. What is not in dispute is that the abhyāsa stands before a conjunct and so is not itself light, which rules out lengthening. The English reproduces BM's bracket and does not resolve the tension (§16).
commentary BM: aḍuḍhaukat — ḍhaukṛ gatau is ṛ-marked; acīcakāsat — cakāsṛ is ṛ-marked, so no shortening of the penultimate, and sanvadbhāva with lengthening of the abhyāsa [hold] on the view 'the abhyāsa, followed by a light syllable, of the aṅga before ṇi followed by caṅ'; 'matāntare' = on the views 'the aṅga that is doubled' and 'the abhyāsa of the aṅga followed by the light syllable that stands before ṇi followed by caṅ' [— on which acacakāsat]. Followed for the brackets on aḍuḍhaukat and acīcakāsat.
commentary TB (sk.2577.t1): acīcakāsat relies on the view 'the abhyāsa, followed by a light syllable, of the aṅga before ṇi followed by caṅ'; matāntara = the views 'aṅgaṃ yatra dvir ucyate' and 'the abhyāsa of the aṅga followed by the light syllable before ṇi followed by caṅ'. Agrees with BM; followed.
commentary BM on 'aglopīti': the example of the prohibition for an aglopin was given earlier (mā bhavān ūnanat); further examples such as atitirāyat will be stated in the subdhātu section. Followed: the English takes 'aglopīti' as citing the word aglopi of nāglopi… (SK 2572), to be exemplified [further] in the subdhātu section, not as promising the first example.
commentary TB (sk.2577.t1) on 'subdhātuprakaraṇe': atitirāyat, asasadhrāyat, aviviṣvadrāyat, adidevadrāyat and the like will be given there. Agrees with BM; followed.
commentary BM on 'ṇyantāṇ ṇic': cur + svārthe ṇic gives cori; with hetumat ṇic the first ṇi is deleted and corayati is wanted; but vṛddhi, being later (para), would set aside the deletion and give corāyayati; hence: the deletion of ṇi sets aside vṛddhi, by the vārttika 'ṇyallopāv iyaṅyaṇguṇavṛddhidīrghebhyaḥ pūrvavipratiṣedhena', or because it is an apavāda, as set out under kamu kāntau. Followed: '[cori + ṇic]' and the brackets naming the two operations.
commentary TB (sk.2577.t1): 'or because it is an apavāda' is for the view on which the ṇilopa part of the vārttika 'ṇyallopāv iyaṅ…' is rejected (pratyākhyāna). Recorded.
commentary BM on 'na cāglopitvāt…': shortening of the penultimate and lengthening of the abhyāsa are both prescribed 'when ṇi followed by caṅ follows'; taking the first ṇic (by pratyayalakṣaṇa) they are impossible, since the second ṇic separates it from caṅ; taking the second ṇic they are impossible, since its base has undergone deletion of ṇi and is aglopin; answer: in 'caṅpare ṇau' ṇau means the class ṇi-hood residing in one or more ṇic-individuals, so though the pair of ṇis is not followed by caṅ, ṇi-hood is, and shortening and lengthening operate; the Śabdenduśekhara argues that the class-reading is unsound. Followed: '[in ṇau caṅi]' and 'as a class (ākṛti)'.
commentary TB (sk.2577.t1): 'asaṃbhava' — so the form would be acucorat; ṇyākṛtinirdeśa means 'caṅpare ṇitve'; though there are two ṇis, ṇi-hood is followed by caṅ; the sanvadbhāva in avīvadad vīṇāṃ parivādakena is explained the same way. Agrees with BM; followed.
textual Collation (batch06) and scan, NSP p. 429 (page-0439, read): ours 'dhātvapakṣe pare' → print 'dhātvakṣare pare' (so also BM's gloss 'avarṇapare dhātvakṣare', TB's lemma and Wikisource); ours 'nāglepi' → print 'nāglopi–2572'; ours 'nubdhātuprakaraṇe' → print 'subdhātuprakaraṇe' (TB lemma 'subdhātuprakaraṇa iti', Wikisource the same). The English follows the print. Mūla: for Ajai's printed copy.

SK 2579 · A 6.1.31V

णौ च संश्चङोः ॥ २५७९ ॥

ṇau ca saṃścaṅoḥ

ṇau ca saṃścaṅoḥ — And when ṇi [followed] by san or caṅ follows, [saṃprasāraṇa — carried forward (anuvṛtti) — optionally replaces (the semivowel of) śvi — vibhāṣā śveḥ, SK 2420, carried forward (anuvṛtti) as a whole].

Rule. Before a ṇi that is followed by san or by caṅ, saṃprasāraṇa optionally replaces the v of śvi (śvayati). Bhaṭṭoji's gloss: "when ṇi followed by san, or ṇi followed by caṅ, follows, saṃprasāraṇa optionally replaces [the v of] śvi".

The preceding sūtra, vibhāṣā śveḥ (SK 2420), is carried forward whole; it gives "optionally" and "of śvi". Bhaṭṭoji's commentators agree on this. Where the word "saṃprasāraṇa" is carried from, scholars discuss this.

The same words, ṇau ca saṃścaṅoḥ, also form another sūtra of the Aṣṭādhyāyī, A 2.4.51. Bhaṭṭoji teaches that one at SK 2601, for a different root. Keep the two apart by their numbers.

Example.

śvi + ṇic + luṅ → caṅ (SK 2312) → śvi i a t

→ this rule: saṃprasāraṇa, v → u → śui i a t

→ pūrvarūpa (SK 330): u + i → u → śu i a t

→ śu is doubled → śu śu i a t

→ vṛddhi (SK 254) and āv (SK 61) in the second member → śu śāv i a t

→ the ṇi is deleted (SK 2313), the penultimate shortened (SK 2314) → śu śav a t

→ a light a follows the abhyāsa: sanvadbhāva, and the abhyāsa's u is lengthened (SK 2318) → śū śav a t

→ the augment aṭ → aśūśavat.

The other option, without saṃprasāraṇa:

śvi + ṇic + luṅ → śvi i a t

→ doubling comes first, before the vowel-substitute → śvi śvi i a t

→ the abhyāsa keeps only ś (SK 2179) → śi śvi i a t

→ vṛddhi (SK 254) and āy (SK 61) in the second member → śi śvāy i a t

→ the ṇi is deleted (SK 2313), the penultimate shortened (SK 2314) → śi śvay a t

→ the abhyāsa stands before the cluster śv, so it is not light. Bhaṭṭoji: "because it is not light, there is no lengthening"

→ the augment aṭ → aśiśvayat.

Applies when / blocked by. Why does saṃprasāraṇa come before vṛddhi and āy? One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators states the problem. Vṛddhi and āy are inner (antaraṅga) and would normally go first. Then the form would not be aśūśavat. Bhaṭṭoji settles it with a maxim (paribhāṣā): saṃprasāraṇaṃ tadāśrayaṃ ca kāryaṃ balavat, "saṃprasāraṇa, and the operation that depends on it, is stronger". So saṃprasāraṇa and then pūrvarūpa come first.

Bhaṭṭoji's commentators tie the maxim to the sūtra liṭy abhyāsasyobhayeṣām. One says it is stated in the Bhāṣya on that sūtra. The other says it is drawn from the word ubhayeṣām in it, which would otherwise be superfluous. He adds the case it protects: in vavraśca the v of the abhyāsa would otherwise take saṃprasāraṇa.

Watch out. The saṃprasāraṇa is optional. Always give both forms: aśūśavat and aśiśvayat.

Siddhānta-kaumudī

सन्परे चङ्परे च णौ श्वयतेः संप्रसारणं वा स्यात् । [(परिभाषा - ) संप्रसारणं तदाश्रयं च कार्यं बलवद्] इति वचनात् संप्रसारणं पूर्वरूपम् । अशूशवत् । अलघुत्वान्न दीर्घः । अशिश्वयत् ॥

When ṇi followed by san or ṇi followed by caṅ follows, saṃprasāraṇa optionally replaces [the v of] śvi (śvayati). By the statement (paribhāṣā) 'saṃprasāraṇa, and the operation dependent on it, is stronger' (saṃprasāraṇaṃ tadāśrayaṃ ca kāryaṃ balavat), saṃprasāraṇa [and then] pūrvarūpa [take place before vṛddhi and āy]: aśūśavat. [In the other option,] because [the abhyāsa] is not light, there is no lengthening: aśiśvayat.

Bālamanoramā

णौ च संश्चङोः - णौ च संश्चङोः । 'विभाषा श्वेः' इति सूत्रमनुवर्तते ।ष्यङः संप्रसारण॑मिति च । तदाह — सन्पर इत्यादिना । नन्वन्तरङ्गत्वात्संप्रसारणात्पूर्वं वृद्ध्यायादेशयोः कृतयोः पश्चात्संप्रसारणे पूर्वरूपे अशीशवदिति स्यात्, अशूशवदिति न स्यादित्यत आह — संप्रसारण तदाश्रयं चेति । इदं वचनंलिट्यभ्यासस्ये॑ति सूत्रभाष्ये स्थितम् । एवं च अश्वि इ अ त् इत्यत्र वृद्ध्यायादेशाभ्यां प्रागेव वकारस्य संप्रसारणमुकार इति फलितम् । पूर्वरूपमिति । ततश्च शु इत्यस्य द्वित्वे उत्तरखण्डस्य णिचमाश्रित्य वृद्ध्यावादेशयोरुपधाह्रस्वे सन्वत्त्वविषयत्वादभ्यासदीर्घे फलितमाह — अशूशवदिति । संप्रसारणाऽभावपक्षे अशिश्वयदित्यत्र अभ्यासदीर्घमाशङ्क्य आह — अलघुत्वादिति । संयोगपरकत्वादिति भावः । अवपूर्वात्स्तम्भेर्ण्यन्तादवष्टम्भयतीत्यादि ।अवाच्चालम्बनादविदूर्ययो॑रिति षत्वम् । चङि अवातस्तम्भदित्यत्र षत्वे प्राप्ते —

translator notes

commentary BM on this sūtra — begun at the end of sk.2578.b1 ('ṭu o śvi gativṛddhyoḥ … luṅi caṅi aśvi i a t iti sthite viśeṣam āha —') and continued in sk.2579.b1: the sūtra vibhāṣā śveḥ is carried forward (anuvartate), and saṃprasāraṇam from ṣyaṅaḥ saṃprasāraṇam… (SK 1003). Followed: the anuvṛtti brackets in sutra_en.
commentary TB, printed under sk.2577.t1: vibhāṣā śveḥ is carried forward (anuvartate); saṃścaṅoḥ qualifies ṇau; saṃprasāraṇam is carried forward from 'hvaḥ sampra—' (so the print, scan NSP p. 429, page-0439, read; hvaḥ saṃprasāraṇam is 6.1.32, SK 2586), hence 'sanpare caṅpare'. BM names ṣyaṅaḥ saṃprasāraṇam instead. Recorded: sutra_en marks saṃprasāraṇa as carried forward without naming the source sūtra.
translator hvaḥ saṃprasāraṇam (6.1.32) comes after this sūtra (6.1.31), so TB's 'anuvartata eva' cannot describe ordinary forward anuvṛtti from it; this is one reason the English does not name a source sūtra for saṃprasāraṇa.
commentary BM (sk.2579.b1): objection — since vṛddhi and āy are antaraṅga they would come before saṃprasāraṇa, and after saṃprasāraṇa and pūrvarūpa the form would not be aśūśavat; hence the paribhāṣā, stated in the Bhāṣya on liṭy abhyāsasyobhayeṣām; so in śvi i a t the v becomes u by saṃprasāraṇa before vṛddhi and āy; after pūrvarūpa, śu is doubled, vṛddhi and āv of the second member by the ṇic, shortening of the penultimate, and, sanvadbhāva applying, lengthening of the abhyāsa: aśūśavat. In aśiśvayat lengthening is not made because [the abhyāsa] is followed by a conjunct. Followed: '[take place before vṛddhi and āy]' and '[the abhyāsa]'.
commentary TB (sk.2577.t1) on 'vacanāt': this paribhāṣā is obtained from the use of 'ubhayeṣām' in liṭy abhyāsasyobhayeṣām, since the desired result would already follow from the anuvṛtti of vaci etc. and grahi etc.; otherwise in vavraśca, after halādiḥ śeṣaḥ, the v would take saṃprasāraṇa. Recorded.
textual MŪLA CORRECTED (2026-10-05, Ajai against his printed copy): our kaumudī texts of sk2579 and sk2601 (both sūtras read 'ṇau ca saṃścaṅoḥ') were swapped. This unit now carries the print's SK 2579 (6.1.31), NSP p. 429 (scan page-0439): 'sanpare caṅpare ca ṇau śvayateḥ saṃprasāraṇaṃ vā syāt | (pa) saṃprasāraṇaṃ tadāśrayaṃ ca kāryaṃ balavad iti vacanāt … aśiśvayat ||'; Wikisource uttara-2/0099 agrees. BM moved with it: sk.2579.b1 is now BM on 6.1.31 (its head is still at the tail of sk.2578.b1) and ends with the lead-in to SK 2580. TB on this sūtra is printed under sk.2577.t1. The '(pa)' before the paribhāṣā is the print's paribhāṣā sign; ours renders it as a bracketed '(paribhāṣā - )'. Recorded in sources/skk-tei/kaumudi-corrections.json.

SK 2580 · A 8.3.116V

स्तम्भुसिवुसहां चङि ॥ २५८० ॥

stambhusivusahāṃ caṅi

stambhusivusahāṃ caṅi — [A retroflex, ṣ — mūrdhanyaḥ, the governing rule (adhikāra) —] does not [— na carried forward (anuvṛtti) from na raparasṛpisṛjispṛśispṛhisavanādīnām, SK 3168 —] replace the s [— saḥ, a sixth-case word (ṣaṣṭhyanta), carried forward (anuvṛtti) from saheḥ sāḍaḥ saḥ, SK 335 —] of stambh, siv and sah when caṅ follows [— restricted by the vārttika upasarganimittasya pratiṣedhaḥ to ṣ conditioned by an upasarga].

Rule. When caṅ follows, ṣ does not replace the s of stambh, siv and sah, where the conditioning sound stands in an upasarga. Bhaṭṭoji's gloss: "when the conditioning [sound] stands in an upasarga, ṣ does not replace the s of these when caṅ follows".

The limit "in an upasarga" is not in the sūtra's words. One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators says it comes from a vārttika, upasarganimittasya pratiṣedhaḥ, "the prohibition is of [ṣ] conditioned by an upasarga". He also gives the carried words: "not" (na) from SK 3168, taught later; "of s" (saḥ) from SK 335. "A retroflex" is the heading.

Which rules would give the upasarga-ṣ? For siv and sah, SK 2275 (parinivibhyaḥ…), Bhaṭṭoji's commentators say. For stambh, one commentator, the Tattvabodhinī, names SK 2272 (stambheḥ). The other, the Bālamanoramā, names SK 2273 (avāc cālambanāvidūryayoḥ).

Example.

ava + stambh + ṇic + luṅ → ava stambh i a t

→ the ṇi is deleted (SK 2313); the penultimate is a consonant, m, so nothing is shortened

→ doubling; of the cluster st the abhyāsa keeps t (SK 2259) → ava ta stambh a t

→ the a of stambh stands before a cluster, so it is heavy: no sanvadbhāva

→ the augment aṭ, and a + a → ā (SK 85) → avātastambhat

→ SK 2273 would give ṣ after the upasarga ava; this rule blocks it.

In laṭ, by contrast, the ṣ comes: avaṣṭambhayati, one of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators notes.

pari + siv + ṇic + luṅ → siv i a t

→ doubling comes first (SK 2315); the abhyāsa keeps s (SK 2179) → si siv i a t

→ guṇa in the second member (SK 2189) → si sev i a t

→ the ṇi is deleted (SK 2313), the e shortened (SK 2314) → si siv a t

→ a light i follows the abhyāsa: sanvadbhāva (SK 2316); the abhyāsa's i is lengthened (SK 2318) → sī siv a t

→ ṣ for the s after the abhyāsa's ī (SK 212; the commentators' ṣatva) → sī ṣiv a t

→ the augment aṭ, and pari + a → parya (SK 47) → paryasīṣivat.

The ṣ that the abhyāsa conditions still comes. Only the ṣ that pari would bring to the first s is blocked. One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators makes this point.

ni + sah + ṇic + luṅ → sah i a t

→ doubling comes first (SK 2315); the abhyāsa keeps s (SK 2179) → sa sah i a t

→ vṛddhi of the penultimate a in the second member (SK 2282) → sa sāh i a t

→ the ṇi is deleted (SK 2313), the ā shortened (SK 2314) → sa sah a t

→ a light a follows the abhyāsa: sanvadbhāva (SK 2316), i for the abhyāsa's a (SK 2317) → si sah a t

→ the light i is lengthened (SK 2318) → sī sah a t

→ ṣ for the s after the abhyāsa's ī (SK 212; the commentators' ṣatva) → sī ṣah a t

→ the augment aṭ (SK 2206), and ni + a → nya (SK 47) → nyasīṣahat.

The vowel-initial roots. Bhaṭṭoji next gives āṭiṭat (aṭ) and āśiśat (aś). He states a point of order: "the shortening of the penultimate, though bahiraṅga, takes place before doubling itself".

Bahiraṅga means "outer": a rule whose condition lies further out. The shortening needs ṇi followed by caṅ; doubling needs caṅ alone. So, one of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators explains, the shortening is the outer one and would normally wait.

Bhaṭṭoji's proof is a sign (liṅga): the root oṇ is marked with ṛ (oṇṛ). That marker exists to block the shortening by SK 2572. If ṇi were doubled first, the o would no longer stand before ṇi, and the marker would have nothing to block. Bhaṭṭoji's commentators both draw this.

aṭ + ṇic → vṛddhi (SK 2282) → āṭ i; in luṅ:

āṭ i a t → shortening first (SK 2314) → aṭ i a t

→ the second syllable, ṭi, is doubled together with the i of ṇic (SK 2176) → a ṭi ṭi a t

→ the ṇi of the second member is deleted (SK 2313) → aṭiṭ a t

→ the augment āṭ (SK 2254), and ā + a → ā (SK 269) → āṭiṭat.

One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators notes that ṭi is doubled with the ṇic, so there is no sanvadbhāva and no lengthening.

One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators adds why Bhaṭṭoji needs a further example. āṭiṭat and āśiśat come out the same either way, by SK 269. The order shows only with edh:

edh + ṇic + luṅ, with mā → edh i a t

→ shortening first: e becomes i → idh i a t

→ dhi is doubled (SK 2176); the abhyāsa's dh becomes d (SK 2182) → i di dhi a t

→ the ṇi is deleted → ididh a t

→ with mā there is no augment (SK 2228) → mā bhavān ididhat.

Had doubling come first, the e would not have been shortened.

With pra: mā bhavān predidhat. There is no vṛddhi, Bhaṭṭoji says. SK 73 (etyedhatyūṭhsu) is taught for edh beginning with an ec, and idh does not. So pra + i takes plain guṇa (SK 69). One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators adds that doubling is "uttering twice" (dviḥprayoga), as the Bhāṣya settles.

No doubling of n, d, r. By na ndrāḥ saṃyogādayaḥ (SK 2446), an n, d or r at the head of a cluster is not doubled:

und → und i a t → n is not doubled, so di is doubled → un di di a t → undid a t → āṭ and vṛddhi → aundidat;
aḍḍ → only ḍi is doubled → āḍḍiḍat;
arc → only ci is doubled → ārcicat.

For aḍḍ, one of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators says the root's penultimate is really d, made ḍ by a retroflex rule that has not yet taken effect.

ubj. The root ubja "in straightness" has d as its penultimate in upadeśa, Bhaṭṭoji says: udj. The b comes by nipātana: the root appears in the form ubj in the sūtra bhujanyubjau pāṇyupatāpayoḥ (SK 2877). This substitution, though inner, waits until ji has been doubled. Bhaṭṭoji's reason: the root is pronounced with d, and that pronouncing must serve a purpose.

udj + ṇic + luṅ → udj i a t

→ SK 2446 stops the d from being doubled, so only ji is doubled → ud ji ji a t

→ the ṇi is deleted → udjij a t

→ now b for d, by the nipātana → ubjij a t

→ āṭ and vṛddhi → aubjijat.

Without this order, one of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators says, bji would be doubled, giving the wrong aubibjat. The other commentator reports that the vārttika-maker took the root's penultimate differently, and that, with the Bhāṣya, it is taken as d.

Only after an initial vowel. SK 2446 applies only to a root that begins with a vowel (ajādeḥ ity eva). Bhaṭṭoji's commentators explain: ajādeḥ is carried into it from SK 2176. "Not here", says Bhaṭṭoji: adidrapat. The d stands at the head of the root, so the abhyāsa simply keeps it. One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators takes adidravat, from dru, as the intended form, and adidrapat as from drā with puk; scholars discuss this.

Watch out. This rule blocks only the upasarga's ṣ. Do not drop the ṣ that the abhyāsa brings: paryasīṣivat, not paryasīsivat.

Siddhānta-kaumudī

उपसर्गस्थान्निममित्तादेषां सस्य षो न स्याच्चङि । अवातस्तम्भत् । पर्यसीषिवत् । न्यसीषहत् । आटिटत् । आशिशत् । बहिरङ्गोऽप्युपधाह्रस्वोऽद्वित्वात्प्रागेव । ओणेर्ऋदित्करणाल्लिङ्गात् । मा भवानिदिधित् । एजादावेधतौ विधानान्नेह वृद्धिः । मा भवान्प्रेदिधत् । न न्द्राः - SK 2446 इति नदराणां न द्वित्वम् । औन्दिदत् । आड्डिडत् । आर्चिचत् । उब्ज आर्जवे । उपदेशे दकारोपधः । भुजन्युब्जौ पाण्युपतापयोः SK 2877 इति सूत्रे निपातनाद्दस्य वः । स चान्तरङ्गोऽपि द्वित्वविषये न न्द्राः SK 2446 इति निषेधाज्जिशब्दस्य द्वित्वे कृते प्रवर्तते न तु ततः प्राक् । दकारोच्चारणसामर्थ्यात् । औब्जिजत् । अजादेरित्येव । नेह । अदिद्रपत् ॥

When the conditioning [sound] (nimitta) stands in an upasarga, ṣ does not replace the s of these [three] when caṅ follows: avātastambhat [ava + stambh]. paryasīṣivat [pari + siv]. nyasīṣahat [ni + sah; in these two the ṣ conditioned by the abhyāsa still comes]. āṭiṭat [aṭ]. āśiśat [aś]. The shortening of the penultimate, though bahiraṅga, [takes place] before doubling itself, by the indication (liṅga) [given by] the ṛ-marking of oṇ [: oṇṛ]. mā bhavān ididhat [edh]. Because [vṛddhi by etyedhatyūṭhsu, SK 73] is prescribed for edh [only when it] begins with ec, there is no vṛddhi here: mā bhavān predidhat. By na ndrāḥ saṃyogādayaḥ (SK 2446), n, d and r [as first members of a conjunct] are not doubled: aundidat [und]. āḍḍiḍat [aḍḍ]. ārcicat [arc]. ubja — in the sense of straightness (ārjava). In the upadeśa [this root] has d as its penultimate. By the nipātana in the sūtra bhujanyubjau pāṇyupatāpayoḥ (SK 2877), b replaces the d. And that [substitution], though antaraṅga, operates in the domain of doubling [only] after ji has been doubled — [ji being doubled] because of the prohibition [of doubling the d] by na ndrāḥ (SK 2446) — and not before that, by force of [the root's] being pronounced with d: aubjijat. [The prohibition na ndrāḥ applies] only [after] an initial vowel (ajādeḥ ity eva) [— ajādeḥ carried forward (anuvṛtti) from ajāder dvitīyasya, SK 2176]. Not here: adidrapat.

Bālamanoramā

स्तन्भुसिवु ।उपसर्गनिमित्तस्य प्रतिषेध॑ इति वार्तिकम् । न रपरसृपी॑त्यतो नेत्यनुवर्तते । 'सहे साडः सः' इत्यतः स इति षष्ठन्तमनुवर्तते । 'मूर्धन्य' इत्यधिकृतम् । तदाह — उपसर्गनिमित्त इत्यादि । स्तम्भुः सौत्रो धातुः ।षिवु ततन्तुसन्ताने॑ 'षह मर्षणे' पर्यसीषिवत् न्यसीषहदिति ।परिनिविभ्यः सेवे॑त्युपसर्गनिमित्तं षत्वं न । अभ्यासनिमित्तं तु षत्वं भवत्येव । आटिट्त आशिशदिति । आट् इ अ त्, आश् इ अ त् इति स्थितेणौ चङी॑त्युपधाह्रस्वात्प्रागन्तरङ्गत्वा॒चङी॑ति द्वित्वमाशङ्क्याह — बहिरङ्गोऽपीति । उपधाह्रस्वश्चङ्परण्यपेक्षत्वाद्बहिरङ्गः । द्वित्वं तु चङ्मात्रापेक्षत्वादन्तरङ्गम् । अथाऽपि द्वित्वात्प्रागेव उपधाह्रस्व इत्यर्थः । कुत इत्यत आह — ओणेरिति । 'ओणृ अपनयने' इति धातोः ऋदित्करणम् औणिणदित्यत्र नोग्लोपी॑ति उपधाह्रस्वप्रतिषेधार्थम् । यदि तु उपधाह्रस्वात्प्रागेव अन्तरङ्गत्वाद्द्वित्वं स्यात्तदा ओण् इ अ त् इत्यत्रअजादेर्द्वितीयस्ये॑ति णीत्यस्य णिचा सह द्वित्वे सति पश्चादोकारस्य चङ्परे णौ उपधात्वाऽभावादेव ह्रस्वस्याऽप्रसक्तत्वादृदित्करणं व्यर्थं स्यात् ।द्वित्वात्प्रागेव उपधाह्रस्व॑इत्यभ्युपगमे तु ओण् इ अ त् इत्यस्यामवस्थायां प्राप्तस्य ह्रस्वस्य निषेधार्थमृदित्करणमर्थवत् । अतोबहिरङ्गोऽप्युपधाह्रस्वो द्वित्वात् प्रागेवे॑ति विज्ञायते इत्यर्थः । ननु आटिटत् आशिशदिति सिध्यत्येवेति किमनेन ज्ञापनेनेत्यत आह — मा भवानिदिधदिति । एध् इ अ त् इति स्थिते पूर्वं द्वित्वप्रवृत्तौधी॑त्यस्य द्वित्वे पश्चादेकारस्य ह्रस्वो न स्यात्, द्वित्वात्प्रागेव उपधाह्रस्वे तु इध् इ अ त् इति स्थितेधी॑त्यस्य द्वित्वे माङ्योगादाडभावे इदिधदिति इष्टं सिध्यतीत्यर्थः । ननु मा भवान् प्रेदिधदित्यत्र प्र इदिधदिति स्थिते कृतेऽपि ह्रस्वे एकदेशविकृतन्यायेन एधधातुत्वात् 'एत्येधत्यूठ्सु' इति वृद्धिः स्यादित्यत आह — एजादावेधताविति ।अवर्णादेजाद्योरेत्येधत्यो॑रिति व्याख्यातत्वादिति भावः । औन्दिददिति । उन्द् इ अ त् इति स्थितेदी॑त्यस्य द्वित्वमिति भावः । आड्डिडदिति । अड्डधातुर्दोपधः । ष्टुत्वसंपन्नो डकारः । अड्डि अ त् इति स्थिते ष्टुत्वस्याऽसिद्धत्वेन दकारात्परस्यडि॑इत्यस्य द्वित्वमिति भावः । आर्चिददिति । अर्च् इ अ त् इति स्थिते रेफात् परस्यची॑त्यस्य द्वित्वमिति भावः । उब्ज आर्जवे इति । ननु चङिब्जी॑त्यस्य द्वित्वे हलादिशेष#ए औबिब्जदिति रूपं स्यात् । औब्जिजदित्येव द्वित्वमिति भावः । तर्हि दकारः कुतो न श्रुयते इत्यत आह — भुजन्युब्जाविति । ननु द्वित्वात्प्रागन्तरङ्गत्वाद्दकारस्य बकारादेशे सति 'न न्द्रा' इति निषेधस्य कथमिह प्रवृत्तिरित्यत आह — स चेति । ननु 'द्रु गतौ' द्रावयति, चङिद्रु॑इत्यस्य द्वित्वे उत्तरखण्डस्य वृद्ध्यावादेशयोरुपधाह्रस्वेरुआवतिशृणोती॑त्यभ्यासस्य इत्त्वे अदिद्रवदिति इष्यते । तन्नोपपद्यते । 'न न्द्राः' इति दकारस्य द्वित्वनिषेधादित्यत आह — अजादेरित्येवेति । 'न न्द्राः' इत्यत्र अजादेरित्यनुवर्तत एवेत्यर्थः । 'आदिभूतादचः' इति व्याख्यातं प्राक् । ततश्च आदिभूतादचः परा नदरा द्विर्न भवन्तीति फलितम् । नेहेति । प्रकृते आदिभूतादचः परत्वाऽभावान्न दकारद्वित्वनिषेध इत्यर्थः ।अदिद्रप॑दिति पाठे द्राधातोर्णिचि पुकिद्रापी॑त्यस्माद्रूपम् । ननुलावस्थायाम॑डिति पक्षे अचः परत्वमस्त्येवेति चेन्न, 'न न्द्राः' इत्यत्रलिटि धातो॑रित्तो धातोरित्यनुवर्त्त्य धातुसंज्ञाकालिकादादेरचः परा नदरा द्विर्नेति व्याख्यानादित्याहुः ।

translator notes

commentary BM (sk.2580.b1; Wikisource uttara-2/0100–0101 agrees; its lead-in closes our sk.2579.b1): 'upasarganimittasya pratiṣedhaḥ' ('the prohibition is of [ṣ] conditioned by an upasarga') is a vārttika; na is carried forward (anuvartate) from na raparasṛpi…; saḥ, in the sixth case, is carried forward from saheḥ sāḍaḥ saḥ; mūrdhanyaḥ is the governing rule; hence Bhaṭṭoji's 'upasargasthān nimittāt…'. Followed: the three bracketed supplements and the bracketed vārttika restriction in sutra_en.
commentary BM (sk.2580.b1): stambhu is a sūtra-root (sautra); ṣivu tantusantāne, ṣaha marṣaṇe; in paryasīṣivat and nyasīṣahat the upasarga-conditioned ṣ of parinivibhyaḥ… (SK 2275) does not come, but the abhyāsa-conditioned ṣ does. BM's lead-in (sk.2579.b1): from ava + ṇyanta stambh, avaṣṭambhayati with ṣ by avāc cālambanāvidūryayoḥ (SK 2273), and in caṅ ṣ would obtain in avātastambhat. Followed: '[the ṣ conditioned by the abhyāsa still comes]'.
commentary TB, printed under sk.2577.t1: stambhu is sautra; ṣivu tantusantāne, ṣaha marṣaṇe; for stambh [ṣ] would obtain by stambheḥ (SK 2272), for the other two by parinivibhyaḥ… (SK 2275). TB names stambheḥ where BM's lead-in names avāc cālambanāvidūryayoḥ; the English names neither. Recorded.
commentary BM (sk.2580.b1) on 'bahiraṅgo 'pi': in āṭ i a t, doubling by caṅi, being antaraṅga, might be expected before the shortening; the shortening is bahiraṅga since it depends on ṇi followed by caṅ, whereas doubling depends on caṅ alone; yet the shortening comes first, because oṇṛ apanayane is ṛ-marked to block shortening by nāglopi… in auṇiṇat, which would be pointless if ṇi were first doubled with the ṇic (ajāder dvitīyasya), the o then no longer being penultimate before ṇi; āṭiṭat and āśiśat would follow in any case (Wikisource adds: by vṛddhi through āṭaś ca, SK 269; ours lacks the reason), hence the example mā bhavān ididhat: with doubling first, the e of edh would not be shortened; with shortening first, idh, dhi is doubled, and with māṅ there is no āṭ. Followed: 'before doubling itself' and the bracket '[: oṇṛ]'.
commentary TB (sk.2577.t1): in āṭiṭat, āśiśat, since [ṭi, śi] are doubled together with the ṇic, there is no sanvadbhāva, and the lengthening dīrgho laghoḥ prescribed in its domain does not operate; the ṛ-marking is an indication (jñāpaka) because, if doubling came first, the ṇi would be doubled and the shortening could not arise, making the ṛ-marking pointless. Agrees with BM; followed.
commentary BM (sk.2580.b1) on 'ejādāv edhatau': in pra ididhat, even after the shortening, edh would remain edh by the maxim that what is altered in one part is not other (ekadeśavikṛta), and vṛddhi by etyedhatyūṭhsu would follow; but in that sūtra eti and edhati are explained as beginning with ec. Followed: the bracketed rule and '[only when it] begins with ec'.
commentary TB (sk.2577.t1) on 'ejādāv edhatau': the same as BM, adding that doubling is 'double utterance' (dviḥprayoga), as settled in the Bhāṣya. Agrees with BM; followed.
commentary BM (sk.2580.b1): in und i a t, di is doubled; aḍḍ has d as penultimate, the ḍ arising by ṣṭutva, which is asiddha, so ḍi after the d is doubled; in arc i a t, ci after the r is doubled. On ubja: bji would otherwise be doubled, giving aubibjat, whereas aubjijat is wanted; hence 'upadeśe dakāropadhaḥ' — na ndrāḥ blocks doubling of the d, so ji alone is doubled; the d is not heard because of the nipātana; and though d → b is antaraṅga, it waits until after doubling. Followed: the bracketed roots and '[of doubling the d]'.
commentary TB (sk.2577.t1) on ubja: the Vārttikakāra takes it as having the upadhmānīya as penultimate (uḥja), which would give ubjitā, ubjitam, but then ubjijiṣati could not be derived on either order of doubling; hence, with the Bhāṣya, it is taken with d as penultimate, and b for d either by a supposed rule (with ścutva) or by the nipātana bhujanyubjau itself, not doubled with the d because of the pronouncing of d in the root. Agrees with BM on the d-penultimate; followed.
commentary BM (sk.2580.b1) on 'ajāder ity eva': ajādeḥ is carried forward (anuvartate) into na ndrāḥ, so only n, d, r after an initial vowel are not doubled; dru gatau → drāvayati, luṅ adidravat is wanted, and there is no prohibition since the d does not follow an initial vowel; 'on the reading adidrapat, it is the form from drā with ṇic and puk (drāpi)'. BM thus treats adidravat as the form wanted and adidrapat as a variant reading. Recorded; the English keeps adidrapat with ours and the print.
commentary BM (sk.2580.b1, closing): to the objection that, if aṭ is added already at the stage of the lakāra, the d of adidrapat does follow a vowel, the answer is that 'dhātoḥ' is carried forward into na ndrāḥ from liṭi dhātor anabhyāsasya [SK 2177], so that n, d, r are not doubled after the initial vowel of what bears the dhātu designation at the time it applies — 'so they say' (ity āhuḥ). TB makes the same point with 'dvitīyasya'. Recorded; the English brackets only the anuvṛtti of ajādeḥ, which both name.
commentary TB (sk.2577.t1): ajādeḥ is carried forward (anuvartate) in na ndrāḥ, so only n, d, r following an initial vowel are not doubled; to the objection that, if aṭ is added already at the stage of the lakāra, adidrapat would begin with a vowel, it answers that dvitīyasya too is carried forward, so that ajāditva is judged at the time the dhātu designation applies. Followed: the anuvṛtti bracket.
textual Collation (batch06) and scan, NSP p. 429 (page-0439, read): ours 'upasargasthān nimamittād' → print 'upasargasthān nimittād'; ours 'mā bhavān ididhit' → print 'mā bhavān ididhat' (so Wikisource and BM's lemma 'mā bhavān ididhad iti'). The English follows the print. Mūla: for Ajai's printed copy.
textual Ours and the print read 'nipātanād dasya vaḥ' ('v for d'); Wikisource reads 'dasya baḥ', and the form aubjijat (ours, print) has b. The English gives b, as the form requires; the transmitted va is recorded here (possibly the b/v alternation).
textual Neighbour-filed commentary: this unit has no TB block in our source.json; TB on it is printed under sk.2577.t1 (from 'stambhusivu—' through 'ajāder ity eveti'). BM on it is sk.2580.b1, re-filed 2026-10-05 from sk.2361.b1 (p44), where it stood under the label of sadiṣvañjoḥ parasya liṭi; its lead-in, 'caṅi avātastambhad ity atra ṣatve prāpte —', ends sk.2579.b1, part of the BM swap noted under sk2579. The BM notes above, first read in Wikisource uttara-2/0100–0101, have been checked against sk.2580.b1 and agree with it, except where marked (āṭaś ca); the closing objection on the lakāra-stage aṭ is in sk.2580.b1 and is recorded separately. Nothing in it calls for a change to sutra_en or k1.

SK 2581 · A 7.1.63V

रभेरशब्लिटोः ॥ २५८१ ॥

rabheraśabliṭoḥ

rabher aśabliṭoḥ — [The augment num — carried forward (anuvṛtti) from idito num dhātoḥ, SK 2262 —] is added to rabh [when a vowel-initial affix follows — aci carried forward (anuvṛtti) from radhijabhor aci, SK 2302 —], but not when śap or liṭ [follows].

Rule. The augment num is added to rabh before a vowel-initial affix, but not before śap or liṭ. Num is carried forward from SK 2262 (idito num dhātoḥ), and "before a vowel" (aci) from SK 2302. Bhaṭṭoji's commentators give both.

Example.

rabh + ṇic: ṇic begins with a vowel, and it is neither śap nor liṭ

→ this rule: num, its n placed after the root's last vowel (SK 37) → ranbh-i

→ n before bh becomes anusvāra (SK 123), and the anusvāra becomes m, the nasal of bh's class (SK 124) → rambh-i

→ after num the penultimate is m, so SK 2282 does not lengthen the a.

Bhaṭṭoji gives the aorist under the next sūtra: ararambhat.

Applies when / blocked by. One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators gives the counter-examples. Not before a vowel: ārabdham. Before śap: rabhate. Before liṭ: rebhe.

Watch out. Num is an augment, not a substitute: nothing of rabh is replaced. It adds n after the root's vowel; the sandhi steps above turn that n into m.

Siddhānta-kaumudī

रभेर्नुम् स्यादचि न तु शब्लिटोः ॥

num is added to rabh when a vowel [-initial affix] follows, but not when śap or liṭ [follows].

Tattvabodhinī

NSP p. 440

—रभेरशब्लिटोः । ‘रधि-जभोः—’ इत्यतोऽचीति ‘इदितः’ इत्यतो नुमिति चानुवर्तते । अचि किम् । आरब्धम् । अशब्लिटोः किम् । रभते । रेभे

Bālamanoramā

रभेरशब्लिटोः - रभेरशब्लिटोः ।इदितो नुम्धातोरित्यतो नुमिति ।रधिजभोरची॑त्यतोऽचीति चानुवर्तते । तदाह — रभेर्नुमित्यादि ।

translator notes

commentary BM: num is carried forward (anuvartate) from idito num dhātoḥ, and aci from radhijabhor aci; hence 'rabher num…'. Followed: both anuvṛttis in sutra_en.
commentary TB: the same two anuvṛttis; counter-examples: aci kim? ārabdham; aśabliṭoḥ kim? rabhate, rebhe. Agrees with BM; followed.

SK 2582 · A 7.1.64V

लभेश्च ॥ २५८२ ॥

labheśca

labheś ca — And [num is added] to labh [when a vowel-initial affix other than śap and liṭ follows — carried forward (anuvṛtti) from rabher aśabliṭoḥ, SK 2581].

Rule. Labh likewise takes num before a vowel-initial affix other than śap and liṭ. The rest is carried from SK 2581. One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators says Bhaṭṭoji gives no gloss because the meaning is clear.

Example.

rambh-i + luṅ → rambh i a t

→ the ṇi is deleted (SK 2313); there is no long penultimate to shorten → rambh a t

→ doubling → ra rambh a t

→ after num the a of rambh is followed by a cluster, so it is not light: no sanvadbhāva

→ the abhyāsa keeps a, and is not lengthened

→ the augment aṭ → ararambhat.

Likewise alalambhat from labh.

One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators says "no sanvadbhāva" of ararambhat; it holds equally for alalambhat.

Applies when / blocked by. Why a separate sūtra for labh? One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators says the rule is split off (yogavibhāga) so that labh alone, not rabh, continues into the next rule, āṅo yi.

Recalled: SK 2531, her acaṅi. That rule gives a velar for the h of hi after an abhyāsa, "but not before caṅ". So before caṅ there is no velar (kutva):

hi + ṇic + luṅ → hi i a t → hi is doubled first → hi hi i a t

→ the abhyāsa's h becomes j (SK 2245, 2182) → ji hi i a t

→ vṛddhi and āy in the second member → ji hāy i a t

→ the ṇi is deleted, the penultimate shortened → ji hay a t

→ sanvadbhāva and lengthening → jī hay a t

→ no gh, by acaṅi → ajīhayat.

Recalled: SK 2566, at smṛdṝtvaraprathamradastṝspaśām. This rule puts a in the abhyāsa of seven roots before caṅ.

smṛ + ṇic + luṅ → smṛ i a t

→ doubling comes first (SK 2315) → smṛ smṛ i a t

→ a for the abhyāsa's ṛ (SK 2244), and only the first consonant kept (SK 2179) → sa smṛ i a t

→ vṛddhi in the second member (SK 254), with r following → sa smār i a t

→ the ṇi is deleted (SK 2313), the penultimate shortened (SK 2314) → sa smar a t

→ sanvadbhāva would give i (SK 2317); SK 2566 gives a instead

→ the augment aṭ → asasmarat. Likewise adadarat from dṝ.

Bhaṭṭoji adds: "here, by force of the t-marking of at, there is no lengthening of the light vowel". At with t names only short a. One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators takes "here" with adadarat. In asasmarat the abhyāsa stands before the cluster sm and is not light anyway. He adds the other roots' forms: atatvarat, apaprathat, amamradat, atastarat, apaspaśat.

Watch out. Num changes the weight of the syllable. Rabh has a light a; rambh has a heavy one. That one change removes sanvadbhāva.

Siddhānta-kaumudī

अररम्भत् । अललम्भत् । हेरचङि - SK 2531 इति सूत्रे अचङीत्युक्तेः कुत्वं न । अजीहयत् । अत्स्मृदॄत्वरप्रथम्रदस्तॄस्पशाम् SK 2566 । असस्मरत् । अददरत् । तपरत्वसामर्थ्यादत्र लघोर्न दीर्घः ॥

ararambhat [rabh; after num the a is followed by a conjunct and is not light, so there is no sanvadbhāva; so also with labh]. alalambhat [labh]. Because 'acaṅi' ('not when caṅ follows') is stated in the sūtra her acaṅi (SK 2531), there is no velar substitution (kutva) [of the h of hi]: ajīhayat. at smṛdṝtvaraprathamradastṝspaśām (SK 2566) [— a for the abhyāsa]: asasmarat [smṛ]. adadarat [dṝ]. Here, by force of the t-marking (taparatva) [of at], there is no lengthening of the light [vowel].

Tattvabodhinī

NSP p. 440

—लभेश्च । योगविभागः ‘आङो यि’ इत्यत्र लभेरेवानुवृत्तिर्यथा स्यादिति

Bālamanoramā

लभेश्च - लभेश्च । लभेरपि नुम् स्यादचि, नतु शब्लिटोरित्यर्थस्य स्पष्टत्वादनुक्तिः । अररम्भदिति । नुमि कृते संयोगपरत्वेन अकारस्य लघुत्वाऽभावान्न सन्वत्त्वमिति भावः ।हि गतौ वृद्धौ चे॑त्यस्माच्चङिअजीहय॑दित्यत्रहेरचङी॑ति हकारस्य कुत्वं नेत्याह — हेरचङीति ।अत्स्मृदृत्वरे॑ति सूत्रं चुरादौ 'प्रथ प्रख्याने' इति धातौ व्याख्यातम् । असस्मरदिति । अत्र 'सन्यतः' इतीत्त्वे प्राप्ते अत्त्वम् । अत एव ज्ञापकादनेकहल्व्यवधानेऽपि लघुपरत्वमित्युक्तं प्राक् । संयोगपरत्वेन लघुत्वाऽभावान्नाऽभ्यासदीर्घः । अददरदिति । 'दृ विदारणे' इत्यस्य रूपम् । अत्रापि 'सन्यतः' इत्यस्यापवादोऽयम् । दीर्घमाशङ्क्याह — तपरत्वसामर्थ्यादिति । अतत्वरत् । अपप्रथत् । अमम्रदत् । अतस्तरत् । अपस्पशत् ।

translator notes

commentary BM: 'labher api num syād aci, na tu śabliṭoḥ' — the meaning is not stated [by Bhaṭṭoji] because it is clear. Followed: the bracketed anuvṛtti in sutra_en.
commentary TB: the rule is split off (yogavibhāga) so that only labh, [not rabh,] continues into āṅo yi. Recorded.
commentary BM: ararambhat — after num the a, followed by a conjunct, is not light, so there is no sanvadbhāva; ajīhayat is from hi gatau vṛddhau ca, where her acaṅi withholds kutva of the h; at smṛdṝtvara… was explained under the curādi root pratha; in asasmarat a replaces the i that sanyataḥ would give, and there is no lengthening of the abhyāsa because it is followed by a conjunct; adadarat is from dṝ vidāraṇe, where too [at] is an exception to sanyataḥ, and lengthening is anticipated and answered by 'taparatvasāmarthyāt'; further forms: atatvarat, apaprathat, amamradat, atastarat, apaspaśat. Followed: the brackets on ararambhat, ajīhayat and the roots; 'Here' is taken with adadarat, as BM does.
translator The bracket on ararambhat is BM's remark on that form; its closing 'so also with labh' extends it to alalambhat, to which it applies equally (BM does not say so). '[— a for the abhyāsa]' states the operation of the cited sūtra (SK 2566), which the kaumudī names without restating.

SK 2583 · A 7.4.96V

विभाषा वेष्टिचेष्ट्योः ॥ २५८३ ॥

vibhāṣā veṣṭiceṣṭyoḥ

vibhāṣā veṣṭiceṣṭyoḥ — Optionally, for [the abhyāsa — abhyāsasya carried forward (anuvṛtti) from atra lopo 'bhyāsasya, SK 2620 — of] veṣṭ and ceṣṭ, [a — at carried forward (anuvṛtti) from at smṛdṝtvaraprathamradastṝspaśām, SK 2566 — is substituted when (ṇi, understood from the sense,) followed by caṅ — caṅpare carried forward (anuvṛtti) from sanvallaghuni caṅpare 'naglope, SK 2316 — follows].

Rule. For veṣṭ and ceṣṭ, a optionally replaces the vowel of the abhyāsa before a ṇi followed by caṅ. Bhaṭṭoji's gloss: "a is optionally substituted for the abhyāsa when ṇi followed by caṅ follows".

One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators gives the carried words: "of the abhyāsa" from SK 2620, taught later; "a" (at) from SK 2566; "followed by caṅ" (caṅpare) from SK 2316. "Ṇi" is understood from the sense.

Example.

veṣṭ + ṇic + luṅ → veṣṭ i a t

→ the ṇi is deleted (SK 2313); the penultimate is a consonant, so nothing is shortened → veṣṭ a t

→ doubling; the abhyāsa keeps v and a short vowel, i (SK 2180) → vi veṣṭ a t

→ the e of veṣṭ is a long vowel, so the syllable is heavy: no sanvadbhāva

→ this rule, optionally: a for the abhyāsa's vowel → va veṣṭ a t

→ the augment aṭ → avaveṣṭat or aviveṣṭat.

Likewise acaceṣṭat or aciceṣṭat.

Recalled: SK 2565, bhrājabhāsa…. By that rule the shortening is optional for bhrāj:

with shortening: bhrāj i a t → bhraj a t → ba bhraj a t (SK 2179, 2182) → a light a follows, so sanvadbhāva: bi bhraj a t → the abhyāsa stands before the cluster bhr, so no lengthening → abibhrajat;
without: ba bhrāj a t → a heavy ā follows, so no sanvadbhāva → ababhrājat.

One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators explains the i and the absence of lengthening in abibhrajat.

Vārttika: kāṇyādīnāṃ veti vaktavyam. "It should be stated that for kāṇi and the rest it is optional." One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators supplies what is optional: the shortening of SK 2314.

Bhaṭṭoji lists the roots:

the Bhāṣya gives six, all ṇic-final: kaṇa, raṇa, bhaṇa, śraṇa, lupa and heṭha;
the Nyāsa adds four: hvāyi, vāṇi, loṭi and lopi;
"vāṇi and loṭhi, too, elsewhere";
"thus twelve".

Vāṇi already stands among the Nyāsa's four, so which two roots the last line names, scholars discuss this.

kaṇ + ṇic → vṛddhi of the penultimate a (SK 2282) → kāṇi; luṅ kāṇ i a t → the ṇi is deleted (SK 2313) → kāṇ a t

with the shortening (SK 2314): kaṇ a t → ka kaṇ a t → sanvadbhāva: i (SK 2317), lengthened (SK 2318) → kī kaṇ a t → the k of the abhyāsa becomes c (SK 2245) → acīkaṇat;
without: ka kāṇ a t → a heavy ā follows, so no sanvadbhāva → ca kāṇ a t → acakāṇat.

Watch out. Two different options sit in this section. SK 2583 makes the abhyāsa vowel optional. The vārttika makes the shortening of the stem optional. Do not mix them.

Siddhānta-kaumudī

अभ्यासस्यात्वं वा स्याच्चङ्परे णौ । अववेष्टत् । अविवेष्टत् । अचचेष्टत् । अचिचेष्टत् । भ्राजभास-SK 2565 इत्यादिनावोपधाह्रस्वः । अबिभ्रजत् । अबभ्राजत् ।

a is optionally substituted for the abhyāsa [of veṣṭ and ceṣṭ] when ṇi followed by caṅ follows: avaveṣṭat, aviveṣṭat. acaceṣṭat, aciceṣṭat. By [the rule beginning] bhrājabhāsa- (bhrājabhāsabhāṣadīpajīvamīlapīḍām anyatarasyām, SK 2565), the shortening of the penultimate is optional: abibhrajat [with shortening: the abhyāsa takes i through sanvadbhāva, but is not lengthened, being followed by a conjunct]. ababhrājat.

vārttika

काण्यादीनां वेति वक्तव्यम्

(vārttika) kāṇyādīnāṃ veti vaktavyam — 'It should be stated that for kāṇi and the rest [the shortening of the penultimate] is optional.'

(वार्तिकम्) ॥ ण्यन्ताः कणरणभणश्रणलुपहेठाः काण्यादयः षड्भाष्ये उक्ताः । ह्वायिवाणिलोटिलोपयश्चत्वारोऽधिका न्यासे । वाणिलोठी अप्यन्यत्र । इत्थं द्वादश । अचीकणत् । अचकाणत् ॥

The six ṇyanta [roots] kaṇa, raṇa, bhaṇa, śraṇa, lupa and heṭha are stated in the Bhāṣya as kāṇi and the rest (kāṇyādayaḥ). Four more, hvāyi, vāṇi, loṭi and lopi, [are given] in the Nyāsa. vāṇi and loṭhi, too, elsewhere. Thus twelve. acīkaṇat, acakāṇat.

Tattvabodhinī

alignment inferredNSP p. 440

—काण्यादीनामिति । कण निमीलने । रण शब्दे । भण शब्दे । श्रण दाने । लुप्लृ छेदने । हिठ विबाधायाम् । षट् । ह्वेञ् स्पर्धायां शब्दे च । वण शब्दे । लुट प्रतिघाते । लुप्लृ छेदने । लोपीति णिजन्तनिर्देशः । लापय इति पाठान्तरे लप व्यक्तायां वाचि । केचित्तु लपहेठ इति पठन्ति । न्यासे चत्वारः । श्रण दाने । लुठ स्तेये । भ्वादिः । चुरादौ दण्डकपाठे भाषार्थकोऽपि । अरीर-णत् । अरराणत् । अबीभणत् । अबभाणत् । अशिश्रणत् । अशश्राणत् । अलूलुपत् । अलुलोपत् । अजीहिठत् । अजि-हेठत्

Bālamanoramā

विभाषा वेष्टिचेष्ट्योः - विभाषा वेष्टिचेष्ट्योः । 'अत्र लोपः' इत्यस्मादभ्यासस्येत्यनुवर्तते । 'अत्स्मृदृत्वरे' त्यतोऽदिति,सन्वल्लघुनी॑इत्यतश्चङ्परे इति । चङ् परो यस्मादिति बहुव्रीहिः । णावित्यार्थिकम् । तदाह — अभ्यासस्याऽत्त्वमिति । अबिभ्रजदिति । उपधाह्रस्वपक्षे लघुपरत्वात्सन्वत्त्वादभ्यासस्य इत्त्वम् ।दीर्घो लघो॑रिति तु न, संयोगापरत्वादलघुत्वात् । काण्यादीनां वेति ।णौ चङ्युपधाया इति ह्रस्व॑ इति शेषः । ण्यन्ताः कणरणेति । 'कण निमीलने'रण शब्दे॑, 'भण शब्दे'श्रण दाने॑,लुप छेदने॑,हेठ विबाधाया॑मिति षट् धातवो ण्यन्ताः काण्यादयो भाष्ये पठिता इत्यर्थः । ह्वायीति ।ह्वेञ् स्पर्धायां शब्दे च॑ । आत्त्वे युकि च निर्देशः । 'वण शब्दे' दन्त्योष्ठ्यादिः,लुठ प्रतिघाते॑टवर्गद्वितीयोपधः,लप व्यक्तायां वाचि॑ति चत्वारो ण्यन्ता भाष्योक्तेभ्योऽधिका न्यासग्रन्थे पठिता इत्यर्थः । चाणिलोटी इति । 'चण दाने' तालव्यादिः । 'लुट स्तेये' टवर्गप्रथमान्तो भ्वादिः । चुरादौ भाषार्थकोऽपि । एतावपि ण्यन्तौ द्वौ भाष्यन्यासग्रन्थाभ्यामन्यत्र क्वचिद्ग्रन्थे पठितावित्यर्थः । इत्थं द्वादशेति । अनेन मतभेदेन काण्यादयो द्वादशेत्यर्थः । अचीकणदिति । उपधाह्रस्वपक्षे लघुपरत्वात्सन्वत्त्वदीर्घौ च । अचकाणदिति । उपधाह्रस्वाऽभावपक्षे रूपम् । अरीरणत्- अरराणत् । अबीभणत्- अबभाणत् ।अशिश्रणत्- अशश्राणत् । अलूलुपत्-अलुलोपत् । अजीहिठत्-अजिहेठत् । अजूहवत्-अजुहावत् । अवीवणत्- अववाणत् । अलूलुठत् - अलुलोठत् । अलीलपत्- अललापत् । अचीचणत्- अचचाणत् । अलूलुटत्- अलुलोटत् ।

translator notes

commentary BM: abhyāsasya is carried forward (anuvartate) from atra lopo 'bhyāsasya, at from at smṛdṝtvara…, and caṅpare from sanvallaghuni…; caṅpare is a bahuvrīhi ('that which caṅ follows'); ṇau is understood from the sense (ārthikam). Followed: the three anuvṛttis and '(ṇi, understood from the sense,)' in sutra_en.
commentary BM on abibhrajat: in the option with shortening, the abhyāsa is followed by a light syllable, so i comes through sanvadbhāva; but dīrgho laghoḥ does not apply, since [the abhyāsa] is followed by a conjunct and is not light. Followed for the bracket.
commentary BM on kāṇyādīnāṃ vā: 'ṇau caṅy upadhāyā hrasvaḥ' is to be supplied (iti śeṣaḥ). Followed: '[the shortening of the penultimate]'.
commentary BM: the Bhāṣya's six are kaṇa nimīlane, raṇa śabde, bhaṇa śabde, śraṇa dāne, lupa chedane, heṭha vibādhāyām, as ṇyanta; the Nyāsa's four are hvāyi (hveñ, cited with ā and the augment), vaṇa śabde (with dental-labial v), luṭha pratighāte (with ṭh) and lapa vyaktāyāṃ vāci; the two found 'elsewhere' are glossed under the lemma 'cāṇiloṭī' as caṇa dāne (palatal-initial) and luṭa steye (with ṭ, bhvādi, and in curādi also meaning speech); 'itthaṃ dvādaśa' = twelve according to the differing views; acīkaṇat in the option with shortening (sanvadbhāva and lengthening), acakāṇat without. Recorded: BM's lemma differs from the kaumudī's 'vāṇiloṭhī' (see the textual note); the English keeps the transmitted names.
commentary TB (read on the scan, NSP p. 430, page-0440): the six are kaṇa nimīlane, raṇa śabde, bhaṇa śabde, śraṇa dāne, lupḷ chedane, hiṭha vibādhāyām; the Nyāsa's four are hveñ, vaṇa śabde, luṭa pratighāte and lupḷ chedane — 'lopi' being a ṇic-final citation, with a variant reading lāpaya (lapa vyaktāyāṃ vāci), and some reading 'lapaheṭha'; after 'nyāse catvāraḥ' it glosses the further pair as 'śraṇa dāne' and 'luṭha steye | bhvādiḥ | in the curādi daṇḍaka also meaning speech' — wording parallel to BM's caṇa dāne and luṭa steye, TB differs from BM on lopi (lup, not lap) and on the Nyāsa's loṭi (luṭa, not luṭha). Recorded; the English keeps the transmitted names.
translator TB's gloss of the further pair is worded in parallel with BM's caṇa dāne and luṭa steye, so TB too evidently takes the pair as other than vāṇi and loṭhi. Its 'śraṇa dāne' (so the print, scan page-0440, read; not an OCR error) repeats one of the Bhāṣya's six and is probably a misprint for caṇa.
textual MŪLA — our text and the print (NSP p. 430, scan page-0440, read) both read 'vāṇiloṭhī apy anyatra'. BM glosses the pair under the lemma 'cāṇiloṭī' as caṇa dāne and luṭa steye; TB's parallel gloss (printed 'śraṇa dāne', 'luṭha steye') likewise names roots other than vāṇi; and Wikisource's kaumudī reads ''cāṇiloṭī' ity apy anyatra'. Since vāṇi is already among the Nyāsa's four, the transmitted reading does not yield two new roots for the count of twelve; cāṇiloṭī is probably right. The English keeps the transmitted names. For Ajai's printed copy.
textual Our k3 opens with '(vārttikam)', an editorial tag; the print marks 'kāṇyādīnāṃ veti vaktavyam' (our k2) with a sign before it and continues Bhaṭṭoji's prose without a tag (NSP p. 430, page-0440). Dropped from the English; the vārttika is labelled in k2. The print also has '(ca)' after 'hvāyivāṇiloṭilopa-', an editorial variant marker (collation batch06, class V); ours and Wikisource lack it.

SK 2584 · A 6.1.18V

स्वापेश्चङि ॥ २५८४ ॥

svāpeścaṅi

svāpeś caṅi — [saṃprasāraṇa — carried forward (anuvṛtti) from ṣyaṅaḥ saṃprasāraṇaṃ putrapatyos tatpuruṣe, SK 1003 — replaces (the semivowel of)] svāpi when caṅ follows.

Rule. Saṃprasāraṇa replaces the v of svāpi, the ṇic-final of svap, when caṅ follows. "Saṃprasāraṇa" is carried forward from SK 1003, one of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators says.

Example.

svap + ṇic → vṛddhi of the penultimate a (SK 2282) → svāpi; in luṅ:

svāp i a t → this rule: saṃprasāraṇa, v → u, first, by the maxim of SK 2579 → suāp i a t

→ doubling, with pūrvarūpa (SK 330): u + ā → u → su sup i a t

→ the ṇi is deleted (SK 2313) → su sup a t

→ a light u follows the abhyāsa: sanvadbhāva, and the abhyāsa's u is lengthened (SK 2318) → sū sup a t

→ ṣ for the s after the abhyāsa's ū (SK 212; the commentators' ṣatva), as in liṭ suṣvāpa → sū ṣup a t

→ the augment aṭ → asūṣupat.

This is the order one of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators gives: saṃprasāraṇa, then doubling, pūrvarūpa, sanvadbhāva with lengthening, and ṣ.

Applies when / blocked by. Bhaṭṭoji's commentators stress that the doubling comes after the saṃprasāraṇa. One of them gives the counter-example for "when caṅ follows": svāpayati, with no change.

Watch out. Unlike SK 2579, this rule is not optional, and it names only caṅ, not san.

Siddhānta-kaumudī

ण्यन्तस्य स्वापेश्चङि संप्रसारणं स्यात् । असूषुपत् ॥

saṃprasāraṇa replaces [the v of] svāpi, the ṇyanta [of svap], when caṅ follows: asūṣupat [saṃprasāraṇa first, then doubling, pūrvarūpa, sanvadbhāva with lengthening of the abhyāsa, and ṣ].

Tattvabodhinī

NSP p. 440–441

—स्वापेश्चङि । चडि किम् । स्वापयति ॥—असूषुपदिति । इह संप्रसारणोत्तरं द्वित्वम् ॥—शाच्छासा—। शो तनूकरणे । छो छेदने । षोऽन्तकर्मणि । ह्वेञ् स्पर्धायाम् । व्येञ् संवरणे । वेञ् तन्तुसंताने । पा पाने । ‘लुग्विकरणालुग्विकरण—’ इति परिभाषया पा रक्षणे इति नेह गृह्यते । तस्य तु पालयतीति रूपमनुपदं वक्ष्यति । शाययति । अशीशयत् । छाययति । अचिच्छयत् । साययति । असीषयत् । ह्वाययति । अविह्वयत् । व्याययति । अविव्ययत् । वाययति । अवीवयत् । पाययति । अपीपयत् । इह शाच्छासादीनां कृतात्वानां निर्देशः पुकः प्राप्तिं ध्वनयितुम् । तत्प्रयोजनं त्वस्मिन्प्रकरणे लक्षणप्रतिपदोक्तपरिभाषाया अप्रवृत्तिः । तेन ध्यापयति, कापयतीत्यादि सिद्धम्

Bālamanoramā

स्वापेश्चङि - स्वापेश्चङि । संप्रसारणमिति ।ष्यङः संप्रसारण॑मित्यतस्तदनुवृत्तेरिति भावः । असूषुपदिति । संप्रसारणं तदाश्रयं च कार्यं बलव॑दिति वचनात्कृते संप्रसारणेद्वित्वं पूर्वरूपं सन्वत्त्वदीर्घौ षत्वमिति भावः ।

translator notes

commentary BM: 'saṃprasāraṇam' — because it is carried forward (anuvṛtti) from ṣyaṅaḥ saṃprasāraṇam…. Followed: the anuvṛtti bracket in sutra_en.
commentary BM on asūṣupat: by the statement 'saṃprasāraṇaṃ tadāśrayaṃ ca kāryaṃ balavat', once saṃprasāraṇa is made, [there follow] doubling, pūrvarūpa, sanvadbhāva and lengthening, and ṣatva. Followed for the bracket.
commentary TB: caṅi kim? svāpayati; in asūṣupat doubling comes after saṃprasāraṇa. Agrees with BM; followed.

SK 2585 · A 7.3.37V

शाच्छासाह्वाव्यावेपां युक् ॥ २५८५ ॥

śācchāsāhvāvyāvepāṃ yuk

śācchāsāhvāvyāvepāṃ yuk — The augment yuk is added to śā, chā, sā, hvā, vyā, ve and pā [when ṇi follows — supplied to complete the rule (śeṣa), as the kaumudī states].

Rule. The augment yuk is added to śā, chā, sā, hvā, vyā, ve and pā when ṇi follows. Bhaṭṭoji supplies "when ṇi follows", which the sūtra leaves unstated. He adds that yuk is an exception (apavāda) to puk.

One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators identifies the roots. Śo, cho, ṣo, hveñ and vyeñ are cited with their ā already made (SK 2370). Veñ "to weave" and pā "to drink" are the other two. The k of yuk is a marker and the u is for pronunciation. Being marked with k, the y is added at the end of the root.

Example.

śo → ā for the o in upadeśa (SK 2370) → śā

→ śā + ṇic → puk (SK 2570) would add p; this rule adds y instead → śāy-i

→ laṭ, tip, śap, guṇa of i, and ay (SK 2167, 2168, 61) → śāyayati.

Likewise hvāyayati.

One commentator, the Tattvabodhinī, gives aorists for these roots: aśīśayat, acicchayat, asīṣayat, avivyayat, avīvayat, and, for pā, apīpayat. Bhaṭṭoji's own aorist of pā, under SK 2587, is apīpyat.

Applies when / blocked by. Pā here is pā "to drink", not pā "to protect". Bhaṭṭoji's commentators explain by a maxim. Where a root with luk of its class-sign and one without could both be meant, the one without is taken. Pā "to protect" is such a root: its class-sign is lost. Its form, pālayati, comes under SK 2589.

One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators makes a further point. The roots are cited with ā already made. That shows that puk would otherwise apply to an ā made by a rule. So in this section the maxim lakṣaṇapratipadokta does not operate. That maxim prefers a form named directly to one made by a rule. Hence dhyāpayati and kāpayati, with puk.

Watch out. Hvā takes yuk in laṭ (hvāyayati) but not in the aorist, where SK 2586 removes hvā first (ajūhavat).

Siddhānta-kaumudī

णौ परे । पुकोऽपवादः । शाययति । ह्वाययति ॥

When ṇi follows. [yuk] is an exception (apavāda) to puk [prescribed for ā-final roots by artihrī… puk ṇau, SK 2570]. śāyayati. hvāyayati.

Bālamanoramā

शाच्छासाह्वाव्यावेपां युक् - शाच्छासा ।शो तनूकरणे,छो छेदने॑,षो अन्तकर्मणि,ह्वेञ् स्पर्धायां शब्दे च॑,व्येञ् संवरणे॑, एषां कृतात्त्वनिर्देशः । 'वेञ् तन्तुसंताने'पा पाने भ्वादिः । एषां द्वन्द्वात्षष्ठीबहुवचनम् । णौ परे इति । शेषपूरणमिदम् । आदन्तलक्षणपुकोऽपवादः । युकि ककार इत् । उकार उच्चारणार्थः । कित्त्वादन्तागमः । अत्रलुग्विकरणाऽलुग्विकरणयोरलुग्विकरणस्य ग्रहण॑मिति वचनात् 'पा रक्षणे' इति न गृह्यते । तस्यतु पालयतीति रूपमनुपदमेव वक्ष्यति । शाययतीति । लुङि अशीशयत् । छाययतीति । अचिच्छयत् । साययतीति । असीषयत् । ह्वाययतीति । लुङि तु विशेषो वक्ष्यते । व्याययतीति । अविव्ययत् । वाययति । अवीवयत् । पाययति । लुङि तु विशेषो वक्ष्यते ।

translator notes

commentary BM: the roots are śo tanūkaraṇe, cho chedane, ṣo antakarmaṇi, hveñ spardhāyāṃ śabde ca and vyeñ saṃvaraṇe, cited with ā already made (kṛtātva), and veñ tantusantāne and pā pāne of the bhvādi class; the compound is a dvandva, a sixth-case word (ṣaṣṭhyanta) in the plural; 'ṇau pare' completes what is left unstated (śeṣapūraṇa); yuk is an exception to the puk taught for ā-final roots; its k is it and the u is for pronunciation, and being k-marked it is added at the end; pā rakṣaṇe is not taken, by the statement that of a luk-vikaraṇa and an aluk-vikaraṇa root the aluk-vikaraṇa one is taken — its form pālayati is given shortly. Followed: the root list in sutra_en, '[when ṇi follows — supplied…]' and '[prescribed for ā-final roots]'.
commentary TB, printed under sk.2584.t1: the same roots (śo, cho, ṣo, hveñ, vyeñ, veñ, pā pāne; pā rakṣaṇe excluded by the luk-/aluk-vikaraṇa paribhāṣā, its form pālayati to follow); forms śāyayati aśīśayat, chāyayati acicchayat, sāyayati asīṣayat, hvāyayati, [a]vivyayat, vāyayati avīvayat, pāyayati apīpayat; the roots are cited with ā already made to signal that puk would [otherwise] obtain, the point being that in this section the paribhāṣā on lakṣaṇa- and pratipadokta forms does not apply — hence dhyāpayati, kāpayati. Agrees with BM on puk; the further point is recorded.
translator BM calls 'ṇau pare' a completion of what is left unstated (śeṣapūraṇa) and names no source sūtra. ṇau does stand in artihrīvlīrīknūyīkṣmāyyātāṃ puk ṇau (SK 2570), whose puk this rule sets aside, which may be where the completion comes from; this is an inference, not BM's statement.
textual Collation (batch06), NSP p. 430 (scan page-0440, read): the print, like ours, gives only śāyayati and hvāyayati; Wikisource adds chāyayati, sāyayati and vyāyayati. The English follows ours and the print. This unit has no TB block of its own; TB on it is printed under sk.2584.t1.

SK 2586 · A 6.1.32V

ह्वः सम्प्रसारणम् ॥ २५८६ ॥

hvaḥ samprasāraṇam

hvaḥ samprasāraṇam — [Before a ṇi that is followed by san or by caṅ — ṇau ca saṃścaṅoḥ, carried forward (anuvṛtti) from SK 2579 —] saṃprasāraṇa takes place for hvā (hveñ, with ā already substituted).

Rule. Saṃprasāraṇa replaces the v of hvā before a ṇi followed by san or by caṅ. Hvā is the root hveñ "to call" with ā already put for its e (SK 2370). Bhaṭṭoji's gloss begins "before a ṇi followed by san and before a ṇi followed by caṅ". Bhaṭṭoji's commentators explain why: ṇau ca saṃścaṅoḥ (SK 2579) continues into this rule.

Example.

hvā + ṇic + luṅ → caṅ (SK 2312) → hvā i a t

→ this rule: saṃprasāraṇa, v → u, and pūrvarūpa (SK 330), done first by the maxim of SK 2579 → hu i a t

→ no hvā is left, so the augment yuk (SK 2585) has nothing to attach to

→ hu is doubled → hu hu i a t

→ the h of the abhyāsa becomes j (SK 2245, 2182) → ju hu i a t

→ vṛddhi (SK 254) and āv (SK 61) in the second member → ju hāv i a t

→ the ṇi is deleted (SK 2313), the penultimate shortened (SK 2314) → ju hav a t

→ sanvadbhāva, and the abhyāsa's u is lengthened (SK 2318) → jū hav a t

→ the augment aṭ → ajūhavat.

Bhaṭṭoji also gives ajuhāvat. One of his commentators explains it. The shortening of SK 2314 is optional here by the vārttika kāṇyādīnāṃ vā, under SK 2583. Its list includes hvāyi. Without the shortening, a heavy ā follows the abhyāsa. So there is no sanvadbhāva and no lengthening: ajuhāvat.

Applies when / blocked by. In laṭ there is no san or caṅ, so no saṃprasāraṇa. The root keeps hvā and takes yuk (SK 2585): hvāyayati.

Watch out. The order matters. Saṃprasāraṇa first removes the very form hvā that SK 2585 names. That is why the aorist has no y.

Siddhānta-kaumudī

सन्परे चङ्परे च णौ ह्वः संप्रसारणं स्यात् । अजूहवत् । अजुहावत् ॥

Let saṃprasāraṇa take place for hvā before a ṇi that is followed by san and before a ṇi that is followed by caṅ [— carried forward (anuvṛtti) from ṇau ca saṃścaṅoḥ, SK 2579]. ajūhavat [luṅ: hvā-i-a-t → saṃprasāraṇa and pūrvarūpa, done first because saṃprasāraṇa and the operation depending on it are the stronger → hu-i-a-t, so that there is no hvā left for yuk (SK 2585) → hu doubled → vṛddhi and āv in the latter part → shortening of the penultimate (ṇau caṅy upadhāyā hrasvaḥ, SK 2314) → sanvadbhāva and lengthening of the abhyāsa → ajūhavat]. ajuhāvat [the shortening of the penultimate being optional by kāṇyādīnāṃ vā, the vārttika under SK 2583].

Tattvabodhinī

NSP p. 441

—ह्वः संप्र—। ‘णौ च संश्वङोः’ इति वर्तते तदाह—सन्पर इत्यादि ॥—अजूहवत् । अजुहावदिति । ‘काण्यादीनां वा’ इति ह्रस्वविकल्पः ॥—अपीप्यदिति । उपधालोपस्य द्वित्वे कर्तव्ये प्रतिषेधात् कृते लोपे स्थानिवद्भावाद्वा पायशब्दस्य द्वित्वे हलादिःशेषे ईकारः । स च अनभ्यासविकार इति निषेधादन्त्यस्यादेशः । इहाग्लोपित्वादलघूपधत्वाच्च सन्वदित्वदीर्घयोरप्राप्तावित्वं विधीयते ।—व्लेपयतीत्यादि । व्ली वरणे । रीङ् क्षये । क्नूयी शब्दे उन्दे च । क्ष्मायी विधूनने

translator notes

commentary TB: 'ṇau ca saṃścaṅoḥ' continues (vartate) [from SK 2579]; hence Bhaṭṭoji's 'sanpare caṅpare ca ṇau'. Followed: the bracketed anuvṛtti in sutra_en and k1.
commentary TB on ajūhavat, ajuhāvat: the optional shortening is by 'kāṇyādīnāṃ vā'. Followed: the bracket after ajuhāvat. (The vārttika under SK 2583 names hvāyi among the four extra kāṇyādi of the Nyāsa.)
commentary BM on this sūtra, which is not in our source.json, read from the Wikisource witness (uttara-2/0103): 'hvaḥ' is the sixth-case form (ṣaṣṭhyanta) of hveñ with ā made, 'hva'; Bhaṭṭoji says 'sanpare…' because he intends the anuvṛtti of 'ṇau ca saṃścaṅoḥ'. ajūhavat: from hva-i-a-t, saṃprasāraṇa and pūrvarūpa come first by 'saṃprasāraṇaṃ tadāśrayaṃ ca kāryaṃ balavat'; hu is doubled; vṛddhi and āv of the latter part; shortening of the penultimate; sanvadbhāva and lengthening. Once saṃprasāraṇa and pūrvarūpa are done there is no hvā form, so no yuk. Followed: the bracketed derivation of ajūhavat.
textual The BM block formerly filed under this unit (sk.2586.b1, pratīka 'hvaḥ samprasāraṇam abhyastasya ca') was BM on SK 2417 abhyastasya ca (p44); it was re-filed there as sk.2417.b1 on 2026-10-05. BM on SK 2586 itself is missing from our source. Wikisource has it, together with the opening of BM on SK 2587 ('pā with yuk gives pāyi; in luṅ with caṅ, after doubling etc., apīpay a t').
textual The kaumudī agrees with NSP p. 431 (scan page-0441, read): 'ajūhavat | ajuhāvat ||'.

SK 2587 · A 7.4.4V

लोपः पिबतेरीच्चाभ्यासस्य ॥ २५८७ ॥

lopaḥ pibaterīccābhyāsasya

lopaḥ pibater īc cābhyāsasya — [Before a ṇi followed by caṅ, the penultimate (upadhā) — carried forward (anuvṛtti) from ṇau caṅy upadhāyā hrasvaḥ, SK 2314 —] of pibati (pā) is deleted, and ī is substituted for [the final of] the abhyāsa.

Rule. Before a ṇi followed by caṅ, the penultimate of pā (pibati) is deleted, and ī replaces the final of the abhyāsa. "Before a ṇi followed by caṅ" and "the penultimate" are carried from SK 2314. One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators gives this.

Example.

pā + ṇic → yuk (SK 2585) → pāyi; in luṅ:

pāy i a t → the ṇi is deleted (SK 2313) → pāy a t

→ doubling; the abhyāsa keeps p and a short vowel (SK 2179, 2180) → pa pāy a t

→ this rule: the penultimate ā of pāy is deleted → pa py a t

→ this rule: ī replaces the final of the abhyāsa → pī py a t

→ the augment aṭ → apīpyat.

Applies when / blocked by. Why does ī replace only the final of the abhyāsa? A maxim says a substitute for a meaningless item does not take its final (nānarthake 'lo 'ntyavidhiḥ). Bhaṭṭoji's commentators note that the maxim excepts a change made to an abhyāsa. So ī replaces the a of pa.

Why is ī taught at all? Bhaṭṭoji's commentators explain. Once the ā is deleted, the stem has lost an ak: it is an aglopin. And the stem has no light penultimate. So neither the i nor the lengthening of sanvadbhāva is available. This rule supplies the ī directly.

How is pāy, not py, doubled? One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators gives two ways. Either the deletion is held back while doubling is due, or, once made, it is treated like the original (sthānivat) for doubling.

Recalled: SK 2570, puk. Bhaṭṭoji now illustrates puk in the order of that sūtra. One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators supplies the steps:

ṛ + ṇic → puk comes before vṛddhi, being nitya: it would apply whether or not vṛddhi had applied first → ṛp-i → guṇa (SK 2189) → arp-i → arpayati;
hrī → hrīp-i → guṇa, the stem ending in puk (SK 2189) → hrepayati; likewise vlepayati (vlī), repayati (rī);
knūyī (ī is a marker; the root is knūy) → puk → knūyp-i → y deleted before a consonant (SK 873) → knūp-i → guṇa (SK 2189), though the penultimate is not light, because the stem ends in puk → knopayati;
kṣmāyī (ī again a marker; the root is kṣmāy) → puk, y deleted → kṣmāp-i → kṣmāpayati;
a root ending in ā: sthā → sthāp-i → sthāpayati.

Watch out. Pā "to drink" meets two rules of this chapter. Before ṇi it takes yuk (SK 2585), so its laṭ is pāyayati. In the aorist this rule then deletes the ā of pāy: apīpyat.

Siddhānta-kaumudī

पिबतेरुपधाया लोपः स्यादभ्यासस्य ईदन्तादेशश्च चङ्परे णौ । अपीप्यत् । अर्तिह्री - SK 2570 इति पुक् । अर्पयति । ह्रेपयति । व्लेपयति । रेपयति । यलोपः । क्नोपयति । क्ष्मापयति । स्थापयति ॥

Let there be deletion of the penultimate of pibati, and ī as the substitute for the final of the abhyāsa, before a ṇi followed by caṅ [— 'caṅpare ṇau' carried forward (anuvṛtti) from ṇau caṅy upadhāyāḥ, SK 2314]. apīpyat [luṅ of pāyi, pā with yuk (SK 2585): the doubled stem stands as apīpay-a-t; the penultimate ā of pāy is deleted; ī replaces the final of the abhyāsa, since the prohibition 'nānarthake 'lo 'ntyavidhiḥ' does not hold for a change made to an abhyāsa (anabhyāsavikāre). Once the penultimate is deleted, the stem has undergone ak-deletion and its penultimate is not light, so the i and the lengthening due by sanvadbhāva are not available, and this ī is enjoined]. puk by artihrī… (SK 2570) [is illustrated in order]: arpayati [from ṛ: puk, being nitya, sets aside vṛddhi; then guṇa]. hrepayati [hrī]. vlepayati [vlī]. repayati [rī]. [For knūyī:] deletion of y [by lopo vyor vali, SK 873]: knopayati [knūp-i: though the penultimate is not light, guṇa, because the stem ends in puk]. kṣmāpayati [kṣmāyī: y deleted after puk]. sthāpayati [an ā-final root].

Bālamanoramā

लोपः पिबतेरीच्चाभ्यासस्य - लोपः पिबतेः । चङ्परे णाविति । 'णौ चङ्युपधायाः' इत्यतस्तदनुवृत्तेरिति भावः । अपीप्यदिति ।नानर्थकेऽलोऽन्त्यविधि॑रित्यस्य अनभ्यासविकार इति निषेधादभ्यासाऽन्त्यस्य ईत्त्वम् । इह उपधालोपे कृतेऽग्लोपित्वादलघूपधत्वाच्च सन्वत्त्वदीर्घयोरप्राप्तावीत्त्वविधिः । अर्तिह्री इति पुगिति । 'क्रमेणोदाह्रियते' इति शेषः । अर्पयतीति । ऋधातोरुदाहरणम् । वृद्धिं बाधित्वा नित्यत्वात् पुक् । गुणः । ह्रेपयतीति ।ह्री लज्जाया॑मित्यस्य रूपम् । व्लेपयतीति । 'व्ली विशरणे' इत्यस्य रूपम् । रेपयतीति । 'री क्षये' इत्यस्योदाहरणम् । 'क्नूयी शब्दे' इत्यस्य क्नोपयतीत्युदाहरिष्यन्नाह — यलोप इति । क्नूयीधातोर्णौ पुकिलोपो व्यो॑रिति यलोप इत्यर्थः । ततः क्नूप् इ इति स्थिते अलघूपधत्वेऽपि पुगन्तत्वाद्गुणः । क्ष्मापयतीति । 'क्ष्मायी विधूनने' अस्माण्णौ पुकि यलोपः । आदन्तस्योदाहरति — स्थापयतीति । लुङि चङि अतिष्ठप् अ त् इति स्थिते —

translator notes

commentary BM: 'caṅpare ṇau' because it is carried forward (anuvṛtti) from 'ṇau caṅy upadhāyāḥ' [SK 2314]. Followed: the brackets in sutra_en and k1.
commentary BM on apīpyat: because the prohibition 'nānarthake 'lo 'ntyavidhir anabhyāsavikāre' [excepts changes to the abhyāsa], ī replaces the final of the abhyāsa; once the penultimate is deleted, the stem has undergone ak-deletion (aglopin) and its penultimate is not light, so neither the i of sanvadbhāva nor lengthening is available, hence ī is enjoined. The Wikisource BM also opens with 'pā with yuk gives pāyi; in luṅ with caṅ, after doubling etc., apīpay a t'. Followed: the bracket after apīpyat.
commentary TB, printed under sk.2586.t1, on apīpyat: when doubling is to be done, the deletion of the penultimate is prohibited, or, if the deletion is done, it is sthānivat, so pāy is doubled; after halādiḥ śeṣa the ī [comes], and since the change is to the abhyāsa it replaces the final; because of ak-deletion and a penultimate that is not light, the i and the lengthening of sanvadbhāva are not available, so this is enjoined. Followed; the English does not choose between the two ways TB gives of reaching the doubling of pāy.
commentary BM on 'artihrī… iti puk': supply 'they are illustrated in order'. arpayati is the example for ṛ: puk, being nitya, sets aside vṛddhi, and then guṇa. knopayati: from knūyī, with puk, y is deleted by lopo vyor vali; with knūp-i, guṇa comes although the penultimate is not light, because the stem ends in puk. kṣmāpayati: kṣmāyī with puk, y deleted. sthāpayati illustrates the ā-final roots. Followed: the brackets in the second paragraph.
commentary BM glosses the roots: hrī lajjāyām, vlī viśaraṇe, rī kṣaye, knūyī śabde, kṣmāyī vidhūnane. Recorded.
commentary TB, printed under sk.2586.t1, glosses: vlī varaṇe, rīṅ kṣaye, knūyī śabde unde ca, kṣmāyī vidhūnane. This differs from BM on the sense of vlī (varaṇa against viśaraṇa) and on the form rīṅ. Recorded; the English gives no root senses.
textual The kaumudī agrees with NSP p. 431 (scan page-0441, read), including 'abhyāsasya īdantādeśaś ca' (the OCR's 'idanta-' is a misreading) and 'knopayati'.

SK 2588 · A 7.4.5V

तिष्ठतेरित् ॥ २५८८ ॥

tiṣṭhaterit

tiṣṭhater it — i is substituted for [the penultimate (upadhā)] of tiṣṭhati (sthā) [before a ṇi followed by caṅ — both carried forward (anuvṛtti) from ṇau caṅy upadhāyā hrasvaḥ, SK 2314].

Rule. Before a ṇi followed by caṅ, i replaces the penultimate of sthā (tiṣṭhati). "The penultimate" and the condition are carried from SK 2314, one of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators says.

Example.

sthā + ṇic → puk (SK 2570) → sthāpi; in luṅ:

sthāp i a t → the ṇi is deleted, the penultimate shortened (SK 2313, 2314) → sthap a t

→ doubling; of the cluster sth the abhyāsa keeps th (SK 2259), which becomes t (SK 2182) → ta sthap a t

→ sanvadbhāva: i for the abhyāsa's a (SK 2317) → ti sthap a t

→ ṣ for the s after the abhyāsa's i (SK 212; the commentators' ṣatva), as in tiṣṭhati, and ṭh for th after ṣ (SK 113) → ti ṣṭhap a t

→ the abhyāsa stands before the cluster ṣṭh, so it is not light and is not lengthened

→ this rule: i for the penultimate a → ti ṣṭhip a t

→ the augment aṭ → atiṣṭhipat.

One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators sets up the stage atiṣṭhap a t, to which this rule applies.

Applies when / blocked by. The root is cited as tiṣṭhati, with its present stem. One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators says this excludes the stem of the intensive with luk (yaṅluk): atāsthāpat.

Watch out. The i here replaces the stem's penultimate, not the abhyāsa's vowel. The abhyāsa already has its i from sanvadbhāva.

Siddhānta-kaumudī

उपधाया इदादेशः स्याच्चङ्परे णौ । अतिष्ठिपत् ॥

Let i be substituted for the penultimate [of sthā] before a ṇi followed by caṅ [— 'ṇau caṅy upadhāyāḥ' carried forward (anuvṛtti) from SK 2314]. atiṣṭhipat [luṅ: from sthāpayati, with caṅ the form stands as atiṣṭhap-a-t, and the penultimate a becomes i].

Tattvabodhinī

NSP p. 441

—तिष्ठतेरित् । तकारो मन्दप्रयोजनः । श्तिपा निर्देशो यङ्लुङ्निवृत्त्यर्थः । अतास्थापत् । लटि तास्थापयतीति तास्थापेति । उर्ऋत् । चुरादौ व्याख्यातम् ॥—अचिकीर्तदिति । ऋदादेशाभावपक्षे ‘उपधायाश्च’ इतीत्वे रपरत्वम् ‘उपधायां च’ इति दीर्घः

Bālamanoramā

तिष्ठतेरित् - तिष्ठतेरित् । 'णौ चङ्युपधायाः' इत्यनुवर्तते । तदाह — उपधाया इति ।

translator notes

commentary BM: 'ṇau caṅy upadhāyāḥ' is carried forward (anuvartate) [from SK 2314]; hence Bhaṭṭoji's 'upadhāyāḥ…'. The end of BM on SK 2587 sets up the form: 'sthāpayati: in luṅ with caṅ, atiṣṭhap a t standing'. Followed: the brackets in sutra_en and k1.
commentary TB: the t [of 'it'] serves little purpose (mandaprayojana). The mention with śtip (tiṣṭhateḥ) is to exclude the yaṅluk [stem]: atāsthāpat, and in laṭ tāsthāpayati (the print itself continues 'laṭi tāsthāpayatīti tāsthāpeti', NSP p. 431, scan page-0441, read; the closing 'tāsthāpeti' is unclear and is not rendered). Recorded.
textual The tail of sk.2588.t1 ('ur ṛt | curādau vyākhyātam || acikīrtad iti …') is TB on SK 2589 (see there). The kaumudī agrees with NSP p. 431 (scan page-0441, read).

SK 2589 · A 7.4.6V

जिघ्रतेर्वा ॥ २५८९ ॥

jighratervā

jighrater vā — Optionally [i is substituted for the penultimate (upadhā)] of jighrati (ghrā) [before a ṇi followed by caṅ — carried forward (anuvṛtti), as BM's gloss supplies it].

Rule. For ghrā (jighrati), the i for the penultimate before a ṇi followed by caṅ is optional. The rest is carried as in SK 2588, as one of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators supplies it.

Example.

ghrā + ṇic → puk → ghrāpi; in luṅ:

ghrāp i a t → the ṇi is deleted, the penultimate shortened → ghrap a t

→ doubling; the abhyāsa keeps gh, which becomes j (SK 2245, 2182) → ja ghrap a t

→ sanvadbhāva: i (SK 2317); before the cluster ghr there is no lengthening → ji ghrap a t

→ this rule, optionally: i for the penultimate → ji ghrip a t

→ ajighripat or ajighrapat.

Recalled: SK 2567, ur ṛt. Before a ṇi followed by caṅ, ṛ optionally replaces a penultimate ṛ-vowel. Bhaṭṭoji gives three pairs; one of his commentators derives each.

kṝt, with ṛ: kṝt i a t → ṛ for ṝ (SK 2567), the ṇi deleted → kṛt a t → doubling; a for the abhyāsa's ṛ (SK 2244), one consonant kept → ka kṛt a t → c for k (SK 2245) → sanvadbhāva: i, lengthened → cī kṛt a t → acīkṛtat.
kṝt, without ṛ: i with r by SK 2571 → kirt → doubling → ki kirt a t → lengthening in the second member by SK 2265 (upadhāyāṃ ca) → ki kīrt a t → a heavy kīr follows the abhyāsa: no sanvadbhāva → c for k → acikīrtat.
vṛt, with ṛ: ur ṛt sets aside guṇa of the light penultimate → vṛt a t → va vṛt a t → i, lengthened → avīvṛtat.
vṛt, without ṛ: doubling, a in the abhyāsa; guṇa of the light penultimate in the second member → va vart a t → no light syllable follows the abhyāsa, so neither sanvadbhāva nor lengthening → avavartat.
mṛj, with ṛ: mṛj a t → ma mṛj a t → i, lengthened → mī mṛj a t → amīmṛjat. Without ṛ: vṛddhi in the second member by SK 2473 (mṛjer vṛddhiḥ) → ma mārj a t → no sanvadbhāva → amamārjat.

Vārttika: pāter ṇau lug vaktavyaḥ. "Luk should be stated for pā [to protect] before ṇi." Here luk is an augment, l, not a deletion; one of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators says so. Bhaṭṭoji: "it is the exception to puk".

pā "to protect" + ṇic → puk would add p; the vārttika adds l → pāl-i → pālayati.

Bhaṭṭoji's commentators add that pālayati would come anyway from the root pāla "to protect". So the vārttika's only result is to keep puk out.

Watch out. "Luk" usually means deletion of an affix. In this vārttika, and in SK 2591, it is an augment: the sound l.

Siddhānta-kaumudī

अजिघ्रिपत् । अजिघ्रपत् । उर्ऋत् SK 2567 । अचीकृतत् । अचिकीर्तत् । अवीवृतत् । अवर्तत् । अमीमृजत् । अममार्जत् ।

[Optionally i for the penultimate of ghrā before a ṇi followed by caṅ — carried forward (anuvṛtti):] ajighripat, ajighrapat [luṅ: with the form standing as ajighrap-a-t, the i for the penultimate is optional]. ur ṛt (SK 2567) [— ṛ optionally replaces the penultimate ṛ-vowel of a root before a ṇi followed by caṅ]: acīkṛtat [kṝt-i-a-t, with ṛ: kṛt doubled, a for the abhyāsa's ṛ (urat), halādiḥ śeṣaḥ, the abhyāsa made palatal (cutva), i by sanvadbhāva and its lengthening], acikīrtat [without ṛ: i with r following by upadhāyāś ca (SK 2571), kirt doubled, and lengthening in the latter part by upadhāyāṃ ca (SK 2265)]. avīvṛtat [vṛtu: before ṇic, ur ṛt sets aside the guṇa of the light penultimate; vṛt doubled, urat, i by sanvadbhāva, and lengthening], avavartat [without ṛ: vṛt doubled, urat, guṇa of the light penultimate in the latter part; no light syllable follows the abhyāsa, so neither sanvadbhāva nor lengthening]. amīmṛjat [with ṛ], amamārjat [without ṛ: doubling, urat, and in the latter part vṛddhi by mṛjer vṛddhiḥ (SK 2473) with r following; no light syllable follows, so no sanvadbhāva].

vārttika

पातेर्णौ लुग्वक्तव्यः

(vārttika) pāter ṇau lug vaktavyaḥ — 'luk should be stated for pāti before ṇi' [luk here being an augment].

(वार्तिकम्) ॥ पुकोऽपवादः । पालयति ॥

It is the exception to puk. pālayati.

Tattvabodhinī

alignment inferredNSP p. 441

—पुकोऽपवाद इति । आदन्तत्वात्पुकः प्राप्तिः । एवं च लुगागमस्य पुङ्निवृत्तिरेव फलम् । पालयतीति रूपस्य पाल रक्षणे इति धातुनापि सिद्धेरिति भावः

Bālamanoramā

जिघ्रतेर्वा - जिघ्रतेर्वा । घ्राधातोरुपधाया इद्वा स्याच्चङ्परे णावित्यर्थः । अजिघ्रप् अ त् इति स्थिते उपधाया इत्त्वविकल्पः । उरृदिति । धातोरुपधाया ऋकारस्य ऋद्वा चङ्परे णाविति व्याख्यातं चुरादौ । अचीकृतदिति.कृत् इ अ त् इति स्थिते ऋत्त्वपक्षे कृत् इत्यस्य द्वित्वे उरदत्वे हलादिशेषे अभ्यासचुत्वे सन्वत्त्वादित्त्वे तस्य दीर्घे रूपम् । अचिकीर्तदिति । कृत् इ अ त् इति स्थिते 'उरृ' दित्युपधाया ऋत्वाऽभावपक्षेउपधायाश्चे॑ति इत्त्वे रपरत्वे 'किर्त्' इत्यस्य द्वित्वे उत्तरखण्डेउपधायां चे॑ति दीर्घे रूपम् । अवीवृतदिति ।वृतु वर्तने॑ । णिचि लघूपधगुणं बाधित्वाउरृत् । चङिवृत्इत्यस्य द्वित्वे उरदत्वे सन्वत्तवादित्त्वं दीर्घश्चेति भावः । अववर्तदिति । ऋत्त्वाऽभावपक्षे वृत् इत्यस्य द्वित्वे उरदत्त्वे उत्तरखण्डस्य लघूपधगुणे रूपम् । लघुपरकत्वाऽभावान्न सन्वत्तवदीर्घौ । अमीमृजदिति । उपधाया ऋत्त्वपक्षे रूपम् । अममार्जदिति । उपधाया ऋत्तवाऽभावपक्षे द्वित्वे उरदत्त्वे उत्तरखण्डेमृजेर्वृद्धि॑रिति वृद्धौ रपरत्वे रूपम् । लघुपरत्वाऽभावान्न सन्वत्त्वम् । पातेर्णौ लुगिति । लुगागम इत्यर्थः । पुकोऽपवाद इति । आदन्तलक्षणपुकोऽपवाद इत्यर्थः ।यद्यपि 'पाल रक्षणे' इति धातोरेव सिद्धं,तथापि पुको निवृत्तिः फलम् ।

translator notes

commentary BM: the meaning is 'let i optionally be substituted for the penultimate of the root ghrā before a ṇi followed by caṅ'; with ajighrap a t standing, the i for the penultimate is optional. Followed: the bracketed anuvṛtti in sutra_en and k1, and the bracket after ajighrapat.
translator BM supplies the elements without naming their source. 'it' is presumably from tiṣṭhater it (SK 2588), and 'ṇau caṅy upadhāyāḥ' from SK 2314, as in the two preceding sūtras.
commentary BM on 'ur ṛt': ṛ is optionally substituted for the root's penultimate ṛ before a ṇi followed by caṅ, as explained in the curādi. BM then derives each pair. acīkṛtat: kṝt-i-a-t with ṛ; kṛt doubled; urat; halādiśeṣa; the abhyāsa made palatal; i by sanvadbhāva; that i lengthened. acikīrtat: without ṛ; i by upadhāyāś ca, with r; kirt doubled; lengthening in the latter part by upadhāyāṃ ca. avīvṛtat (vṛtu vartane): ur ṛt sets aside laghūpadhaguṇa before ṇic; doubling; urat; i by sanvadbhāva and lengthening. avavartat: without ṛ; doubling; urat; laghūpadhaguṇa in the latter part; no light syllable follows, so neither sanvadbhāva nor lengthening. amīmṛjat: with ṛ. amamārjat: without ṛ; doubling; urat; mṛjer vṛddhiḥ in the latter part, with r; no light syllable follows, so no sanvadbhāva. Followed: all the bracketed derivations.
commentary TB, printed at the tail of sk.2588.t1: 'ur ṛt' was explained in the curādi. acikīrtat: in the option without the ṛ-substitute, i by 'upadhāyāś ca' with r following, and lengthening by 'upadhāyāṃ ca'. Followed.
commentary BM: 'pāter ṇau luk' means luk as an augment (lug āgamaḥ). 'Exception to puk' means the exception to the puk due to ā-final roots. Although pālayati would follow from the root pāla rakṣaṇe anyway, the result [of the vārttika] is that puk is excluded. (BM on SK 2585 had already said that pā rakṣaṇe, being a luk-vikaraṇa root, is not taken in that sūtra, and that its form pālayati would be given shortly.) Followed: '[luk here being an augment]'.
commentary TB on 'puko 'pavādaḥ': puk would be due because the root ends in ā. So the only result of the luk-augment is that puk is excluded, since pālayati also follows from pāla rakṣaṇe. Followed.
textual Ours reads 'avīvṛtat | avartat |'. NSP p. 431 (scan page-0441, read) has 'avavartat', the reduplicated form, and so do BM's lemma (avavartad iti) and Wikisource. The English follows the print. This is a mūla correction, for Ajai.
textual The tag '(vārttikam)' that opens sk.2589.k3 in our text is editorial. The print (NSP p. 431, scan page-0441) instead marks the vārttika 'pāter ṇau lug vaktavyaḥ' with a sign before it. The English labels the vārttika in k2 and does not render the tag.

SK 2590 · A 7.3.38V

वो विधूनने जुक् ॥ २५९० ॥

vo vidhūnane juk

vo vidhūnane juk — The augment juk is added to vā [before ṇi — carried forward (anuvṛtti) from artihrī…, SK 2570] in the sense of shaking (vidhūnana).

Rule. The augment juk is added to vā before ṇi, in the sense of shaking (vidhūnana). Bhaṭṭoji's gloss: "let juk be added to vāti before ṇi, in the sense of shaking". "Before ṇi" (ṇau) is carried forward from SK 2570, one of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators says.

Example.

vā + ṇic, "shaking" → this rule: juk → vāj-i

→ vājayati.

Applies when / blocked by. Why "in the sense of shaking"? Otherwise the root takes puk: keśān vāpayati. One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators glosses it "he makes the hair fragrant".

Which vā is meant? Bhaṭṭoji's commentators take vai "to dry" with its ā made. The adādi vā (vā gatigandhanayoḥ) is excluded, being a root with luk of its class-sign. One of them notes that Vāmana too agrees. Bhaṭṭoji's own word is vāti; whether it names the right root, scholars discuss this.

The same commentator adds: vājayati would come anyway from vaja "to go". So the only result of juk is to keep puk out.

Recalled: SK 2509, vibhāṣā līyateḥ. Bhaṭṭoji recalls the rule that makes ā optional for lī. Bhaṭṭoji's commentators note that it cites the root with yak (līyati), so it covers both lī and līṅ. It prepares the next sūtra.

Watch out. The augment depends on the sense. One root, two causatives: vājayati "makes shake", vāpayati otherwise.

Siddhānta-kaumudī

वातेर्जुक्स्याण्णौ कम्पार्थे । वाजयति । कम्पे किम् । केशान्वापयति । विभाषा लीयतेः SK 2509 ॥

Let juk be added to vāti before ṇi [— carried forward (anuvṛtti) from SK 2570], in the sense of shaking (kampa). vājayati. Why 'shaking'? keśān vāpayati [with puk]. vibhāṣā līyateḥ (SK 2509) [— the sūtra that makes ā optional for lī and līṅ is recalled here].

Tattvabodhinī

NSP p. 441

—वो विधू—। लुग्विकरणाऽलुग्विकरणपरिभाषया ओवै शोषण इत्यस्यैव ग्रहणं न तु वा गतिगन्धनयोरित्यस्य । लक्षणप्रतिपदोक्तपरिभाषा त्वस्मिन्प्रकरणे न प्रवर्तते इत्युक्तं प्राक् । ओवै शोषणे इत्यस्य रूपमिति वदन् वामनोऽप्यत्रानुकूलः । वज गताविति धातुना वाजयतीति रूपे सिद्धे जुगागमस्य पुङ्निवृत्तिरेवेहापि फलम् ॥—वातेरिति । वायतेरिति वक्तुं युक्तम् । आत्वविधायकसूत्रं स्मारयति—विभाषा लीयतेरिति । लीयतेरिति यका निर्देशो नतु श्यना । अन्यथा विभाषा लीङ इत्येवावक्ष्यत् । तेन लीलीङोरुभयोरप्यात्वं भवति ॥—लीलोः—। लीङ् श्लेषणे दिवादिः । ली श्लेषणे क्र्यादिः । लाग्रहणेन ला आदाने अदादिः कृतात्वौ लीलीङौ च त्रयोऽपि गृह्यन्ते । लीयतेरिति औचित्यादिहापि यका निर्देश इत्युभयोरपि ग्रहणम् । न च ‘निरनुबन्धग्रहणे न सानुबन्धकस्य ग्रहणम्’ इति परिभाषया सूत्रेऽपि लीङो न ग्रहणमिति वाच्यम् । इयं हि परिभाषा ‘वामदेवाड्ड्यड्ड्यौ’ इत्यत्र ङित्त्वेन ज्ञापिता । ज्ञापनं च उत्सर्गतः सजातीयापेक्षमिति प्रत्ययग्रहणविषयत्वमस्याः कल्प्यते । यथा सदव्ययतव्यसमानाधिकरणेनेत्यत्र तव्यस्यैव ग्रहणं न तु तव्यतः, अत एव ‘जॄव्रश्च्योः क्त्वि’ इति सूत्रे जृणातिजीर्यत्योरुभयोर्ग्रहणमिति न्यासकृतोक्तम् । अतोऽत्र लीलीङोर्ग्रहणमिति सम्यगेव । न चैवं ‘दिव औत्’ इत्यत्र निरनुबन्धपरिभाषया दिविति प्रातिपदिकस्यैव ग्रहणं न तु धातोरिति ग्रन्थः कथं संगच्छत इति वाच्यम् । उत्सर्गतः प्रत्ययग्रहणविषयत्वेन क्वचिदन्यत्रापि प्रवृत्तौ वाधकाभावादिति वदन्ति ॥—विलीनयतीति । लीलीङोरिकारान्तयोर्नुकि रूपम् ॥—विलाययतीति । नुगभावपक्षे तयोरेव रूपम् ॥—विलालयतीति । लातेः कृतात्वयोर्लीलीङोश्च लुकि रूपम् ॥—विलापयतीति । लुगभावपक्षे अदन्तानां तेषामेव रूपम्

Bālamanoramā

वो विधूनने जुक् - वो विधूनने । 'ओ वै शोषणे' इति धातोः कृतात्त्वस्य 'व' इति षष्ठन्तम् । 'अर्तिह्री' त्यतो णावित्यनुवर्तते । तदाह — वातेरित्यादि । पुकोऽपवादो जुक् ।केशान्वापयतीति । सुगन्धीकरोतीत्यर्थः । अत्र वैधातोः पुगेव । वाधातोस्त्विह न ग्रहणं, लुग्विकरणत्वात् । केचित्तु वातेरेवाऽत्र ग्रहणं, न तु वेञो, नापि वै इत्यस्य, लाक्षणिकत्वात्, सानुबन्धकत्वाच्चेत्याहुः । आत्त्वविधायकसूत्रं स्मारयति - विभाषा लीयतेरिति । लीलीङोरात्त्वं वा स्यादेज्विषये ल्यपि चेति व्याख्यातं प्राक् श्यन्विकरणे । तत्र लीयतेरिति यका निर्देशो, नतु श्यना । तेन 'ली श्लेषणे' इति श्नाविकरणस्य, 'लीङ्श्लेषणे' इति श्यन्विकरणस्य च ग्रहणमिति च प्रागुक्तं न विस्मर्तव्यम् ।

translator notes

commentary BM: 'vaḥ' is the sixth-case form (ṣaṣṭhyanta) 'va' of the root ovai śoṣaṇe with ā made. 'ṇau' is carried forward (anuvartate) from 'artihrī…' [SK 2570]; hence Bhaṭṭoji's 'vāteḥ…'. juk is the exception to puk. Followed: the bracketed anuvṛtti.
commentary BM on keśān vāpayati: the meaning is 'makes [the hair] fragrant' (sugandhīkaroti). Here the root vai takes puk only. The root vā [of the adādi class] is not taken in this sūtra, since it is a luk-vikaraṇa root. Some, however, say that vāti alone is taken here, and neither veñ nor vai, because [the ā of vai] comes from a rule (lākṣaṇika) and [veñ and vai] carry anubandhas. Recorded: the English keeps Bhaṭṭoji's 'vāti' and gives no gloss for vāpayati.
commentary TB: by the luk-vikaraṇa paribhāṣā, only ovai śoṣaṇe is taken here, not vā gatigandhanayoḥ. As said before, the lakṣaṇapratipadokta paribhāṣā does not operate in this prakaraṇa. Vāmana too, who calls [vājayati] the form of ovai śoṣaṇe, agrees here (the print reads 'vāmano 'py atrānukūlaḥ', NSP p. 431, scan page-0441, read; the OCR's 'vāmano 'nyatrānukūlaḥ' is a misreading). Since vājayati would also follow from vaja gatau, the only result of the juk-augment here too is that puk is excluded. On 'vāteḥ': it would be proper to say 'vāyateḥ'. Recorded: the English keeps 'vāti' as transmitted. BM's 'some' and TB take different roots here.
commentary BM on 'vibhāṣā līyateḥ': Bhaṭṭoji recalls the sūtra that enjoins ā, namely optional ā for lī and līṅ in the domain of ec and before lyap, explained earlier in the śyan-vikaraṇa [section]. There 'līyateḥ' is named with yak, not with śyan, so it takes both the kryādi lī śleṣaṇe and the divādi līṅ śleṣaṇe. Followed: the bracket after SK 2509.
commentary TB on 'vibhāṣā līyateḥ': Bhaṭṭoji recalls the ā-enjoining sūtra. 'līyateḥ' is named with yak, not śyan; otherwise Pāṇini would have said 'vibhāṣā līṅaḥ'. Hence both lī and līṅ take ā. Followed.
textual The kaumudī agrees with NSP p. 431 (scan page-0441, read). The part of sk.2590.t1 from '—līloḥ—' onward is TB on SK 2591 (see there).

SK 2591 · A 7.3.39V

लीलोर्नुग्लुकावन्यतरस्यां स्नेहविपातने ॥ २५९१ ॥

līlornuglukāvanyatarasyāṃ snehavipātane

līlor nuglukāv anyatarasyāṃ snehavipātane — [Before ṇi — carried forward (anuvṛtti) from artihrī…, SK 2570 —] the augments nuk and luk are optionally added to lī and to lā respectively, in the sense of liquefying a fat (sneha).

Rule. Before ṇi, lī optionally takes the augment nuk, and lā optionally takes the augment luk, in the sense of liquefying a fat (sneha). Bhaṭṭoji's gloss: "let the augments nuk and luk optionally be added, respectively, to līyati and to lāti, before ṇi, in the melting of a fat". "Before ṇi" is carried from SK 2570, one of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators says.

Example.

Bhaṭṭoji's four forms, all with vi and the object ghṛtam, "he melts the ghee":

lī + ṇic → this rule: nuk → līn-i → vilīnayati;
lī + ṇic without nuk → vṛddhi (SK 254) → lai-i → āy (SK 61) → lāy-i → vilāyayati;
lā + ṇic → this rule: luk → lāl-i → vilālayati;
lā + ṇic without luk → puk (SK 2570) → lāp-i → vilāpayati.

Bhaṭṭoji's commentators explain the roots. Lī covers lī and līṅ. Lā covers the adādi lā and lī or līṅ with ā made by SK 2509.

Applies when / blocked by. Bhaṭṭoji adds a point about the wording. An ī is fused into the sūtra (praśleṣa): read "lī ī". So nuk goes only to lī ending in ī. In the option with ā, there is no nuk. One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators gives the reason this is needed. By the maxim "what is altered in one part is not another thing" (ekadeśavikṛta), lā would still count as lī. The fused ī blocks that.

Why "liquefying a fat"? lohaṃ vilāpayati, vilāyayati, "he melts iron". Bhaṭṭoji's commentators explain: no nuk or luk. With ā there is puk; without ā, vṛddhi and āy.

Vārttika: pralambhanābhibhavapūjāsu liyo nityam ātvam aśiti vācyam. "In the senses of deceiving, overpowering and honouring, it should be stated that lī takes ā invariably before an affix not marked with ś." SK 2509 made the ā optional; this vārttika makes it obligatory in three senses. One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators gives the counter-example for "not ś-marked": līyate, lināti. Its forms come under SK 2592.

Watch out. Keep the four forms apart by two questions: is the vowel ī or ā, and is the augment taken or not?

Siddhānta-kaumudī

लीयतेर्लातेश्च क्रमान्नुग्लुकावगमौ वा स्तो णौ स्नेहद्रवे । विलीनयति । विलाययति । विलालयति । विलापयति वा घृतम् । ली ई इति ईकारप्रश्लेषादात्वपक्षे नुक् न । स्नेहद्रवे किम् । लोहं विलापयति । विलाययति ।

Let the augments nuk and luk optionally be added, respectively, to līyati and to lāti, before ṇi [— carried forward (anuvṛtti) from SK 2570], in the sense of liquefying a fat (snehadrava). vilīnayati [lī and līṅ, ending in ī, with nuk], vilāyayati [the same without nuk: vṛddhi and āy], vilālayati [with luk], or vilāpayati [without luk, with puk] ghṛtam — 'he melts the ghee'. Because an ī is fused in (praśleṣa) [in the sūtra, read as] 'lī ī', there is no nuk in the option with ā. Why 'in the sense of liquefying a fat'? lohaṃ vilāpayati, vilāyayati — 'he melts iron' [with neither nuk nor luk: with ā, puk; without ā, vṛddhi and āy].

vārttika

प्रलम्भनाभिभवपूजासु लियो नित्यमात्वमशिति वाच्यम्

(vārttika) pralambhanābhibhavapūjāsu liyo nityam ātvam aśiti vācyam — 'In the senses of deceiving, overpowering and honouring, it should be stated that lī takes ā invariably before what is not śit.'

(वार्तिकम्) ॥

—

Tattvabodhinī

alignment inferredNSP p. 441

—लोहं विलापयतीति । नुग्लुकोरभावादात्वपक्षे युक् । आत्वाभावे तु वृद्ध्यायादेशौ ॥—प्रलम्भनेति । प्रलम्भनं वञ्चनम् । अशिति किम् । लीयते । लिनाति

Bālamanoramā

लीलोर्नुग्लुकावन्यतरस्यां स्नेहविपातने - लीलोः । ली ला इत्यनयोः षष्ठीद्विवचनम् । णाविति । अर्तिह्री॑त्यतस्तदनुवृत्तेरिति भावः । स्नेहस्य = तैलस्य, निपातनं = द्रावणं, स्नेहनिपातनम् । तदाह — स्नेहद्रवे इति । आत्त्वाऽभावपक्षे आह — विलीनयतीति । लीलीङोरीकारान्तयोर्नुकि रूपम् । द्रवीकरोतीत्यर्थः । लीलीङोरात्त्वनुगभावपक्षे आह — विलाययतीति । लुगागमाऽभावे रूपम् । ननु कृतात्त्वस्य लीधातोरपि एकदेशविकृतन्यायेन लीत्वान्नुक्स्यादित्यत आह — ली ई इति । लोहं विलापयतीति । नुग्लुकोरभावादात्त्वपक्षे पुक् । आत्वाऽभावे तु वृद्ध्यायादेशाविति नित्यमात्त्वं वक्तव्यमित्यर्थः ।

translator notes

commentary BM: 'līloḥ' is the sixth-case dual of lī and lā. 'ṇau' is carried forward from 'artihrī…' [SK 2570]. sneha is oil, and its nipātana is making it flow, hence Bhaṭṭoji's 'snehadrave'. Followed: the bracketed anuvṛtti and 'liquefying a fat'.
commentary TB, printed under sk.2590.t1: lī covers līṅ śleṣaṇe (divādi) and lī śleṣaṇe (kryādi); the mention of lā covers three roots, lā ādāne (adādi) and lī and līṅ with ā made; līyateḥ is named with yak here too, so both are included. TB then argues that the paribhāṣā 'niranubandhagrahaṇe na sānubandhakasya' does not exclude līṅ. On the forms: vilīnayati is lī and līṅ, ending in ī, with nuk; vilāyayati is the form of the same two when nuk is absent; vilālayati is lāti and lī/līṅ with ā made, with luk; vilāpayati is the form of those same roots, ending in ā, when luk is absent (the print reads 'adantānām'; 'ādantānām' is evidently meant). Followed: the brackets after the four forms.
commentary BM on the forms: vilīnayati is lī and līṅ ending in ī with nuk, meaning 'makes liquid'; vilāyayati is the option without ā and without nuk. On 'lī ī': objection, lī with ā made would still count as lī by the ekadeśavikṛta maxim, so nuk would come. The fused ī answers this. On lohaṃ vilāpayati: since nuk and luk are absent, puk in the ā option, and vṛddhi and āy without ā. Followed.
commentary TB on lohaṃ vilāpayati: nuk and luk are absent, so in the ā option there is puk (the print, scan page-0441, reads 'yuk'), and without ā vṛddhi and āy. Followed.
commentary TB: pralambhana is deceiving (vañcana). Why 'not śit'? līyate, lināti. Followed: 'deceiving'.
commentary BM on the vārttika, read from the Wikisource witness (garbled in ours): pralambhana is deceiving, abhibhava is contempt (tiraskāra), pūjā is well known. In these senses, lī and līṅ take ā invariably in the domain of ec. Followed.
textual Ours and NSP p. 431 (scan page-0441, read) both read 'nuglukāv agamau'. Wikisource has 'nuglukāv āgamau', the expected sense ('as augments'), and the English follows that. Otherwise the kaumudī agrees with the print, including 'vilāpayati | vilāyayati ||' after lohaṃ.
textual Our sūtra and the print read 'snehavipātane'. BM (ours and Wikisource) glosses 'snehanipātanam', and Wikisource's sūtra heading reads 'snehanipātane'.
textual sk.2591.k3 contains only the editorial tag '(vārttikam) ||'. The print marks the vārttika with a sign before it instead (NSP p. 431). The English labels k2 and gives '—' for k3.
textual BM in ours (sk.2591.b1) is garbled at two points, compared with Wikisource. The gloss on vilālayati (lāti of the adādi class and līyati with ā made are both taken, by the explanation) is lost, with 'lugāgamābhāve rūpam' misattached to vilāyayati. BM on the vārttika is also collapsed into 'nityam āttvaṃ vaktavyam ity arthaḥ'. This is a commentary-layer matter only.

SK 2592 · A 1.3.70V

लियः सम्माननशालीनीकरणयोश्च ॥ २५९२ ॥

liyaḥ sammānanaśālīnīkaraṇayośca

liyaḥ sammānanaśālīnīkaraṇayoś ca — [Ātmanepada — carried forward (anuvṛtti) from anudāttaṅita ātmanepadam, SK 2157 — comes after] lī [and līṅ, ending in ṇi — 'ṇeḥ' carried forward from ṇer aṇau…, SK 2738 —] in the senses of honouring and of overpowering, and [by 'ca', of deceiving (pralambhana), from gṛdhivañcyoḥ pralambhane, SK 2739].

Rule. After lī and līṅ ending in ṇi, the ātmanepada comes in the senses of honouring and of overpowering, and, by ca, of deceiving. It comes even when the fruit does not go to the agent. Bhaṭṭoji's gloss: "let ātmanepada come after lī and līṅ ending in ṇi, even when the fruit does not go to the agent, in the senses of honouring and overpowering, and in the sense of deceiving".

One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators gives the carried words: "ātmanepada" from SK 2157; "ending in ṇi" (ṇeḥ) from SK 2738, taught later. Ca gathers in "deceiving" (pralambhana) from SK 2739, also taught later. The other commentator also reads ca as "deceiving".

Example.

lī + ṇic, sense "honouring" → vṛddhi (SK 254) → lai-i

→ ā invariably for that ec, by the vārttika under SK 2591 → lā-i

→ puk (SK 2570) → lāp-i

→ this rule: ātmanepada, the ending ta; śap (SK 2167) → lāpi + a + ta

→ laṭ is marked with ṭ, so e replaces the final a of the ending (SK 2233) → lāpi + a + te

→ guṇa of the i before śap (SK 2168), ay (SK 61) → lāpayate.

The steps after lāp-i are those of bhāvayati under SK 2576.

Bhaṭṭoji's three sentences:

jaṭābhir lāpayate: "he gains honour by his matted locks";
śyeno vartikām ullāpayate: "the hawk overpowers the quail";
bālam ullāpayate: "he deceives the child".

Applies when / blocked by. Why "even when the fruit does not go to the agent"? One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators explains: when it does go to the agent, ṇicaś ca (SK 2564) already gives the ātmanepada. So this rule is for the other case.

Watch out. Outside these three senses, lī with ṇic follows SK 2564 like any ṇic-stem. The rule is tied to its senses.

Siddhānta-kaumudī

लीङ्लियोर्ण्यन्तयोरात्मनेपदं स्यारदकर्तृगेऽपि फले पूजाभिभवयोः प्रलम्भने चार्थे । जटाभिर्लापयते । पूजामधिगच्छतीत्यर्थः । श्येनो वार्तिकामुल्लापयते । अभिभवतीत्यर्थः । बालमुल्लापयते । वञ्चयतीत्यर्थः ॥

Let ātmanepada come after lī and līṅ ending in ṇi [— 'ātmanepada' carried forward (anuvṛtti) from SK 2157, and 'ṇeḥ' from SK 2738], even when the fruit does not go to the agent, in the senses of honouring (pūjā) and overpowering (abhibhava), and in the sense of deceiving (pralambhana) [— gathered in by 'ca' from gṛdhivañcyoḥ pralambhane, SK 2739]. jaṭābhir lāpayate — the meaning is: he gains honour [by his matted locks]. śyeno vartikām ullāpayate — the meaning is: the hawk overpowers the quail. bālam ullāpayate — the meaning is: he deceives the child.

Tattvabodhinī

NSP p. 441

—लियः संमानन—। चात्प्रलम्भने

Bālamanoramā

लियः सम्माननशालीनीकरणयोश्च - लियः संमानन । 'लिय' इतिलीलीङोर्ग्रहणम् । 'अनुदात्तङितः' इत्यतः आत्मनेपदमिति, 'णेरणौ' इत्यतो णेरिति चानुवर्तते ।णिचश्चे॑ति सिद्धेऽकर्त्रभिप्रायार्थमिदम् । संमाननं - पूजालाभः । शालिनीकरणम् - अभिभवः । चकारात्गृधिवञ्च्योः॑रितिपूर्वसूत्रात्प्रलम्भनग्रहणं समुच्चीयते । तदाह — लीङ्लियोरित्यादिना ।

translator notes

commentary BM: 'liyaḥ' takes both lī and līṅ. 'ātmanepadam' is carried forward (anuvartate) from 'anudāttaṅitaḥ' [SK 2157], and 'ṇeḥ' from 'ṇer aṇau' [SK 2738]. Since 'ṇicaś ca' [SK 2564] already gives ātmanepada, this rule is for when [the fruit] does not go to the agent (akartrabhiprāya). sammānana is gaining honour (pūjālābha), śālīnīkaraṇa is overpowering (abhibhava). By 'ca', the mention of pralambhana is gathered in from the preceding sūtra 'gṛdhivañcyoḥ' [SK 2739]. Followed: the bracketed anuvṛttis and '[by ca…]'.
commentary TB: by 'ca', in [the sense of] pralambhana. Followed.
textual Ours reads 'syārad akartṛge 'pi' and 'śyeno vārtikām'. NSP p. 431 (scan page-0441, read) and Wikisource read 'syād akartṛge 'pi' and 'vartikām' (vartikā, quail). The English follows the print.

SK 2593 · A 6.1.56V

बिभेतेर्हेतुभये ॥ २५९३ ॥

bibheterhetubhaye

bibheter hetubhaye — [Optionally — 'vibhāṣā' carried forward (anuvṛtti) from vibhāṣā līyateḥ, SK 2509 — ā is substituted for the ec — 'ecaḥ' and 'āt' carried forward from ādeca upadeśe 'śiti, SK 2370 —] of bibheti (bhī) [before ṇi — carried forward from cisphuror ṇau, SK 2569], when there is fear from the hetu.

Rule. Before ṇi, ā optionally replaces the ec of bhī (bibheti), when the fear comes from the hetu. Bhaṭṭoji's gloss: "let ā optionally be substituted for the ec of bibheti, if the fear is from the prompter".

Bhaṭṭoji's commentators give the carried words. "Ec" and "ā" come from SK 2370; "optionally" from SK 2509; "before ṇi" from SK 2569. They gloss hetubhaya as fear whose source is the prompter.

Example.

bhī + ṇic, fear from the prompter → vṛddhi (SK 254) → bhai-i

→ this rule, optionally: ā for the ec ai → bhā-i

→ puk (SK 2570), the root now ending in ā → bhāp-i.

The finished forms come under the next two sūtras: bhāpayate with ā, bhīṣayate without it.

Applies when / blocked by. The fear must come from the prompter. If it comes from something else, such as an instrument, there is no ā. Bhaṭṭoji shows this under SK 2596.

Watch out. Bhaṭṭoji's gloss says ec. The vowel ai arises here by vṛddhi before ṇic; the derivation above takes that ai as the ec replaced.

Siddhānta-kaumudī

बिभेतेरेच आत्वं च स्यात्प्रयोजकाद्भयं चेत् ॥

Let ā optionally be substituted for the ec of bibheti [before ṇi — carried forward (anuvṛtti) from cisphuror ṇau, SK 2569], if the fear is from the prayojaka (the one who prompts the action).

Tattvabodhinī

NSP p. 441

—विभेतेर्हेतुभये । हेतुः प्रयोजकः । इह ‘आदेच उपदेशे—’ इत्यत एच आदित्यनुवर्तते ‘विभाषा लीयतेः’ इत्यतो विभाषा, ‘चिस्फुरोः—’ इत्यतो णाविति च तदाह—विभेतेरेच इत्यादि

Bālamanoramā

बिभेतेर्हेतुभये - बिभेतेर्हेतुभये । 'आदेच उपदेशे' इत्यत एचेति,आदिति चानुवर्तते । 'विभाषा लीयते' रित्यतो विभाषेति,चिस्फुरो॑रित्यतो णाविति च । हेतुभयं - प्रयोजकाद्भयम् । तदाह — बिभेतेरेच इत्यादिना ।

translator notes

commentary BM: 'ecaḥ' and 'āt' are carried forward (anuvartate) from 'ādeca upadeśe' [SK 2370], 'vibhāṣā' from 'vibhāṣā līyateḥ' [SK 2509], and 'ṇau' from 'cisphuroḥ' [SK 2569]. hetubhaya is fear from the prayojaka; hence Bhaṭṭoji's 'bibheter ecaḥ…'. Followed: the bracketed anuvṛttis, and 'optionally' in k1.
commentary TB: hetu is the prayojaka. 'eca āt' continues from 'ādeca upadeśe…', 'vibhāṣā' from 'vibhāṣā līyateḥ', and 'ṇau' from 'cisphuroḥ…'; hence 'bibheter ecaḥ…'. Followed. BM and TB agree.
textual Ours reads 'bibheter eca ātvaṃ ca syāt'. NSP p. 431 (scan page-0441, read) and Wikisource read 'ātvaṃ vā syāt', as the vibhāṣā carried forward by both commentators requires. The English follows the print ('optionally'). This is a mūla correction, for Ajai.

SK 2594 · A 1.3.68V

भीस्म्योर्हेतुभये ॥ २५९४ ॥

bhīsmyorhetubhaye

bhīsmyor hetubhaye — [Ātmanepada — carried forward (anuvṛtti) from anudāttaṅita ātmanepadam, SK 2157 — comes] after bhī and smi [ending in ṇi — 'ṇeḥ' carried forward from ṇer aṇau…, SK 2738], when there is fear [or wonder] from the hetu.

Rule. After bhī and smi ending in ṇi, the ātmanepada comes when the fear (or wonder) comes from the hetu. Bhaṭṭoji's gloss: "let ātmanepada come after these two when they end in ṇi, if fear or wonder is from the hetu". "Ātmanepada" is carried from SK 2157, and "ending in ṇi" from SK 2738, taught later.

But the sūtra says only "fear". Bhaṭṭoji explains: the word bhaya stands for the sense of each root (upalakṣaṇa). So for smi it means wonder (smaya). One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators raises the objection this answers.

Example.

bhī + ṇic → bhāp-i (SK 2593 and puk, as above)

→ this rule: ātmanepada, ta → śap, te (SK 2167, 2233) → bhāpi + a + te → guṇa, ay (SK 2168, 61) → bhāpayate

→ muṇḍo bhāpayate, "the shaven-headed man frightens [people]".

One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators lists the three operations in this form: ā, puk, and the ātmanepada.

Applies when / blocked by. Bhaṭṭoji's commentators say this rule, like SK 2592, serves the case where the fruit is not the agent's. One of them notes that the sūtra's sixth-case form bhīsmyoḥ is used for the fifth, "after these two" (vyatyaya, interchange).

Watch out. This rule gives the ātmanepada; it does not give ā. The ā of bhāpayate comes from SK 2593, and the p from puk.

Siddhānta-kaumudī

ण्यन्ताभ्यामाभ्यामात्मनेपदं स्याद्धेतोश्चेद्भयस्मयौ । सूत्रे भयग्रहणं धात्वर्थोपलक्षणम् । मुण्डो भापयते ॥

Let ātmanepada come after these two [bhī and smiṅ] when they end in ṇi [— 'ātmanepada' carried forward (anuvṛtti) from SK 2157, and 'ṇeḥ' from SK 2738], if fear or wonder is from the hetu. In the sūtra, the mention of 'fear' (bhaya) stands for (upalakṣaṇa) the meaning of the root [of each, so it covers wonder (smaya) for smi as well]. muṇḍo bhāpayate — 'the shaven-headed one frightens' [ā, puk, and ātmanepada].

Tattvabodhinī

alignment inferredNSP p. 441–442

—भीस्म्योः—॥ व्यत्ययेन षष्ठीत्याह—आभ्यामिति । ‘णेरणौ—’ इत्यतो णेरित्यनुवृत्तेर्ण्यन्ताभ्यामेव विधिरकर्त्रभिप्रायार्थः

Bālamanoramā

भीस्म्योर्हेतुभये - भीस्म्योर्हेतुभये ।अनुदात्तङितः॑इत्यत आत्मनेपदमिति, 'णेरणौ' इत्यतो णेरिति चानुवर्तते । हेतुः- प्रयोजकः । तदाह - आभ्यां ण्यन्ताभ्यामित्यादि अकत्र्रभिप्रायार्थमिदम् । ननु हेतोश्चेद्भयस्मयावित्यनुपपन्नं, सूत्रे स्मयग्रहणाऽभावादित्यत आह — सूत्रे भयेति । सूत्रे भयग्रहणं स्मिङ्धात्वर्थस्य स्मयस्याप्युपलक्षणमित्यर्थः । मुण्डो भापयते इति । अत्र आत्त्वं पुक्, आत्मनेपदं च । भिय आत्त्वाऽभावपक्षे विशेषमाह —

translator notes

commentary BM: 'ātmanepadam' is carried forward (anuvartate) from 'anudāttaṅitaḥ' [SK 2157], and 'ṇeḥ' from 'ṇer aṇau' [SK 2738]. hetu is the prayojaka. The rule is for when [the fruit] does not go to the agent (akartrabhiprāya). Objection: 'hetoś ced bhayasmayau' does not fit, since the sūtra does not mention smaya. Reply: 'sūtre bhaya…' means that the mention of bhaya also stands for smaya, the sense of the root smiṅ. On muṇḍo bhāpayate: here ā [SK 2593], puk and ātmanepada. Followed: the bracketed anuvṛttis, '[of each…]' and the bracket after bhāpayate.
commentary TB: [bhīsmyoḥ is] a sixth-case form used by interchange (vyatyaya) [for the fifth], hence Bhaṭṭoji's 'ābhyām' ('after these two'). Because 'ṇeḥ' is carried forward from 'ṇer aṇau…', the rule applies only to the two [roots] ending in ṇi, and serves [the case where the fruit] does not go to the agent. Followed: 'after these two' in sutra_en and k1.
textual The kaumudī agrees with NSP pp. 431–432 (scans page-0441 and page-0442, read). The editorial note formerly filed under this unit (sk.2594.n1, 'rapi prayojano 'rtha iti || doṣo ṇau …') was not about SK 2594 but the run-on of TB at the foot of NSP p. 432; it was re-filed to sk.2604.t1 on 2026-10-05. It opens with the tail of TB on SK 2603 (the print reads '…anekārthatvāc ca dhātūnāṃ vyayate-|rapi prayojano 'rtha iti', scan page-0442, read; our OCR begins only at 'rapi'), and then covers SK 2604–2605 (doṣo ṇau, vā cittavirāge, mitāṃ hrasvaḥ, the vārttika on rañj) and what follows.

SK 2595 · A 7.3.40V

भियो हेतुभये षुक् ॥ २५९५ ॥

bhiyo hetubhaye ṣuk

bhiyo hetubhaye ṣuk — The augment ṣuk is added to bhī [ending in ī, before ṇi — 'ṇau' carried forward (anuvṛtti) from artihrī…, SK 2570], when there is fear from the hetu.

Rule. Before ṇi, the augment ṣuk is added to bhī ending in ī, when the fear comes from the hetu. Bhaṭṭoji explains the words "ending in ī": "an ī is fused in [the sūtra, read as] bhī ī". "Before ṇi" is carried from SK 2570.

Example.

bhī + ṇic, fear from the prompter, without the ā of SK 2593

→ this rule: ṣuk, ṣ at the end of the root → bhīṣ-i

→ the penultimate ī is long, so it takes no guṇa

→ ātmanepada by SK 2594 → bhīṣayate.

Applies when / blocked by. What does the fused ī achieve? One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators answers. It limits the rule to bhī ending in ī. In the option with ā (SK 2593), the root no longer ends in ī, so there is no ṣuk: bhāpayate, with puk. He adds that the Bhāṣya makes this reading clear, in its discussion of the sthānivat sūtra.

Watch out. With fear from the prompter, bhī has two causatives: bhāpayate (ā + puk) and bhīṣayate (ṣuk). Never both ā and ṣ.

Siddhānta-kaumudī

भी ई इतीकारः प्रश्लिष्यते । ईकारान्तस्य भियः षुक् स्यात् णौ हेतुभये । भीषयते ॥

An ī is fused in (praśliṣyate) [in the sūtra, read as] 'bhī ī'. Let ṣuk be added to bhī ending in ī [— so not in the option with ā (SK 2593)] before ṇi [— carried forward (anuvṛtti) from SK 2570], when there is fear from the hetu. bhīṣayate.

Tattvabodhinī

alignment inferredNSP p. 442

—ईकारान्तस्येति । तेन आत्वपक्षे भाययते इत्येव न त्वत्र पुगित्यर्थः

Bālamanoramā

भियो हेतुभये षुक् - भियो हेतुभये षुक् । भी ई इति । द्वयोः सवर्णदीर्घे भीशब्दात् षष्ठीति भावः । इदं च स्थानिवत्सूत्रे भाष्ये स्पष्टम् । ईकारप्रश्लेषलब्धमाह — ईकारान्तस्येति । तेन आत्त्वपक्षे न षुगिति फलितम् । णाविति । 'अर्तिह्री' त्यतस्तदनुवृत्तेरिति भावः ।

translator notes

commentary BM: 'bhī ī' becomes one long vowel by savarṇadīrgha, and [bhiyaḥ] is the sixth-case form of bhī; this is made clear in the Bhāṣya on the sthānivat sūtra. What the fused ī yields is 'ending in ī', so it follows that there is no ṣuk in the ā option. 'ṇau' is carried forward from 'artihrī…' [SK 2570]. Followed: the brackets in sutra_en and k1.
commentary TB on 'īkārāntasya': as printed (NSP p. 432, scan page-0442, read), 'hence in the ā option only bhāyayate, and not puk here'. Recorded. The English follows BM's point that the fused ī excludes ṣuk in the ā option.
translator The TB sentence as printed seems to conflict with muṇḍo bhāpayate (ā with puk) under SK 2594. It is probably a misprint for 'bhāpayate … na tv atra ṣuk' (y for p, p for ṣ), which would agree with BM. This is an inference only.
textual The kaumudī agrees with NSP p. 432 (scan page-0442, read). The OCR's 'puk' and 'bhīpayate' are misreadings of ṣ in the print.

SK 2596 · A 6.1.57V

नित्यं स्मयतेः ॥ २५९६ ॥

nityaṃ smayateḥ

nityaṃ smayateḥ — [ā is substituted for the ec — 'ecaḥ' and 'āt' carried forward (anuvṛtti) from ādeca upadeśe 'śiti, SK 2370 —] of smayati (smiṅ), invariably, [before ṇi — carried forward from cisphuror ṇau, SK 2569 —, when there is wonder from the hetu — 'hetubhaye' carried forward from bibheter hetubhaye, SK 2593, where it stands here for wonder].

Rule. Before ṇi, ā invariably replaces the ec of smi (smayati), when the wonder comes from the hetu. Bhaṭṭoji's gloss: "let ā invariably be substituted for the ec of smayati before ṇi, when the wonder is from the hetu".

One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators gives the carried words: "ec" and "ā" from SK 2370, "before ṇi" from SK 2569, "from the hetu" from SK 2593. There "fear" stood for wonder too; here only wonder is meant. The word nitya, "invariably", stops "optionally" from carrying on from SK 2509.

Example.

vi + smi + ṇic, wonder from the prompter → vṛddhi → smai-i

→ this rule: ā → smā-i

→ puk → smāp-i

→ ātmanepada by SK 2594 → vismāpayate

→ jaṭilo vismāpayate, "the ascetic with matted locks astonishes [people]".

Applies when / blocked by. "If fear or wonder is from the hetu", Bhaṭṭoji recalls from SK 2594. So when an instrument causes it, these rules do not apply:

kuñcikayainaṃ bhāyayati, vismāyayati, "he frightens him, astonishes him, with a kuñcikā".

Here bhī → bhai-i → āy (SK 61) → bhāy-i → bhāyayati: no ā, no ṣuk, and the parasmaipada. One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators glosses kuñcikā as a kind of hair-knot. Being an instrument, it is not a prompting agent.

Bhaṭṭoji then raises an objection from poetry. How, then, does one account for vismāpayan vismitam ātmavṛttau, "[the lion,] astonishing [the king], already astonished at what had befallen him"? There the wonder comes from an instrument, as the words manuṣyavācā, "by human speech", show. One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators identifies the verse as from the Raghuvaṃśa. Bhaṭṭoji adds: "otherwise śānac too would come". One of his commentators explains. If the speech were taken as the source of the wonder, SK 2594 would give the ātmanepada, and its participle affix is śānac, not śatṛ.

Bhaṭṭoji's reply has two parts.

"True. The traditional scholars (sāmpradāyikāḥ) say the reading is simply vismāyayan." One of his commentators calls the reading with p a scribe's error.
"Or else": human speech is the prayojya-kartrī, and it vismāpayate, "astonishes [the king]". The lion makes it do so; so vismāpayan has the participle affix śatṛ after a second ṇi, added to the ṇic-final.

One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators explains why the second option takes the parasmaipada. SK 2594 gives the ātmanepada only after a ṇic-stem whose base is bhī or smi. Smāpi + a second ṇi has a ṇic-stem as its base. How the word prayojya-kartrī is to be analysed, scholars discuss this.

Watch out. The four rules SK 2593–2596 all hang on "from the hetu". Change the source of the fear or wonder to an instrument, and all four fall away together.

Siddhānta-kaumudī

स्मयतेरेचो नित्यमात्वं स्याण्णौ हेतोः स्मये । जटिलो विस्मापयते । हेतोश्चेद्भयस्मयावित्युक्तेर्नेह । कुञ्चिकयैनं भाययति । विस्माययति । कथं तर्हि विस्मापयन् विस्मितमात्मवृत्ताविति । मनुष्यवाचेति करणादेव हि तत्र स्मयः । अन्यथा शानजपि स्यात् । सत्यम् । विस्माययन्नित्येव पाठ इति साम्प्रदायिकाः । यद्वा । मनुष्यवाक् प्रयोज्यकर्त्री विस्मापयते तया सिंहो विस्मापयन्निति ण्यन्ताण्णौ शतेति व्याख्येयम् ॥

Let ā invariably be substituted for the ec of smayati before ṇi [— carried forward (anuvṛtti) from SK 2569], when the wonder is from the hetu [— carried forward from SK 2593]. jaṭilo vismāpayate — 'the ascetic with matted locks astonishes [people]'. Because it was said 'if fear or wonder is from the hetu' [SK 2594], [ā, ṣuk and ātmanepada do] not [apply] here: kuñcikayainaṃ bhāyayati, vismāyayati — 'he frightens him, astonishes him, with a kuñcikā'. [Objection:] How then [is] 'vismāpayan vismitam ātmavṛttau' — '[the lion,] causing [Dilīpa], already astonished at what had befallen him, to wonder' — [to be accounted for]? For there the wonder comes only from an instrument, [as the words] 'manuṣyavācā' ('by human speech') [show]. Otherwise śānac too would have to come. [Reply:] True. The traditional scholars (sāmpradāyikāḥ) say that the reading is simply 'vismāyayan'. Or else, it should be explained like this: human speech, the prayojya-kartrī, 'vismāpayate' (astonishes [the king]); the lion, [making it do so] through it (tayā), is 'vismāpayan', with śatṛ after a ṇi added to the ṇyanta.

Tattvabodhinī

alignment inferredNSP p. 442

—करणादेव हीति । तथा च करणात् स्मये आत्वाभावेन पुग्दुर्लभ इति भावः ॥—प्रयोज्यकर्त्रीति । यद्यपि प्रथमणिजर्थं प्रति मनुष्यवागेव प्रयोजिका । अत एव आत्वं प्रवृत्तं तथापि द्वितीयणिजर्थाभिप्रायेणेदमुक्तमिति मनोरमायाम् । केचित्तु प्रयोज्यस्य कर्त्री प्रयोजककर्त्रीति यावदिति प्रथमणिजभिप्रायेणैवेदं सुयोजमित्याहुः ॥—ण्यन्ताण्णाविति । राजा विस्मयते तं मनुष्यवाग्विस्मापयते तथा सिंहो विस्मापयन्नित्यर्थः । एवं च प्रथमणिचि हेतुमनुष्यवागिति आत्वपुकावुपपन्नौ

Bālamanoramā

नित्यं स्मयतेः - नित्यं स्मयतेः । 'आदेच उपदेशे' इत्यत एचेति, आदिति चानुवर्तते । चिस्फुरो॑रित्यतो णाविति, 'बिभेतेर्हेतुभये' इत्यतो हेतुभये इति च । तत्र च भयग्रहणं स्मयस्याप्युपलक्षणम्, अत्र तु स्मय एव विवक्षितः, स्मयतेर्भीत्यर्थकत्वाऽसंभवात् । तदाह — स्मयतेरेच इत्यादि । 'विभाषा लीयते' रित्यतो विभाषानुवृत्तिनिवृत्तये नित्यग्रहणम् । अथ 'बिभेतेर्हेतुभये' इति,नित्यं स्मयते॑रिति च आत्त्वविधौ,भीस्म्योर्हेतुभये॑इति आत्मनेपदविधौ च हेतुग्रहणस्य प्रयोजनमाह — हेतोश्चेद्भयस्मयावित्युक्तेर्नेहेति । कुञ्चिकयैनमिति । केशबन्धविशेषः कुञ्चिका । तस्याश्च करणतया प्रयोजककर्तृत्वाऽभावादात्त्वं षुक् च नेति भावः । आक्षिपति — कथमिति । रघुवंशकाव्ये — तमार्यगृह्यं निगृहीतधेनुर्मनुष्यवाचा मनुवंशकेतुम् । विस्मापयन् विस्मितमात्मवृत्तौ सिंहोरुसत्त्वं निजगाद सिंहः॥ इति श्लोके विस्मापयन्निति कथमित्याक्षेपः । प्रयोजकाद्भयाभावेन आत्त्वपुगनुपपत्तेरिति भावः । ननु मनुष्यवागेव तत्र प्रयोजिकेत्यत आह — मनुष्येति । मनुष्यवाचेति तृतीयान्तगम्यकरणान्मनुष्यवागात्मकादेव हि तत्र स्मयः । ननु करणभूताऽपि मनुष्यवाक् प्रयोजिका कुतो नेत्यत आह — अन्यथेति । मनुष्यवाचः स्मयप्रयोजकत्वमभ्युपगम्य आत्त्वाश्रयणे 'भीस्म्योर्हेतुभये' इत्यात्मनेपदमपि स्यादित्यर्थः । स्मयोऽत्र प्रयोजकमूलको नेति युक्तमेव, किन्त्वात्त्वपुगाक्षेपो न युज्यते इत्यर्धाङ्गीकारेण परिहरति - सत्यमिति । विस्माययन्नित्येति । णौ आयादेशे स्मायीत्यस्माल्लटः शतरि शपि णेर्गुणे अयादेशे विस्माययन्नित्येव कालिदासो महाकविः प्रायुङ्क्त । 'विस्मापय' न्निति पकारपाठस्तु लेखकप्रमादकृत इति भावः । यद्वेति । राजा दिलीपो विस्मयते । तं सिंहोच्चारिता मनुष्यवाक् प्रयोजयति — विस्मापयते मनुष्यवाक् राजानम् । अत्र मनुष्यवाक् प्रयोजककर्त्री । राजा तु प्रयोज्यकर्तेति स्थितिः । अत्र स्मयस्य प्रयोजककर्तृभूतमनुष्यवाङ्मूलकत्वादात्त्वे पुक् । मूले प्रयोज्यकर्त्री॑त्येव पाठः सुगमः । तां विस्मापयन्तीं प्रयोजककर्त्री मनुष्यवाचं प्रयोजयति सिंहः विस्मापयति । स्मापीति ण्यन्ताण्णौ प्रथमणेर्लोपे स्मापि इत्यस्माच्छतृप्रत्यये शपि णेर्गुणे अयादेशे विस्मापयन्निति भवतीत्यभिप्रेत्य आह — तया सिंह इति । प्रयोजककर्तरि तृतीया । आत्मनेपदं भीस्मिप्रकृतिकण्यन्तादेव, नतु ण्यन्तप्रकृतिकण्यन्तादिति भावः ।

translator notes

commentary BM: 'ecaḥ' and 'āt' are carried forward (anuvartate) from 'ādeca upadeśe' [SK 2370], 'ṇau' from 'cisphuroḥ' [SK 2569], and 'hetubhaye' from 'bibheter hetubhaye' [SK 2593]. There the mention of bhaya also stood for smaya, but here smaya alone is meant, since smayati cannot mean fear; hence Bhaṭṭoji's 'smayater ecaḥ…'. 'nitya' is stated to stop the anuvṛtti of 'vibhāṣā' from 'vibhāṣā līyateḥ'. Followed: the bracketed anuvṛttis and 'invariably'.
commentary BM on 'hetoś ced…neha': this gives the purpose of the word hetu in the ā-rules bibheter hetubhaye and nityaṃ smayateḥ and in the ātmanepada rule bhīsmyor hetubhaye. A kuñcikā is a kind of hair-knot. Being an instrument, it is not a prayojaka-agent, so there is neither ā nor ṣuk. Followed: '[ā, ṣuk and ātmanepada do] not [apply]'.
commentary BM identifies the quotation as a verse of the Raghuvaṃśa ('tam āryagṛhyaṃ nigṛhītadhenur manuṣyavācā manuvaṃśaketum | vismāpayan vismitam ātmavṛttau siṃhorusattvaṃ nijagāda siṃhaḥ ||') and explains the objection: with no fear from a prayojaka, ā and puk cannot be justified. 'manuṣyavācā': because of the instrument implied by the third-case form (tṛtīyānta), the wonder comes from human speech [as instrument]. 'anyathā': if speech were accepted as causing the wonder and ā were resorted to, ātmanepada by bhīsmyor hetubhaye would follow as well. Followed: the voices Objection/Reply, and '[as the words…show]'.
commentary TB on 'karaṇād eva hi': so, when the wonder is from an instrument, there is no ā, and puk cannot be had. Followed.
commentary BM on 'satyam': Bhaṭṭoji answers by half-concession (ardhāṅgīkāra): it is right that the wonder here is not rooted in a prayojaka. Kālidāsa used vismāyayan (smāyi with śatṛ, śap, guṇa of ṇi and ay), and the reading with p is a scribe's error. On 'yadvā': the king wonders; the human speech uttered by the lion prompts him, so the speech is the prayojaka-kartrī and the king the prayojya-kartṛ, and ā and puk follow. Then the lion prompts that speech, and vismāpayan comes from smāpi with a second ṇi (the first ṇi deleted), then śatṛ, śap, guṇa and ay. BM calls tayā a third case in the sense of the prayojaka-agent. Ātmanepada comes only after a ṇyanta whose base is bhī or smi, not after a ṇyanta whose base is itself a ṇyanta, hence the parasmaipada śatṛ. Followed: 'with śatṛ after a ṇi added to the ṇyanta'.
commentary BM on 'prayojyakartrī' (Wikisource witness): the reading in the mūla is 'prayojyakartrī', and it means prayojakakartrī, taken as a bahuvrīhi, 'she whose prayojya is the agent'. The reading 'prayojakakartrī' would be easier. Recorded: the English keeps 'prayojya-kartrī' untranslated, so that it stays neutral between BM and TB.
commentary TB on 'prayojyakartrī': although with respect to the sense of the first ṇic human speech is the prayojikā, which is why ā has applied, this is said with a view to the sense of the second ṇic. So in the [Prauḍha-]manoramā. Some, however, take it as 'the agent of the prayojya', i.e. prayojakakartrī, so that it construes well with respect to the first ṇic. On 'ṇyantāṇ ṇau': the king wonders; human speech makes him wonder (vismāpayate); the lion [does so] through it, vismāpayan. So in the first ṇic the hetu is human speech, and ā and puk are accounted for. Recorded: TB's first view (the second ṇic) differs from BM's. BM's reading (a bahuvrīhi, 'prayojyaḥ kartā yasyāḥ', for the prayojaka of the first ṇic) agrees in result with TB's 'some', who however analyse it as a genitive compound (prayojyasya kartrī = prayojakakartrī). The English stays neutral.
textual The kaumudī agrees with NSP p. 432 (scan page-0442, read), including 'kuñcikayainaṃ bhāyayati | vismāyayati |' (Wikisource reads 'bhāpayati'). In our BM (sk.2596.b1) the gloss on 'prayojyakartrī' has lost the words between two occurrences of 'pāṭhaḥ', so it wrongly says the reading 'prayojyakartrī' is the easier one. Wikisource has the full sentence. This is a commentary-layer matter.
translator The rendering of the quoted half-verse follows the situation BM describes (Dilīpa astonished at his own plight, the lion speaking in human speech). The kaumudī quotes only the words 'vismāpayan vismitam ātmavṛttau'.

SK 2597 · A 7.3.41V

स्फायो वः ॥ २५९७ ॥

sphāyo vaḥ

sphāyo vaḥ — v is substituted for [the final of] sphāy [before ṇi — 'ṇau' carried forward (anuvṛtti) from artihrīvlīrīknūyīkṣmāyyātāṃ puk ṇau, SK 2570].

Rule. Before ṇi, v replaces the final of sphāy. Bhaṭṭoji's whole gloss is "ṇau", "when ṇi follows". One of his commentators says ṇau completes the sūtra, carried from SK 2570. It replaces the final sound (by the general rule SK 42; Bhaṭṭoji and his commentators do not say so here).

Example.

sphāy + ṇic → this rule: v for the final y → sphāv-i

→ sphāvayati.

Watch out. The root keeps its ā. Only the y changes.

Siddhānta-kaumudī

णौ । स्फावयति ॥

[When] ṇi [follows — the remainder of the sūtra (śeṣa), carried forward (anuvṛtti) from artihrī…, SK 2570]. sphāvayati.

Bālamanoramā

स्फायो वः - स्फायो वः । णाविति शेषपूरणम् ।अर्तिह्री॑त्यतस्तदनुवृत्तेरिति भावः ।

translator notes

commentary BM: 'ṇau' is supplied to complete the sūtra (śeṣapūraṇam), because it is carried forward (anuvṛtti) from 'artihrī…' [SK 2570]. Followed: the bracketed anuvṛtti in sutra_en and k1.
textual There is no TB on this sūtra. On NSP p. 432 (scan page-0442, read) the TB goes straight from SK 2596 ('ṇyantāṇ ṇau') to SK 2600 ('krīṅjīnām'), and nothing on 2597–2599 is filed under a neighbour. The kaumudī matches the print (collation batch07: clean).
translator '[the final of]' is the translator's addition, following alo 'ntyasya (SK 42). The commentators do not say it here. The kaumudī gives only the form sphāvayati, with v in place of the y of sphāy.

SK 2598 · A 7.3.42V

शदेरगतौ तः ॥ २५९८ ॥

śaderagatau taḥ

śader agatau taḥ — t is substituted for [the final of] śad [before ṇi — 'ṇau' carried forward (anuvṛtti) from artihrī…, SK 2570], except in the sense of going (gati).

Rule. Before ṇi, t replaces the final of śad, except in the sense of going. Bhaṭṭoji's gloss: "let t be the substitute for the final (antādeśa) of śad before ṇi, but not in the sense of going". One of his commentators adds that the a of taḥ is only for pronunciation: the substitute is t.

Example.

śad + ṇic → this rule: t for d → śat-i

→ vṛddhi of the penultimate a (SK 2282) → śāt-i

→ śātayati.

Applies when / blocked by. In the sense of going there is no t: gāḥ śādayati govindaḥ, "Govinda drives the cows". The meaning, Bhaṭṭoji says, is "makes them go" (gamayati).

Watch out. The same root gives śātayati and śādayati. The sense decides.

Siddhānta-kaumudī

शदेर्णौ तोऽन्तादेशः स्यान्न तु गतौ । शातयति । गतौ तु । गाः शादयति गोविन्दः । गमयतीत्यर्थः ॥

Let t be substituted for the final (antādeśa) of śad before ṇi [— carried forward (anuvṛtti) from SK 2570], but not in the sense of going. śātayati. But in [the sense of] going: gāḥ śādayati govindaḥ — 'Govinda drives the cows'. The meaning is 'makes [them] go' (gamayati).

Bālamanoramā

शदेरगतौ तः - शदेरगतौ तः ।अर्तिह्यी॑त्यतो णावित्यनुवृत्तिं मत्वाह — शदेर्णाविति । तोऽन्तादेश इति । तकार इत्यर्थः । अकार उच्चारणार्थः ।

translator notes

commentary BM: Bhaṭṭoji says 'śader ṇau' because he takes 'ṇau' to be carried forward (anuvṛtti) from 'artihrī…' [SK 2570]. On 'to 'ntādeśaḥ': the substitute is the sound t, and the a [of 'taḥ'] is only there so that it can be pronounced. Followed: the anuvṛtti brackets, and 't' (not 'ta') as the substitute.
textual There is no TB on this sūtra (see sk2597). The kaumudī matches NSP p. 432 (scan page-0442, read).

SK 2599 · A 7.3.43V

रुहः पोऽन्यतरस्याम् ॥ २५९९ ॥

ruhaḥ po'nyatarasyām

ruhaḥ po 'nyatarasyām — p is optionally substituted for [the final of] ruh [before ṇi — 'ṇau' supplied (śeṣa), carried forward (anuvṛtti) as in SK 2597 from artihrī…, SK 2570].

Rule. Before ṇi, p optionally replaces the final of ruh. That it replaces the final sound follows from the general rule SK 42; Bhaṭṭoji and his commentators do not say so here. Bhaṭṭoji's gloss again is "ṇau", completing the sūtra.

Example.

ruh + ṇic → this rule: p for h → rup-i → guṇa of the light penultimate (SK 2189) → rop-i → ropayati

→ without it: ruh-i → guṇa → rohayati.

Watch out. Anyatarasyām means "optionally". Both ropayati and rohayati are correct.

Siddhānta-kaumudī

णौ । रोपयति । रोहयति ॥

[When] ṇi [follows — the remainder of the sūtra (śeṣa), carried forward (anuvṛtti) from SK 2570]. ropayati [with p]. rohayati [without it].

Bālamanoramā

रुहः पोऽन्यतरस्याम् - रुहः पो । णावितिशेषपूरणम् ।

translator notes

commentary BM: 'ṇau' is supplied to complete the sūtra (śeṣapūraṇam). Here BM names no source, but under SK 2597 it names 'artihrī…' [SK 2570]. Followed: the bracketed 'ṇau', marked as carried forward from SK 2570.
textual There is no TB on this sūtra (see sk2597). The kaumudī matches NSP p. 432 (scan page-0442, read).
translator '[the final of]' is the translator's addition, following alo 'ntyasya (SK 42). The bracketed labels on the two forms are also the translator's.

SK 2600 · A 6.1.48V

क्रीङ्जीनां णौ ॥ २६०० ॥

krīṅjīnāṃ ṇau

krīṅjīnāṃ ṇau — [ā — 'āt' carried forward (anuvṛtti) from ādeca upadeśe 'śiti, SK 2370 — is substituted for the ec — 'ecaḥ', carried forward from the same —] of krī, iṅ and ji before ṇi.

Rule. Before ṇi, ā replaces the ec of krī, iṅ and ji. Bhaṭṭoji's gloss: "let ā be substituted for the ec of these before ṇi". "Ec" and "ā" are carried from SK 2370, one of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators says. Bhaṭṭoji's commentators identify the roots: ḍukrīñ "to buy", iṅ "to study", ji "to conquer".

Example.

adhi + iṅ + ṇic → vṛddhi (SK 254) → adhi ai-i

→ this rule: ā for the ec → adhi ā-i

→ puk (SK 2570), the root now ending in ā → adhi āp-i

→ y for the i of adhi before a vowel (SK 47) → adhyāpayati, "he teaches".

Likewise krāpayati (krī) and jāpayati (ji). One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators lists the steps: ā, then puk. Bhaṭṭoji's commentators give the aorists acikrapat and ajījapat.

Applies when / blocked by. Bhaṭṭoji does not say which ec is meant. The roots end in ī and i, which are not *ec*s. The derivation above takes the ec as the ai made by vṛddhi before ṇi.

Watch out. After the ā, puk follows automatically, as for any root ending in ā. Do not forget the p.

Siddhānta-kaumudī

एषामेच आत्वं स्याण्णौ । क्रापयति । अध्यापयति । जापयति ॥

Let ā be substituted for the ec of these [three — krī, iṅ and ji] before ṇi [— 'ecaḥ' and 'āt' carried forward (anuvṛtti) from SK 2370]. krāpayati [krī]. adhyāpayati [adhi + iṅ]. jāpayati [ji].

Tattvabodhinī

NSP p. 442

—क्रीङ्जीनाम् । डुक्रीञ् द्रव्यविनिमये । इङ् अध्ययने । जि जये । अचिक्रपत् । अजीजपत् ॥—अध्यजीगपदिति । नात्र णिज्निमित्तस्य गाङो द्वित्वे कर्तव्ये स्थानिवद्भावो निषेधो वा शङ्क्यः । यत्राभ्यासोत्तरखण्डे आद्योऽजवर्णोऽस्ति तत्रैव स्थानिवद्भावो निषेधो वेत्युक्तत्वात् । इह तु गाङः पूर्वं सति हि द्वित्वे ‘अजादेर्द्वितीयस्य’ इति णिच एव द्वित्वं भवेत्ततश्चङ्परणिज्निमित्तो गाङ् ततश्च प्रक्रियायां परिनिष्ठितरूपे वा अवर्णवदुत्तरखण्डं दुर्लभं कीर्तयति साम्यादिति नोक्तशङ्कावकाशः ॥—अध्यापिपदिति । पिशब्दस्यात्र द्वित्वम्

Bālamanoramā

क्रीङ्जीनां णौ - क्रीङ्जीनां णौ ।डु क्रीञ् द्रव्यविनिमये,इङ् अध्ययने॑, 'जि जये' एषां द्वन्द्वः । एच आत्त्वमिति । 'आदेच उपदेशे' इत्यतस्तदनुवृत्तेरिति भावः । क्रापयति जापयतीति । आत्त्वे पुक् लुङि अचिक्रपत् अजीजपत् । अध्यापयतीति । इङ आत्त्वे पुकि रूपम् । अधि इ इ अ त् इति स्थिते ।

translator notes

commentary BM: the first member of the sūtra is a dvandva of ḍukrīñ dravyavinimaye, iṅ adhyayane and ji jaye. On 'eca ātvam': [ecaḥ and āt] are carried forward (anuvṛtti) from 'ādeca upadeśe' [SK 2370]. krāpayati, jāpayati: ā, then puk; in luṅ, acikrapat and ajījapat. adhyāpayati: the form of iṅ with ā and puk. BM closes with the setting for SK 2601, 'adhi i i a t iti sthite'. Followed: the anuvṛtti brackets and the root labels.
commentary TB (sk.2600.t1) names the same three roots (ḍukrīñ dravyavinimaye, iṅ adhyayane, ji jaye) and gives the luṅ forms acikrapat and ajījapat. Followed for the root labels. The rest of sk.2600.t1 is TB on SK 2601 (adhyajīgapat, adhyāpipat) and is recorded there.
textual The kaumudī matches NSP p. 432 (scan page-0442, read; collation batch07: clean). The luṅ forms acikrapat and ajījapat are the commentators', not the kaumudī's.
translator On one interpretation — the usual explanation when 'ecaḥ' is carried into a rule for roots ending in ī or i, though neither BM nor TB says so here — the ec that ā replaces is the vṛddhi vowel (ai) which the root vowel takes before ṇi. The puk augment of the three forms comes from artihrī… (SK 2570). Neither point is spelled out in the kaumudī or by the commentators here.

SK 2601 · A 2.4.51V

णौ च संश्चङोः ॥ २६०१ ॥

ṇau ca saṃścaṅoḥ

ṇau ca saṃścaṅoḥ — And when ṇi followed by san or caṅ [is intended], [gāṅ — carried forward (anuvṛtti) from gāṅ liṭi, SK 2459 — is optionally — 'vibhāṣā' carried forward from vibhāṣā luṅlṛṅoḥ, SK 2460 — substituted for iṅ — 'iṅaḥ' carried forward from iṅaś ca, SK 2616].

Rule. When a ṇi followed by san or by caṅ is intended, gāṅ optionally replaces iṅ. Bhaṭṭoji's gloss: "when a ṇi followed by san, or a ṇi followed by caṅ, [is intended], let gāṅ optionally be substituted for iṅ".

These are the same words as SK 2579 (A 6.1.31), but a different sūtra, A 2.4.51. One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators gives the carried words: "for iṅ" from SK 2616, taught later; "gāṅ" from SK 2459; "optionally" from SK 2460. He reads the locative ṇau as one of domain (viṣayasaptamī): "when ṇi is intended", not "when ṇi is present".

Example.

With gāṅ:

adhi + iṅ, ṇi + caṅ intended → this rule: gā for i → adhi gā i a t

→ puk (SK 2570) → adhi gāp i a t

→ the ṇi is deleted (SK 2313), the penultimate shortened (SK 2314) → adhi gap a t

→ doubling; the abhyāsa keeps g (SK 2179) → adhi ga gap a t

→ sanvadbhāva: i (SK 2317), lengthened (SK 2318) → adhi gī gap a t

→ j for the abhyāsa's g (SK 2245) → adhi jī gap a t

→ the augment aṭ, and y for the i of adhi (SK 47) → adhyajīgapat.

Without gāṅ:

adhi + iṅ + ṇic → ā (SK 2600) and puk → adhi āp i a t

→ the shortening (SK 2314) comes before doubling, as Bhaṭṭoji says under SK 2580 → adhi ap i a t

→ the root begins with a vowel, so the second syllable pi, with the i of ṇic, is doubled (SK 2176) → adhi a pi pi a t

→ the ṇi of the second member is deleted (SK 2313) → adhi apip a t

→ the augment āṭ (SK 2254), and ā + a → ā (SK 269) → adhi āpip a t

→ y for the i of adhi (SK 47) → adhyāpipat.

Bhaṭṭoji's commentators both say that here pi is doubled.

Applies when / blocked by. An objection: "while doubling is due, no vowel-substitute is made before ṇi". Should gāṅ not wait until after the doubling? Bhaṭṭoji's commentators answer. That bar holds only where the part after the abhyāsa has an a. If gāṅ waited, only the ṇic would be doubled, by SK 2176. Then no a would stand after the abhyāsa, either during the derivation or in the result. So gāṅ comes first.

Watch out. Gāṅ changes the whole root, so in adhyajīgapat the abhyāsa is made from gāp, not from i. In adhyāpipat the root stays vowel-initial, and SK 2176 doubles the second syllable.

Siddhānta-kaumudī

सन्परे चङ्परे च णौ इङो गाङ्वा स्यात् । अध्यजीगपत् । अध्यापिपत् ॥

When a ṇi followed by san, or a ṇi followed by caṅ, [is intended (vivakṣite) — the seventh case being one of domain (viṣayasaptamī)], let gāṅ optionally be substituted for iṅ [— 'iṅaḥ', 'gāṅ' and 'vibhāṣā' carried forward (anuvṛtti) from SK 2616, SK 2459 and SK 2460]. adhyajīgapat [with gāṅ]. adhyāpipat [without it].

Bālamanoramā

णौ च सँश्चङोः - णौ च संश्चङोः । विषयसप्तमीयमित्याकरे स्पष्टम् । णौ विवक्षिते इति लभ्यते ।इङश्चे॑त्यत इङ इति,गाङ् लिटी॑त्यतो गाङिति,विभाषा लुङ्लृङो॑रित्यतो विभाषेति चानुवर्तते । तदाह — सन्परे चङ्परे चेत्यादि । सन्परे चङ्परे च णौ विवक्षिते इत्यर्थः । अध्यजीगपदिति । णौ इङो गाङादेशे पुकि उपधाह्रस्वे अधि गप् इ अ त् स्थिते गप् इत्यस्य द्वित्वे हलादिशेषे अभ्यासह्रस्वे सन्वत्त्वादित्त्वे दीर्घे अभ्यासचुत्वे रूपम् । नचद्वित्वे कार्ये णावजादेशो ने॑ति द्वित्वात् प्राग्गाङादेशनिषेधः शङ्क्यः, अभ्यासोत्तरखण्डे अवर्णसत्त्व एव तन्निषेधप्रवृत्तेरुक्तत्वात् । द्वित्वे कार्ये गाङादेशस्य निषेधे सति गाङः पूर्वम्अजादेर्द्वितीयस्ये॑ति णिच एव द्वित्व सति प्रक्रियायां परिनिष्ठिते वा धातोरुत्तरखण्डेऽवर्णाऽभावादिति रूपमिति भावः । अध्यापिपदिति । गाङभावे 'क्रीङ्जीनां णौ' इत्यात्त्वे पुकि अधि आ प् इ अ त् इति स्थितेपी॑त्यस्य द्वित्वे रूपमिति भावः ।

translator notes

textual MŪLA CORRECTED (2026-10-05, Ajai against his printed copy): our kaumudī texts of sk2579 and sk2601 were swapped. This unit now carries the print's SK 2601 (2.4.51), NSP p. 432 (scan page-0442): 'sanpare caṅpare ca ṇau iṅo gāṅvā syāt | adhyajīgapat | adhyāpipat ||'; Wikisource uttara-2/0108 agrees. BM moved with it: sk.2601.b1 is now BM on 2.4.51; the BM on SK 2602 that followed it was filed to sk.2602.b1. TB on this sūtra is at the tail of sk.2600.t1, its place in the print. Recorded in sources/skk-tei/kaumudi-corrections.json.
commentary BM (sk.2601.b1): the seventh case is one of domain (viṣayasaptamī), as the source works (ākara) make clear, so the sense is 'when ṇi is intended' (ṇau vivakṣite). 'iṅaḥ' is carried forward (anuvartate) from 'iṅaś ca' [SK 2616], 'gāṅ' from 'gāṅ liṭi' [SK 2459], and 'vibhāṣā' from 'vibhāṣā luṅlṛṅoḥ' [SK 2460]. Bhaṭṭoji's gloss means 'when a ṇi followed by san or caṅ is intended'. Followed: '[is intended]' and the anuvṛtti brackets.
commentary BM (sk.2601.b1) on adhyajīgapat: gāṅ replaces iṅ before ṇi; then puk and shortening of the penultimate give adhi gap i a t. gap is doubled; then halādiḥ śeṣa, shortening of the abhyāsa, i by sanvadbhāva, lengthening, and cu-substitution in the abhyāsa give adhyajīgapat. Objection: by 'dvitve kārye ṇāv ajādeśo na' the substitution of gāṅ should be barred until doubling is done. Reply: that prohibition was stated to operate only when there is an a in the part after the abhyāsa. If gāṅ were barred, ṇic itself would be doubled first by 'ajāder dvitīyasya' [SK 2176], and neither during the process nor in the finished form would the root's later part contain an a. On adhyāpipat: without gāṅ, ā by 'krīṅjīnāṃ ṇau' [SK 2600] and then puk give adhi āp i a t, and 'pi' is doubled. Followed: the labels '[with gāṅ]' and '[without it]'.
commentary TB (tail of sk.2600.t1) on adhyajīgapat: when gāṅ, which ṇi conditions, is to be doubled, no objection arises here from sthānivadbhāva or from the prohibition. Those were said to apply only where the first vowel of the post-abhyāsa part is a. Were doubling done before gāṅ, ṇic alone would be doubled by 'ajāder dvitīyasya'; only after that would gāṅ come, conditioned by the ṇi followed by caṅ (tataś ca caṅparaṇijnimitto gāṅ, so the print, scan NSP p. 432, page-0442; the OCR garbles it); and then a post-abhyāsa part containing a could not be had, either in the process or in the finished form. The print's words 'kīrtayati sāmyād iti' after 'durlabham' are obscure and are not rendered. On adhyāpipat: here 'pi' is doubled. Recorded; TB agrees with BM.

SK 2602 · A 6.1.49V

सिध्यतेरपारलौकिके ॥ २६०२ ॥

sidhyaterapāralaukike

sidhyater apāralaukike — [ā — 'āt' carried forward (anuvṛtti) from ādeca upadeśe 'śiti, SK 2370 — is substituted for the ec — 'ecaḥ', carried forward from the same —] of sidhyati [— the root cited with its śyan, so not the bhvādi root —] [before ṇi — 'ṇau' carried forward from krīṅjīnāṃ ṇau, SK 2600], when [the sense] does not concern the other world.

Rule. Before ṇi, ā replaces the ec of sidh (sidhyati), when the sense does not concern the other world. Bhaṭṭoji's gloss: "let ā be substituted for the ec of sidhyati, when it stands in a sense concerning this world, before ṇi".

One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators gives the carried words: "ec" and "ā" from SK 2370, "before ṇi" from SK 2600. The other notes that the root is cited with its class-sign śyan (sidhyati), so the bhvādi sidh is not meant.

Example.

sidh + ṇic → guṇa of the light penultimate (SK 2189) → sedh-i

→ this rule: ā for the ec e → sādh-i

→ annaṃ sādhayati, "he produces the food".

Applies when / blocked by. Why "not concerning the other world"? Bhaṭṭoji: tāpasaḥ siddhyati, "the ascetic ascertains the truth". Austerity prompts him to it: sedhayati tāpasaṃ tapaḥ, "austerity makes the ascetic ascertain [the truth]". Here there is guṇa and no ā. Bhaṭṭoji's commentators explain that ascertaining the truth of the self is of use in the other world. One of them adds that producing food serves bodily satisfaction, in this world.

Watch out. The rule depends on the sense of the sentence, not on the form. The same stem gives sādhayati and sedhayati.

Siddhānta-kaumudī

ऐहलौकिकेऽर्थे विद्यमानस्य सिध्यतेरेच आत्वं स्याण्णौ । अन्नं साधयति । निष्पादयतीत्यर्थः । अपारलौकिके किम् । तापसः सिद्ध्यति । तत्त्वं निश्चिनोति । तं प्रेरयति सेधयति तापसं तपः ॥

Let ā be substituted for the ec of sidhyati, when it stands in a sense that concerns this world, before ṇi [— 'ecaḥ' and 'āt' carried forward (anuvṛtti) from SK 2370, 'ṇau' from SK 2600]. annaṃ sādhayati — the meaning is 'he produces (niṣpādayati) the food'. Why 'not concerning the other world'? tāpasaḥ siddhyati — [that is,] he ascertains the truth (tattva). [Austerity] prompts him [to do so]: sedhayati tāpasaṃ tapaḥ — 'austerity makes the ascetic ascertain [the truth]'.

Tattvabodhinī

NSP p. 442

—सिध्यतेरपार—। श्यना निर्देशाद्भौवादिकस्याग्रहणम् ॥—तत्त्वं निश्चिनोतीति । तत्त्वनिश्चयश्चात्मविषयः स च परलोके उपयुज्यते

Bālamanoramā

सिध्यतेरपारलौकिके । 'आदेच उपदेशे' इत्यस्मादादेचेति,क्रीङ्जीनामित्यस्माण्णाविति चानुवर्तते । तदाह — ऐहलौकिके इत्यादि । अन्नमिति । तन्निष्पादनं तृप्त्यर्थत्वादैहलौकिकमिति भावः । तत्त्वमिति । आत्मस्वरूपमित्यर्थः । सेधयति तापसं तप इति । तत्त्वं निश्चाययतीत्यर्थः । आत्मतत्त्वनिश्चय आमुष्मिकफलक इति भावः ।

translator notes

commentary BM (sk.2602.b1): 'ādecaḥ' is carried forward (anuvartate) from 'ādeca upadeśe' [SK 2370], and 'ṇau' from 'krīṅjīnām' [SK 2600]; hence Bhaṭṭoji's 'aihalaukike…'. annam: producing it serves [bodily] satisfaction, so it concerns this world. tattvam: the true nature of the self (ātmasvarūpa). sedhayati tāpasaṃ tapaḥ: it 'makes him ascertain the truth' (tattvaṃ niścāyayati); ascertaining the self bears its fruit in the other world. Followed: the anuvṛtti brackets and the gloss of sedhayati.
commentary TB (sk.2602.t1): because the root is cited with śyan (sidhyati), the bhvādi root is not taken. On 'tattvaṃ niścinoti': ascertaining the truth concerns the self, and it is of use in the other world. Followed: the bracket on sidhyati in sutra_en.
textual BM on this sūtra (sk.2602.b1) was filed in our sk.2579.b1 after BM on 2.4.51 and was moved here with the 2579/2601 kaumudī correction (2026-10-05); Wikisource uttara-2/0108 has it in this place. The kaumudī matches NSP p. 432 (scan page-0442, read), including the spelling 'siddhyati' in the counter-example, which the English keeps (against 'sidhyati' of the heading).

SK 2603 · A 6.1.55V

प्रजने वीयतेः ॥ २६०३ ॥

prajane vīyateḥ

prajane vīyateḥ — [Optionally — 'vibhāṣā' carried forward (anuvṛtti) from vibhāṣā līyateḥ, SK 2509 — ā — 'āt' carried forward from ādeca upadeśe 'śiti, SK 2370 — is substituted for the ec — 'ecaḥ', from the same —] of vī (vīyati) [before ṇi — 'ṇau' carried forward from cisphuror ṇau, SK 2569], in the sense of conceiving (prajana).

Rule. Before ṇi, ā optionally replaces the ec of vī, in the sense of conceiving (prajana). Bhaṭṭoji's gloss: "let ā optionally be substituted for its ec before ṇi, in the sense of conceiving". One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators gives the carried words: "ec" and "ā" from SK 2370, "before ṇi" from SK 2569, "optionally" from SK 2509.

Example.

vī + ṇic → vṛddhi (SK 254) → vai-i

→ this rule, optionally: ā → vā-i → puk → vāp-i → vāpayati

→ without ā: āy (SK 61) → vāy-i → vāyayati.

vāpayati vāyayati vā gāḥ purovātaḥ, "the east wind makes the cows conceive". Bhaṭṭoji glosses: "makes them take an embryo". One of his commentators adds that cows are known to conceive in the season of the east wind.

Applies when / blocked by. Which vī is meant? Bhaṭṭoji's commentators agree it is the adādi vī. Whether vyeñ is also covered, scholars discuss this.

Recalled: SK 2364, ūd upadhāyā gohaḥ. Ū replaces the penultimate of guh:

guh + ṇic → this rule gives ū instead of guṇa → gūh-i → gūhayati.

One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators calls the ū an exception to guṇa of a light penultimate. The recall leads into SK 2604.

Watch out. The rules simply say "the ec". In the derivations of this chapter, that ec is the guṇa vowel e for sidh (SK 2602), and the vṛddhi vowel ai for krī, iṅ, ji, bhī, smi and vī, and for lī under SK 2592.

Siddhānta-kaumudī

अस्यैच आत्वं वा स्याण्णौ प्रजनेऽर्थे । वापयति वाययति वा गाः पुरोवातः । गर्भं ग्राहयतीत्यर्थः । ऊदुपधाया गोहः SK 2364 । गूहयति ॥

Let ā optionally be substituted for its ec before ṇi, in the sense of conceiving [— 'ecaḥ' and 'āt' carried forward (anuvṛtti) from SK 2370, 'ṇau' from SK 2569, 'vibhāṣā' from SK 2509]. vāpayati vāyayati vā gāḥ purovātaḥ — 'the east wind makes the cows conceive'; the meaning is 'makes [them] take an embryo'. ūd upadhāyā gohaḥ (SK 2364) [is recalled]: gūhayati [ū replacing the penultimate of guh].

Tattvabodhinī

NSP p. 442–443

—प्रजने । वीयतेरिति वी गतिप्रजनादावादादिकस्य यका निर्देशः । अत्र केचिदुत्प्रेक्षयन्ति । वीतेरिति वक्तव्ये यका निर्देशाद्व्येञोऽपि ग्रहणम् । तस्यापि यकि संप्रसारणे वीधातुना समानरूपत्वात् । अतो द्वयोरपि प्रजनेऽर्थे आत्वं वा स्यात् । तत्र आत्वे तदभावे च यद्यपि व्येञः व्याययतीति रूपं तुल्यं ‘शाच्छासा—’ इति पुकोऽपवादतया युग्विधानात् तथापि णिजन्तात्क्विपि व्याः व्यौ व्याः । आत्वाभावपक्षे व्यैः व्यायौ व्यायः इत्यस्ति विशेषः । विभाषाविधानसामर्थ्यात्पक्षेऽपि ‘आदेच उपदेशेऽशिति’ इति न प्रवर्तते । अनेकार्थत्वाच्च धातूनां व्ययते- कर्तव्ये अजादेशस्य स्थानिवत्त्वान्निषेधाद्वा स्फुरित्युकारवतो द्वित्वं, ततः ‘चिस्फुरोर्णौ’ इति वा आत्वम्

Bālamanoramā

प्रजने वीयतेः - प्रजने वीयतेः । 'आदेच उपदेशे' इत्यस्मादादेचेति,॒चिस्फुरो॑रित्तो णाविति, 'विभाषा लीयतेः' इत्यतो विभाषेति चानुवर्तते । तदाह — अस्यैच इत्यादि ।वीयते॑रिति न श्यना निर्देशः,वी गतिप्रजनस्थानार्जनोपार्जनेषु॑ केचित् । वस्तुतस्तु व्येञो न ग्रहणं, तस्य प्रजनार्थकत्वाऽभावात् , तस्य णौशाच्छासे॑ति पुगपवादयुग्विधानेन व्याययतीति रूपे विशेषाऽभावाच्चेति शब्देन्दुशेखरे प्रपञ्चितम् । गर्भं ग्राहयतीति । पुरोवातकाले गावो गर्भं गृह्णन्तीति प्रसिद्धिः । अथ 'गुहू संवरणे' इत्यस्य गुणनिमित्तेऽजादौ प्रत्यये परे उपधाया ऊत्त्वविधिं स्मारयति — ऊदुपधाया गोह इति । गूहयतीति । लघूपधगुणापवाद ऊत्त्वमिति भावः ।

translator notes

commentary BM: 'ādecaḥ' is carried forward (anuvartate) from 'ādeca upadeśe' [SK 2370], 'ṇau' from 'cisphuroḥ' [SK 2569], and 'vibhāṣā' from 'vibhāṣā līyateḥ' [SK 2509]; hence Bhaṭṭoji's 'asyaica…'. 'garbhaṃ grāhayati': it is common knowledge that cows conceive at the season of the east wind. Followed: the anuvṛtti brackets, and 'optionally' in k1.
commentary BM on 'vīyateḥ' (full text in Wikisource uttara-2/0108; garbled in ours, see the textual note). This is not a citation with śyan, because vī 'gati-prajana…' belongs to the class with luk of the vikaraṇa [adādi]. Some say it is a citation with yak, so that vyeñ is included too, since after saṃprasāraṇa vyeñ is identical with vī. In fact, vyeñ is not included: it lacks the sense prajana (so ours, 'prajanārthakatvābhāvāt'; the Wikisource BM reads 'prayojanārthakatvābhāvāt'), and with vyeñ the form would be vyāyayati in either case, because yuk by 'śācchāsā…' [SK 2585] is prescribed as an exception to puk. So it is set out in the Śabdenduśekhara. Recorded: the English leaves 'vī (vīyati)' neutral (see the TB note).
commentary TB (sk.2603.t1, completed at the head of sk.2604.t1): 'vīyateḥ' is a citation with yak of the adādi vī 'gati-prajana…'. Some go further: the yak citation, used where 'vīteḥ' could have been said, takes in vyeñ as well, which after saṃprasāraṇa before yak looks the same as vī, so ā is optional for both in the sense prajana. With vyeñ, vyāyayati is the same with or without ā, because yuk by 'śācchāsā…' is an exception to puk. But in kvip from the ṇic-final there is a difference: vyāḥ, vyau, vyāḥ [with ā]; vyaiḥ, vyāyau, vyāyaḥ without it. By the force of the prescribed option, 'ādeca upadeśe 'śiti' does not apply in the other option either. Also, dhātus have many meanings, so vyayati too has the sense prajana. Recorded: TB sets out the 'some' view with arguments in its favour, which BM rejects. The English stays neutral (§16).
commentary BM on 'ūd upadhāyā gohaḥ': Bhaṭṭoji recalls the rule that ū replaces the penultimate of 'guhū saṃvaraṇe' when an affix beginning with a vowel that conditions guṇa follows. gūhayati: the ū is an exception (apavāda) to guṇa of the light penultimate. Followed: '[is recalled]' and the bracket on gūhayati.
textual Our BM (sk.2603.b1) has lost the words that follow 'vī gatiprajana…'. Wikisource (uttara-2/0108) has '…lugvikaraṇasthatvāt | kintu yakā nirdeśo 'yam | tena vyeño 'pi grahaṇam | tasyāpi saṃprasāraṇe vīdhātunā tulyatvād iti'. Without them the 'kecit' view in ours has no content. This is a commentary-layer matter.
textual TB on this sūtra is split in ours. sk.2603.t1 breaks off at '…iti na pravartane | upe ||'. The print, NSP p. 432 (scan page-0442, read), has '…iti na pravartate | anekārthatvāc ca dhātūnāṃ vyayater api prayojano 'rtha iti ||'. The end of that sentence ('rapi prayojano 'rtha iti ||') opens sk.2604.t1 (re-filed from sk.2594.n1 on 2026-10-05). The rest of our sk.2603.t1 ('kartavye ajādeśasya…') is TB on SK 2605 (apusphurat), printed at the top of NSP p. 433. The kaumudī matches the print (collation batch07: clean).
translator In TB's closing sentence the print's 'prayojano 'rthaḥ' is probably a misprint for 'prajano 'rthaḥ': the argument is that vyayati too can carry the sense prajana. Against this, a second, independent witness has the same word: the Wikisource BM reads 'prayojanārthakatvābhāvāt' where our BM has 'prajanārthakatvābhāvāt'. The misprint hypothesis is therefore an inference only, and a weaker one.

SK 2604 · A 6.4.90V

दोषो णौ ॥ २६०४ ॥

doṣo ṇau

doṣo ṇau — [ū is substituted for the penultimate — 'ūt upadhāyāḥ' carried forward (anuvṛtti) from ūd upadhāyā gohaḥ, SK 2364, as our BM states —] of doṣ (duṣ, cited in its guṇa form) before ṇi.

Rule. Before ṇi, ū replaces the penultimate of duṣ (duṣyati). Bhaṭṭoji's gloss: "let ū be substituted for the penultimate of duṣyati before ṇi". "Ū" and "of the penultimate" run on from SK 2364, one of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators says.

Bhaṭṭoji opens with a remark: "duṣaḥ would have been easy to say". The sūtra cites the root as doṣ, its guṇa form. One of his commentators explains the point of that. The rule applies only where guṇa of the light penultimate is due; it is an exception to that guṇa.

Example.

duṣ + ṇic → guṇa of the light penultimate (SK 2189) would apply

→ this rule, its exception, gives ū for the penultimate u instead → dūṣ-i

→ dūṣayati.

Applies when / blocked by. One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators gives the counter-example for "before ṇi": doṣaḥ, with plain guṇa.

Watch out. The rule is an exception to guṇa, like SK 2364 for guh (gūhayati). Both give a long ū where o would be expected.

Siddhānta-kaumudī

दुष इति सुवचम् । दुष्यतेरुपधाया ऊत्स्याण्णौ । दूषयति ॥

'duṣaḥ' would have been easy to say. Let ū be substituted for the penultimate of duṣyati before ṇi [— 'ūt upadhāyāḥ' carried forward (anuvṛtti) from SK 2364]. dūṣayati.

Tattvabodhinī

NSP p. 442

रपि प्रयोजनोऽर्थ इति ॥—दोषो णौ । दुष वैकृत्ये दिवादिः । णौ किम् । दोषः ॥—चित्तमिति । चिती संज्ञान इत्यस्मात् क्तः ॥—दूषयति दोषयति वेति । चित्तं दुष्यति स्नानसंध्यादौ विरक्तं भवति । तत्प्रयुङ्क्त इत्यर्थः ॥—जृणातेस्त्विति । अपित्त्वादस्य मित्वं नेति भावः ॥—आखेटकमिति । मृगयेत्यर्थः ॥—रजयतीति । रजन्ति मृगाः, ग्रहणमरणाद्यनुकूलव्यापारविषया भवन्ति, तान्मृगांस्तादृग्व्यापारविषयान्करोतीत्यर्थः ॥ ज्ञपादिश्चिञ् इति । तेन मित्त्वाद्ध्रस्व इति भावः । स्वादिगणस्थस्य तु मित्वं नेत्युदाहरति—चापयतीत्यादि ॥ अपुस्फुरदिति । द्वित्वे

Bālamanoramā

दोषो णौ - दोषो णौ । 'ऊदुपधाया' इत्यनुवर्तते । 'दुष वैकृत्ये' इति श्यन्विकरणः । तस्य कृतलघूपधगुणस्य निर्देशः । ततश्च गुणविषयकमेवेदम् । दुष्यतेरुपधाया ऊत्स्यादिति ।णा॑विति शेषः । दूषयतीति । लघूपधगुणापवाद ऊत् ।दुषो णा॑वित्येव सुवचम् ।

translator notes

commentary BM: 'ūd upadhāyāḥ' is carried forward (anuvartate) [from SK 2364]. 'duṣa vaikṛtye' takes the vikaraṇa śyan. The sūtra cites it in the form in which guṇa of the light penultimate has been made, so the rule applies only where guṇa is due. After Bhaṭṭoji's gloss 'duṣyater upadhāyā ūt syāt', 'ṇau' is the remainder (śeṣa). dūṣayati: the ū is an exception (apavāda) to guṇa of the light penultimate. 'duṣo ṇau' would indeed have been easy to say. Followed: the anuvṛtti bracket and 'cited in its guṇa form'.
commentary TB (sk.2604.t1, re-filed from sk.2594.n1 on 2026-10-05; NSP p. 432): duṣa vaikṛtye is a divādi root. Why 'ṇau'? [Consider] doṣaḥ. Recorded: TB's counter-example has guṇa where no ṇi follows.
textual The kaumudī matches NSP p. 432 (scan page-0442, read; collation batch07: clean). Where our BM reads ''ūdupadhāyā' ity anuvartate', Wikisource (uttara-2/0109) reads 'upadhāyā ity anuvartate'. The anuvṛtti of 'ūt' in sutra_en and k1 rests on our BM's reading; on the Wikisource reading BM names only 'upadhāyāḥ', and 'ūt' would be supplied from the same SK 2364 by the translator (the kaumudī's own gloss has 'ūt').

SK 2605 · A 6.4.91V

वा चित्तविरागे ॥ २६०५ ॥

vā cittavirāge

vā cittavirāge — [ū is] optionally [substituted for the penultimate — 'ūt upadhāyāḥ' carried forward (anuvṛtti) from ūd upadhāyā gohaḥ, SK 2364 — of duṣ before ṇi — 'doṣo ṇau' carried forward from SK 2604 —] when the mind (citta) is estranged (virāga).

Rule. The ū of SK 2604 is optional when the mind (citta) is estranged (virāga). Bhaṭṭoji glosses virāga as "absence of affection" (aprītatā). "Ū", "of the penultimate" and "doṣo ṇau" are carried forward; one of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators gives this.

Example.

duṣ + ṇic, sense "estranging the mind"

→ with this rule: dūṣ-i → dūṣayati

→ without it: guṇa (SK 2189) → doṣ-i → doṣayati.

cittaṃ dūṣayati doṣayati vā kāmaḥ, "desire estranges the mind". Bhaṭṭoji's commentators explain: the mind turns away from the daily rites, such as bathing and the twilight worship, and desire prompts it.

Recalled: SK 2568, mitāṃ hrasvaḥ. The mit roots keep a short penultimate before ṇi. Bhaṭṭoji: "the mit roots have been stated in the bhvādi and the curādi".

ghaṭ + ṇic → vṛddhi (SK 2282) → ghāṭ-i → mit, so shortened (SK 2568) → ghaṭayati.
Bhaṭṭoji cites a list-rule (gaṇasūtra) by its first words, janījṝṣ…. Chapter 44 taught it in full as janījṝṣknasurañjo 'mantāś ca. It makes more roots mit:

jan + ṇic → vṛddhi (SK 2282) → jān-i → shortened (SK 2568) → jan-i → janayati;

jṝ + ṇic → vṛddhi (SK 254) → jār-i → shortened (SK 2568) → jar-i → jarayati.

"But of jṛṇāti": jārayati, with the vṛddhi kept. One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators explains: the jṝ of the ninth class is not marked with ṣ, so it is not mit.

Vārttika: rañjer ṇau mṛgaramaṇe nalopo vaktavyaḥ. "For rañj before ṇi, loss of n should be stated in the sense of hunting (mṛgaramaṇa)." Bhaṭṭoji glosses mṛgaramaṇa as the chase (ākheṭaka).

rañj + ṇic, hunting → this vārttika: the n is lost → raj-i

→ vṛddhi (SK 2282) → rāj-i

→ shortened (SK 2568) → raj-i → rajayati mṛgān, "he hunts the deer".

Why shortened? Rañj is among the mit roots of the list-rule above. That reason is drawn from the list itself; Bhaṭṭoji and his commentators do not state it here.

Why the vārttika? One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators answers. SK 415 deletes a penultimate n only before an affix marked with k or ṅ. Ṇi is neither, so that rule does not reach here.

Bhaṭṭoji's two counter-examples:

not deer: rañjayati pakṣiṇaḥ, of birds, with the n kept;
not hunting: rañjayati mṛgāṃs tṛṇadānena, "he draws the deer by giving them grass". One of his commentators adds that this is done in order to keep them.

Recalled: ci and sphur. Among the curādi roots, ciñ belongs to the jñapādi, which are mit. With cisphuror ṇau (SK 2569): capayati, cayayati, "as has been stated" in chapter 53. "But of cinoti", the ci of the fifth class, which is not mit:

ci + ṇic → ā (SK 2569) → cā-i → puk → cāp-i → no shortening → cāpayati. SK 2569 puts ā for the root vowel itself, as chapter 53 taught, so no vṛddhi step is shown;
without ā: vṛddhi and āy → cāy-i → cāyayati.

Bhaṭṭoji's commentators explain the difference: one root is mit, the other is not.

Sphur: sphārayati (with ā by SK 2569), sphorayati (with guṇa). In the aorist:

sphur + ṇic + luṅ → sphur i a t

→ doubling comes before the vowel-substitute, so sphu is doubled with its u → sphu sphur i a t

→ the abhyāsa keeps ph (SK 2259), which becomes p (SK 2182) → pu sphur i a t

→ in the second member, ā optionally (SK 2569)

→ with ā: pu sphār i a t → the ṇi is deleted, the ā shortened (SK 2314) → pu sphar a t → apuspharat

→ without ā: guṇa, the ṇi deleted, the o shortened → pu sphur a t → apusphurat

In both, s follows the abhyāsa's u. S is not a labial, so SK 2577 gives no i. And the abhyāsa stands before sph, so it is not lengthened.

Bhaṭṭoji's commentators derive both forms this way. One of them adds that the vowel-substitute is either barred while doubling is due, or treated like the original.

Watch out. Two kinds of roots look alike here: mit ones end up with a short vowel (ghaṭayati, capayati), others keep their vṛddhi (jārayati, cāyayati). Check the class before forming the causative.

Siddhānta-kaumudī

विरागोऽप्रीतता । चित्तं दूषयति दोषयति वा कामः ॥ मितां ह्रस्वः ॥ भ्वादौ चुरादौ च मित उक्ताः । घटयति । जनीजॄष् । जनयति । जरयति । जृणातेस्तु । जारयति ।

virāga is the absence of affection (aprītatā). cittaṃ dūṣayati doṣayati vā kāmaḥ — 'desire estranges the mind' [— 'ūt upadhāyāḥ' and 'doṣo ṇau' carried forward (anuvṛtti) from SK 2364 and SK 2604]. mitāṃ hrasvaḥ (SK 2568) [is recalled]: the mit [roots] have been stated in the bhvādi and curādi [classes]. ghaṭayati. [The gaṇasūtra] janījṝṣ[knasurañjo 'mantāś ca]: janayati. jarayati. But of jṛṇāti: jārayati.

vārttika

रञ्जेर्णौ मृगरमणे नलोपो वक्तव्यः

(vārttika) For rañj before ṇi, deletion of n should be stated in the sense of hunting (mṛgaramaṇa).

(वार्तिकम्) ॥ मृगरमणमाखेटकम् । रजयति मृगान् । मृगेति किम् । रञ्जयति पक्षिणः । रमणादन्यत्र तु रञ्जयति मृगांस्तृणादानेन । चुरादिषु ज्ञपादिश्चिञ् । चिस्फुरोर्णौ SK 2569 चपयति । चययतीत्युक्तम् । चिनोतेस्तु । चापयति । चाययति । स्फारयति । स्फोरयति । अपुस्फुरत् । अपुस्फरत् ॥

mṛgaramaṇa is hunting (ākheṭaka). rajayati mṛgān — '[he] hunts the deer'. Why 'mṛga'? rañjayati pakṣiṇaḥ ['the birds']. And outside the sense of hunting (ramaṇa): rañjayati mṛgāṃs tṛṇadānena — 'he draws the deer [to him] by giving them grass'. Among the curādi [roots], ciñ belongs to the jñapādi [group]. [So with] cisphuror ṇau (SK 2569): capayati, cayayati — as has been stated. But of cinoti [the svādi ci]: cāpayati, cāyayati. sphārayati, sphorayati. apusphurat [without ā], apuspharat [with ā, shortened].

Bālamanoramā

वा चित्तविरागे - वा चित्तविरागे । ऊदुपधाया इति, दोषो णाविति चानुवर्तते । चित्तविरागे दुष उपधाया ऊद्वा स्याण्णाविति फलितम् । विरागपदस्य विवरणम् - अप्रीततेति । इच्छाविरह इत्यर्थः । चित्तमिति । चित्तं दुष्यति । स्नानसन्ध्यावन्दनादिनित्यकर्मसु विरक्तं भवति । तत्प्रयोजयति काम इत्यर्थः । मितां ह्रस्व इति । णौ मितामुपधाया ह्रस्व इति प्राग्व्याख्यातमपि स्मारयति । जनीजषिति । इदमपि व्याख्यातं स्मार्यते । जृणातेस्त्विति । श्नाविकरणस्य अषित्त्वान्न मित्त्वमिति भावः । रञ्जेर्णाविति । णेः कित्त्वाऽभावानिदितामित्यप्राप्तौ वचनम् ।मृगरमणपदस्य विवरणम् — आखेटकमिति । मृगयेत्यर्थः । रजयति मृगानिति ।रञ्ज रागे शब्विकरणः ।रञ्जेश्चे॑ति शपि नलोपः । 'रजन्ति मृगाः' ग्राह्या भवन्ति । तान् मृगान् तादृग्व्यापारविषयान् करोति मृगवधासक्तो राजादिरित्यर्थः । अत्र नकारलोपः । रञ्जयति मृगांस्तृणदानेनेति । धावतो मृगान् रक्षणाय तृणसमर्पणेन बन्धनस्थानगान् करोतीत्यर्थः । चुरादिष्विति । चुरादिषु ज्ञपादिपञ्चकान्तर्गतश्चिञ्धातुरस्ति.तस्मात्स्वार्थणिचि कृतेचिस्फुरो॑रित्यात्वपक्षे पुकि मित्त्वादुपधाह्रस्वे चपयतीति रूपम् । आत्त्वाऽभावे तु वृद्धावायादेशे मित्त्वाद्ध्रस्वे चययतीति रूपमुक्तं चुरादावित्यर्थः । चिनोतेस्त्विति । श्नुविकरणस्य चिञ्धातोर्हेतुमण्णौ 'चिस्फुरो' रित्यात्त्वे पुकि मित्त्वाऽभावाद्ध्रस्वाऽभावे चाययतीति रूपमित्यर्थः । स्फारयति — स्फोरयतीति ।चिस्फुरोरित्यात्त्वविकल्पः । अपुस्फरत् — अपुस्फुरदिति । स्फुर् इ अ त् इति द्वित्वे कर्तव्ये णावच आदेशस्य निषिद्धतयास्फु॑रित्युकारवतो द्वित्वे ततश्चिस्फुरोर्णावित्युत्तरखण्डे आत्त्वविकल्पः । आत्त्वपक्षे उपधाह्रस्व इति भावः ।

translator notes

commentary BM: 'ūd upadhāyāḥ' and 'doṣo ṇau' are carried forward (anuvartate); the result is 'in cittavirāga, ū optionally replaces the penultimate of duṣ before ṇi'. 'aprītatā' glosses virāga: absence of desire (icchāviraha). cittam: the mind is corrupted (duṣyati), that is, it turns away from the daily rites such as bathing and the sandhyā worship; desire prompts it to do so. Followed: the anuvṛtti brackets and 'estranges'.
commentary TB, filed in sk.2604.t1 (NSP p. 432): cittam is kta from citī saṃjñāne. dūṣayati doṣayati vā: the mind is corrupted, turning away from bathing, the sandhyā and the like, and [desire] prompts it. Followed; agrees with BM.
commentary BM on 'mitāṃ hrasvaḥ' and 'janījṝṣ': Bhaṭṭoji recalls rules already explained. 'jṛṇātes tu': the root with the vikaraṇa śnā is not ṣit, so it is not mit. Followed: '[is recalled]'.
commentary TB (filed in sk.2604.t1) on 'jṛṇātes tu': since this [root] is 'apit', it is not mit. So the print reads (NSP p. 432, scan page-0442, read); BM has 'aṣit'. Recorded.
translator TB's printed 'apit' (on jṛṇātes tu) is most likely a misprint for 'aṣit', BM's reading (in ours and in Wikisource): the mit-hood of these roots comes from the gaṇasūtra item 'jṝṣ', which is ṣit, and the kraiyādika jṝ is not ṣit. An inference only.
translator Three supplements in k1 are the translator's. (a) '[The gaṇasūtra] janījṝṣ[knasurañjo 'mantāś ca]': the kaumudī gives only 'janījṝṣ'; the identification and completion of the gaṇasūtra are supplied (BM says only that Bhaṭṭoji recalls what was already explained). (b) '(SK 2568)' after mitāṃ hrasvaḥ: neither ours nor the print gives a number here; it was checked against our sk2568. (c) The anuvṛtti bracket stands after the example sentence because the kaumudī here has no rule gloss to attach it to.
commentary BM on the vārttika: ṇi is not kit, so 'aniditāṃ hala upadhāyāḥ kṅiti' [SK 415] does not reach here; hence the statement. mṛgaramaṇa = ākheṭaka = the chase (mṛgayā). rajayati mṛgān: rañja rāge takes śap, and by 'rañjeś ca' [SK 2397] its n is deleted before śap. 'rajanti mṛgāḥ' means 'the deer become catchable'; [the hunter] makes the deer objects of that activity, i.e. a king or the like who is intent on killing deer. Here n is deleted. rañjayati mṛgāṃs tṛṇadānena: [he] makes the deer come to the enclosure by offering them grass, in order to keep them. Followed: 'hunts' for rajayati, and '[to him]'.
commentary TB (filed in sk.2604.t1): ākheṭaka means the chase (mṛgayā). rajayati: 'rajanti mṛgāḥ' means the deer become objects of activity that leads to their capture, killing and the like; he makes them objects of such activity. Followed; agrees with BM.
commentary BM on 'curādiṣu…': in the curādi class the root ciñ belongs to the group of five beginning with jñapa. From it, with svārthika ṇic: in the ā option (by 'cisphuroḥ' [SK 2569]), puk and shortening of the penultimate, because it is mit, give capayati; without ā, vṛddhi, āy and shortening, because it is mit, give cayayati. These were stated under curādi. 'cinotes tu': for ciñ with the vikaraṇa śnu, before hetumaṇṇic, ā by 'cisphuroḥ' and puk [give cāpayati], with no shortening because it is not mit; [without ā, cāyayati]. sphārayati, sphorayati: ā optionally by 'cisphuroḥ'. Followed: 'as has been stated' and '[the svādi ci]'.
commentary TB (filed in sk.2604.t1) on 'jñapādiś ciñ': hence shortening, because it is mit. The ci of the svādi class, however, is not mit, and he illustrates this with 'cāpayati' and so on. Followed: '[the svādi ci]'.
commentary BM on apusphurat / apuspharat: sphur i a t stands. When doubling is to be done, the vowel-substitute before ṇi is prohibited, so 'sphu' with u is doubled. Then, in the part after the abhyāsa, ā is optional by 'cisphuror ṇau'; in the ā option the penultimate is shortened. Followed: the bracketed labels.
commentary TB on 'apusphurat' (lemma at the end of sk.2604.t1, continued at the end of sk.2603.t1; NSP pp. 432–433): when doubling is to be done, sphur is doubled with its u, either because the vowel-substitute is sthānivat or because of the prohibition; then ā optionally by 'cisphuror ṇau'. Followed; agrees with BM, adding the sthānivat alternative.
textual The '(vārtikam)' tag at the head of our sk.2605.k3 is editorial. The print (NSP p. 432, scan page-0442, read) has only its vārttika sign before 'rañjer ṇau mṛgaramaṇe nalopo vaktavyaḥ', so the English labels k2 as the vārttika and leaves Bhaṭṭoji's prose in k3 unlabelled. Wikisource numbers the vārttika (vā 4067). Otherwise the kaumudī matches the print (collation batch07: clean). Wikisource's kaumudī switches 'rañjayati' and 'rajayati' in the two examples, against the print and against its own BM.
textual Our BM (sk.2605.b1) differs from Wikisource (uttara-2/0109). It has 'ghātako mṛgān' where WS has 'dhāvato mṛgān' ('the running deer'). It lacks WS's gloss on 'rañjayati pakṣiṇaḥ' ('he makes the birds catchable…; the taking of birds is not reckoned as the chase'). Its gloss on 'cinotes tu' has lost the cāpayati half. This is a commentary-layer matter.
translator The labels '[without ā]' and '[with ā, shortened]' and the glosses of the three rañj examples are drawn from the commentators. The kaumudī itself gives only the forms.

SK 2606 · A 8.4.21V

उभौ साभ्यासस्य ॥ २६०६ ॥

ubhau sābhyāsasya

ubhau sābhyāsasya — Both [n's] of [an — 'aniteḥ' carried forward (anuvṛtti) from aniteḥ, SK 2478 —] together with its abhyāsa [are replaced by ṇ — under the heading (adhikāra) raṣābhyāṃ no ṇaḥ samānapade, SK 235 —, after a cause standing in an upasarga — 'upasargāt' carried forward from upasargād asamāse 'pi ṇopadeśasya, SK 2287].

Rule. Both n's of an (aniti), together with its abhyāsa, become ṇ when the condition is present. Bhaṭṭoji's gloss: "both n's of an together with its abhyāsa undergo ṇatva when the conditioning [sound] is present". One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators explains the condition: an r standing in an upasarga. He gives the carried words: "of an" (aniteḥ) from SK 2478, "after an upasarga" from SK 2287, under the heading SK 235.

Example.

pra + an + ṇic + luṅ → vṛddhi (SK 2282) → ān i a t

→ the penultimate is shortened (SK 2314) → an i a t

→ the ṇ that SK 2478 would bring counts as not yet in effect (asiddha) for doubling, so the second syllable, ni, is doubled (SK 2176) → a ni ni a t

→ the ṇi of the second member is deleted (SK 2313) → anin a t

→ the augment āṭ and vṛddhi (SK 2254, 269) → ānin a t

→ pra + ā → prā (SK 85) → prāninat

→ now the second n is separated from the r of pra by the abhyāsa's n. SK 2478 alone would not reach it

→ this rule: ṇ for both n's → prāṇiṇat.

This is the derivation one of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators sets out.

Applies when / blocked by. A maxim, pūrvatrāsiddhīyam advirvacane, says that the "not in effect" status does not hold for doubling. If it held here, ṇ would come first, be doubled, and give prāṇiṇat with no need for this rule. Bhaṭṭoji's commentators conclude: this very rule shows that the maxim is not invariable (anitya). Hence in ūrṇunāva nu is doubled before the ṇ, as you saw in chapter 45.

Why the word ubhau, "both"? One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators explains, citing Kaiyaṭa. Without it, the rule might give ṇ only to the separated n, not to both together. He also gives the counter-example for "together with its abhyāsa": prāṇ namati.

Watch out. After doubling, the abhyāsa's n stands between the r and the second n. The second ṇ of prāṇiṇat is what this rule secures.

Siddhānta-kaumudī

साभ्यासस्यानितेरुभौ नकारौ णत्वं प्राप्नुतो निमित्ते सति । प्राणिणत् ॥

Both n's of an (aniti) together with its abhyāsa undergo ṇ-substitution (ṇatva) when the conditioning [sound — an r standing in an upasarga] is present [— 'aniteḥ' carried forward (anuvṛtti) from SK 2478, 'upasargāt' from SK 2287, under the heading SK 235]. prāṇiṇat [pra + an + ṇi + caṅ + t].

Tattvabodhinī

NSP p. 443

—उभौ सा—। ‘रषाभ्याम्—’ इति सूत्रे न इति षष्ठ्यन्तं प्रथमाद्विवचनान्ततया विपरिणम्यत इत्याह—उभौ नकाराविति । ननु साभ्यासस्येत्युक्त्या उभयोरपि भविष्यतीत्युभौग्रहणं व्यर्थमिति चेत् । अत्राहुः । साहित्यमात्रं विवक्षितं न तुल्ययोग इत्यभ्युपगमे द्वयोर्युगपन्न सिद्ध्येदित्युभौग्रहणम् । न च तुल्ययोगविवक्षायां ‘तेन सहेति तुल्ययोगे’ इति समासोऽत्र न स्यादिति शङ्क्यम् । तुल्ययोगग्रहणं प्रायिकं सकर्मकः सलोमक इत्युक्तत्वादिति । कैयटे तु उभावित्यस्मिन्नसति साभ्यास-स्यानितेर्णो भवतीत्युच्यमाने वचनसामर्थ्याच्च ‘पूर्वत्रासिद्धीयमद्विर्वचने’ इत्यनाश्रीयमाणे अकृतणत्वस्य द्विर्वचने कृते अनन्तरस्यानितेरिति पूर्वेणैव णत्वस्य सिद्धत्वाद् व्यवहितनकारार्थमिदं णत्वं स्यात् । अनन्तरस्य तु तक्रकौण्डिन्यन्यायेन न स्यादिति उभावित्युच्यत इति स्थितम् । साभ्यासस्येति किम् । प्राण् नमति । असत्यस्मिन् ‘अनितेः’ इति षष्ठी संबन्ध-सामान्ये स्यात्ततश्चानन्तर्यादिसंबन्धोऽपि गृह्येत । सति त्वस्मिन्नवयवावयविभावसंवन्धो लभ्यते । अतोऽर्थवत्साभ्यास-ग्रहणम् । यदि लिष्टानुरोधेनानितेरिति षष्ठी अवयवसंवन्धे व्याख्यायते अनितेश्च नकारद्वयाभावात्सामर्थ्याद्विर्वचनं प्राप्त एवानितिर्गृह्येत तदा साभ्यासस्येति मन्दप्रयोजनम् । इह पूर्वं णत्वं कृत्वा द्वित्वे कृते प्राणिणदित्यादिसिद्धावयमारम्भः ‘पूर्वत्रासिद्धीयमद्विर्वचने’ इत्यस्यानित्यत्वज्ञापनार्थः । तेन ऊर्णुनावेत्यत्र णत्वात्पूर्वमेव नुशब्दस्य द्वित्वादभ्यासोत्तरखण्डे णत्वाभावः सिद्धः

Bālamanoramā

उभौ साभ्यासस्य - उभौ साभ्यासस्य । अनितेरित्यनुवर्तते । 'अन प्राणने' इति धातोरित्यर्थः । 'रषाभ्यां नो णः' इत्यधिकृतम् ।उपसर्गादसमासेऽपी॑त्यत उपसर्गादित्यनुवर्तते । तदाह — साभ्यासस्येत्यादिना । निमित्ते सतीति । उपसर्गस्थे रेफे सतीत्यर्थः । प्राणिणदिति । प्र अन् इ अ त् इति स्थिते 'अनिते' रिति णत्वस्याऽसिद्धत्वान्नीत्यस्य द्वित्वे उत्तरखण्डे नकारस्याभ्यासनकारेण व्यवधानाण्णत्वे अप्राप्ते उभयोर्नकारयोरनेन णत्वमित्यर्थः । न चपूर्वत्राऽसिद्धीयमद्विर्वचने॑ इति निषेधाद्द्वित्वे कर्तव्ये णत्वस्याऽसिद्धत्वविरहेण परत्वात्कृते णत्वे ततः पश्चाद्द्वित्वेप्राणिण॑दिति सिद्धमिति वाच्यम्, अत एवपूर्वत्राऽसिद्धीयमद्विर्वचने॑ इत्यस्याऽनित्यत्वविज्ञानात् ।तेनऊर्णुनावे॑त्यत्र णत्वात् पूर्वमेव नुशब्दस्य द्वित्वे कृतेऽभ्यासोत्तरखण्डे णत्वाऽभावसिद्धिरित्यन्यत्र विस्तरः ।

translator notes

commentary BM: 'aniteḥ' is carried forward (anuvartate), meaning the root 'ana prāṇane'. 'raṣābhyāṃ no ṇaḥ' [SK 235] is the governing rule (adhikṛtam). 'upasargāt' is carried forward from 'upasargād asamāse 'pi' [SK 2287]. 'nimitte sati' means when there is an r standing in the upasarga. Followed: the anuvṛtti brackets and the gloss of the condition.
commentary BM on prāṇiṇat: pra an i a t stands. ṇatva by 'aniteḥ' is asiddha, so 'ni' is doubled. The n of the post-abhyāsa part is then separated [from the r] by the n of the abhyāsa, so ṇatva would not reach it; this rule gives ṇatva to both n's. Objection: by 'pūrvatrāsiddhīyam advirvacane' ṇatva is not asiddha when doubling is to be done, so ṇatva, being later (para), would apply first, and doubling after it would give prāṇiṇat anyway. Reply: this very rule shows that 'pūrvatrāsiddhīyam advirvacane' is not universal (anitya). Hence in ūrṇunāva nu is doubled before ṇatva, and there is no ṇatva in the post-abhyāsa part. Followed: the bracketed setting of prāṇiṇat.
commentary TB (sk.2606.t1): in 'raṣābhyām…' the sixth-case 'naḥ' is changed (vipariṇāma) into a first-case dual, hence Bhaṭṭoji's 'ubhau nakārau'. Objection: 'sābhyāsasya' alone would cover both n's, so 'ubhau' is superfluous. Answer: if mere accompaniment (sāhitya) were meant, and not equal connection (tulyayoga), both would not be obtained at once; hence 'ubhau'. Kaiyaṭa's account: without 'ubhau', and with 'pūrvatrāsiddhīyam advirvacane' set aside by the force of the statement, the adjacent n would already get ṇatva from the preceding rule once the unchanged form had been doubled, so this ṇatva would serve only the separated n, and by the takrakauṇḍinya maxim not the adjacent one; hence 'ubhau'. 'sābhyāsasya kim': prāṇ namati. Without it, the sixth case in 'aniteḥ' would express relation in general, including adjacency; with it, the relation of part and whole is obtained. The rule is undertaken, although prāṇiṇat would follow from ṇatva before doubling, to indicate (jñāpana) that 'pūrvatrāsiddhīyam advirvacane' is not universal; hence ūrṇunāva. Followed: 'Both n's'.
textual The kaumudī matches NSP p. 433 (scan page-0443, read; collation batch07: clean). The TB counter-example 'prāṇ namati' is so printed (scan read).

SK 2607 · A 2.4.46V

णौ गमिरबोधने ॥ २६०७ ॥

ṇau gamirabodhane

ṇau gamir abodhane — [In place of iṇ — 'iṇaḥ' carried forward (anuvṛtti) from iṇo gā luṅi, SK 2458 —] gam (gami) is substituted before ṇi, except in the sense of making known (bodhana).

Rule. Before ṇi, gam replaces iṇ "to go", except in the sense of making known (bodhana). Bhaṭṭoji's gloss: "let gam be substituted for iṇ before ṇi". "For iṇ" is carried from SK 2458, one of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators says; the i of gami is only for pronunciation.

Example.

iṇ + ṇic → this rule: gam for i → gam-i

→ vṛddhi (SK 2282) → gām-i

→ shortened (SK 2568, chapter 53), since roots ending in am are mit by the list-rule of chapter 44 → gam-i

→ gamayati, "he makes [him] reach".

Bhaṭṭoji and his commentators do not explain the short a here; the reason is drawn from that list-rule.

Applies when / blocked by. In the sense of making known, there is no gam: pratyāyayati, "he makes [it] known".

prati + i + ṇic → vṛddhi (SK 254) → ai-i → āy (SK 61) → āy-i → y for the i of prati (SK 47) → pratyāyayati.

Bhaṭṭoji's commentators give its aorist, pratyāyiyat:

prati + i + ṇic + luṅ → i i a t

→ vṛddhi and āy, being the later rule (para), set aside iṇo yaṇ (SK 2455) → āy i a t

→ the shortening (SK 2314) comes before doubling, as Bhaṭṭoji says under SK 2580 → ay i a t

→ the second syllable, yi, is doubled (SK 2176) → a yi yi a t

→ the ṇi of the second member is deleted (SK 2313) → ayiy a t

→ the augment āṭ, and ā + a → ā (SK 2254, 269) → āyiy a t

→ y for the i of prati (SK 47) → pratyāyiyat.

Should vṛddhi not wait until after the doubling? No, they answer: if it waited, the ṇic would be doubled, and no a would follow the abhyāsa. The bar does not apply.

Vārttika: iṇvad ikaḥ. "Ik is like iṇ." Ik "to remember" also takes gam before ṇi: adhigamayati, "he reminds". One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators glosses it so.

Recalled: SK 2574 and SK 358. han + ṇic → t for the final n (SK 2574) → hat-i → vṛddhi (SK 2282) → hāt-i → gh for h (SK 358) → ghātayati. One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators adds the aorist ajīghatat. Bhaṭṭoji then gives īrṣyayati, the causative of īrṣy.

Vārttika: īrṣyates tṛtīyasyeti vaktavyam. "For īrṣy, '[doubling] of the third' should be stated." Bhaṭṭoji gives two meanings: "of the third consonant", or "of the third single-vowelled unit (ekāc)". One of his commentators says the Bhāṣya on SK 2446 makes both clear; the other says both rest on the source works.

On the first meaning, the rule stops the ṣ from being doubled; the r is already barred by SK 2446. Bhaṭṭoji and the Tattvabodhinī give the form airṣyiyat, but neither derives it. The Bālamanoramā doubles y alone and reads airṣyyat. Scholars discuss which is right.

Bhaṭṭoji's form results if y is doubled together with the i of ṇic. This route is the chapter's own, not a commentator's:

īrṣy + ṇic + luṅ → īrṣy i a t

→ r is not doubled (SK 2446); ṣ is not doubled (this vārttika); the third consonant, y, is doubled with the i of ṇic → īrṣ yi yi a t

→ the ṇi of the second member is deleted → īrṣyiy a t

→ the augment āṭ and vṛddhi (SK 2254, 269) → airṣyiyat.

On the second meaning, the vārttika works only in the desiderative (sannanta), as an exception to SK 2176. With iṭ, īrṣy i sa has three *ekāc*s (īrṣ, ṣyis, sa), and the third, sa, is doubled: īrṣyiṣiṣati (one of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators). Bhaṭṭoji gives both desiderative forms under SK 2608 (chapter 55). With caṅ there is no third ekāc: īrṣ is the first and ṣyi the second. So SK 2176 doubles the second, ṣyi:

īrṣy i a t → īr ṣyi ṣyi a t

→ only the first consonant stays in the abhyāsa (SK 2179), Bhaṭṭoji says → īr ṣi ṣyi a t

→ the ṇi of the second member is deleted → īrṣiṣy a t

→ āṭ and vṛddhi → airṣiṣyat.

Nivṛttapreṣaṇa. Bhaṭṭoji ends with a remark. "From a dhātu from which the prompting has ceased (nivṛttapreṣaṇa), with the hetumaṇṇic, the meaning is the same as with the plain dhātu." This accounts for the line prārthayanti śayanotthitaṃ priyāḥ, "the beloveds entreat [him], risen from his bed". Bhaṭṭoji's commentators place it in Māgha's poem. "The same is to be worked out for all transitive (sakarmaka) dhātus."

Both of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators set out the problem. Arth is an āgarvīya root of chapter 53; with its own curādi ṇic it would take the ātmanepada. The Bālamanoramā adds that the causative ṇic cannot be meant either, since no one is prompted. It explains Bhaṭṭoji's answer: the causative is formed by taking the prompting as something that once was, and the sense is the plain one. Both commentators quote a half-verse to this effect. The Bālamanoramā adds that the point is clear in the Bhāṣya on SK 2738 (ṇer aṇau). The Tattvabodhinī rejects a different explanation, which takes prārtha as a noun.

Here ends the ṇyanta-prakriyā, the section on the ṇic-final.

Watch out. Gam replaces iṇ only before ṇi, and only outside "making known". gamayati and pratyāyayati come from the same root.

Siddhānta-kaumudī

इणो गमिः स्याण्णौ । गमयति । बोधने तु प्रत्याययति ॥

Let gam (gami) be substituted for iṇ before ṇi [— 'iṇaḥ' carried forward (anuvṛtti) from SK 2458]. gamayati. But in the sense of making known: pratyāyayati.

vārttika

इण्वदिकः

(vārttika) ik [is treated] like iṇ.

(वार्तिकम्) ॥ अधिगमयति ।हनस्तोऽचिण्णलोः SK 2574 । हो हन्तेः - SK 358 इति कुत्वम् । घातयति । ईर्ष्ययति ।

adhigamayati [adhi + ik]. [By] hanas to 'ciṇṇaloḥ (SK 2574) [t replaces the n of han before ṇi], and [the h — 'hasya' supplied] is replaced by a velar (kutva) by ho hanteḥ… (SK 358): ghātayati. īrṣyayati.

vārttika

ईर्ष्यतेस्तृतीयस्येति वक्तव्यम्

(vārttika) For īrṣy, '[doubling] of the third' should be stated.

(वार्तिकम्) ॥ तृतीयव्यञ्जनस्य तृतीयैकाचेति वार्थः । आद्ये षकारस्य द्वित्वं वारयितुमिदम् । द्वितीयेतु अजादेर्द्वितीयस्य SK 2176 इत्यस्यापवादतया सन्नन्ते प्रवर्तते । ऐर्ष्यियत् । ऐर्षिष्यत् । द्वितीयव्याख्यायां णिजन्ताच्चङि षकार एवाभ्यासे श्रूयते । हलादेः शेषात् । द्वित्वं तु द्वितीयस्यैव । तृतीयाभावेन प्रकृतवार्तिकाप्रवृत्तेः । निवृत्तप्रेषणाद्धातोर्हेतुमण्णौ शुद्धेन तुल्योऽर्थः । तेन प्रार्थयन्ति शयनोत्थितं प्रिया इत्यादि सिद्धम् । एवं सकर्मकेषु सर्वेषूह्यम् ॥

The meaning is 'of the third consonant' or 'of the third single-vowelled unit (ekāc)'. On the first [interpretation], this is to prevent doubling of the ṣ. On the second, it applies in the desiderative (sannanta), as an exception to ajāder dvitīyasya (SK 2176). airṣyiyat [on the first]. airṣiṣyat [on the second]. On the second interpretation, when caṅ follows [a stem] ending in ṇic, only ṣ is heard in the abhyāsa, because of halādiḥ śeṣaḥ (SK 2179). The doubling is of the second [ekāc] only, because there is no third [ekāc], so the vārttika in question does not apply. From a dhātu from which the prompting (preṣaṇa) has ceased, with the hetumaṇṇic the meaning is the same as with the plain [dhātu]. This accounts for 'prārthayanti śayanotthitaṃ priyāḥ' ('the beloveds entreat [him], risen from his bed') and the like. The same is to be worked out for all transitive (sakarmaka) [dhātus]. [Here ends the ṇyanta-prakriyā (the section on the ṇic-final).]

Tattvabodhinī

alignment inferredNSP p. 443–444

—प्रत्याययतीति । प्रतिपूर्वस्येणो ज्ञानार्थता । लुङि प्रत्यायियत् । इह इणो णिचि कृते ‘इणो यण्’ इति यणं बाधित्वा परत्वाद्वृद्धिः । न च ‘ओः पुयण्जि—’ इति ज्ञापकात्पूर्वं द्वित्वं पश्चाद्वृद्धिरिति शङ्क्यम् । ‘अजादेर्द्वितीयस्य’ इति णिचो द्वित्वेऽभ्यासोत्तरखण्डस्यावर्णपरत्वाभावात् ॥—इति वार्थ इति । व्याख्यानद्वयमभ्याकरारूढ-मिति भावः ॥—षकारस्येति । रेफस्य तु ‘न न्द्राः’ इत्यनेन निषेधादिति भावः ॥—द्वितीये त्विति । तृतीयस्यै-काच इति पक्षे ॥—सन्नन्ते प्रवर्तत इति । वचनसामर्थ्यादिति भावः ॥—ऐर्ष्यियदिति । तृतीयव्यञ्जनस्येति पक्षे इदमुदाहरणम् । ऐर्षिष्यदिति रूपस्यासाधुत्वमाशङ्क्योपपादयति—द्वितीयव्याख्यायामित्यादिना ।—द्वितीयस्यै-वेति । एकाच इति शेषः ॥—अप्रवृत्तेरिति । किं तु सन्नन्त एव प्रवर्तते । तत्र ह्यनुपदम् ईर्ष्यियिषति इत्युदाहरिष्यति । अर्थं उपयाञ्चायामित्यस्य आगर्वीयत्वादात्मनेपदेन भाव्यमिति प्रार्थयन्तीति माघकाव्यादिप्रयोगोऽसाधुरित्याशङ्क्य तत्समर्थनायाह—निवृत्तप्रेषणादिति । उक्तं च—‘निवृत्तप्रेषणाद्धातोः प्राकृतेऽर्थे णिजुच्यते’ इति ॥—तेनेत्यादि । प्रार्थनां कुर्वन्तीति विवक्षितार्थे प्रयोगः सिद्ध इति भावः । केचित्तु परस्मैपदसिद्ध्यर्थं प्रार्थनं प्रार्थः तं कुर्वन्ति प्रार्थयन्तीति व्याचक्षते तदसत् । धातुसंज्ञाप्रयोजकप्रत्यये चिकीर्षिते उपसर्गाणां पृथक्करणस्य वक्ष्यमाणतया ‘अर्थवेद—’ इत्यापुगागमस्य दुर्वारत्वात् ॥ इति ण्यन्तप्रक्रिया ॥

Bālamanoramā

णौ गमिरबोधने - णौ गमिरबोधने ।इणो गा लुङी॑त्यत इण इत्यनुवर्तते । तदाह — इणो गमिरिति । मकारादिकार उच्चारणार्थः । गमयतीति । प्रापयतीत्यर्थः । प्रत्याययतीति । बोधयतीत्यर्थः । लुङि- प्रत्यायियत् । इणो णिचिइणो य॑णिति यणं बाधित्वा परत्वाद्वृद्धावायादेशो आय् इ अ त् इति स्थितेयी॑त्यस्य द्वित्वम् । न च द्वित्वे कार्ये णावजादेशस्य निषिद्धत्वाद्वृद्धेर्निषेधः शङ्क्यः, 'अजादेर्द्वितीयस्य' इति णिचो द्वित्वे उत्तरखण्डे अवर्णाऽभावात् । 'इक स्मरणे' इत्यस्य इण्वत्त्वमुक्तं स्मारयति — इण्वदिक इति.अधिगमयतीति । स्मारयतीत्यर्थः । हन्तेर्ञिति णिति च तकारादेशमुक्तं णौ स्मारयति — हनस्तोऽचिण्णलोरिति । कुत्वमिति ।हस्ये॑ति शेषः । उपधावृद्धिं मत्वाह — घातयतीति । लुङि अजीघतत् । ईर्ष्ययतीति । ईर्ष्यतेर्णौ रूपम् । वक्तव्यमिति ।द्वित्व॑मिति शेषः । इति वाऽर्थ इति । 'न न्द्राः' इति सूत्रभाष्ये स्पष्टमिदम् । आद्ये इति ।तृतीयस्य व्यञ्जनस्ये॑ति पक्षे इत्यर्थः । षकारस्येति । अन्यथा इर्ष्य् इ अ त् इति स्थिते 'न न्द्राः' इति रेफं वर्जयित्वा षकारसहितस्य 'ष्यि' इत्यस्य द्वित्वं स्यात् । ततश्च उत्तरखण्डे णिलोपे ऐर्षिष्यदिति स्यात् । ऐर्ष्य्यदितीष्टं न स्यात् । अतस्तृतीयव्यञ्जनस्येत्युक्तम् । एवं च यकारद्वित्वे णिलोपे संयुक्तद्वियकारमिष्टं सिध्यतीत्यर्थः । द्वितीये इति ।तृतीयैकाच॑इति व्याख्याने इत्यर्थः । सन्नन्ते प्रवर्तते इति ।उक्तवार्तिक॑मिति शेषः । सनि इटि ईर्ष्य् इस इति स्थिते ईर्ष्य् इति प्रथमैकाच्, 'ष्यिस्' इति द्वितीयैकाच् स इति तृतीयैकाजिति स्थितिः । तत्र तृतीयैकाचः संभवात्तस्य द्वित्वविधिः । अन्यथाअजादेर्द्वितीयस्ये॑ति स्यादिति भावः । ऐर्ष्य्यदिति । यकारमात्रस्य द्वित्वे णिलोपे संयुक्तद्वियकारकं रूपम् । अथ द्वितीयव्याख्यायां रूपमाह — ऐर्षिष्यदिति । तदुपपादयति — द्वितीयव्याख्यायामिति । ण्यन्ताच्चङि ईर्ष्य् इ अ त् इति स्थिते 'न न्द्राः' इति निषेधाद्रेफं वर्जयित्वाअजादेर्द्वितीयस्ये॑ति 'ष्यि' इत्यस्य द्वित्वं न तु यकारमात्रस्य, प्रथमव्याख्याने एव तृतीयव्यञ्जनस्येत्युक्तेः । तत्र 'ष्यि' इत्यस्य द्वित्वे कृतेऽपि अभ्यासे षकारएव हल् इकारशिरस्कः श्रूयते, न तु यकारोऽपीत्यर्थः । कुत इत्यत आह — हलादिशेषादिति । ननु तृतीयस्यैकाच द्वितीयव्याख्यायामिह द्वितीयस्यैकाचः कथं द्वित्वमित्यत आह — द्वित्वं तु द्वितीयस्यैवेति । 'एकाच' इति शेषः । कुत इत्यत आह — तृतीयाभावेनेति । ईर्ष्य् इ अ त् इत्यत्र ईर्ष्य् इति प्रथमैकाच्, र्ष्यि इति द्वितीयैकाच् , न तु चङि परे तृतीयैकाजस्ति । अतोऽत्र 'तृतीयैकाच' इति वार्तिकं न प्रवर्तते । तस्माद्द्वितीयस्यैव एकाचो द्वित्वमित्यर्थः । एवं च 'तृतीयस्यैकाच' इति वार्तिकं सन्नन्त एव प्रवर्तते । ईष्र्यतेरामः सत्त्वेन ततः परस्यलिटोऽभावादिति बोध्यम् । ननुप्रार्थयन्ति शयनोत्थितं प्रियाः॑ इति माघकाव्ये प्रार्थयन्तीति न चौरादिकस्वार्थिकणिजन्तं, तस्याऽऽगर्वीयतया आत्मनेपदप्रसङ्गात् । नापिहेतुमण्ण्यन्तं ,स्वाभीष्टं याचते इत्यर्थे तदसंभवात् । नहि प्रयोजकव्यापाराऽभावे तत्प्रवृत्तिरस्तीत्यत आह — निवृत्तेति । निवृत्तं प्रेषणं यस्मात् स निवृत्तप्रेषणः । संप्रति अविवक्षितप्रेषण इत्यर्थः । तस्माद्धातोर्भूतपूर्वगत्या प्रेषणमादाय हेतुमण्णौ कृते शुद्धेन णिज्विहीनेन धातुना तुल्योऽर्थः प्रतीयते इत्यर्थः । तदुक्तं — ॒निवृत्तप्रेषणाद्धातोः प्राकृतेऽर्थे णिजिष्यते॑इति । इदं च 'णेरणौ' इति सूत्रे भाष्ये स्पष्टम् ॥ इति बालमनोरमायाम् हेतुमण्णिच्प्रक्रिया॥अथ पाञ्चमिकास्तत्र छयद्विधिः । — — — — — — — — — — —

translator notes

commentary BM: 'iṇaḥ' is carried forward (anuvartate) from 'iṇo gā luṅi' [SK 2458]; hence 'iṇo gamiḥ'. The i after the m is only there so that it can be pronounced. gamayati means 'makes reach' (prāpayati); pratyāyayati means 'makes known' (bodhayati). Followed: the anuvṛtti bracket, and 'gam (gami)'.
commentary BM on pratyāyayati: in luṅ, pratyāyiyat (so ours; Wikisource uttara-2/0110 reads 'pratyāyayat'). With ṇic after iṇ, vṛddhi and āy, being later (para), set aside yaṇ by 'iṇo yaṇ' [SK 2455], and āy i a t stands; 'yi' is doubled. It should not be objected that vṛddhi is barred because the vowel-substitute before ṇi is prohibited when doubling is to be done: ṇic is doubled by 'ajāder dvitīyasya', and then there is no a in the post-abhyāsa part. Recorded; this is commentary, not kaumudī.
commentary TB (sk.2607.t1): iṇ with prati has the sense of knowing; luṅ pratyāyiyat. vṛddhi, being para, sets aside 'iṇo yaṇ'. It should not be argued, from the indication (jñāpaka) of 'oḥ puyaṇjy…', that doubling comes first and vṛddhi after it: ṇic is doubled by 'ajāder dvitīyasya', and then the post-abhyāsa part is not followed by a. Recorded; agrees with BM.
commentary BM: Bhaṭṭoji recalls the iṇ-likeness stated [earlier] for 'ik smaraṇe'; adhigamayati means 'reminds' (smārayati). He recalls that t replaces [the n of] han before ñit and ṇit, [here] before ṇi. For 'kutvam', 'hasya' ('of the h') is the remainder (śeṣa). ghātayati assumes vṛddhi of the penultimate; in luṅ, ajīghatat. īrṣyayati is the form of īrṣy before ṇi. Followed: '[adhi + ik]', '[t replaces the n of han before ṇi]' and '[the h — hasya supplied]'.
commentary BM on 'vaktavyam': 'dvitvam' ('doubling') is the remainder (śeṣa). 'iti vārthaḥ': this is made clear in the Bhāṣya on 'na ndrāḥ' [SK 2446]. 'ādye' means on the view 'of the third consonant'. 'ṣakārasya': otherwise, with īrṣy i a t standing and r excluded by 'na ndrāḥ', 'ṣyi' together with the ṣ would be doubled, and after deletion of ṇi in the post-abhyāsa part the form would be airṣiṣyat, not the wanted airṣyyat. Hence 'third consonant': y alone is doubled, and with ṇi deleted the wanted form with two conjoined y's results. Followed: '[doubling]' in k4.
commentary BM on the second interpretation: it applies in the sannanta. With san and iṭ, īrṣy i sa stands. īrṣ is the first ekāc, ṣyis the second, sa the third. A third ekāc is present, so its doubling is prescribed; otherwise 'ajāder dvitīyasya' would apply. airṣiṣyat: in the ṇic-final with caṅ, īrṣy i a t stands. r is excluded by 'na ndrāḥ', and by 'ajāder dvitīyasya' 'ṣyi' is doubled, not y alone, since 'third consonant' belongs only to the first interpretation. Even with 'ṣyi' doubled, only ṣ, the consonant carrying the i, is heard in the abhyāsa, by halādiḥ śeṣaḥ. With caṅ there is no third ekāc (īrṣ first, 'rṣyi' second), so the vārttika does not apply, and doubling is of the second ekāc. The vārttika thus operates only in the sannanta; [not in liṭ,] since īrṣy takes ām, so no liṭ directly follows it. Followed: the assignment of the two forms and '[ekāc]'.
commentary TB (sk.2607.t1): 'iti vārthaḥ': both interpretations are grounded in the source works (ākara). 'ṣakārasya': because [doubling] of the r is prohibited by 'na ndrāḥ'. 'dvitīye tu': on the 'third ekāc' view. 'sannante pravartate': by the force of the statement. airṣyiyat is the example on the 'third consonant' view. With 'dvitīyavyākhyāyām…' Bhaṭṭoji justifies airṣiṣyat against a suspicion that it is ungrammatical. 'apravṛtteḥ': the vārttika applies only in the sannanta, where he will shortly give īrṣyiyiṣati. Followed: airṣyiyat assigned to the first interpretation.
commentary BM on the form of the first interpretation: BM (ours and Wikisource) twice gives it as 'airṣyyat', with y alone doubled ('the form with two conjoined y's'). The kaumudī, in ours and in the print (NSP p. 433, scan page-0443, read), and TB's lemma read 'airṣyiyat'; the Wikisource kaumudī (uttara-2/0111), however, reads 'airṣyyat-airṣiṣyat', agreeing with BM. Recorded; the English keeps the kaumudī's form as in ours and the print.
commentary BM on 'nivṛttapreṣaṇāt': objection — in Māgha's poem, 'prārthayanti śayanotthitaṃ priyāḥ' cannot be the curādi svārthika ṇic-final, since that root is āgarvīya and would take ātmanepada. Nor can it be the hetumaṇṇic-final, because the sense is 'asks for what one wants', and without any prompting there is no hetumaṇṇic. Reply: 'nivṛttapreṣaṇa' is [a dhātu] from which the prompting has departed, i.e. prompting is not now intended. From such a dhātu, hetumaṇṇic is made by taking the prompting as something that once was (bhūtapūrvagati), and the meaning understood is the same as that of the plain dhātu without ṇic. As it is said: 'nivṛttapreṣaṇād dhātoḥ prākṛte 'rthe ṇij iṣyate'. This is clear in the Bhāṣya on 'ṇer aṇau' [SK 2738]. Followed: 'the plain [dhātu]'.
commentary TB (sk.2607.t1): the objection is that arth 'upayācñāyām' is āgarvīya and should take ātmanepada, so that 'prārthayanti' in Māgha and elsewhere is ungrammatical; Bhaṭṭoji defends it with 'nivṛttapreṣaṇāt', and it is said: 'nivṛttapreṣaṇād dhātoḥ prākṛte 'rthe ṇij ucyate'. 'tena…': the usage is justified in the intended sense 'they make a request'. Some explain it, to obtain parasmaipada, as prārtha = prārthana, 'they make a request (prārtha)'; that is wrong. When an affix that makes a dhātu is to be added, the upasargas are separated (as will be stated), so the augment āpuk by 'arthaveda…' could not be avoided. Recorded.
textual Our kaumudī reads 'tṛtīyaikāceti vārthaḥ'. NSP p. 433 (scan page-0443, read) and Wikisource read 'tṛtīyaikāca iti vārthaḥ'. The sense is the same. Ours also reads 'halādeḥ śeṣāt'; the print reads 'halādiḥśeṣāt', the sūtra-name halādiḥ śeṣaḥ in the fifth case, and Wikisource reads 'halādiśeṣāt'. The English follows the print ('because of halādiḥ śeṣaḥ'). These are mūla readings, for Ajai; source.json has not been edited.
textual Our source lacks the colophon. The print ends the unit '…evaṃ sakarmakeṣu sarveṣūhyam || iti ṇyantaprakriyā ||' (NSP p. 433, scan page-0443, read), and then gives the heading 'tiṅante sannantaprakriyā 52'. The English supplies the colophon in brackets. TB closes with the same 'iti ṇyantaprakriyā' (sk.2607.t1). Wikisource has 'iti tiṅantaṇicprakaraṇam'. This is a mūla omission, for Ajai.
textual The '(vārtikam)' tags at the head of our k3 and k5 are editorial. The print (NSP p. 433, scan page-0443, read) marks the two vārttikas, 'iṇvad ikaḥ' and 'īrṣyates tṛtīyasyeti vaktavyam', with its vārttika sign placed before them. The English therefore labels k2 and k4 as the vārttikas and leaves Bhaṭṭoji's prose unlabelled. The OCR of this page (page-0443.txt) skips the kaumudī of this unit up to 'halādiḥśeṣāt', so it was read from the scan. Apart from the readings noted, ours matches the print.
translator Neither commentator glosses 'evaṃ sakarmakeṣu sarveṣūhyam'. The English keeps its scope as open as the Sanskrit. The rendering of the quoted half-line from Māgha supplies '[him]' as the object of the entreaty.

तिङन्तणिच्प्रकरणम्