PREMABASESiddhānta-kaumudī
Prakaraṇa 57 · SK 2650–2656

तिङन्तयङ्लुक्प्रकरणम्

tiṅantayaṅlukprakaraṇam · 7 sūtras
📖 This chapter in the textbook →outline ↗
show
SK 2650 · A 2.4.74V
यङोऽचि च ॥ २६५० ॥
yaṅo'ci ca
yaṅo 'ci ca — [Luk — carried forward (anuvṛtti) from ṇyakṣatriyārṣañito yūni luk aṇiñoḥ, SK 1276 —] of yaṅ [occurs] when the suffix ac follows; and (ca) [— drawing in 'bahulam' from bahulaṃ chandasi, SK 3400 —] [it occurs] variously (bahulam) [even without that suffix].

Rule. The affix yaṅ undergoes luk when the suffix ac follows. By the word ca "and", it also undergoes luk "variously" (bahulam) even without that suffix. Bahulam means that the rule applies in some places and not in others.

The sūtra is short, and two words come from elsewhere by anuvṛtti. "Luk" comes from SK 1276 (ṇyakṣatriyārṣañito yūni luk aṇiñoḥ). "Bahulam" is drawn in by the ca from bahulaṃ chandasi, a rule of the Vedic section (SK 3400). Bhaṭṭoji's gloss takes aci as the suffix ac, a kṛt affix. It does not mean the pratyāhāra ac "any vowel". His commentators give the reason, association (sāhacarya): it stands beside yaṅ, which is a suffix too.

Two kinds of luk. Bhaṭṭoji names the kind that occurs without ac anaimittika, "unconditioned". Nothing that follows causes it. Being antaraṅga, it applies first. An antaraṅga operation is one that depends on less, or on what lies nearer the root; it takes effect before its rivals.

Bhaṭṭoji's commentators supply the other kind. Both call the luk before the suffix ac naimittika, "conditioned": the ac causes it. Both tie it to SK 2656: the guṇa the suffix ac would bring is barred, because the ac causes the deletion of the yaṅ. One of them, the Bālamanoramā, adds that this luk is therefore bahiraṅga, the opposite of antaraṅga. So there doubling comes first, and the luk of yaṅ after it.

Example (without ac). Bhaṭṭoji gives the order of steps. The root is bhū "to be".

bhū + yaṅ (the intensive affix of chapter 56)

→ this rule: luk of yaṅ, unconditioned, so antaraṅga, so first → bhū

→ the yaṅ is gone, but by pratyayalakṣaṇa (SK 262) the root still counts as ending in yaṅ

→ so doubling by sanyaṅoḥ (SK 2395) → bhū bhū

→ the operations on the abhyāsa (abhyāsakārya): shortening (SK 2180) → bhu bhū; b for bh (SK 2182) → bu bhū; guṇa of the abhyāsa by guṇo yaṅlukoḥ (SK 2630) → bobhū

→ the whole is a dhātu (SK 2304), so the lakāras come: laṭ

→ parasmaipada by śeṣāt kartari parasmaipadam (SK 2159): the ending tip → bobhū + ti

→ śap comes (SK 2167) and undergoes luk, because carkarītaṃ ca is read in the ad class (SK 2423) → bobhū + ti

→ the next sūtra gives bobhavīti and bobhoti.

Example (with ac). One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators shows the other kind on the root lū.

lū + yaṅ → the luk is conditioned, so it waits; doubling comes first → lu lū + ya

→ guṇa of the abhyāsa (SK 2630) → lolūya

→ the kṛt suffix ac follows → this rule: luk of yaṅ → lolū + a

→ guṇa of ū before ac is due, but SK 2656 bars it → uvaṅ (SK 271) → loluva.

Without the luk, the same commentator gives lolūya. Without ac, he gives the pair bobhūyate (no luk, chapter 56) and bobhavīti (luk).

Applies when / blocked by. Does na lumatāṅgasya (SK 263) not stop the doubling? An affix removed by luk conditions no operation on the base. Bhaṭṭoji's commentators answer in two ways.

  • One says doubling is an operation of the whole form ending in yaṅ. It is not an operation conditioned by the yaṅ. The dhātu name by SK 2304 is likewise not an operation on the base before the yaṅ. So SK 263 bars neither.
  • The other reads the word sanyaṅoḥ in SK 2395 as a sixth case, "of what ends in san or yaṅ". Were it a seventh case, "when san or yaṅ follows", the elided yaṅ could not condition the doubling, and there would be none.

There is a second objection. Doubling by SK 2175 names "one vowel" (ekāc). The verse under SK 2246 says such rules do not hold in yaṅ-luk. Yet the root is doubled. Bhaṭṭoji's commentators answer that guṇo yaṅlukoḥ (SK 2630) prescribes guṇa for the abhyāsa in yaṅ-luk. That rule would be pointless if there were no doubling. So it is a jñāpaka: a sign in the wording of a sūtra that shows a further principle. Here the principle is that the prohibition in the verse is anitya, not invariable. Section B returns to this with han.

Parasmaipada only. Bhaṭṭoji says the stem takes parasmaipada by SK 2159, and not ātmanepada by anudāttaṅita ātmanepadam (SK 2157). Why not? Yaṅ is ṅit, marked with ṅ, and SK 2157 gives ātmanepada after a ṅit. But being ṅit is common to suffixes and non-suffixes. Bhaṭṭoji's commentators give citraṅ as a non-suffix with the marker ṅ. Pratyayalakṣaṇa holds only where a property exclusive (asādhāraṇa) to suffixes is relied upon. So it does not carry the ṅ of the deleted yaṅ.

Bhaṭṭoji gives a parallel. In sudṛṣatprāsādaḥ "[a palace] with fine stones", the lengthening of SK 425 does not take place. Bhaṭṭoji's commentators explain: the ending as that was deleted occurs both as a suffix and as a non-suffix. So the stem does not count as ending in as by pratyayalakṣaṇa.

What of roots that are themselves anudātta-marked or ṅit, such as spardh and śīṅ? Anudātta is the low pitch-accent. A root whose marker vowel is anudātta takes ātmanepada by SK 2157. Bhaṭṭoji says they too take no ātmanepada in yaṅ-luk. SK 2157 cites them by their marker (anubandha). The paribhāṣā śtipā śapā… excludes such a citation in yaṅ-luk. A paribhāṣā is a rule about how other rules are read. This one is the verse of SK 2246. One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators says why Bhaṭṭoji does not use this second answer for bhū as well. Bhū is not cited with a marker. The ṅ of yaṅ belongs to the suffix, not to the whole form.

The vikaraṇa. By the same paribhāṣā, Bhaṭṭoji says, śyan and the other class-signs (vikaraṇa) do not come. They are taught by citing a class (gaṇa). Only śap comes. One of his commentators adds that śap comes because its rule, SK 2167, lies outside the prohibition. Then śap undergoes luk. The reason is that the line carkarītaṃ ca is read in the ad class. One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators names the rule: adiprabhṛtibhyaḥ śapaḥ (SK 2423).

Watch out. The luk this chapter conjugates is the unconditioned one. It comes before doubling, not after. Do not confuse it with the conditioned luk before ac, which comes after doubling and which SK 2656 concerns. Some carried the word chandasi "in the Veda" into this sūtra as well, as if yaṅ-luk were Vedic only. One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators refutes them; the other says that even on their view yaṅ-luk is sometimes used in ordinary speech. Bhaṭṭoji's own proof of that comes under SK 2651.

Siddhānta-kaumudī
यङोऽच्प्रत्यये लुक् स्याच्चकारात्तं विनापि बहुलं लुक् स्यात् । अनैमित्तिकोऽयमन्तरङ्गत्वादादौ भवति । ततः प्रत्ययलक्षणेन यङन्तत्वाद्द्वित्वम् । अभ्यासकार्यम् । धातुत्वाल्लडादयः । शेषात्कर्तरि - SK 2149 इति परस्मैपदम् । अनुदात्तङित - SK 2157 इति तु न । ङित्त्वस्य प्रत्ययाप्रत्ययसाधारणत्वेन प्रत्ययलक्षणाप्रवृत्तेः । यत्र हि प्रत्ययस्यासाधारणं रूपमाश्रीयते तत्रैव तत् । अत एव सुदृषत्प्रासाद इत्यत्र अत्वसन्तस्य - SK 425 इति दीर्घो न । येऽपि स्पर्धशीङादयोऽनुदात्तङितस्तेभ्योपि न । अनुदात्तङित - SK 2157 । इत्यनुबन्धनिर्देशात् । तत्र च [(परिभाषा - ) श्तिपा शपा...] इति निषेधात् । अत एव श्यन्नादयो न । गणेन निर्देशात् । किंतु शबेव । चर्करीतं चेत्यादादौ पाठाच्छपो लुक् ॥

Let there be luk of yaṅ when the suffix (pratyaya) ac follows [— 'luk' carried forward (anuvṛtti) from SK 1276; 'ac' here is the suffix, not the pratyāhāra]. By the ca, let there variously (bahulam) be luk even without that [suffix — 'bahulam' drawn in from bahulaṃ chandasi, SK 3400]. This [luk, the one that occurs without the suffix ac,] is unconditioned (anaimittika); being antaraṅga, it takes place first. After that, doubling [by sanyaṅoḥ, SK 2395], because [the root] ends in yaṅ by pratyayalakṣaṇa [i.e. by pratyayalope pratyayalakṣaṇam, SK 262, although the yaṅ has been elided]. [Then] the operations on the abhyāsa (abhyāsakārya). Because [the whole] is a dhātu [by sanādyantā dhātavaḥ, SK 2304], laṭ and the other lakāras [are added]. Parasmaipada [comes] by śeṣāt kartari parasmaipadam (SK 2159). But not [ātmanepada] by anudāttaṅita ātmanepadam (SK 2157), because being ṅit is common to suffixes and non-suffixes, and so pratyayalakṣaṇa does not operate. For that [pratyayalakṣaṇa] holds only where a form exclusive (asādhāraṇa) to a suffix is relied upon. For this very reason, in sudṛṣatprāsādaḥ the lengthening by atvasantasya cādhātoḥ (SK 425) does not take place. Even those that are anudātta-it or ṅit, such as spardha and śīṅ — from them too [ātmanepada does] not [come in yaṅluk], because anudāttaṅita… (SK 2157) is a citation by anubandha, and for that [kind of citation] there is the prohibition [by the paribhāṣā] 'śtipā śapā…'. For this very reason śyan and the other [vikaraṇas] do not [come], because [they are taught] by citation of a gaṇa; only śap [comes]. Since 'carkarītaṃ ca' is read in the adādi [class], [there is] luk of śap.

Tattvabodhinī
alignment inferredNSP p. 449
यङोऽचि च ॥ यङा साहचर्यादचीति प्रत्ययो गृह्यते नतु प्रत्याहारः । ‘ण्यक्षत्रियार्षं—’ इत्यतोऽत्र लुगनुवर्तते । तदाह—अच्प्रत्यये लुक् स्यादिति । चकारेण ‘बहुलं छन्दसि’ इत्यतो बहुलमित्यनुकृष्यत इत्याह—बहुलं लुक् स्यादिति । केचित्तु छन्दसीत्यनुकर्षन्ति तेषामपि मते क्वचिद्भाषायां यङ्लुग्भवत्येव । भूसुवोरिति गुणनिषेधे सिद्धे बोभूत्विति छन्दसि निपातनाज्ज्ञापकात् । एतच्च मूले एव स्फुटीभविष्यति —अनैमित्तिकोऽयमिति । अच्प्रत्यये विधीयमानो यङ्लुक् तु तन्निमित्त एव । तेन लोलुवः पोपुवः इत्यादौ ‘न धातुलोप—’ इति निषेधः सिध्यति ॥—यङन्तत्वादिति । ‘सन्यङोः’ इति षष्ठी न तु सप्तमी । अन्यथा यङो लुका लुप्तत्वेन प्रत्ययलक्षणाप्रवृत्तेर्द्वित्वं न स्यादिति भावः । न चाङ्गाधिकारविहितकार्यस्यैव ‘न लुमता—’ इति निषेधाद्द्वित्वमत्र स्यादेवेति सप्तमीपक्षोऽपि निर्दुष्ट इति वाच्यम् । ‘न लुमता—’ इत्यत्राङ्गाधिकारो न गृह्यते किं तु आङ्गमनाङ्गं वा प्रत्यये परतः पूर्वस्य विधीयमानं सर्वमिति सिद्धान्तात् । अन्यथा राजपुरुष इत्यादौ नलोपो न स्यात्, त्वदुक्तरीत्या प्रत्ययलक्षणप्रवृत्तौ भत्वेन पदत्वबाधात् । यद्यपि ‘एकाचः—’ इति विधीयमानं द्वित्वं ‘श्तिपाशपा—’ इत्यादिना निषिध्यते तथापि तत्स्यादेव । ‘गुणो यङ्लुकोः’, ‘रुग्रिकौ च लुकि’ इत्याद्यभ्यासकार्यविधिभिर्द्वित्वानिषेधस्य ज्ञापनात् ॥—प्रत्ययाप्रत्ययेति । प्रत्यये ङित्त्वं दृश्यते ‘ऋतेरीयङ्’ इत्यादिषु, अप्रत्ययेऽपि दृश्यते चित्रङादिषु । एवं च यङो लुकि प्रत्ययलक्षणेन यङाश्रितङित्त्वप्रयुक्तकार्यमात्मनेपदमत्र न शङ्क्यमिति भावः । ङित इत्यनुबन्धनिर्देशादिति परिहारस्त्वत्र नोक्तः शीङादीनामिव भू इत्यादिधातूनामनुबन्धेनानिर्दिष्टत्वात् । यङो ङकारस्य प्रत्ययानुबन्धत्वेन समुदायाननुबन्धत्वात् यङन्तोऽपि धातुरनुबन्धेनानिर्दिष्ट इति बोध्यम् ॥—सुदृषदिति । शोभना दृषदोऽस्मिन्निति बहुव्रीहौ दृषच्छब्दो जसन्तः ॥—दीर्घो नेति । असिति प्रत्ययोऽप्रत्ययश्चास्तीति प्रत्ययस्या-साधारणरूपानाश्रयणात्प्रत्ययलक्षणेनासन्तत्वाभावादिति भावः ॥—तेभ्योऽपीति । ये त्वनुदात्तेतः प्रत्ययलक्षणं विनैव ङितश्च तेभ्योऽपीत्यर्थः ॥—अदादौ पाठादिति । तथा च ‘अदिप्रभृतिभ्यः शपः’ इत्यनेन यङ्लुगन्तात्परस्य शपो लुगित्यर्थः
translator notes
  • commentary TB on the sūtra itself (sk.2650.t1, opening; re-filed from the tail of sk.2649.t1 on 2026-10-05; NSP p. 439): by association (sāhacarya) with yaṅ, 'aci' denotes the suffix ac, not the pratyāhāra. 'luk' is carried forward (anuvartate) from ṇyakṣatriyārṣa… [SK 1276]; by ca, 'bahulam' is drawn in (anukṛṣyate) from bahulaṃ chandasi [SK 3400]. Some draw in 'chandasi' as well, but even on their view yaṅluk sometimes occurs in the spoken language (bhāṣā), on the indication (jñāpaka) of the irregular Vedic form bobhūtu, which is made restrictive because the guṇa-prohibition by bhūsuvoḥ was already established; this, TB says, will become clear in the mūla itself (SK 2651). Followed: the anuvṛtti brackets and 'the suffix, not the pratyāhāra'.
  • commentary BM (absent from our source.json; read in Wikisource uttara-2/0135–0136) gives the same three points: aci is the suffix by association with yaṅ, luk is carried forward from ṇyakṣatriyārṣa…, and bahula is drawn in by ca. 'Without that' means 'even where there is no suffix ac'. So from lū with yaṅ and ac, lolūya [without luk] and loluva [with luk]; without ac, the optional luk gives bobhūyate and bobhavīti. Followed: '[even without that suffix]'.
  • commentary BM (WS uttara-2/0135) on 'anaimittiko 'yam': the yaṅluk found elsewhere than before ac, as in bobhavīti, is unconditioned. So, being antaraṅga, it applies before doubling, even though doubling is the later (para) rule; Bhaṭṭoji is describing how things actually stand. The yaṅluk taught before the suffix ac is conditioned (naimittika) and therefore bahiraṅga. There doubling comes first, being para and nitya, and then the luk of yaṅ; the guṇa that the suffix ac would bring is barred by na dhātulopa ārdhadhātuke [SK 2656], because ac causes the deletion of yaṅ. Followed: 'This [luk, the one that occurs without the suffix ac,]'.
  • commentary TB (sk.2650.t1): the yaṅluk taught before the suffix ac is conditioned (naimittika) by it, and that is how the prohibition na dhātulopa… [SK 2656] works in loluvaḥ and popuvaḥ. Followed: the contrast in 'This [luk, the one that occurs without the suffix ac,]'.
  • commentary TB (sk.2650.t1) on 'yaṅantatvāt': in sanyaṅoḥ [SK 2395] the case ending is the sixth (ṣaṣṭhī), not the seventh. Were it the seventh, the yaṅ having been elided by luk, pratyayalakṣaṇa would not operate [by na lumatāṅgasya] and there would be no doubling. TB rejects the defence of the seventh-case view (that na lumatā… bars only operations taught in the aṅga section). Its ground is the settled view that na lumatā… covers everything, aṅga or not, prescribed for what precedes a following suffix; otherwise n would not be deleted in rājapuruṣaḥ. TB adds that the doubling by ekācaḥ… would be barred by śtipā śapā…, but it still takes place. guṇo yaṅlukoḥ and rugrikau ca luki prescribe operations on the abhyāsa, and so they show that the prohibition does not apply. Followed: '[the root] ends in yaṅ by pratyayalakṣaṇa'.
  • commentary BM (WS uttara-2/0135) on 'tataḥ': 'after the luk of yaṅ'. na lumatāṅgasya [SK 263] bars only aṅga operations conditioned by the elided suffix. Doubling is an operation of the yaṅanta, not one conditioned by yaṅ. The dhātu designation (by sanādyantāḥ) belongs to the yaṅanta and is not an aṅga operation before yaṅ, so na lumatā… does not bar it. 'abhyāsakāryam' means guṇa and the like. BM also cites the same jñāpaka (guṇo yaṅlukoḥ) against the śtipā śapā… prohibition of doubling. Followed: the bracketed rule references.
  • commentary TB (sk.2650.t1) on 'pratyayāpratyaya…': ṅit is found in suffixes (ṛter īyaṅ, etc.) and also in non-suffixes (citraṅ, etc.). So ātmanepada, an operation due to the ṅit of yaṅ, cannot be suspected here by pratyayalakṣaṇa. Bhaṭṭoji does not give here the other answer, 'ṅita ity anubandhanirdeśāt'. The reason is that roots such as bhū are not, like śīṅ, cited with an anubandha: the ṅ of yaṅ is the suffix's anubandha, not the whole's, so the yaṅanta is not cited with an anubandha either. Followed.
  • commentary BM (WS uttara-2/0136) on 'pratyayāpratyaya…': pratyayalakṣaṇa operates only where an operation relies on a property found in suffixes alone, as when the elided sup makes rājan a pada in rājā; ṅit is found in non-suffixes such as citraṅ as well. Followed.
  • commentary TB (sk.2650.t1) on sudṛṣat-: a bahuvrīhi, 'in which there are fine stones'; the word dṛṣad there ends in jas. No lengthening, because 'as' occurs both as suffix and as non-suffix, so no form exclusive to a suffix is relied upon and there is no as-finality by pratyayalakṣaṇa. Recorded; the English already says this.
  • commentary BM (WS uttara-2/0136) on sudṛṣat-: there is no lengthening, because 'as' occurs both as suffix and as non-suffix, so there is no as-finality by pratyayalakṣaṇa. na lumatā… cannot be the reason, because the lengthening belongs to the as-final stem and is not an aṅga operation before jas. Recorded; the English already says this.
  • commentary TB (sk.2650.t1) on 'tebhyo 'pi': that is, from those that are anudātta-it or ṅit without any pratyayalakṣaṇa. On 'adādau pāṭhāt': the sense is luk of śap after a yaṅluganta by adiprabhṛtibhyaḥ śapaḥ [SK 2423]. Followed: 'from them too [ātmanepada does] not [come in yaṅluk]'.
  • commentary BM (WS uttara-2/0136) on 'ata eva': because of the śtipā śapā prohibition, the vikaraṇas taught by gaṇa (divādibhyaḥ śyan, rudhādibhyaḥ śnam, etc.) do not come; śap comes because kartari śap is outside the scope of that prohibition. Followed: '[vikaraṇas]'.
  • textual The cross-reference after 'śeṣāt kartari' is SK 2149 in ours; the print has '2159' (NSP p. 439, scan page-0449, read), as does Wikisource. SK 2149 is yathāsve yathāyatham; śeṣāt kartari parasmaipadam is SK 2159. The English gives SK 2159. Our '[(paribhāṣā - ) śtipā śapā...]' is an editorial bracket and ellipsis; the print has '(pa) śtipā śapeti', and the words agree.
  • textual No BM in our source.json for any unit of this prakaraṇa (sk2650–sk2656). Wikisource (uttara-2/0135–0153) has the full BM on the yaṅluganta-prakriyā, and it was read as the BM input throughout.
SK 2651 · A 7.3.94V
यङो वा ॥ २६५१ ॥
yaṅo vā
yaṅo vā — After [a root ending in] yaṅ, [īṭ — carried forward (anuvṛtti) from bruva īṭ, SK 2452 —] is optionally [added to a following sārvadhātuka that is pit — 'piti sārvadhātuke' carried forward from nābhyastasyāci piti sārvadhātuke, SK 2503 — and begins with a consonant — 'hali' carried forward from uto vṛddhir luki hali, SK 2443].

Rule. After a stem ending in yaṅ, the augment īṭ is optionally added to a following sārvadhātuka that begins with a consonant (hal) and is pit. A sārvadhātuka is a verb-ending or ś-marked affix taught after a root (SK 2166). Pit means marked with p: the endings tip, sip, mip and a few others. Īṭ is the augment ī.

Three words come by anuvṛtti. Bhaṭṭoji's commentators name their sources: "pit sārvadhātuka" from nābhyastasyāci piti sārvadhātuke (SK 2503), "consonant-initial" (hali) from uto vṛddhir luki hali (SK 2443), and īṭ from bruva īṭ (SK 2452). The yaṅ is deleted in this chapter, but by pratyayalakṣaṇa the stem still ends in yaṅ. One commentator rejects a reading on which yaṅ here stands for the yaṅ-luk stem itself. The other notes that īṭ, being marked with ṭ, goes at the front of the ending.

Example.

bobhū + tip (Section A) → p is a marker → bobhū + ti

→ this rule: īṭ at the front of ti → bobhū + īti

→ guṇa of ū before the sārvadhātuka (SK 2168) → bobho + īti

→ av for o before a vowel (SK 61) → bobhavīti.

Without īṭ:

bobhū + ti → guṇa (SK 2168) → bobhoti.

Why guṇa at all? Bhaṭṭoji's argument. Bhūsuvos tiṅi (SK 2224) bars guṇa of bhū before a verb-ending. Should it not bar the guṇa in bobhoti? Bhaṭṭoji says the bar does not hold in yaṅ-luk in ordinary speech (bhāṣā). His proof is a Vedic form.

  • The Vedic rule dādharti… bobhūtu tetikte… (SK 3596) gives bobhūtu ready-made for the Veda (chandas). A form given ready-made in a sūtra is a nipātana.
  • bobhūtu is a yaṅ-luk form of bhū without guṇa. If SK 2224 already barred guṇa there, nothing new is taught.
  • So the nipātana is a niyama, a restriction: the guṇa of this yaṅ-luk form is barred only in the Veda. Bhaṭṭoji's commentators state this sense.
  • It follows, Bhaṭṭoji adds, that yaṅ-luk itself is established in ordinary speech, and not in the Veda alone.

The objection and the paribhāṣā. Could one say instead that SK 2224 never reaches the doubled stem, so that bobhūtu teaches a new absence of guṇa? Bhaṭṭoji rejects this. By a paribhāṣā, the mention of a base (prakṛti) includes its yaṅ-luk form as well: prakṛtigrahaṇe yaṅlugantasyāpi grahaṇam. So "bhū" in SK 2224 includes bobhū.

This paribhāṣā rests on a settled conclusion (siddhānta): the doubling taught in the sixth book of the Aṣṭādhyāyī (ṣāṣṭha) is a pronouncing twice (dviḥ prayoga). The doubled stem is the same root said twice, not a new item. One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators concludes that the paribhāṣā is established by reasoning. It is not a fresh statement.

bhū → bobhū

The stem was built in Section A. The forms:

  • laṭ. 3rd sg. bobhavīti / bobhoti. 3rd du. bobhūtaḥ: tas is not pit, so it takes no īṭ, and as a non-pit sārvadhātuka it counts as ṅit (SK 2234), which blocks guṇa (SK 2217). 3rd pl. bobhuvati: jhi becomes at after a doubled stem (adabhyastāt, SK 2479), and ū becomes uv before the vowel (uvaṅ, SK 271).
  • liṭ bobhavāṃcakāra, with ām. luṭ bobhavitā.
  • laṅ. abobhavīt / abobhot; abobhūtām; abobhavuḥ.
  • liṅ. bobhūyāt serves for both kinds of liṅ, as one of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators notes. The 3rd du. differs: bobhūyātām (vidhiliṅ), bobhūyāstām (āśīrliṅ).
  • luṅ. Sic is deleted by gātisthāghupābhūbhyaḥ (SK 2223). Then:

abobhū + īt (with this rule's īṭ)

→ guṇa is due before the sārvadhātuka, but vuk (SK 2174) adds v after bhū

→ vuk is nitya: it applies whether or not guṇa has applied, so it wins → abobhūv + īt → abobhūvīt.

Without īṭ: abobhot. 3rd du. abobhūtām. 3rd pl.: the jus that replaces jhi here is the one that depends on the doubled stem (abhyasta, SK 2226). Vuk, again nitya, sets guṇa aside → abobhūvuḥ.

  • lṛṅ abobhaviṣyat.

One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators rejects those who would make vuk not nitya here and so give abobhavīt. That contradicts the Bhāṣya's own words: "because vuk of bhū is nitya". Both explain the jus. The restriction of SK 2227, which allows jus after a deleted sic only for roots ending in ā, governs only the jus due to a following sic, not the jus due to the abhyasta.

spardh → pāspardh

spardh spardh → śarpūrvāḥ khayaḥ (SK 2259): in a cluster headed by a sibilant, the stop is kept → pa spardh

→ dīrgho 'kitaḥ (SK 2632) lengthens the abhyāsa → pāspardh.

Spardh is cited with an anudātta marker, yet it takes no ātmanepada here (SK 2650).

  • laṭ. pāspardhīti with īṭ. Without īṭ, Bhaṭṭoji prints pāspardhi. One of his commentators derives it: t becomes dh after dh (jhaṣas tathor dho 'dhaḥ, SK 2280), and the first dh becomes d (jaś, SK 52). The other adds that the first of the two may be dropped (jharo jhari savarṇe, SK 71). Then pāspardhaḥ, pāspardhati, and 2nd sg. pāspartsi.
  • loṭ 2nd sg.: hi becomes dhi after a jhal-final stem (hujhalbhyo her dhiḥ, SK 2425) → pāspardhi.
  • laṅ 3rd sg.:

apāspardh + t → the one-sound ending is lost after a consonant (SK 252) → apāspardh

→ jaś at the end of the word (SK 84) → apāspard → optional car at a pause (SK 206) → apāspart / apāspard.

  • laṅ 2nd sg., with sip:

apāspardh + s → jaś → apāspard + s

→ daś ca (SK 2468) optionally gives ru (r) for the d → apāspar + r + s

→ s is lost (SK 252) → ro ri (SK 173) deletes the first r → apāspa + r

→ ḍhralope (SK 174) lengthens the vowel before the lost r → apāspā + r → visarga → apāspāḥ.

This order of steps is one commentator's. The other notes that the option of ru implies the plain forms apāspart / apāspard as well.

gādh → jāgādh

gādh gādh → halādiḥ śeṣaḥ (SK 2179): only the first consonant of the abhyāsa stays → gā gādh

→ shortening (SK 2180) → ga → kuhoś cuḥ (SK 2245): a velar of the abhyāsa becomes a palatal → ja

→ dīrgho 'kitaḥ → jāgādh.

  • laṭ. jāgāddhi: t → dh (SK 2280), d for the first dh (SK 52). 2nd sg. jāghātsi: before s the g is aspirated (bhaṣ, SK 326), and dh becomes t (SK 121).
  • laṅ. 3rd sg. ajāghāt. In the 2nd sg., on the option of ru (SK 2468): ajāghāḥ.

nāth → nānāth

nāth nāth → halādiḥ śeṣaḥ, shortening, dīrgho 'kitaḥ → nānāth. laṭ nānātti, nānāttaḥ: th becomes t before t (SK 121).

dadh → dādadh

dadh dadh → da dadh → dīrgho 'kitaḥ → dādadh.

  • laṭ dādaddhi, dādaddhaḥ, dādhatsi.
  • laṅ 3rd sg. adādhat; 3rd du. adādaddhām; 3rd pl. adādadhuḥ. 2nd sg. adādhaḥ / adādhat.
  • luṅ adādādhīt / adādadhīt.

skund → coskund

skund skund → śarpūrvāḥ khayaḥ keeps the stop → ku skund → kuhoś cuḥ → cu

→ guṇa of the abhyāsa (SK 2630) → coskund.

  • laṭ coskundīti / coskunti.
  • laṅ acoskun, acoskuntām, acoskunduḥ.

mud → momud

mud mud → mu mud → guṇa of the abhyāsa (SK 2630) → momud. This root shows how īṭ and the guṇa of a light penultimate exclude each other.

  • With īṭ:

momud + īti → the ending now begins with a vowel and is pit

→ nābhyastasyāci piti sārvadhātuke (SK 2503) bars guṇa of the light u → momudīti.

  • Without īṭ:

momud + ti → no vowel follows, so SK 2503 does not apply (one of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators)

→ guṇa of the light penultimate (SK 2189) → momod + ti → car (SK 121) → momotti.

  • liṭ momodāṃcakāra. luṭ momoditā. Bhaṭṭoji's commentators ask why SK 2656 does not bar this guṇa. Their answer: this luk is the unconditioned one, so no ārdhadhātuka causes a deletion.
  • laṅ amomudīt / amomot; amomuttām; amomuduḥ. 2nd sg. amomudīḥ / amomoḥ / amomot.
  • luṅ amomodīt. Bhaṭṭoji: "in luṅ, guṇa". Both commentators explain: this guṇa is conditioned by sic, so the bar of SK 2503 is not even in question.

kurd → cokūrd

The abhyāsa takes c by kuhoś cuḥ and guṇa by SK 2630; Bhaṭṭoji's forms show the stem cokūrd.

  • laṭ cokūrti / cokūrdīti.
  • laṅ 3rd sg. acokūrt / acokūrdīt. 2nd sg., on the option of ru: acokūḥ. One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators gives the steps: ru for d (SK 2468), loss of s, the first r deleted (SK 173), lengthening, visarga.
  • In the same way Bhaṭṭoji gives acokhūḥ and ajogūḥ. His commentators name the roots: khurd and gurd.

vañc → vanīvañc

vañc vañc → va vañc → the augment nīk (SK 2642), marked with k, so added at the end of the abhyāsa (SK 36) → vanīvañc.

  • laṭ vanīvañcīti / vanīvaṅkti. Bhaṭṭoji's commentators explain why the nasal survives. Before yaṅ the root would lose its nasal, but here the yaṅ is deleted, so that loss does not occur. And tip is pit, so not ṅit; the loss before a ṅit ending does not occur either.
  • vanīvaktaḥ: tas is ṅit, so the nasal is lost by aniditām (SK 415). vanīvacati.
  • laṅ avanīvañcīt / avanīvan.

gam → jaṅgam

gam gam → halādiḥ śeṣaḥ → ga gam → kuhoś cuḥ → ja gam

→ the augment nuk (SK 2643): the abhyāsa ends in a and the root ends in a nasal; nuk is marked with k, so it goes at the end of the abhyāsa → jan gam

→ n becomes anusvāra (SK 123) and then ṅ before g (SK 124) → jaṅgam.

  • laṭ jaṅgamīti / jaṅganti.
  • 3rd du. jaṅgataḥ: before a jhal-initial kit or ṅit ending the final nasal is deleted (anudāttopadeśa…, SK 2428). Jhal is the pratyāhāra of all consonants except nasals and semivowels.
  • 3rd pl. jaṅgmati: before a vowel-initial kit or ṅit ending the penultimate a is deleted (gamahana…, SK 2363).
  • 1st sg. jaṅganmi, 1st du. jaṅganvaḥ: m becomes n before m or v (mvoś ca, SK 2309).
  • luṭ jaṅgamitā. Gam is an anudātta root, and SK 2246 denies iṭ to such roots. But SK 2246 is worded with "one vowel" (ekāc), so it does not reach the doubled stem, and iṭ comes. One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators states the doubt this answers. By the paribhāṣā of SK 2651, the yaṅ-luk form of gam would be "gam" too, and so would refuse iṭ.
  • loṭ 2nd sg.:

jaṅgam + hi → the nasal is deleted (SK 2428) → jaṅga + hi

→ ato heḥ (SK 2202) would now delete hi after a stem in a

→ but the nasal deletion belongs to the ābhīya zone (chapter 44), so for SK 2202 it counts as not having taken effect (asiddha) → hi stays → jaṅgahi.

  • laṅ 3rd sg.: ajaṅgam + t → the ending is lost (SK 252) → m becomes n at the end of a root (mo no dhātoḥ, SK 341) → ajaṅgan.
  • luṅ ajaṅgamīt, ajaṅgamiṣṭām. Two rules fail to apply. Gam is cited as gamḷ, with the marker ḷ, and SK 2343 gives aṅ in place of cli to ḷ-marked roots. But that is a citation by marker, so there is no aṅ. And hmyanta… (SK 2299) bars vṛddhi of the a before iṭ, since the root ends in m.

han → jaṅghan

han han → ha han → kuhoś cuḥ and abhyāse carca (SK 2182) → ja han

→ nuk (SK 2643) → jaṅ han

→ abhyāsāc ca (SK 2430): after the abhyāsa, the h of han becomes the velar gh → jaṅghan.

Does SK 2430 reach the yaṅ-luk stem? Bhaṭṭoji raises the question himself. SK 2430 gets its word "of han" (hanteḥ) by anuvṛtti from ho hanter ñṇinneṣu (SK 358). Hanteḥ is a citation with śtip, the ending -ti. The paribhāṣā śtipā śapā… excludes such citations in yaṅ-luk. Even so, says the author of the Nyāsa (the Nyāsakāra), the velar does come in yaṅ-luk. The reason: the prohibition of that paribhāṣā is anitya. Guṇo yaṅlukoḥ (SK 2630) is the jñāpaka, and it shows this with regard to the general case (sāmānyāpekṣa). Bhaṭṭoji closes: "that is the point". One of his commentators makes clear that the point is the Nyāsakāra's.

How does SK 2630 show this? Bhaṭṭoji's commentators explain. The mention of "one vowel" in SK 2175 would deny doubling in yaṅ-luk. Yet SK 2630 gives guṇa to the abhyāsa in yaṅ-luk, which presupposes doubling. So the "one vowel" exclusion sometimes fails. By kinship, all the exclusions of the same verse sometimes fail too. One of the commentators cites a usage that depends on this: rājā vṛtraṃ jaṅghanat.

The forms:

  • laṭ jaṅghanīti / jaṅghanti; jaṅghataḥ (SK 2428); jaṅghnati (SK 2363).
  • luṭ jaṅghanitā.
  • loṭ 2nd sg. jaṅghahi. Here the exclusion does hold. Hanter jaḥ (SK 2431), which gives ja for han before hi, is taught with śtip, so there is no ja.
  • laṅ ajaṅghanīt / ajaṅghan. vidhiliṅ jaṅghanyāt.
  • āśīrliṅ vadhyāt; luṅ avadhīt, avadhiṣṭām. Here vadha replaces han (SK 2433–2434). One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators says that the yaṅ-luk form is included in "han" by the paribhāṣā of SK 2651.
  • Why is vadha not doubled again? Bhaṭṭoji: vadha is treated like what it replaced (sthānivat). What it replaced was already doubled. So the prohibition "anabhyāsasya" "of a root without an abhyāsa" applies. That word is a bahuvrīhi, a compound naming something outside its members, "that which has no abhyāsa". It qualifies "of the root" in apposition. One of his commentators names the rule that carries it, SK 2177, and gives the order: doubling first, as the later rule, then vadha in place of the doubled form.
  • With the prefix ā, han takes ātmanepada by āṅo yamahanaḥ (SK 2695, taught later): ājaṅghate.

car → cañcur

car car → ca car → nuk by caraphaloś ca (SK 2636) → can car → anusvāra and ñ before c (SK 123, 124) → cañcar

→ ut parasyātaḥ (SK 2637): u for the a after the abhyāsa → cañcur.

Bhaṭṭoji makes two points about that u.

  • It is given as ut, with t after it (tapara). So it takes no guṇa. One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators explains: u alone would already exclude the long vowels, so the t must be there to keep out guṇa.
  • But it is still lengthened before a consonant by hali ca (SK 354). That rule stands in the last three quarters of the eighth book, so it is asiddha with respect to SK 2637. What is asiddha cannot be among the things that the t excludes.

The forms:

  • laṭ cañcurīti / cañcūrti: in the second, hali ca lengthens the u before r plus t. cañcūrtaḥ; cañcurati.
  • laṅ acañcūrīt, acañcūḥ. The first has long ū in the printed text, though hali ca lengthens only before a consonant; editions differ here, and scholars discuss this. For acañcūḥ, one of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators says the lengthening is by rvor upadhāyāḥ (SK 433), since the r stands at the end of the word.

khan → caṅkhan

khan khan → kha khan → abhyāse carca (SK 2182): an aspirate of the abhyāsa loses its aspiration → ka khan

→ kuhoś cuḥ → ca khan → nuk (SK 2643), anusvāra, ṅ → caṅkhan.

  • laṭ caṅkhanīti / caṅkhanti.
  • 3rd du. caṅkhātaḥ: ā for the nasal by janasanakhanāṃ sañjhaloḥ (SK 2504). One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators defends this form against those who give caṅkhantaḥ; scholars discuss this.
  • 3rd pl. caṅkhnati: penultimate a deleted (SK 2363).
  • loṭ caṅkhāhi: Bhaṭṭoji's commentators note that hi is not pit, so it counts as ṅit, and SK 2504 gives ā. 1st sg. caṅkhanāni.
  • laṅ acaṅkhanīt / acaṅkhan; acaṅkhātām; acaṅkhnuḥ.
  • liṅ caṅkhāyāt / caṅkhanyāt: ye vibhāṣā (SK 2319) makes the ā optional before a y-initial ending.
  • luṅ acaṅkhanīt / acaṅkhānīt. Bhaṭṭoji's commentators: the vṛddhi is optional by ato halāder laghoḥ (SK 2284).

yu → yoyu, nu → nonu

yu yu → guṇa of the abhyāsa (SK 2630) → yoyu. Likewise nonu.

In the ad class, yu takes vṛddhi before a consonant-initial pit ending: yauti (SK 2443). Not here. Bhaṭṭoji explains: "nābhyastasya" "not of a doubled stem" is carried into SK 2443 from SK 2503. So the doubled stem takes only guṇa (SK 2168).

  • laṭ yoyoti; with īṭ: yoyu + īti → guṇa → yoyo + īti → av (SK 61) → yoyavīti.
  • laṅ ayoyavīt / ayoyot. vidhiliṅ yoyuyāt.
  • āśīrliṅ yoyūyāt: the u is lengthened. One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators names the rule: akṛtsārvadhātukayor dīrghaḥ (SK 2298).
  • luṅ ayoyāvīt.
  • nu: nonavīti / nonoti.

hā → jāhā

hā hā → shortening → ha hā → kuhoś cuḥ and abhyāse carca → ja hā → dīrgho 'kitaḥ → jāhā.

Two roots are heard as hā: hāṅ, with the marker ṅ, and hāk, with the marker k. Bhaṭṭoji's commentators say that in yaṅ-luk both give the same forms, since ātmanepada due to ṅ does not come here. Is the abhyāsa of hāk lengthened by dīrgho 'kitaḥ, "of an abhyāsa without k"? Bhaṭṭoji's commentators say yes, reading akitaḥ as a bahuvrīhi. One of them adds that, doubling being a pronouncing twice, the k belongs to the doubled whole, not to each copy.

Bhaṭṭoji names five rules of hā that do not apply here, because each is taught with śtip:

  • jahāteś ca (SK 2498), ā ca hau (SK 2499), lopo yi (SK 2500);
  • ghumāsthā… (SK 2462) and er liṅi (SK 2374).

The forms:

  • laṭ 3rd sg.: jāhā + īti → ā and ī merge into e (SK 69) → jāheti; without īṭ, jāhāti.
  • 3rd du. jāhītaḥ: ī for the ā before a consonant-initial ṅit ending (ī halyaghoḥ, SK 2497). 3rd pl. jāhati.
  • 2nd sg. jāhāsi / jāheṣi, with ṣ for s (SK 212). 2nd du. jāhīthaḥ; 2nd pl. jāhītha. Then jāhīti in the printed text; other editions, and one of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators, have the loṭ form jāhīhi; scholars discuss this.
  • laṅ ajāhet / ajāhāt; ajāhītām; ajāhuḥ.
  • vidhiliṅ jāhīyāt; āśīrliṅ jāhāyāt.
  • luṅ ajāhāsīt, ajāhāsiṣṭām. lṛṅ ajāhiṣyat.

Some copies skip from ajāhītām straight to ajāhāsiṣṭām. The printed text has the four forms between.

svap → sāsvap

svap svap → halādiḥ śeṣaḥ → sa svap → dīrgho 'kitaḥ → sāsvap.

Bhaṭṭoji makes two points.

  • Svapisyamivyeñāṃ yaṅi (SK 2645) gives svap the vowel u (saṃprasāraṇa) before yaṅ. But the yaṅ has been removed by luk, so it does not count as present (no pratyayalakṣaṇa), and the u does not come. One of his commentators adds that a rule prescribing luk is stronger than all others.
  • Rudādibhyaḥ sārvadhātuke (SK 2474) gives iṭ to a sārvadhātuka beginning with val (any consonant except y) after svap and the other rud roots. But it cites a class (rudādi), so it does not apply.

The forms:

  • laṭ sāsvapīti / sāsvapti; sāsvaptaḥ; sāsvapati.
  • laṅ asāsvapīt / asāsvap. vidhiliṅ sāsvapyāt.
  • āśīrliṅ sāsupyāt: here u does come, by vacisvapiyajādīnāṃ kiti (SK 2409), since the āśīrliṅ ending is kit.
  • luṅ asāsvāpīt / asāsvapīt, with optional vṛddhi (SK 2284), as Bhaṭṭoji's commentators note.

Applies when / blocked by. Īṭ may come before any consonant-initial pit sārvadhātuka: tip, sip, mip in laṭ, t, s in laṅ and luṅ (abobhūvīt), tu in loṭ. Before tas, jhi and the other ṅit endings it does not come: bobhūtaḥ, amomuttām.

Watch out. The exclusion of the verse under SK 2246 is not invariable, but it is not empty either. On one and the same root, han, the velar of SK 2430 comes (jaṅghanīti) while the ja of SK 2431 does not (jaṅghahi). Each rule must be tested as Bhaṭṭoji tests it. Note also the pair under mud: with īṭ there is no guṇa (momudīti), without it there is (momotti). Final vowels take guṇa either way: bobhavīti / bobhoti.

Siddhānta-kaumudī
यङन्तात्परस्य हलादेः पितः सार्वधातुकस्य ईड्वा स्यात् । भुसुवोः - SK 2224 इति गुणनिषेधो यङ्लुकि भाषायां न । बोभूतु तेतिक्ते SK 3596 इति छन्दसि निपातनात् । अत एव यङ्लुग्भाषायामपि सिद्धः । न च यङ्लुकि अप्राप्त एव गुणाभावो निपात्यतामिति वाच्यम् । [(परिभाषा - ) प्रकृतिग्रहणेन यङ्लुगन्तस्यापि ग्रहणात्] । द्विः प्रयोगो द्विर्वचनं षाष्ठम् इति सिद्धान्तात् । बोभवीति । बोभोति । बोभूतः । बोभुवति । बोभवांचकार । बोभविता । अबोभवीत् । अबोभोत् । अबोभूताम् । अबोभवुः । बोभूयात् । बोभूयाताम् । बोभूयास्ताम् । गातिस्था - SK 2223 इति सिचो लुक् । यङो वा - SK 2651 इतीट्पक्षे गुणं बाधित्वा नित्यत्वाद्वुक् । अबोभूवीत् । अबोभोत् । अबोभूताम् । अभ्यस्ताश्रयो जुस् । नित्यत्वाद्रुक् । अबोभूवुः । अबोभविष्यदित्यादि । पास्पर्धीति । पास्पर्धि । पास्पर्धः । पास्पर्धति । पास्पर्त्सि । हुझल्भ्यो हेर्धिः SK 2425 । पास्पर्धि । लङ् । अपास्पतर् । अपास्पदर् । सिपि दश्च SK 2468 इति रुत्वपक्षे रो रि SK 173 । अपास्पाः । जागाद्धि । जाधात्सि । अजाघात् । सिपि रुत्वपक्षे । अजाघाः । नाथृ । नानात्ति । नानात्तः । दध । दादद्धिः । दाधत्सि । अदाधत् । अदादद्धाम् । अदादधुः । अदाधः । अदाधत् । लुङि । अदादाधीत् । अदादधीत् । चोस्कुन्दीति । चोस्कुन्ति । अचोस्कुन् । अचोस्कुन्ताम् । अचोस्कुन्दुः । मोमुदीति । मोमोत्ति । मोमोदांचकार । मोमोदिता । अमोमुदीत् । अमोमोत् । अमोमुत्ताम् । अमोमुदुः । अमोमुदीः । अमोमोः । अमोमोत् । लुङि गुणः । अमोमोदीत् । चोकूर्ति । चोकूर्दीति । लङ् तिप् । अचोकूतर् । अचोकूर्दीत् । सिप्पक्षे । अचोकूः । अचोखूः । अजोगूः । वनीवञ्चीति । वनीवङ्क्ति । वनीवक्तः । वनीवचति । अवनीवञ्चीत् । अवनीवन् । जङ्गमीति । जङ्गन्ति । अनुदात्तोपदेश - SK 2428 इत्यनुनासिकलोपः । जङ्गन्तः । जङ्ग्मति । म्वोश्च SK 2309 । जङ्गन्मि । जङ्गन्वः । एकाज्ग्रहणेनोक्तत्वान्नेण्निषेधः । जङ्गमिता । अनुनासिकलोपस्याभीयत्वेनासिद्धत्वान्न हेर्लुक् । जङ्गहि ॥मो नो धातोः SK 341 अजङ्गन् । अनुबन्धनिर्देशान्न च्लेरङ् । ह्म्यन्त - SK 2299 इति न वृद्धिः । अजङ्गमीत् । अजङ्गमिष्टाम् । हन्तेर्युङ्लुक् । अभ्यासाच्च SK 2430 इति कुत्वं यद्यपि हो हन्तेः SK 358 इत्यतो हन्तेरित्यनुवर्त्य विहितं, तथापि यङ्लुकि भवत्येवेति न्यासकारः । [(परिभाषा - ) श्तिपा शपा...] इति निषेधस्तवनित्यः गुणो यङ्लुकोः SK 2630 इति सामान्यापेक्षज्ञापकादिति भावः । जङ्घनीति । जङ्घन्ति । जङ्घतः । जङ्घ्नति । जङ्घनिता । श्तिपा निर्देशाज्जादेशो न । जङ्घहि । अजङ्घनीत् । अजङ्घन् । जङ्घन्यात् । आशिषि तु । वध्यात् । अवधीत् । अवधिष्टामित्यादि । वधादेशस्य द्वित्वं तु न भवति । स्थानिवत्त्वेनानभ्यासस्येति निषेधात् । तद्धि समानाधिकरणं धातोर्विशेषणम् । बहुव्रीहिबलात् । आङ्पूर्वात्तु आङो यमहनः SK 2695 इत्यात्मनेपदम् । आजङ्घते इत्यादि । उत्परस्य - SK 2637 इति तपरत्वान्न गुणः । हलि च SK 354 इति दीर्घस्तु स्यादेव । तस्यासिद्धत्वेन तपरत्वनिवर्त्यत्वायोगात् । चञ्चुरीति । चञ्चूर्ति । चञ्चूर्तः । चञ्चुरति । अचञ्चूरीत् । अचञ्चूः । चङ्खनीति । चङ्खन्ति । जनसन - SK 2504 इत्यात्वम् । चङ्खातः । गमहन - SK 2363 इत्युपधालोपः । चङ्ख्नति । चङ्खाहि । चङ्खनानि । अचङ्खनीत् । अचङ्खन् । अचङ्खाताम् । अचङ्ख्नुः । ये विभाषा SK 2319 । चङ्खायात् । चङ्खन्यात् । अचङ्खनीत् । अचङ्खानीत् । उतो वृद्धिः SK 2443 इत्यत्र नाभ्यस्तस्येत्यनुवृत्तेरुतोवृद्धिर्न । योयोति । योयवीति । अयोयवीत् । अयोयोत् । योयुयात् । आशिषि दीर्घः । योयूयात् । अयोयावीत् । नोनवीति । नोनोति । जाहेति । जाहाति । ई हल्यघोः SK 2497 । जाहीतः । इह जहातेश्च SK 2498 आच हौ SK 2499 लोपो यि SK 2500 घुमास्था - SK 2462 एर्लिङि - SK 2374 इत्येते पञ्चापि न भवन्ति । श्तिपा निर्देशात् । जाहति । जाहासि । जाहेषि । जाहीथः । जाहीथ । जाहीति । अजाहेत् । अजाहात् । अजाहीताम् । अजाहासिष्टाम् । अजाहिष्यत् । लुका लुप्ते प्रत्ययलक्षणाभावात् स्वपिस्यमि - SK 2645 इत्युत्वं न । रुदादिभ्यः - SK 2464 इति गणनिर्दिष्टत्वादिण्न । सास्वपीति । सास्वप्ति । सास्वप्तः । सास्वपति । असास्वपीत् । असास्वप् । सास्वप्यात् । आशिषि तु वचिस्वपि - SK 2409 इत्युत्वम् । सासुप्यात् । असास्वापीत् । असास्वपीत् ॥

After [a root] ending in yaṅ [— even when the yaṅ has been elided by luk, by pratyayalakṣaṇa], let īṭ optionally be added to a following sārvadhātuka that begins with a consonant (hal) and is pit [— 'piti sārvadhātuke' carried forward (anuvṛtti) from SK 2503, 'hali' from SK 2443, 'īṭ' from SK 2452]. The prohibition of guṇa by bhūsuvos tiṅi (SK 2224) does not hold in yaṅluk in the spoken language (bhāṣā). The reason is the irregular Vedic form (nipātana) bobhūtu, taught in chandas by dādharti… bobhūtu tetikte… (SK 3596). [The prohibition was already established, so this form is restrictive: only in the Veda is the guṇa of a yaṅluganta prohibited.] For this very reason yaṅluk is established in the spoken language as well. It should not be said that the nipātana teaches an absence of guṇa that would not otherwise obtain in yaṅluk at all [, as though bhūsuvoḥ could not reach the doubled stem; so that it would not be restrictive]. For by the mention of a base (prakṛti) its yaṅluganta is also included [(paribhāṣā) — so bhūsuvoḥ does reach bobhū]. This rests on the settled view (siddhānta) that the doubling of the sixth [adhyāya] (ṣāṣṭha) is a pronouncing twice (dviḥ prayoga) [of the same item]. bobhavīti [laṭ 3rd sg., with īṭ], bobhoti [without īṭ]; bobhūtaḥ [3rd du.]; bobhuvati [3rd pl.]; bobhavāṃcakāra [liṭ]; bobhavitā [luṭ]; abobhavīt, abobhot [laṅ 3rd sg.]; abobhūtām [3rd du.]; abobhavuḥ [3rd pl.]; bobhūyāt [liṅ 3rd sg.]; bobhūyātām [vidhiliṅ 3rd du.]; bobhūyāstām [āśīrliṅ 3rd du.]. [In luṅ:] luk of sic by gātisthāghupābhūbhyaḥ sicaḥ parasmaipadeṣu (SK 2223). On the option of īṭ by yaṅo vā (SK 2651) [— this sūtra], vuk [by bhuvo vug luṅliṭoḥ, SK 2174], being nitya, sets aside guṇa: abobhūvīt; abobhot [without īṭ]; abobhūtām. [In the 3rd pl.] the jus [replacing jhi] is the one that depends on the abhyasta (abhyastāśraya) [, taught by sijabhyastavidibhyaś ca, SK 2226]. vuk, being nitya, [sets aside guṇa]: abobhūvuḥ. abobhaviṣyat [lṛṅ], and so on. [From spardha:] pāspardhīti [with īṭ], pāspardhi [without īṭ]; pāspardhaḥ; pāspardhati; pāspartsi [2nd sg.]. [In loṭ 2nd sg.] hujhalbhyo her dhiḥ (SK 2425): pāspardhi. laṅ: apāspart, apāspard [3rd sg.]. In sip, on the option of ru by daś ca (SK 2468), [the first r is deleted by] ro ri (SK 173): apāspāḥ. [From gādhṛ:] jāgāddhi [3rd sg., without īṭ], jāghātsi [2nd sg.]; ajāghāt [laṅ 3rd sg.]. In sip, on the option of ru: ajāghāḥ. nāthṛ: nānātti, nānāttaḥ. dadha: dādaddhi, [dādaddhaḥ,] dādhatsi; adādhat [laṅ 3rd sg.], adādaddhām, adādadhuḥ; adādhaḥ, adādhat [2nd sg.]. In luṅ: adādādhīt, adādadhīt. [From skudi:] coskundīti, coskunti; acoskun, acoskuntām, acoskunduḥ [laṅ]. [From muda:] momudīti, momotti; momodāṃcakāra; momoditā; amomudīt, amomot, amomuttām, amomuduḥ [laṅ]; amomudīḥ, amomoḥ, amomot [2nd sg.]. In luṅ, guṇa: amomodīt. [From kurda:] cokūrti, cokūrdīti. laṅ, tip: acokūrt, acokūrdīt. In sip, on the [ru] option: acokūḥ; [likewise from khurda and gurda] acokhūḥ, ajogūḥ. [From vañcu:] vanīvañcīti, vanīvaṅkti, vanīvaktaḥ, vanīvacati; avanīvañcīt, avanīvan [laṅ]. [From gamḷ:] jaṅgamīti, jaṅganti. Deletion of the nasal by anudāttopadeśa… (SK 2428): jaṅgataḥ. jaṅgmati. By mvoś ca (SK 2309) [m becomes n]: jaṅganmi, jaṅganvaḥ. The prohibition of iṭ is stated with the mention of ekāc [in ekāca upadeśe 'nudāttāt, SK 2246], so there is no prohibition of iṭ: jaṅgamitā. The deletion of the nasal is ābhīya and therefore asiddha, so there is no luk of hi [by ato heḥ, SK 2202]: jaṅgahi. By mo no dhātoḥ (SK 341): ajaṅgan [laṅ 3rd sg.]. [The ḷdit in puṣādidyutādyḷditaḥ parasmaipadeṣu, SK 2343,] is a citation by anubandha, so cli does not become aṅ. By hmyanta… (SK 2299) there is no vṛddhi: ajaṅgamīt, ajaṅgamiṣṭām [luṅ]. yaṅluk of han. The ku-substitution by abhyāsāc ca (SK 2430) is prescribed by carrying forward 'hanteḥ' from ho hanter ñṇinneṣu (SK 358) [— a citation with śtip]. Even so, it does take place in yaṅluk; so the author of the Nyāsa (nyāsakāra). For the prohibition [of the paribhāṣā] 'śtipā śapā…' is not invariable (anitya), because guṇo yaṅlukoḥ (SK 2630) is an indicator (jñāpaka) that has regard to the general case (sāmānyāpekṣa). That is the point (bhāvaḥ) [of the Nyāsakāra]. jaṅghanīti, jaṅghanti, jaṅghataḥ, jaṅghnati; jaṅghanitā. [hanter jaḥ, SK 2431,] is taught with śtip, so the substitute ja does not come: jaṅghahi. ajaṅghanīt, ajaṅghan [laṅ]; jaṅghanyāt [vidhiliṅ]. But in the āśīrliṅ: vadhyāt; [in luṅ] avadhīt, avadhiṣṭām, and so on. The substitute vadha, however, is not doubled. [vadha] is sthānivat [to the already doubled form it replaces], and so the prohibition 'anabhyāsasya' [of a root that has no abhyāsa] applies. For that ['anabhyāsasya'] is a qualifier of 'dhātoḥ' in apposition (samānādhikaraṇa), on the strength of [its being] a bahuvrīhi. But from [han] preceded by āṅ, ātmanepada by āṅo yamahanaḥ (SK 2695): ājaṅghate, and so on. [The u of] ut parasyātaḥ (SK 2637) is tapara, so there is no guṇa [of that u]. But the lengthening by hali ca (SK 354) does take place: that rule is asiddha, so it cannot be one that the tapara excludes. [From cara:] cañcurīti, cañcūrti, cañcūrtaḥ, cañcurati; acañcūrīt, acañcūḥ [laṅ]. [From khanu:] caṅkhanīti, caṅkhanti. ā by janasanakhanāṃ sañjhaloḥ (SK 2504): caṅkhātaḥ. Deletion of the penultimate by gamahanajanakhanaghasāṃ lopaḥ… (SK 2363): caṅkhnati. caṅkhāhi; caṅkhanāni; acaṅkhanīt, acaṅkhan, acaṅkhātām, acaṅkhnuḥ [laṅ]. ye vibhāṣā (SK 2319): caṅkhāyāt, caṅkhanyāt. acaṅkhanīt, acaṅkhānīt [luṅ]. 'nābhyastasya' is carried forward (anuvṛtti) into uto vṛddhir luki hali (SK 2443) [from nābhyastasyāci piti sārvadhātuke, SK 2503], so there is no vṛddhi of the u. [From yu:] yoyoti, yoyavīti; ayoyavīt, ayoyot [laṅ]; yoyuyāt [vidhiliṅ]. In the āśīrliṅ, lengthening: yoyūyāt. ayoyāvīt [luṅ]. [From nu:] nonavīti, nonoti. [From hā:] jāheti, jāhāti. ī halyaghoḥ (SK 2497): jāhītaḥ. Five rules do not apply here, because they are taught with śtip: jahāteś ca (SK 2498), ā ca hau (SK 2499), lopo yi (SK 2500), ghumāsthā… (SK 2462) and er liṅi (SK 2374). jāhati; jāhāsi, jāheṣi; jāhīthaḥ, jāhītha; jāhīti; ajāhet, ajāhāt, ajāhītām, [ajāhuḥ [laṅ]; jāhīyāt [vidhiliṅ]; in the āśīrliṅ, jāhāyāt; ajāhāsīt,] ajāhāsiṣṭām [luṅ]; ajāhiṣyat [lṛṅ]. The yaṅ has been elided by luk, so there is no pratyayalakṣaṇa, and the u [samprasāraṇa of the v] by svapisyamivyeñāṃ yaṅi (SK 2645) does not take place. rudādibhyaḥ sārvadhātuke (SK 2474) is taught by citation of a gaṇa, so there is no iṭ. [From ñiṣvap:] sāsvapīti, sāsvapti, sāsvaptaḥ, sāsvapati; asāsvapīt, asāsvap [laṅ]; sāsvapyāt [vidhiliṅ]. But in the āśīrliṅ, u by vacisvapiyajādīnāṃ kiti (SK 2409): sāsupyāt. asāsvāpīt, asāsvapīt [luṅ].

Tattvabodhinī
NSP p. 449–451
—यङो वा । ‘नाभ्यस्तस्याचि—’ इति सूत्रात्पिति सार्वधातुक इति ‘उतो वृद्धिः—’ इत्यतो हलीति चानुवर्तते ‘त्रुव ईट्’ इत्यत ईडिति च । तदेतदाह—यङन्तादित्यादि । यङो लुक्यपि प्रत्ययलक्षणेनात्र यङन्तत्वम् । एतेन यङन्ताद्धलादिपित्सार्वधातुकं न संभवतीति यङ्शब्देन यङ्लुगन्तं लक्ष्यत इति व्याख्यानं परास्तम् । उक्तरीत्या यङन्तत्वानपायात् । किं च यङन्ताद्धलादिपिन्न संभवतीति यङ्शब्देन यङ्लुगन्ते लक्षितेऽपि ‘सन्यङोः’ इति द्वित्वस्य यङन्ते चरितार्थतया यङ्लुगन्तलक्षणायां बीजाभावाद्यङ्लुकि द्वित्वाभावप्रसङ्गादिति दिक् ॥—छन्दसि निपातनादिति । गुणनिषेधे सिद्धे निपातनमिदं छन्दस्येव गुणनिषेधो नान्यत्रेति नियमार्थमित्यर्थः ॥—वोभूत्विति । समुदायस्यातिरिक्तत्वात् ‘भूसुवोः—’ इति गुणनिषेधो न प्राप्नोतीति निपातनमिदं न नियमार्थमित्याशङ्कायामाह—न चेति ॥—द्विःप्रयोग इति । तथा च प्रकृतिग्रहणे यङ्लुगन्तस्यापि ग्रहणमित्येतन्न्यायसिद्धं नापूर्वं वचनमिति भावः ॥—बोभुवतीति । अदभ्यस्तादित्यत् ॥—अबोभूवीदिति । केचिदिह ‘भुवो वुक्—’ इति सूत्रे ‘ओः सुपि’ इत्यत ओरित्यनुवर्तते । तथा च । उवर्णान्तस्य भुवो बुगित्यर्थात् गुणे कृते वुकः प्राप्तिर्नास्तीत्यनित्यो वुक् । स च पराभ्यां गुणवृद्धिभ्यां बाध्यते । तेन वोभवीदिति रूपमाहुः । तच्चिन्त्यम् । भुवो वुको नित्यत्वादिति भाष्यग्रन्थविरोधात् । तस्माद्वुको नित्यत्वमाश्रित्य ‘इन्धिभवतिभ्यां च’ इति सूत्रं प्रत्याख्यातवतो भाष्यकृत ओरित्यनुवर्तनमसंमतमेव । आत इति नियमाज्जुसभावमाशङ्क्याह—अभ्यस्ताश्रय इति । अयं भावः । ‘सिजभ्यस्त—’ इति सूत्रेण सिचः परत्वमाश्रित्य यो जुस् प्राप्तस्तस्यैवायं नियमो न त्वभ्यस्ताश्रयस्य जुस इति ॥ ‘जुसि च’ इति गुणमाशङ्क्याह—नित्यत्वाद्वुगिति ॥—अबोभूवुरिति । न चात्र परत्वात् ‘अदभ्यस्तात्’ इति अदादेशः स्यादिति वाच्यम् । अभ्यस्ताश्रयजुसोऽदादेशापवादत्वात् ॥—पास्पर्धीतीति । स्पर्धं सङ्घर्षे । ‘दीर्घोऽकितः’ इत्यभ्यासस्य दीर्घः । ‘यङो वा’ इति ईड्विकल्पः । इडभावपक्षे ‘झषस्तथोः—’ इति धत्वं, ‘झरो झरि सवर्णे’ इति वा धलोपः । लिटि पास्पर्धाचकार । पास्पर्धिता । लृटि पास्पर्धिष्यति । लोटि पास्पर्धीतु पास्पर्धु । पास्पर्धात् । पास्पर्धाम् । पास्पर्धतु । पास्पर्धीति । हेर्धित्वे वा धिलोपः । तङि इडागमपक्षे अपास्पर्धीत् ॥—रुत्वपक्षे इति । पक्षान्तरे तु अपास्पर्त् अपास्पर्द् । लिङि । पास्पर्ध्यात् । पास्पर्ध्यास्ताम् । पास्पर्ध्यास्ताम् । लुङि । ‘अस्तिसिचोऽपृक्ते’ इति नित्यमिद् । ‘इट ईटि’ इति सलोपः । अपास्पर्धीत् । अपास्पर्धिष्टाम् । अपास्पर्धिषुः । लृङि अपास्पर्धिष्यत् ॥—जागाद्धीति । गाधृ प्रतिष्ठादौ । ईट्पक्षे तु जागाधीति ॥—जाघात्सीति । ‘एकाच’ इति भव्भावः । धस्य चत्वम् । लोटि जागाधीतु जागाद्धु । जागाद्धां । जागाधतु । लङि । अजागाधीत् । अजाघात् । अजागाद्धाम् । अजागाधुः । लुङि । अजागाधीत् । अजागाधिष्ठाम् । नाथृ नाथृ याच्यादौ ॥—नानात्तीति । ईट्पक्षे नानाधीति । दध धारणे । ईट्पक्षे दादधीति । लुङि ‘अतो हलादेः’ इति वा वृद्धिः ॥—चोस्कुन्तीति । स्कुदि आप्रवणे । ‘इदितः’ इति नुम् । ईडभावे ‘झरो झरि सवणे’ इति वा लोपः । लङि ईट्पक्षे । अचोस्कुन्दीत् । लुङि तु ‘अस्तिसिचः’ इति नित्यमिद् । अचोस्कुन्दीत् । अचोस्कुन्दिष्ठाम् ॥—मोमुदीतीति । मुद हर्षे । ‘नाभ्यस्तस्याचि’ इति लघूपधगुणनिषेधः ॥—मोमोदितेति । न चात्र ‘न धातुलोप’ इति गुणनिषेधः शङ्क्यः । बहुलग्रहणेन प्राप्तस्य यङ्लुकोऽनैमित्तिकत्वात् ॥—लुङ्कि गुण इति । सिज्निमित्तकोऽयं गुणस्तेन ‘नाभ्यस्तस्याचि’ इति निषेधो न शङ्कनीय इति भावः ॥—चोकूर्तीति । कुर्द खुर्द गुर्द गुद क्रीडायाम् । लङि तिपि । ईट्पक्षे अचोकूर्दीत् । अचोखूर्दीत् । अजोगूर्दीत् ॥—पक्षे अचोकूरिति । ‘दश्च’ इति रुत्वपक्षे इत्यर्थः ॥ वनीवञ्चीतीति । वञ्चु गतौ । ‘नित्यं कौटिल्ये गतौ’ इति यङ् । ‘नीग्वञ्चु’ इत्यभ्यासस्य नीगागमः । यङो लुका लुप्तत्वात् न तदाश्रितो नलोपः ॥—वनीवक्त इति । तसो ङित्त्वादिह स्यादेव ‘अनिदिताम्’ इति नलोपः । लोटि वनीवञ्चीतु । वनीवङ्गु । वनीवक्तात् । वनीवक्ताम् । वनीवचतु । वनीवग्धि । वनीवञ्चानि ॥—जङ्गमीतीति । ‘नुगतोऽनुनासिकान्तस्य’ इति जुक् ॥—जङ्गमतीति । ‘गमहन’ इत्युपधालोपः—अजङ्गन्निति । ईट्पक्षे त्वजङ्गमीत् । अजङ्गताम् । अजङ्ग्मुः । अजङ्गमीः । अजङ्गतम् । अजङ्गत । अजङ्गमम् । अजङ्गन्व । अजङ्गन्म ॥ —सामान्यापेक्षेति । अयं भावः । एकाच इत्यत्रैकाज्ग्रहणाद्यङ्लुकि द्विर्वचनं न कुत्रापि प्राप्नोति । तथा च ‘गुणो यड्लुकोः’ इत्यभ्यासस्य विधीयमानो गुणो द्विर्वचनं विना निवेशमलभमानः सन् ‘श्तिपाशपा’ इति सर्वेषामपि निषेधानां क्वचिद्यड्लुक्यप्रवृत्तिं ज्ञापयतीति । तथा च प्रयुज्यते ‘राजा वृत्रं जङ्घनत्’ इत्यादि ॥—द्वित्वं तु न भवतीति । वध्यात् अवधीदित्यत्र कृतद्विर्वचनस्य ‘हनो वध लिङि, लुङि’ च’ इति वधादेशात्पुनर्द्वित्वं न भवतीत्यर्थः । तत्र हेतुमाह—स्थानिवत्त्वेनेति ॥—आङ्पूर्वादिति । प्रकृतिग्रहणे यड्लुगन्तस्यापि ग्रहणादिति भावः ॥—चञ्चूर्तीति । चरतिर्गतौ भक्षणे च । ‘चरफलोश्च’ इत्यभ्यासस्य नुक् । ‘उत्परस्यातः’ इत्युत्त्वम् । ‘हलि च’ इति दीर्घः । अचञ्चूरित्यत्र तु पदान्तविषयत्वात् ‘वोरुपधायाः’ इति दीर्घः ॥—चङ्खनीति । खनु अवदारणे ॥—चङ्खात इति । यत्तु केचिद्धातुग्रहणेन कृतं कार्यं यड्लुकि वेति ‘जनसन’ इत्यात्वाभावे ‘अनुनासिकस्य क्विझलोः’ इति दीर्घोऽपि न भवति । क्विप्साहचर्याद्धि झलादिः कृदेव तत्र गृह्यते न तु तिङित्यभ्युपेत्य चङ्खन्त इति रूपमाहुस्तदयुक्तम् । धातुग्रहणेन कृतस्य यड्लुक्यप्रवृत्तौ मानाभावात् । सत्यपि प्रमाणे आत्वं वेति विकल्पोक्त्या चङ्खात् इति रूपं केन वार्यताम् । यच्चोक्तम् । ‘अनुनासिकस्य’ इति सूत्रे क्विप्साहचर्याज्जलादिरपि कृदेव गृह्यते इति तदप्ययुक्तमेव । यदि हि कृदेव क्विप् स्यात्तदा साहचर्योक्तिः सङ्गच्छेत किं तु कृद्भिन्नोऽप्यस्त्येवाचारक्विप् । अत एव राजानति चर्माणति इत्यादौ माधवादिभिः क्विनिमित्तो दीर्घ उक्तः ॥—चङ्खाहीति । हेरपित्त्वेन ङित्त्वात् ‘जनसन’ इत्यात्वम् ॥—अचङ्खानीदिति । ‘अतो हलादेः’ इति वा वृद्धिः ॥—जाहेतीत्यादि । हाड्हाकोस्तुत्यानि रूपाणि । ङित्त्वप्रयुक्तस्यात्मनेपदस्य यड्लुक्यप्रवृत्तेः । ‘भृष्यामित्’ इति हाड् इत्यस्य श्लुनिमित्ताभ्यासस्यैव विहितत्वाच्च । नच अकित इति निषेधेन हाकोऽभ्यासस्य दीर्घो दुर्लभ इति कथमुभयोस्तुत्यरूपतेति शङ्काम् । अकित इत्यत्र हि न विद्यते किद्यस्याभ्यासस्येति वहुव्रीहिराश्रीयते, तेन ‘द्विःप्रयोगो द्विर्वचनं षाष्ठम्’ इत्यभ्युपगमाद्धातोः कित्त्वे अभ्यासस्य कित्त्वेऽपि वनीवच्चीतीत्यादाविव कित्त्वाभावान्न दोषः । किं च द्वित्वाभावे केवलस्यार्थवत्त्वेऽपि द्वित्वे सति समुदाय एवार्थवानिति हि सर्वसंमतम् । तथा कित्त्वमपिः समुदायस्यैवास्तु न तु प्रत्यवयवमिति नास्त्येव दीर्घे प्रतिबन्धः ॥—जाहीयादिति । ‘ई हल्यघोः’ इतीत्वम् ॥—लुका लुप्त इति । सर्वविधिभ्यो लुग्विधेर्वलीयस्त्वादकृतव्यूहपरिभाषया च लुकः पूर्वं न शङ्कामेवेति भावः ॥—उत्त्वं नेति । फलितार्थकथनमिदम् । ‘स्वपिस्यमीत्यादिना विधीयमानं यत्संप्रसारणं तन्नेत्यर्थः ॥—असास्वापीदिति । ‘अतो हलादेः’ इति विकल्पेन वृद्धिः
translator notes
  • commentary TB (sk.2651.t1): 'piti sārvadhātuke' is carried forward (anuvartate) from nābhyastasyāci… [SK 2503], 'hali' from uto vṛddhiḥ… [SK 2443] and 'īṭ' from bruva īṭ [SK 2452]. Even under the luk of yaṅ the root is yaṅanta here, by pratyayalakṣaṇa. TB rejects a reading on which 'yaṅ' stands for the yaṅluganta by secondary signification, the ground being that no hal-initial pit sārvadhātuka can follow a yaṅanta. Followed: the anuvṛtti brackets and '[— even when the yaṅ has been elided by luk, by pratyayalakṣaṇa]'.
  • commentary BM (WS uttara-2/0137): 'hali' is carried forward (anuvartate) from uto vṛddhiḥ…, 'piti sārvadhātuke' from nābhyastasyāci…, and 'īṭ' from bruva īṭ; being ṭit, the īṭ is the initial member of tip. Followed: the anuvṛtti brackets.
  • commentary TB (sk.2651.t1) on 'chandasi nipātanāt': since the guṇa-prohibition is already established [by bhūsuvoḥ], the nipātana is restrictive (niyamārtha): guṇa is prohibited only in chandas, not elsewhere. On 'na ca': it answers the doubt that the doubled aggregate is something extra, out of the reach of bhūsuvoḥ, so that the nipātana would not be restrictive. On 'dviḥ prayogaḥ': hence the rule that the mention of a base includes its yaṅluganta is established by reasoning (nyāyasiddha), not an unprecedented statement. Followed: the bracketed restrictive sense and the bracketed objection.
  • commentary BM (WS uttara-2/0137–0138): since the guṇa-prohibition is already established by bhūsuvoḥ, the nipātana of bobhūtu is restrictive (niyamārtha): in yaṅluk that prohibition holds only in chandas, so yaṅluk is known to exist in the spoken language too. This refutes those who carry 'chandasi' into yaṅo 'ci ca. Followed: the bracketed restrictive sense.
  • commentary BM (WS uttara-2/0138): bobhūyāt is the vidhiliṅ and āśīrliṅ form; bobhūyātām is the vidhiliṅ tām form; bobhūyāstām is the āśīrliṅ tām form. On 'īṭpakṣe': guṇa by sārvadhātukārdhadhātukayoḥ, although para, is set aside by vuk (bhuvo vug luṅliṭoḥ), which is nitya because it applies whether or not guṇa has been done. On 'abhyastāśrayo jus': the restriction by ātaḥ [SK 2227] (jus only after ā-final roots when sic is elided) governs only the jus that is due to the following sic, not the jus due to the abhyasta; vuk is nitya against guṇa by jusi ca; and the abhyasta-based jus is an exception (apavāda) to the at-substitution by adabhyastāt. Followed: the bracketed lakāra labels and '[by bhuvo vug luṅliṭoḥ, SK 2174]', '[sijabhyastavidibhyaś ca, SK 2226]'.
  • commentary TB (sk.2651.t1): vuk is nitya against guṇa, and the jus here is the one based on the abhyasta. TB rejects those who carry 'oḥ' into bhuvo vuk… to make vuk anitya (giving abobhavīt): that contradicts the Bhāṣya's 'bhuvo vuko nityatvāt'. Followed: '[by bhuvo vug luṅliṭoḥ, SK 2174]'.
  • commentary BM (WS uttara-2/0139) on spardha: pāspardhīti has īṭ. pāspardhi without īṭ is reached through pāspardh-ti, t becoming dh by jhaṣas tathor dho 'dhaḥ and the first dh becoming d by jaśtva. On apāspart: hal-ṅyādi deletion of t, then optional car by vāvasāne. On apāspāḥ: apāspardh-s, jaś, ru for d by daś ca, s deleted, the first r deleted by ro ri, lengthening by ḍhralope, visarga. Followed: '[the first r is deleted by]'.
  • commentary TB (sk.2651.t1) on spardha: in pāspardhi the first dh may optionally be lost by jharo jhari savarṇe. 'rutvapakṣe' implies the alternative apāspart/apāspard [without ru]. Recorded.
  • commentary TB (sk.2651.t1) on 'pakṣe acokūḥ': that is, on the option of ru by daś ca. Followed: 'In sip, on the [ru] option'.
  • commentary BM (WS uttara-2/0141) on acokūḥ: in sip of laṅ without īṭ, ru by daś ca, s deleted, the first r deleted by ro ri, lengthening, visarga. acokhūḥ and ajogūḥ are from khurda and gurda. Followed: 'In sip, on the [ru] option' and '[likewise from khurda and gurda]'.
  • commentary BM (WS uttara-2/0140) on momotti: without īṭ no ac follows, so the prohibition of laghūpadha-guṇa by nābhyastasyāci… does not apply. On momoditā: na dhātulopa ārdhadhātuke does not bar guṇa, because this yaṅluk is unconditioned. On 'luṅi guṇaḥ': the guṇa is conditioned by sic, so the prohibition by nābhyastasya… is not to be suspected. Recorded.
  • commentary TB (sk.2651.t1) on momoditā: the yaṅluk obtained through 'bahula' is unconditioned, so na dhātulopa… does not bar guṇa. Recorded.
  • commentary BM (WS uttara-2/0141) on vanīvañcīti: the abhyāsa takes the augment nīk by nīgvañcu… [SK 2642]. The n-deletion depending on yaṅ does not occur, the yaṅ being elided, nor the one depending on tip, which is pit and so not ṅit. In vanīvaktaḥ, tas is ṅit, so n-deletion by aniditām [SK 415] does take place. Recorded.
  • commentary TB (sk.2651.t1) on vanīvañcīti: from vañcu gatau, yaṅ by nityaṃ kauṭilye gatau; the abhyāsa takes nīk by nīgvañcu…; the yaṅ being elided by luk, the n-deletion depending on it does not occur. In vanīvaktaḥ, tas is ṅit, so n-deletion by aniditām does take place. TB adds loṭ forms. Recorded.
  • commentary BM (WS uttara-2/0141) on 'ekājgrahaṇena': gam is aniṭ, and by 'prakṛtigrahaṇe yaṅlugantasyāpi grahaṇam' the yaṅluganta would be aniṭ too; the reply is that the iṭ-prohibition is stated for ekāc roots only. On jaṅgahi: one would expect luk of hi by ato heḥ after the nasal is deleted; the reply is that that deletion is asiddha. On 'anubandhanirdeśāt': in luṅ, aṅ by puṣādidyutādyḷditaḥ… is suspected for the ḷdit gamḷ. Followed: the bracketed rule names.
  • commentary BM (WS uttara-2/0141–0142) on the han passage: the question is how ku by ho hanteḥ [carried into abhyāsāc ca] can apply in yaṅluk, given the śtipā śapā prohibition. guṇo yaṅlukoḥ prescribes guṇa for an abhyāsa in yaṅluk, though the ekāc condition of ekāco dve… would deny doubling there. It thereby shows that the ekāc condition is anitya, and by the general kinship of things stated in the same way (sāmānya) it shows that all the śtipā śapā prohibitions sometimes fail in yaṅluk. 'iti bhāvaḥ' means 'nyāsakṛtaḥ' is understood: it is the Nyāsakāra's point. Followed: 'That is the point (bhāvaḥ) [of the Nyāsakāra]'.
  • commentary TB (sk.2651.t1) on 'sāmānyāpekṣa…': because of the mention of ekāc, doubling would nowhere be available in yaṅluk; guṇo yaṅlukoḥ, which cannot take effect without doubling, therefore shows that all the śtipā śapā prohibitions sometimes fail in yaṅluk. Hence the usage 'rājā vṛtraṃ jaṅghanat'. Recorded.
  • commentary BM (WS uttara-2/0142–0143) on vadhyāt and avadhīt: vadha replaces han by hano vadha liṅi [SK 2433] and luṅi ca [SK 2434], the yaṅluganta being included by prakṛtigrahaṇa. On the non-doubling: doubling is done first, being para to vadha, and vadha then replaces the doubled form. Being sthānivat it has an abhyāsa, and so it falls under the prohibition 'anabhyāsasya' [of liṭi dhātor anabhyāsasya, SK 2177]. That word is a bahuvrīhi, 'of a root that has no abhyāsa', qualifying 'dhātoḥ' in apposition, so the objection that vadha itself is not an abhyāsa fails. Followed: '[vadha] is sthānivat [to the already doubled form it replaces]' and '[of a root that has no abhyāsa]'.
  • commentary TB (sk.2651.t1) on 'dvitvaṃ tu na bhavati': in vadhyāt and avadhīt, vadha, replacing by hano vadha liṅi and luṅi ca what has already been doubled, is not doubled again; 'sthānivattvena' gives the reason. Recorded.
  • commentary BM (WS uttara-2/0143) on car: the abhyāsa takes nuk by caraphaloś ca [SK 2636]. The a of the second part becomes u by ut parasyātaḥ, and hali ca lengthens it, giving cañcūrti. Laghūpadha guṇa of the u does not occur, because the u is given with t (tapara); without the t, u alone would already exclude the long vowels. hali ca is in the tripādī and so asiddha with respect to ut parasyātaḥ, and the tapara cannot exclude it. BM adds that in truth guṇa too, being bahiraṅga, is asiddha. Followed: '[The u of]', '[of that u]'.
  • commentary TB (sk.2651.t1) on cañcūrti: the abhyāsa takes nuk by caraphaloś ca, u comes by ut parasyātaḥ, and hali ca lengthens it; in acañcūḥ, however, the lengthening is by rvor upadhāyāḥ, the form having pada-final scope. Recorded.
  • commentary BM (WS uttara-2/0143) on caṅkhāhi: hi is not pit and so is ṅit, giving ā by janasana…. On acaṅkhanīt, acaṅkhānīt: īṭ by astisicaḥ, with vṛddhi optional by ato halādeḥ [SK 2284]. On yoyūyāt: the lengthening in the āśīrliṅ is by akṛtsārvadhātukayoḥ [SK 2298]. Recorded.
  • commentary TB (sk.2651.t1; its khan lemmas are OCR'd 'cañcūrnīti', the print reads caṅkhanīti, caṅkhāta iti, caṅkhāhīti, acaṅkhānīd iti, NSP p. 441, scan page-0451, read): khan is 'khanu avadāraṇe'. On caṅkhātaḥ, TB rejects 'some' (kecit) who hold that an operation taught by mention of 'dhātu' is only optional in yaṅluk, so that, where ā by janasana… is absent, the lengthening by anunāsikasya kvijhaloḥ fails too (its jhal being restricted to kṛt affixes by association with kvi), and who give the form caṅkhantaḥ. TB's grounds: there is no evidence that such operations fail in yaṅluk; even granting it, ā is said to be optional, so nothing can prevent caṅkhātaḥ; and the association argument fails, since there is also the ācāra-kvip, which is not a kṛt (hence Mādhava and others give the kvi-conditioned lengthening in rājānati, carmāṇati). On caṅkhāhi: hi is not pit and so is ṅit, giving ā by janasana…. On acaṅkhānīt: vṛddhi optional by ato halādeḥ. Followed: the kaumudī's caṅkhātaḥ stands; the rejected caṅkhantaḥ is not in the English.
  • commentary TB (sk.2651.t1) on jāheti: hāṅ and hāk give identical forms, since ātmanepada due to ṅit does not operate in yaṅluk. It answers the objection that the abhyāsa of hāk could not be lengthened under 'akitaḥ'. That word is a bahuvrīhi, 'whose abhyāsa has no k', and on the view 'dviḥ prayogo dvirvacanaṃ ṣāṣṭham' the k belongs to the aggregate and not to each member. Recorded.
  • commentary BM (WS uttara-2/0144) on jāheti: hāṅ and hāk have identical forms in yaṅluk. The i of bhṛñām it does not affect the abhyāsa of hāṅ, because that rule applies only under ślu; and 'akitaḥ' is a bahuvrīhi containing a bahuvrīhi ('of that which has no k-it'), so the abhyāsa of hāk is lengthened too. BM explains each of the five rules set aside. Recorded.
  • commentary TB (sk.2651.t1) on 'lukā lupte': the rule prescribing luk is stronger than all other rules, and by the paribhāṣā of things not yet arranged (akṛtavyūha), samprasāraṇa before the luk is not even to be suspected. On 'uttvaṃ na': this states the result, that the samprasāraṇa taught by svapisyami… does not occur. On asāsvāpīt: vṛddhi is optional by ato halādeḥ. Followed: 'the u [samprasāraṇa of the v]'.
  • commentary BM (WS uttara-2/0144–0145) on 'lukā lupte' and 'uttvaṃ na': for ñiṣvap with yaṅluk, samprasāraṇa by svapisyami… is suspected; the yaṅ being elided by luk, there is no pratyayalakṣaṇa, so the v does not take samprasāraṇa. On asāsvāpīt: vṛddhi is optional by ato halādeḥ, and īṭ obligatory by astisicaḥ. Followed: 'the u [samprasāraṇa of the v]'.
  • textual Collation against the print (NSP pp. 439–441, scans page-0449 to page-0451, read; batch09). Ours has slips that the English corrects to the print: 'nityatvād ruk' (second occurrence) for 'nityatvād vuk'; 'apāspatar, apāspadar' for 'apāspart, apāspard'; 'jādhātsi' for 'jāghātsi'; 'acokūtar' for 'acokūrt'; 'jaṅgantaḥ' for 'jaṅgataḥ' (the nasal has just been deleted); 'hanter yuṅluk' for 'hanter yaṅluk'; 'niṣedhas tava-nityaḥ' for 'niṣedhas tv anityaḥ'. Wikisource agrees with the print in each case.
  • textual Where ours lacks words the print has, the English supplies them in brackets. (1) Ours 'dādaddhiḥ' merges two forms; the print has 'dādaddhi | dādaddhaḥ', and the English gives 'dādaddhi, [dādaddhaḥ,]'. (2) Ours runs 'ajāhītām | ajāhāsiṣṭām' by eye-skip. The print (NSP p. 441, scan page-0451) has 'ajāhītām | ajāhuḥ | jāhīyāt | āśiṣi jāhāyāt | ajāhāsīt | ajāhāsiṣṭām', and the English supplies the four forms and 'in the āśīrliṅ'. Wikisource agrees with the print in both places.
  • textual Cross-reference: ours cites rudādibhyaḥ as SK 2464 (vido laṭo vā); the print has 2474 (rudādibhyaḥ sārvadhātuke), and the English gives SK 2474. Our '[(paribhāṣā - ) śtipā śapā...]' (twice) and '[(paribhāṣā - ) prakṛtigrahaṇena…]' are editorial brackets. The print marks the second with '(pa)' and has no sign before 'śtipā śapeti' in the han passage.
  • textual Forms where ours = print and the English keeps the transmitted reading. (1) 'jāhīti' after jāhītha (NSP p. 441, scan page-0451, read): Wikisource has jāhīhi, the loṭ 2nd sg. that the sequence suggests, and BM (WS) glosses 'jāhīhīti'; ti is clear in the print. (2) 'acañcūrīt' (NSP p. 441, scan page-0451, zoomed): the print clearly has the long ū. Wikisource has acañcurīt; hali ca lengthens only before a consonant, and the ī of īṭ follows here. (3) 'pāspardhi | pāspardhaḥ' and 'abobhot' in luṅ: Wikisource has 'pāsparddhi | pāsparddhaḥ' and 'abobhūt'. All are possible forms; ours follows the print.
SK 2652 · A 7.4.91V
रुग्रिकौ च लुकि ॥ २६५२ ॥
rugrikau ca luki
rugrikau ca luki — In [yaṅ]luk [— 'yaṅluk' carried forward (anuvṛtti) from guṇo yaṅlukoḥ, SK 2630 —], [the abhyāsa — 'abhyāsasya' carried forward from atra lopo 'bhyāsasya, SK 2620 — of a root whose penultimate is ṛ — 'ṛdupadhasya' carried forward from rīg ṛdupadhasya ca, SK 2644 —] receives ruk and rik, and (ca) [rīk — drawn in from SK 2644].

Rule. In yaṅ-luk, the abhyāsa of a root whose penultimate is ṛ takes the augments ruk and rik, and by the ca, rīk. Bhaṭṭoji gives no form here. The forms come under the next sūtra.

The sūtra leans on its neighbours. Both of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators say the ca draws in rīk from rīg ṛdupadhasya ca (SK 2644). One of them, the Bālamanoramā, names the sources of the rest. "Of a root whose penultimate is ṛ" (ṛdupadhasya) comes from the same sūtra. "Of the abhyāsa" comes from atra lopo 'bhyāsasya (SK 2620). "In yaṅ-luk" comes from guṇo yaṅlukoḥ (SK 2630). Hence the word luki "in luk" means luk of yaṅ.

Which sounds are real? Bhaṭṭoji's commentators say the u of ruk is only there to make it pronounceable (uccāraṇārtha). One of them adds that the i of rik and the ī of rīk are actually heard. Each augment is marked with k, so it is added at the end of the abhyāsa (SK 36): var-, vari-, varī-.

Example. vṛt "to turn":

vṛt + yaṅ → luk of yaṅ (SK 2650) → doubling (SK 2395) → vṛt vṛt

→ urat (SK 2244): the ṛ of the abhyāsa becomes a, followed by r → vart vṛt

→ halādiḥ śeṣaḥ (SK 2179): only the first consonant of the abhyāsa stays → va vṛt

→ this rule: ruk → var vṛt; or rik → vari vṛt; or rīk → varī vṛt

→ laṭ, tip, no īṭ: guṇa of the light penultimate ṛ (SK 2189), ar → varvarti / varivarti / varīvarti.

Watch out. Do not lengthen the abhyāsa. An abhyāsa that carries one of these k-marked augments is "kit", so dīrgho 'kitaḥ (SK 2632) does not apply: var-, never vār-. One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators makes this point under the root ṛ.

Siddhānta-kaumudī
ऋदुपधस्य धातोरभ्यासस्य रुक् रिक् रीक् एते आगमाः स्युर्यङ्लुकि ॥

In yaṅluk, the augments (āgama) ruk, rik and rīk come to the abhyāsa of a root whose penultimate is ṛ [— 'ṛdupadhasya' carried forward (anuvṛtti) from SK 2644, 'abhyāsasya' from SK 2620 and 'yaṅluk' from SK 2630; rīk is added by the ca].

Tattvabodhinī
NSP p. 451
—रुग्रिकौ च—। चकारेण ‘रीगृदुपधस्य’ इत्यतो रीगनुकृष्यते । रुक उकार उच्चारणार्थः
translator notes
  • commentary BM (absent from our source.json; read in Wikisource uttara-2/0145): 'ṛdupadhasya' is carried forward (anuvartate) from ṛdupadhasya ca [rīg ṛdupadhasya ca, SK 2644]. By the ca, rīk too is gathered in here. 'abhyāsasya' is carried forward from atra lopo 'bhyāsasya [SK 2620], and the mention of yaṅluk from guṇo yaṅlukoḥ [SK 2630]. The u of ruk is only for pronunciation; the i of rik is actually heard, and likewise the ī of rīk, on the authority of the explanation (vyākhyāna). Followed: the anuvṛtti brackets in sutra_en and the block.
  • commentary TB (sk.2652.t1): by the ca, rīk is drawn in (anukṛṣyate) from rīg ṛdupadhasya [SK 2644]; the u of ruk is for pronunciation (uccāraṇārtha). Followed: rīk drawn in by ca.
  • translator The augments are kit and attach at the end of the abhyāsa: the r of ruk (u being for pronunciation only), ri of rik and rī of rīk, as in var-vṛt-, vari-vṛt-, varī-vṛt- under the next sūtra (SK 2653). Neither the kaumudī nor the commentaries spell out the position here.
SK 2653 · A 7.4.92V
ऋतश्च ॥ २६५३ ॥
ṛtaśca
ṛtaś ca — And [the abhyāsa of an aṅga] ending in ṛ [also receives ruk, rik and rīk in yaṅluk — 'abhyāsasya', 'luki' and the augments carried forward (anuvṛtti) from rugrikau ca luki, SK 2652].

Rule. The abhyāsa of a root ending in short ṛ also takes ruk, rik and rīk in yaṅ-luk. Bhaṭṭoji's gloss: "likewise also [the abhyāsa] of a root ending in ṛ". One of his commentators says that, strictly, ṛtaḥ qualifies the word aṅga "base", carried from the heading. "Of a root ending in ṛ" only states the resulting sense.

Example. kṛ "to do":

kṛ kṛ → urat → kar kṛ → halādiḥ śeṣaḥ → ka kṛ → kuhoś cuḥ → ca kṛ

→ this rule: ruk → carkṛ (or carikṛ, carīkṛ)

→ laṭ, tip, no īṭ: guṇa of the final ṛ (SK 2168) → carkarti / carikarti / carīkarti.

The rest of Bhaṭṭoji's passage runs root by root. "(3)" after a form means it has the three shapes car-, cari-, carī- (or var-, vari-, varī-).

vṛt → varvṛt (3)

Vṛt has penultimate ṛ, so its augments come from SK 2652. Its stem was built above.

  • laṭ varvṛtīti, varivṛtīti, varīvṛtīti: with īṭ, the ending begins with a vowel, so SK 2503 bars guṇa (one of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators). Without īṭ: varvarti, varivarti, varīvarti. 3rd du. varvṛtaḥ (3); 3rd pl. varvṛtati (3).
  • liṭ varvartāmāsa (3). luṭ varvartitā.
  • lṛṭ varvartiṣyati (3). Na vṛdbhyaś caturbhyaḥ (SK 2348) would deny iṭ to vṛt before sya. But it names "vṛt and the others", a class. So it does not apply.
  • laṅ 3rd sg. avarvṛtīt (3), and without īṭ:

avarvṛt + t → guṇa → avarvart + t → the ending is lost (SK 252) → avarvart

→ the final t of a cluster would be lost (SK 54), but rāt sasya (SK 280) allows only s to be lost after r → avarvart (3). One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators gives this step.

  • laṅ 2nd sg., on the option of ru (SK 2468): jaś gives d, ru replaces it, ro ri (SK 173) deletes the first r, ḍhralope lengthens, visarga → avarvāḥ (3).
  • luṅ avarvartīt. Vṛt belongs to the dyut group, and SK 2343 gives aṅ to that group. But it cites a class, so there is no aṅ.

kṛ → carkṛ (3)

  • laṭ carkarīti (3), with guṇa of the final ṛ before īṭ. carkarti, carikarti, carīkarti. 3rd du. carkṛtaḥ (3). 3rd pl. carkrati (3): r for ṛ before the vowel (yaṇ).
  • liṭ carkarāṃcakāra (3). luṭ carkaritā (3).
  • laṅ acarkarīt; without īṭ, acarkaḥ (3): the ending t is lost and the final r becomes visarga.
  • vidhiliṅ carkṛyāt (3). Bhaṭṭoji's commentators note that the vidhiliṅ ending is sārvadhātuka, so SK 2298 does not lengthen the ṛ.
  • āśīrliṅ carkriyāt (3): riṅ, the substitute ri, replaces the ṛ (riṅ śayagliṅkṣu, SK 2367).
  • luṅ acarkārīt (3): vṛddhi by sici vṛddhiḥ (SK 2297), as one of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators notes.

Long ṝ takes no augment: kṝ, tṝ

The sūtra says ṛt, with t after the vowel (tapara). A tapara vowel names only its own length. So a root ending in long ṝ takes no ruk, rik or rīk.

  • kṝ "to scatter": kṝ kṝ → urat, halādiḥ śeṣaḥ, kuhoś cuḥ → ca kṝ → no augment, so dīrgho 'kitaḥ lengthens the abhyāsa → cākṝ → guṇa → cākarti.
  • tṝ, which Bhaṭṭoji's commentators name: laṭ tātarti, tātīrtaḥ, tātirati; loṭ tātīrhi, tātarāṇi; laṅ atātarīt, atātaḥ, atātīrtām, atātaruḥ; luṅ atātārīt, atātāriṣṭām.

ṛ (arti) → ar-ṛ / ariy-ṛ

One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators says both roots ṛ are meant, that of the bhū class and that of the hu class. Bhaṭṭoji gives the steps:

ṛ ṛ → urat: the abhyāsa's ṛ becomes a, followed by r → ar ṛ

→ halādiḥ śeṣaḥ → a ṛ

→ with ruk → ar ṛ → guṇa before tip → ararti.

With rik or rīk:

a ṛ → ari ṛ / arī ṛ

→ iyaṅ: the abhyāsa's i or ī becomes iy before the unlike vowel ṛ (abhyāsasyāsavarṇe, SK 2290) → ariy ṛ → guṇa → ariyarti.

So rik and rīk give the same forms here: two shapes, not three. One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators adds that some give the abhyāsa guṇa by SK 2630 instead of urat; the result is the same.

  • laṭ ararti / ariyarti; with īṭ, ararīti / ariyarīti. 3rd du. arṛtaḥ / ariyṛtaḥ.
  • laṭ 3rd pl.:

ar ṛ + jhi → jhi becomes at → ar ṛ + ati

→ yaṇ: r for ṛ before the vowel → ar r ati

→ ro ri (SK 173) deletes the r of ruk → a r ati

→ ḍhralope (SK 174) lengthens the a → ārati.

With rik / rīk: ariy ṛ + ati → yaṇ → ariyrati.

  • Is the r from yaṇ really an r for SK 173? A substitute is normally treated like what it replaced (sthānivat), and this one replaced a vowel. Bhaṭṭoji answers that this treatment is barred for an operation of the pūrvatrāsiddha section. That is the last three quarters of the eighth book, where SK 173 stands.
  • āśīrliṅ. Guṇo 'rtisaṃyogādyoḥ (SK 2380) would give guṇa to ṛ here. But it cites the root with śtip (arti), so it does not apply. Instead:

ar ṛ + yāt → riṅ (SK 2367) → ar ri yāt → ro ri deletes the first r → a ri yāt → lengthening (SK 174) → āriyāt.

With rik / rīk: ariy ṛ + yāt → riṅ → ariyriyāt.

  • luṅ arārīt, āriyārīt. For the first, both of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators read ārārīt, with the augment ā that a vowel-initial root takes; scholars discuss this.

gṛh → jargṛh (3), and grah → jāgrah

gṛh "to take" has penultimate ṛ:

gṛh gṛh → urat → gar gṛh → halādiḥ śeṣaḥ → ga → kuhoś cuḥ → ja → ruk → jargṛh.

  • laṭ jargṛhīti (3), jargarḍhi (3), jargṛḍhaḥ (3), jargṛhati (3).
  • laṅ 3rd sg. without īṭ: ajargharṭ (3). Here g becomes gh (bhaṣ, SK 326), though that rule names "one vowel". One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators reports the view that it applies because the exclusion is anitya, as guṇo yaṅlukoḥ shows.

Contrast grah, the root of gṛhṇāti:

grah grah → ga grah → kuhoś cuḥ → ja → dīrgho 'kitaḥ → jāgrah.

  • laṭ jāgrahīti, jāgrāḍhi. Both of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators note that the saṃprasāraṇa that yaṅ would bring does not come, since the yaṅ is deleted.
  • Before tas and the other ṅit endings, grah takes saṃprasāraṇa by grahijyā… (SK 2412): ra becomes ṛ. Now the root has a ṛ. Should it take ruk? Bhaṭṭoji says no. That saṃprasāraṇa depends on the ṅit ending, so it is bahiraṅga, and asiddha for ruk and the others. So: jāgṛḍhaḥ, jāgṛhati.
  • 2nd sg. jāgrahīṣi / jāghrakṣi.
  • luṭ jāgrahitā. Graho 'liṭi dīrghaḥ (SK 2562) lengthens the iṭ after grah, but not here. Bhaṭṭoji's reason: "one vowel" (ekācaḥ) is carried into that rule by anuvṛtti. His commentators say this rests on a statement of Haradatta under SK 2175.
  • Bhaṭṭoji adds: "Mādhava states the lengthening; that is contrary to the Bhāṣya." His commentators point to the Bhāṣya's graher aṅgāt under SK 2175, with Kaiyaṭa's remark that in jarīgṛhitā the base before the affix is the doubled stem jarīgṛh, not grah. By parity this holds for the yaṅ-luk stem too. One of them reads Bhaṭṭoji as "contrary to the Bhāṣya and the rest", taking in Kaiyaṭa and Haradatta.

gṛdh → jargṛdh (3)

gṛdh "to desire", built like gṛh:

  • laṭ jargṛdhīti, jargarddhi, jargṛddhaḥ, jargṛdhati; 2nd sg. jargṛdhīṣi / jarghartsi (all 3).
  • laṅ 3rd sg. with īṭ: ajargṛdhīt (3). Without īṭ, Bhaṭṭoji gives every step:

ajargṛdh + t → guṇa (SK 2189) → ajargardh + t

→ the ending is lost (SK 252) → ajargardh

→ bhaṣ: g becomes gh (SK 326) → ajarghardh

→ jaś (SK 84) → ajarghard → car (SK 206) → ajarghart (3).

  • 3rd du. ajargṛddhām (3).
  • 2nd sg., on the option of ru for the d (SK 2468): ajarghar + r → ro ri → lengthening → visarga → ajarghāḥ (3). This r is not at the end of a word. One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators says ro ri still applies, because "of a word" (padasya) is carried into it by a "frog's leap" (maṇḍūkapluti), skipping the sūtras between. Padasya here means "belonging to a word", not "at the end of a word".
  • luṅ ajargardhīt, ajargardhiṣṭām (3).

pracch → pāpracch

Pracch is not a ṛ-root, but Bhaṭṭoji places it here.

pracch pracch → halādiḥ śeṣaḥ → pa → dīrgho 'kitaḥ → pāpracch.

  • laṭ pāpracchīti. Without īṭ: cch becomes ṣ (SK 294), and t becomes ṭ after it (SK 113) → pāpraṣṭi.
  • 3rd du. Before tas, grahijyā… (SK 2412) would give saṃprasāraṇa. But it cites the root as pṛcchati, with śtip, so it does not apply. Then:

pāpracch + tas → ś for cch (cchvoḥ śūḍ anunāsike ca, SK 2561) → ṣ for ś (SK 294) → ṭ for t → pāpraṣṭaḥ.

  • 3rd pl. pāpracchati. 1st sg. pāpraśmi, 1st du. pāpracchvaḥ, 1st pl. pāpraśmaḥ. One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators explains: SK 2561 gives ś before a nasal-initial ending, as in -mi and -maḥ, but -vaḥ begins with neither a nasal nor a jhal.

Roots ending in y or v

Bhaṭṭoji now states a limit. Roots ending in y or v that undergo ūṭh have no yaṅ-luk. Ūṭh is the substitute ū, and an ūṭhbhāvin is a root that is to take it. Bhaṭṭoji gives his authorities: this is hinted (dhvanita) in the Bhāṣya on cchvoḥ… (SK 2561), and made explicit by Kaiyaṭa.

How is it hinted? Bhaṭṭoji's commentators explain. The Bhāṣya there weighs whether "before a kit or ṅit" continues into SK 2561. It concludes "only so much is the difference" (etāvān eva viśeṣaḥ): only the ṣ for ch is affected. Were there yaṅ-luk for such roots, div would give either dedeti or dedyoti according to the choice. That would be a further difference, and "only" would be false.

Bhaṭṭoji limits the statement in two ways.

  • It concerns roots whose ūṭh comes by cchvoḥ… (SK 2561).
  • Srivi and mav, which take ūṭh by the next sūtra (SK 2654), do have yaṅ-luk. This is reasonable (nyāyya), he says, and Mādhava and others agree.

He gives examples of the first kind:

  • mavya "to bind" ends in y and takes ūṭh;
  • tevṛ and devṛ "to sport" end in v.

One of his commentators says outright that these have no yaṅ-luk. Which root the mav of SK 2654 is, mav or mavya, scholars discuss.

haya → jāhay. Haya "to go" ends in y but takes no ūṭh, so it has yaṅ-luk.

hay hay → ha hay → kuhoś cuḥ, abhyāse carca → ja → dīrgho 'kitaḥ → jāhay.

  • laṭ jāhayīti / jāhati: without īṭ, the y is lost before the consonant (lopo vyor vali, SK 873). 3rd du. jāhataḥ; 3rd pl. jāhayati; 2nd sg. jāhayīṣi / jāhasi.
  • 1st person. Bhaṭṭoji: "before val, deletion; before a yañ-initial ending, lengthening". Val is every consonant except y. Yañ is the semivowels, nasals, jh and bh.

jāhay + mi → y lost before m (SK 873) → jāha + mi

→ a lengthened before m (ato dīrgho yañi, SK 2170) → jāhāmi.

So too jāhāvaḥ, jāhāmaḥ.

harya → jāhary. Harya "to go, to desire":

  • laṭ jāharyīti / jāharti; jāhartaḥ; jāharyati.
  • loṭ jāharhi.
  • laṅ ajāhaḥ, ajāhartām, ajāharyuḥ. One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators notes that ajāhaḥ is also the 2nd sg.

Bhaṭṭoji ends the passage with "mava — to bind". That is the root of the next sūtra's example.

Siddhānta-kaumudī
ऋदन्ताद्धातोरपि तथा । वर्वृतीति । वरिवृतीति । वरीवृतीति । वर्वर्ति । वरिवर्ति । वरीवर्ति । वर्वृतः 3 । वर्वृतति 3 । वर्वर्तामास 3 । वर्वर्तिता । गणनिर्दिष्टत्वात् न वृद्भ्यश्चतुर्भ्यः SK 2348 इति न । वर्वर्तिष्यति 3 । अवर्वृर्तीत् 3 । अवर्वतर् 3 । सिपि दश्च SK 2468 इति रुत्वपक्षे रो रि SK 173 । अवर्वाः 3 । गणनिर्दिष्टत्वादङ् न । अवर्वर्तीत् । चर्करीति 3 । चर्कर्ति । चरिकर्ति । चरीकर्ति । चर्कृतः 3 । चर्क्रति 3 । चर्करांचकार 3 । चर्करिता 3 । अचर्करीत् । अचर्कः 3 । चर्कृयात् 3 । आशिषि रिङ् । चर्क्रियात् 3 । अचर्कारीत् 3 । ऋतश्च SK 2653 इति तपरत्वान्नेह । कॄ विक्षेपे । चाकर्ति । तातर्ति । तातीर्तः । तातिरति । तातीर्हि । तातराणि । अतातरीत् । अतातः । अतातीर्ताम् । अतातरुः । अतातारीत् । अतातारिष्टामित्यादि । अर्तेर्यङलुकि द्वित्वेऽभ्यासस्योरदत्वं रपरत्वम् । हलादिः शेषः SK 2179 । रुक् । रिग्रीकोस्तु अभ्यासस्यासवर्णे SK 2290 इति इयङ् । अरर्ति । अरियर्ति । अरियर्ति । अररीति । अरियरीति । अर्ऋतः । अरियृतः । झि अत् । यण् । रुको रोरि SK 1731 इति लोपः । न च तस्मिन् कर्तव्ये यणः स्थानिवत्त्वम् । पूर्वत्रासिद्धीये तन्निषेधात् । आरति । अरिय्रति । लिङि श्तिपा निर्देशात् गुणोऽर्ति - SK 2380 इति गुणो न । रिङ् । रलोपः । दीर्घः । आरियात् । अरिय्रियात् । अरारीत् । आरियारीत् । गृहू ग्रहणे । जर्गृहीति 3 । जर्गर्ढि 3 । जर्गृढः 3 । जर्गृहति 3 । अजर्घटर् 3 । गृह्णातेस्तु । जाग्रहीति । जाग्राढि ॥ तसादौ ङिन्निमित्तं संप्रसारणम् । तस्य बहिरङ्गत्वेनासिद्धत्वान्नरुगादयः । जागृढः । जागृहति । जाग्रहीषि । जाघ्रक्षि । लुटि । जाग्रहिता । ग्रहोऽलिटि SK 2562 इति दीर्घस्तु न । तत्रैकाच इत्यनुवृत्तेः । माधवस्तु दीर्घमाह तद्भाष्यविरुद्धम् । गृधु अभिकाङ्क्षायाम् । जर्गृधीति 3 । जर्गर्द्धि 3 । जर्गृद्धः 3 । जर्गृधति 3 । जर्गृधीषि 3 । जर्घर्त्सि 3 । अजर्गृधीत् 3 । ईडभावे गुणः । हल्ङ्यादिलोपः । भष्भावः । जश्त्वचर्त्वे । अजर्घतर् 3 । अजर्गृद्धाम् 3 । सिपि दश्च SK 2668 इति पक्षे रुत्वम् । अजर्घाः 3 । अजर्गर्धीत् 3 । अजर्गर्धिष्टाम् 3 । पाप्रच्छीति । पाप्रष्टि । तसादौ ग्रहिज्या - SK 2412 इति संप्रसारणं न भवति । श्तिपा निर्देशात्. च्छ्वोः शूड् - SK 2561 इति शः । व्रश्च - SK 294 इति षः । पाप्रष्टः । पाप्रच्छति । पाप्रश्मि । पाप्रच्छ्वः । पाप्रश्मः । यकारवकारान्तानां तूठ्भाविनां यङ्लुङ् नास्तीति च्छ्वोः - SK 2561 इति सूत्रे भाष्ये ध्वनितम् । कैयटेन च स्पष्टीकृतम् । इदं च्छ्वोः - SK 2561 इति यत्रोठ् तद्विषयकम् । ज्वरत्वर - SK 2564 इत्यूठ्भाविनोः स्रिविमव्योस्तु यङ्लुगस्त्येवेति न्याय्यं माधवादिसंमतं च । मव्य बन्धने । अयं यान्त ऊठ्भावी । तेवृ देवृ देवने इत्यादयो वान्ताः । हय गतौ । जाहयीति । जाहति । जाहतः । जाहयति । जाहयीषि । जाहसि । वलि लोपे यञादौ दीर्घः । जाहामि । जाहावः । जाहामः । हर्य गतिकान्त्योः । जाहर्यीति । जाहर्ति । जाहर्तः । जाहर्यति । लोटि । जाहर्हि । अजाहः । अजाहर्ताम् । अजाहर्युः । मव बन्धने ॥

Likewise also [the abhyāsa] of a root ending in ṛ (ṛdantād dhātoḥ) [receives ruk, rik and rīk in yaṅluk — carried forward (anuvṛtti) from SK 2652]. [From vṛtu:] varvṛtīti, varivṛtīti, varīvṛtīti [laṭ 3rd sg., with īṭ, with ruk, rik and rīk respectively]; varvarti, varivarti, varīvarti [without īṭ]; varvṛtaḥ (3) [the figure marking the three forms, with ruk, rik and rīk]; varvṛtati (3); varvartāmāsa (3) [liṭ]; varvartitā [luṭ]. [vṛdbhyaḥ in na vṛdbhyaś caturbhyaḥ (SK 2348)] is taught by citation of a gaṇa, so that rule does not [apply]: varvartiṣyati (3) [lṛṭ]. avarvṛtīt (3), avarvart (3) [laṅ 3rd sg.]. In sip, on the option of ru by daś ca (SK 2468), [the first r is deleted by] ro ri (SK 173): avarvāḥ (3). [dyutādi in puṣādidyutādyḷditaḥ parasmaipadeṣu, SK 2343,] is taught by citation of a gaṇa, so there is no aṅ: avarvartīt [luṅ]. [From ḍukṛñ:] carkarīti (3); carkarti, carikarti, carīkarti; carkṛtaḥ (3); carkrati (3); carkarāṃcakāra (3) [liṭ]; carkaritā (3) [luṭ]; acarkarīt, acarkaḥ (3) [laṅ]; carkṛyāt (3) [vidhiliṅ]. In the āśīrliṅ, riṅ [by riṅ śayagliṅkṣu, SK 2367]: carkriyāt (3). acarkārīt (3) [luṅ]. [The ṛ in] ṛtaś ca (SK 2653) is tapara, so [ruk and the rest do] not [come] here [to a root ending in long ṝ]. kṝ — in the sense of scattering: cākarti. [From tṝ:] tātarti, tātīrtaḥ, tātirati; tātīrhi, tātarāṇi [loṭ]; atātarīt, atātaḥ, atātīrtām, atātaruḥ [laṅ]; atātārīt, atātāriṣṭām [luṅ], and so on. Of ṛ (arti) in yaṅluk: on doubling, the abhyāsa['s ṛ] becomes a by urat (SK 2244), followed by r (raparatva) → halādiḥ śeṣaḥ (SK 2179) [leaves a] → ruk. But with rik and rīk, iyaṅ comes by abhyāsasyāsavarṇe (SK 2290). ararti, ariyarti [without īṭ: with ruk; with rik or rīk]; ararīti, ariyarīti [with īṭ]; arṛtaḥ, ariyṛtaḥ [3rd du.]. [In the 3rd pl.:] jhi → at [by adabhyastāt] → yaṇ [r for the root's ṛ] → deletion [of the r] of ruk by ro ri (SK 173). It is not the case that the yaṇ is sthānivat when that [deletion] is to be done, because that [sthānivadbhāva] is prohibited for an operation of the pūrvatrāsiddha section: ārati; ariyrati. In the [āśīr]liṅ, guṇo 'rtisaṃyogādyoḥ (SK 2380) is taught with śtip, so guṇa does not occur by it. riṅ [for the ṛ] → deletion of r [by ro ri] → lengthening [by ḍhralope]: āriyāt; ariyriyāt. arārīt, āriyārīt [luṅ]. gṛhū — in the sense of taking: jargṛhīti (3), jargarḍhi (3), jargṛḍhaḥ (3), jargṛhati (3); ajargharṭ (3) [laṅ 3rd sg., without īṭ]. But of gṛhṇāti [grah]: jāgrahīti, jāgrāḍhi. Before tas and the rest, samprasāraṇa conditioned by ṅit [comes, by grahijyā…, SK 2412]. That [samprasāraṇa], being bahiraṅga, is asiddha, so ruk and the rest do not [come]: jāgṛḍhaḥ, jāgṛhati; jāgrahīṣi, jāghrakṣi. In luṭ: jāgrahitā. But there is no lengthening [of the iṭ] by graho 'liṭi dīrghaḥ (SK 2562), because 'ekācaḥ' is carried forward (anuvṛtti) there. Mādhava, however, states the lengthening; that is contrary to the Bhāṣya. gṛdhu — in the sense of desiring: jargṛdhīti (3), jargarddhi (3), jargṛddhaḥ (3), jargṛdhati (3), jargṛdhīṣi (3), jarghartsi (3); ajargṛdhīt (3) [laṅ 3rd sg., with īṭ]. Without īṭ: [ajargṛdh-t →] guṇa → hal-ṅyādi deletion [of the t] → bhaṣ [gh for g] → jaś and car: ajarghart (3). ajargṛddhām (3). In sip, ru [for the d] on the option given by daś ca (SK 2468): ajarghāḥ (3). ajargardhīt (3), ajargardhiṣṭām (3) [luṅ]. [From praccha:] pāpracchīti, pāpraṣṭi. Before tas and the rest, samprasāraṇa by grahijyā… (SK 2412) does not take place, because [pṛcchati there] is cited with śtip. ś [for cch] by cchvoḥ śūḍ anunāsike ca (SK 2561); ṣ by vraścabhrasja… (SK 294): pāpraṣṭaḥ. pāpracchati; pāpraśmi, pāpracchvaḥ, pāpraśmaḥ. But roots ending in y or v that are to undergo ūṭh (ūṭhbhāvin) have no yaṅluk. This is hinted (dhvanita) in the Bhāṣya on the sūtra cchvoḥ… (SK 2561) and made explicit by Kaiyaṭa. It concerns [the roots] in which ūṭh comes by cchvoḥ… (SK 2561). srivi and mav, which undergo ūṭh by jvaratvara… (SK 2654), do have yaṅluk. This is reasonable (nyāyya), and Mādhava and others agree. mavya — in the sense of binding: this is y-final and undergoes ūṭh [— so it has no yaṅluk]. tevṛ, devṛ — in the sense of sporting (devana) — and the like are v-final [ūṭh-bhāvins, likewise without yaṅluk]. haya — in the sense of going: jāhayīti, jāhati; jāhataḥ; jāhayati; jāhayīṣi, jāhasi. Before val, deletion [of the y]; before a yañ-initial [suffix], lengthening: jāhāmi, jāhāvaḥ, jāhāmaḥ. harya — in the sense of going and of desiring (gati, kānti): jāharyīti, jāharti; jāhartaḥ; jāharyati. In loṭ: jāharhi. ajāhaḥ, ajāhartām, ajāharyuḥ [laṅ]. mava — in the sense of binding.

Tattvabodhinī
NSP p. 451–454
—ऋतश्च—। ऋताऽनुवर्तमानमङ्गं विशेष्यते । ऋदन्तस्याङ्गस्य योऽभ्यासस्तस्येत्यर्थः । ऋदन्ताद्धातोरिति पाठस्तु फलितार्थकथनपरतया नेयः । लोटि । वर्वृतीतु ३ । वर्वर्तु ३ । वर्वृतात् । वर्वृताम् ३ । वर्वृततु ३ । वर्वृद्धि ३ ॥— अङ्नेति । ‘पुषादिद्युतादि-’ इत्यनेन ॥ चर्करीतीति । डुकृञ् करणे ॥चर्कयादिति । सार्वधातुकत्वात् ‘अकृत्सार्व-’ इति न दीर्घः । लुङि ‘सिचि वृद्धिः-’ इति वृद्धिः । अचर्कारीत् ३ । अचर्कारिष्टाम् ३ । अचर्कारिषुः ३ । अचर्कारीः ३ ॥—चाकर्तीति । ईट्पक्षे चाकरीति । लोटि । चाकरीतु । चाकर्तु । चाकीर्तात् चाकीर्ताम् । चाकिरतु । चाकीर्हि । लुङि अचाकरीत् । अचाकः । अचाकीर्ताम् । अचाकरुः । लिङि । चाकीर्यात् । आशिषि तु चाकीर्यास्ताम् । लुङि अचाकारीत् । अचाकारिष्टाम् । एवं तातरीतीत्यादि ॥—अर्तेरिति । भौवादिकजौहोत्यादिकयोर्ग्रहणम् ॥—उरदत्वमिति । केचित्तु ‘गुणो यङ्लुकोः’ इत्यभ्यासस्य गुणमाहुः । फले तु न विशेषः ॥—रिग्रीकोस्त्विति । एवं च अरिय्रतीति रूपमुभयोस्तुत्यमिति भावः ॥—आरतीति । ‘रो रि’ इति लोपे ‘ढ्रलोपे-’ इति दीर्घः । ‘दीर्घोऽकितः’ इति दीर्घस्तु न भवति कित्वात् ॥—अरिय्रतीति । परत्वात्पूर्वमियङ् । ततो यण् रिप्रीकोस्तुत्यमिदम् । मध्यमोत्तमयोस्तु । अरर्षि । अरियर्षि । अररीषि । अरियरीषि । अर्ऋथः । अरियृथः । अरर्मि । अरियर्मि । अररीमि । अरियरीमि । अर्ऋवः । अरियृवः । लिटि अररांचकार । रिप्रीकोस्तु । अरियरांचकार । लुटि । अररिता । रिप्रीकोस्तु । अरियरिता । अररिष्यति । ४ अरियरिष्यति । अरर्तु । अरियर्तु । अर्ऋतात् । अरियृतात् । अर्ऋताम् । अरियृताम् । आरतु । अरिय्रतु । अर्ऋहि । अरियृहि । अरराणि । अरियराणि । अरराव । अरियराव । लङि । आरः । आरियः । आररीत् । आरियरीत् । आर्ऋताम् । आरियृताम् । आररुः । आरियरुः । आरः । आरियः । आररीः । आरियरीः । आर्ऋतम् । आरियृतम् । आर्ऋत । आरियृत । आररम् । आरियरम् । आर्ऋव । आरियृव । विधिलिङि । अर्ऋयात् । अरियृयात् । अरियृयाताम् । अर्ऋयुः ॥—लिङीति । आशीर्लिङीत्यर्थः ॥—अरिय्रियादिति । रिग्रीकोः अरियृ इति स्थिते लिङि रिङ् । बहिरङ्गत्वेन रिङोऽसिद्धत्वाद्यलोपो न भवति ‘अचः परस्मिन्-’ इति स्थानिवत्वाच्च । न च ‘न पदान्त-’ इति निषेधः शङ्क्यः । स्वरदीर्घय-लोपेषु लोपरूपाजादेश एव न स्थानिवदित्युक्तत्वात् । न च अकृतव्यूहपरिभाषया इयङ् नेति शङ्क्यम् । रिङः स्थानि-वत्त्वेन निमित्तविनाशाभावाद् उक्तपरिभाषाया अप्रवृत्तेः । अत एव अरियतीत्यपि सिद्धम् । तत्रापि यणः स्थानिवत्त्वेन निमित्तविनाशाभावात् तत्परिभाषाऽप्रवृत्तेरियङो निर्बाधत्वात् । क्वचित्तु मूलपुस्तकेषु परत्वान्नित्यत्वाच्च पूर्वं रिङि कृते इयङोऽप्रवृत्तिरित्याशयेन आरिरियात् आरीरियादिति पठ्यते तदापाततः । अरिय्रतीति रूपासिद्ध्या पूर्वोत्तरग्रन्थयोर्विरो-धापत्तेः । लुङि । आरारीत् । आरियारीत् । लुङि आररिष्यत् । आरियरिष्यत् ॥—जर्गृहीतीति । ‘नाभ्यस्तस्याचि-’ इति गुणनिषेधः । मध्यमोत्तमयोस्तु जर्गृहीषि ३ । जर्गृही ३ । जर्गृहः ३ जर्गृहीमि ३ जर्गृही ३ जर्गृहः ३ जर्गृहः ३ । जर्गृ-हांचकार । जर्गृहिता । जरीगृहिता । इहानुबन्धनिर्देशादूदिल्लक्षण इड्विकल्पो न । जर्गृहीतु । जर्गृहे । जर्गृहाम् । जर्गृहतु ३ जर्गृहि ३ । मिपि । जर्गृहाणि ३ । लुङि अजर्गृहीत् ३ । ईडभावे ‘एकाच-’ इति भष्भावः । अजर्घर्द् ३ । यद्यपि इह यत्रैकाज्ग्रहणं चेति निषेधाद्भष्मावो दुर्लभस्तथापि ‘गुणो यङ्लुकोः’ इत्यनेन ‘श्तिपा शपा-’ इत्यादिनिषेधस्यानित्यत्वज्ञापनात् भष्मावोऽत्र प्रवर्तते इत्याहुः । अजर्गृहाम् । अजर्गृहुः ३ । अजर्गृहीः । अजर्घर्द् ३ अजर्गृहे ३ अजर्गृहम् ३ । अजर्गृह ३ । जर्गृहात् ३ । अजर्गृहीत् । अजर्गृहिष्टाम् ३ । अजर्गृहिष्यत् ॥—जाग्रहीतीति । ग्रह उपादाने । यङो लुका लुप्तत्वात्तन्निमित्तं ‘ग्रहिज्या-’ इति संप्रसारणमिह नेति भावः ॥—जर्गृह इति । ‘उरत्’ । ‘दीर्घोऽकितः’ । तत्रैकाच इति अनुवर्तत इति ‘एकाचो द्वे’ इति अस्मिन् सूत्रे हरदत्तेनोक्तलादिति भावः ॥—माधवस्त्विति । अयं भावः । ‘ग्रहोऽलिटि-’ इति सूत्रे यङ्लोपे चोक्तमिति वार्तिकतदीयभाष्यकैयटादिपर्यालोचनया जरीगृहितेत्यादिषु ग्रहेर्यङन्तात्तृच-स्तासेवां य इद तस्य दीर्घाभावे युक्तिद्वयं लभ्यते । पूर्वस्मादपि विधौ स्थानिवद्भाव इत्येके । ग्रहेर्विहितो य इद् तस्य दीर्घ इत्यपरे । तत्राद्यः पक्षो भाष्यवार्तिककाररीत्या । ताभ्यां हि ‘पूर्वत्रासिद्धे न स्थानिवत्’ इत्यवश्यम् दीघोदिग्रहणस्य प्रत्याख्यानात् । त्रैपादिकदीर्घातिरिक्तदीर्घेऽस्मिन् कर्तव्ये स्थानिवद्भावस्य तन्मते सुवचलात् । द्वितीयस्तु सूत्ररीत्या, तेन तु सामान्यतो दीर्घविधौ स्थानिवद्भावस्य निषिद्धतात्तन्मते स्थानिवद्भावस्य वक्तुमशक्यतात् । एवं च यङ्लुकि दीर्घप्रवृत्तौ न किञ्चिद् बाधकम् । यङ्लुकोऽनैमित्तिकत्वात् अज्झलादेशत्वाच्च स्थानिवद्भावयोगात् । ‘द्विःप्रयोगो द्विर्वचनं षाष्ठम्’ इति सिद्धान्ताद्यङ्लुगन्ताद् गृह्णातेर्वहितस्य ग्रहेर्विहितत्वानपायाच्च ॥—तद्भाष्यादिविरुद्धमिति । आदिशब्देन कैयटहरदत्तौ गृह्येते । विरोधश्चात्र मनोरमायामुपपादितः । तथा हि ‘एकाचो द्वे प्रथमस्य’ इति सूत्रे ग्रहेरङ्गादिति भाष्यमुपादाय कैयट आह ‘तृचो हि जरीगृहीत्यङ्गं न तु ग्रहिः, विशेषणसामर्थ्याद्धि यथाश्रुतरूपाश्रयण’मिति । यद्यपि तत्र यङन्तं प्रक्रम्येदमुक्तं, तथापि युक्तिसाम्याद्यङ्लुगन्तेऽपि न दीर्घ इति लक्ष्यते । एकाज्ग्रहणमनुवर्तयन् हरदत्तोऽप्यत्रानुकूलः । न ह्यस्मिन्पक्षे यङ्लुकि दीर्घस्य प्रसक्तिरस्ति । एवं च पूर्वस्मादपि विधौ स्थानिवद्भाव इति ग्रहेर्विहितस्य य इद तस्य दीर्घ इति च प्रायुक्तसमाधानमुपायस्योपायान्तरादूषकत्वादिति न्यायेन यङन्तांशे उपायान्तरपरतया नेयम् । न च ग्रहीति यथाश्रुतरूपाश्रयणे गृहीत इत्यादाविटो दीर्घो न स्यादिति वाच्यम् । अङ्गसंज्ञाप्रवृत्तिवेलायां यथाश्रुतरूपस्यैव सत्त्वात् । प्राहितमित्यादौ तु नैवम् । एकाच इति समाधानं तु णिज्भिन्नविषयकमेव, ‘निष्ठायां सेटि’ इति णिलोपे प्राहितमित्यादावेकाच्लानपायात् । तदित्थम्—‘यङ्लुगन्ताणिजन्ताच्च यङन्ताच्च ग्रहेरिटः । द्विधा त्रिधा चतुर्धा च दीर्घप्राप्तिः समाहिता’ । अस्यार्थः । यङ्लुगन्तादीर्घे प्राप्ते समाधानद्वयम् । ग्रहेरङ्गादिति व्याख्यानमेकाच इत्यनुवृत्तिश्चेति । णिजन्तात्तु प्रहित्यरूपाभावः, विहितविशेषणं, स्थानिवद्भावश्चेति समाधानत्रयम् । यङन्तात्समाधानचतुष्टयम् । ‘एकाचः—’ इत्यनुवृत्तिः, पूर्वोक्तसमाधानत्रयं चेति ॥—अजर्घा इति । गृध्रु अभिकाङ्क्षायाम् । इह अपदान्तस्यापि रेफस्य ‘रो रि’ इति लोपो भवत्येव, तत्र मण्डूकप्लुत्या पदस्येत्यनुवर्तनात् ॥—पाप्रष्टीति । प्रच्छ ज्ञीप्सायाम् । ‘व्रश्च—’ इति षः । पाप्रच्छिता । पाप्रच्छिष्यति । पाप्रष्टु । पाप्रष्टात् । पाप्रष्टाम् । पाप्रच्छतु । पाप्रड्ढि । पाप्रच्छानि । अपाप्रच्छीत् । अपाप्रट् । अपाप्रष्टाम् । अपाप्रच्छुः । अपाप्रच्छीः । अपाप्रद् । अपाप्रष्टम् । अपाप्रष्ट । अपाप्रच्छम् । अपाप्रच्छु । अपाप्रश्म ॥—भाष्ये ध्वनितमिति । ‘छ्वोः शूङ्—’ इति सूत्रे भाष्ये किद्ग्रहणमनुवर्तते न वेति विकल्प काश्चिद्दोषानुद्भाव्य परिहत्य चोक्तम् । एतावानेव विशेषः । अनुवर्तमाने किद्ग्रहणे ‘च्छः षत्वं वक्तव्यम्’ इति । अननुवर्तमानेत्वेन च्छः सत्वे कृते शान्तत्वादेव षो भविष्यतीति प्रष्टा प्रष्टुमित्यादिसिद्धये व्रश्चादिसूत्रे छग्रहणं न कर्तव्यमिति भावः । एवं हि वदता भाष्यकृता ऊठ्भाविभ्यो यङ्लुक् नास्तीत्युक्तप्रायम् । अन्यथा दिवेर्यङ्लुकि इंडभावपक्षे देदेति देदेषि इत्यादौ ऊठो भावाभावाभ्यां महान् विशेषः स्यात् । तत्र किद्ग्रहणाननुवृत्तावूढः प्रवृत्त्या देद्योति देद्योषीत्यादिरूपविशेषलाभात् । ततश्चैतावानेवेत्येवकारो विरुध्येत ॥—स्रिविमव्योस्त्विति । स्रिवु गतिशोषणयोः । मव बन्धने ॥—जाहामीति । ईट्पक्षे । जाहयीमि । लोटि । जाहयीतु । जाहतु । जाहतात् । जाहताम् । जाहयतु । जाहहि । जाहतात् । जाहयानि । जाहयाव । जाहयाम । लङि । अजाहयीत् । अजाहत् । अजाहताम् । अजाहयुः । अजाहयीः । अजाहः । अजाहतम् । अजाहत । अजाहयम् । अजाहाव । अजाहाम । जाहयात् । ‘ह्म्यन्तक्षण—’ इति वृद्धिनिषेधः । अजाहयीत् । अजाहयिष्टाम् । अजाहयिष्यत् ॥—ज्वरत्वर—ज्वर रोगे । ञित्वरा संभ्रमे । अत्र वृत्तौ झलादौ क्ङितीत्युक्तं तत्र क्ङितीत्येतद्रमसकृतमेवेत्याह—क्ङितीति नानुवर्तत इति ॥—अवतेस्तुनीति । ‘ज्वरत्वर—’ इत्युपधावकारयोरुठि गुणे च कृते ओतुरिति सिद्ध्यति नान्यथा । तेनात्र क्ङितीति नानुवर्तनीयमिति भावः ॥—अवतेरिति । उपधावकारयोरूढि गुणे च कृते मन्प्रत्ययस्य टिलोपे चोमिति सिध्यतीत्यर्थः । ज्वरादेरुदाहरणं क्विपि जूः जुरौ जुरः । झलादौ तु । जूतिः । जूणः । जूणवान् । त्वर । तूः । तुरौ । तुरः । तूर्तिः । तूणः । तूणवान् । स्रिवि । सूः । सुवौ । सुवः । सुतिः । अवि । ऊः । उवौ । उवः । ऊतिः । मव । मूः । मुवौ । मुवः । मूतः । मूतिः ॥—मामोषीत्यादि । ईट्पक्षे मामवीषि । मामवीमि । मामवीतु । अमामवीत् । अमामवीरिति बोध्यम् ॥—राल्लोपः । ‘छ्वोः शूठ्— इत्यतः छ्वोरित्यनुवर्तते । क्वावुदाहरणम् । तूः । तुरौ । तुरः । धुर्वी । धूः । धुरौ । धुरः । मुर्छा । मूः । मुरौ । मुरः
Footnotes (NSP 1915 ed.)
NSP p. 453 १ गृधेर्यलोपे लङि सेरिलोपे हल्ङ्यादिलोपे रपरे गुणे च ॥ भष्भावजश्त्वे च श्रेफरत्वे ढ्रलोपदीर्घे च भवेदजर्घाः ॥ १ ॥
translator notes
  • commentary TB (sk.2653.t1): 'ṛtā' qualifies the aṅga carried forward (anuvartamānam aṅgam), so the sense is 'of the abhyāsa that belongs to an aṅga ending in ṛ'. The reading 'ṛdantād dhātoḥ' is to be taken as merely stating the resultant sense (phalitārthakathana). Followed: '[the abhyāsa] of a root ending in ṛ'.
  • commentary BM (absent from our source.json; read in Wikisource uttara-2/0145) glosses 'tathā' as 'the augments ruk, rik and rīk come to the abhyāsa in yaṅluk'. Followed: '[receives ruk, rik and rīk in yaṅluk]'.
  • textual The Wikisource kaumudī (uttara-2/0145) reads 'ṛdantadhātor api' where ours reads 'ṛdantād dhātor api'; TB's remark on 'ṛdantād dhātoḥ' (see the TB note) presupposes our reading.
  • commentary BM (WS uttara-2/0145) on vṛtu: with īṭ, laghūpadha-guṇa is barred by nābhyastasyāci piti sārvadhātuke; 'iti na' means the iṭ-prohibition does not apply. On avarvart: hal-ṅyādi deletion of tip, and saṃyogānta deletion is barred by the restriction rāt sasya. On avarvāḥ: avarvart-s, ru for the d by daś ca, the first r deleted by ro ri, lengthening by ḍhralope, s deleted, visarga. On 'aṅ na': 'by puṣādidyutādi…'. Followed: '[the first r is deleted by]' and '[dyutādi in puṣādidyutādyḷditaḥ…]'.
  • commentary TB (sk.2653.t1) on 'aṅ na': [the aṅ meant is the one that would come] by puṣādidyutādi…. Followed: '[dyutādi in puṣādidyutādyḷditaḥ…]'.
  • commentary TB (sk.2653.t1) on carkṛyāt: the vidhiliṅ ending is sārvadhātuka, so no lengthening by akṛtsārvadhātukayoḥ. In luṅ, vṛddhi by sici vṛddhiḥ (acarkārīt). Followed: '[vidhiliṅ]'.
  • commentary BM (WS uttara-2/0146) on carkṛyāt: the vidhiliṅ ending is sārvadhātuka, so there is no lengthening; the āśīrliṅ, being ārdhadhātuka, takes riṅ by riṅ śayagliṅkṣu. Followed: '[vidhiliṅ]', 'riṅ [by riṅ śayagliṅkṣu, SK 2367]'.
  • commentary BM (WS uttara-2/0146): 'ṛtaś ca iti taparatvān neha' means ruk, rik and rīk do not apply. cākarti is the form without īṭ. rīk by rīg ṛtvataḥ is not to be suspected for the shortened abhyāsa, because urat, being nitya, applies first. The forms tātarti etc. are of tṝ (plavanataraṇayoḥ), formed in the same way. BM also notes that the Advaitadīpikā's 'nāvatarītarti' is a scribe's slip for the authentic 'nāvatātarti'. Followed: '[From tṝ:]'.
  • commentary TB (sk.2653.t1): 'evaṃ tātarītītyādi' — the forms of tṝ are made in the same way. Followed: '[From tṝ:]'.
  • commentary TB (sk.2653.t1) on 'arteḥ': both the bhvādi and the juhotyādi ṛ are meant. On 'uradatvam': some prescribe guṇa of the abhyāsa by guṇo yaṅlukoḥ instead, with no difference in the result. On 'rigrīkos tu': so ariyarti is common to rik and rīk. Followed: '[with rik or rīk]'.
  • commentary BM (WS uttara-2/0146): ṛ takes yaṅ by sūcisūtri…; the second syllable is doubled by vyapadeśivadbhāva. BM gives the intermediate forms ar ṛ (urat, raparatva), a ṛ (halādiḥ śeṣaḥ), ar ṛ ti (ruk), then guṇa and r → ararti; and ari ṛ / arī ṛ with iyaṅ → ariyarti. Followed: the arrow sequence.
  • commentary BM (WS uttara-2/0146–0147) on the 3rd pl.: ar ṛ ati, yaṇ gives ar r ati. The objection is that the r from yaṇ is sthānivat by acaḥ parasmin and so is not an r for ro ri. Reply: sthānivadbhāva is barred for an operation of the pūrvatrāsiddha section. Then ḍhralope lengthens (ārati), sthānivadbhāva being barred in a lengthening rule too. ariyrati: iyaṅ first, being para, then yaṇ, giving one form for rik and rīk. Followed: the bracket '[of the r]'.
  • commentary TB (sk.2653.t1) on ārati: dīrgho 'kitaḥ does not lengthen the abhyāsa here, the abhyāsa being kit. Recorded.
  • commentary TB (sk.2653.t1): 'liṅi' means āśīrliṅ. On ariyriyāt: from ari ṛ, riṅ in liṅ. y-deletion does not follow: riṅ is bahiraṅga and asiddha, and the yaṇ is sthānivat by acaḥ parasmin; na padānta… does not bar this, as only a deletion-type ac-substitute is barred there. TB also reports that some mūla manuscripts (mūlapustakeṣu) read 'āririyāt, ārīriyāt', on the idea that riṅ, being para and nitya, comes first and leaves no room for iyaṅ. TB calls this superficial (āpātataḥ), since it would also make ariyrati impossible and set the passage against itself. Followed: 'In the [āśīr]liṅ'; the mūla variant is recorded.
  • commentary BM (WS uttara-2/0147) on ariyriyāt: from ari ṛ yāt / arī ṛ yāt in the āśīrliṅ, iyaṅ for the i-vowel and riṅ for the ṛ; the y is not deleted by lopo vyoḥ, riṅ being bahiraṅga and asiddha, and the yaṇ being sthānivat by acaḥ parasmin; the prohibition in na padānta… is not to be feared, as only a deletion-type ac-substitute is barred there. Followed: 'In the [āśīr]liṅ'.
  • commentary TB (sk.2653.t1) on jāgrahīti: the yaṅ being elided by luk, the samprasāraṇa conditioned by it does not occur. On 'tatraikāca ity anuvṛtteḥ': it rests on Haradatta's statement under ekāco dve…. Followed: 'is carried forward (anuvṛtti) there' (the source rule is not named in the kaumudī; see translator note).
  • commentary BM (WS uttara-2/0148) on jāgrahīti: the yaṅ being elided by luk and tip being pit, there is no samprasāraṇa by grahijyā…; jāgṛḍhaḥ has no lengthening by ḍhralope because ṛ is not aṇ. On 'tatraikāca ity anuvṛtteḥ': it rests on Haradatta's statement under ekāco dve…. On Mādhava: his view is that 'ekācaḥ' is not carried forward. Recorded.
  • commentary TB (sk.2653.t1) reads the kaumudī as 'tadbhāṣyādiviruddham', ādi taking in Kaiyaṭa and Haradatta. It says the contradiction is shown in the [Prauḍha]manoramā: under ekāco dve…, the Bhāṣya's 'graher aṅgāt' and Kaiyaṭa's remark that the aṅga before tṛc is jarīgṛh, not grah, extend by parity of reasoning to the yaṅluganta. TB closes with a verse that sums up the two, three and four answers to the lengthening for the yaṅluganta, ṇijanta and yaṅanta of grah. Recorded; the English follows our text 'contrary to the Bhāṣya'.
  • commentary BM (WS uttara-2/0148) on 'tad bhāṣyaviruddham': the Bhāṣya's 'graher aṅgāt' argument (the aṅga before tṛc is jarīgṛh-, giving jarīgṛhitā) extends to the yaṅluganta; BM refers to the Prauḍhamanoramā for the rest. Recorded.
  • commentary TB (sk.2653.t1) on ajargharṭ: although the mention of ekāc would make bhaṣ hard to obtain, it applies here because guṇo yaṅlukoḥ shows that the prohibitions of śtipā śapā… are anitya; so they say. On ajarghāḥ: the r, though not pada-final, is deleted by ro ri, because 'padasya' is carried there by frog's leap (maṇḍūkapluti). Recorded.
  • commentary BM (WS uttara-2/0148–0149) gives the derivation of ajargharṭ from ajargṛdh-t (guṇa, raparatva, hal-ṅyādi deletion, bhaṣ as the form is pada-final, jaś, optional car) and of ajarghāḥ. Followed: the bracket '[ajargṛdh-t →]' and '[gh for g]'.
  • commentary BM (WS uttara-2/0149) on pāpraṣṭi: ṣ for cch by vraśca…, then ṣṭutva. ś by cchvoḥ does not apply before tip, which is not kṅit. 'śtipā nirdeśāt' means pṛcchati is cited with śtip in grahijyā…. pāpraśmi and pāpraśmaḥ have ś before a nasal-initial suffix; pāpracchvaḥ has none, vas not being jhal-initial. Followed: '[pṛcchati there]'.
  • commentary BM (WS uttara-2/0150) on 'dhvanitam': in the Bhāṣya on cchvoḥ…, after weighing whether 'kṅiti' continues there, the Bhāṣya concludes 'etāvān eva viśeṣaḥ' — only the ṣ for ch needs stating. Had the ūṭh-bhāvins a yaṅluk, the yaṅluk of div would give dedeti or dedyoti according to that choice, a further difference that would falsify 'eva'. Recorded.
  • commentary TB (sk.2653.t1) on 'dhvanitam': the Bhāṣya's 'etāvān eva viśeṣaḥ' on cchvoḥ… would be falsified if the ūṭh-bhāvins had yaṅluk, since the yaṅluk of div without īṭ (dedeti, dedeṣi) would then differ greatly according to whether ūṭh applies. Recorded.
  • commentary BM (WS uttara-2/0150) glosses 'srivimavyoḥ' as srivu (gatiśoṣaṇayoḥ) and mavya bandhane. On 'ūṭhbhāvī' it says 'so this one has no yaṅluk', and on 'vāntāḥ' that these too are ūṭh-bhāvins with no yaṅluk. haya is the counter-example: y-final, but not subject to ūṭh, so it has yaṅluk. Followed: the brackets '[— so it has no yaṅluk]' after mavya and '[ūṭh-bhāvins, likewise without yaṅluk]' after tevṛ, devṛ. For 'srivimavyoḥ', BM's gloss mavya differs from TB's mava (see the TB note); the English keeps the kaumudī's 'mav' as transmitted.
  • commentary TB (sk.2653.t1) glosses 'srivimavyoḥ' as sivu [srivu] gatiśoṣaṇayoḥ and mava bandhane (so the second root of the pair is mav, distinct from the mavya cited next). Recorded: the English keeps 'mav' as transmitted.
  • commentary BM (WS uttara-2/0150–0151) on haya: jāhati has y deleted by lopo vyoḥ, there being no īṭ. 'vali lope yañādau dīrghaḥ': jāhay-mi, deletion of y before val [lopo vyor vali], lengthening before a yañ-initial suffix [ato dīrgho yañi]. On harya: y deleted, and ajāhaḥ is also the sip form. Followed: '[of the y]'.
  • translator Two points of construal here. (1) Neither the kaumudī nor BM/TB names the rule from which 'ekācaḥ' is carried into graho 'liṭi dīrghaḥ. It is presumably ekāca upadeśe 'nudāttāt (SK 2246), whose 'ekācaḥ' runs through the iṭ section, but the English does not insert this. (2) 'mavya … ayaṃ yānta ūṭhbhāvī' does not itself say whether mavya has yaṅluk. BM takes it as denying yaṅluk ('atas tasya yaṅlug nāsti'), and the structure of the passage (examples of the ūṭh-bhāvins just said to lack yaṅluk, then the contrasting haya) supports that; the English follows BM in brackets. BM's own gloss of 'srivimavyoḥ' just before with mavya sits awkwardly with this; TB's mava does not.
  • textual Collation against the print (NSP pp. 441–443, scans page-0451 to page-0453, read; batch09). Ours has slips that the English corrects to the print: 'avarvṛrtīt' for 'avarvṛtīt'; 'avarvatar' for 'avarvart'; 'arter yaṅaluki' for 'arter yaṅluki'; 'ajarghaṭar' for 'ajargharṭ'; 'ajarghatar' for 'ajarghart'. Ours also repeats 'ariyarti', which the print has once. Wikisource agrees with the print. 'jāghrakṣi': ours and Wikisource; the print's ghr/gr cannot be told apart at the scan's resolution.
  • textual Cross-references. Three numbers are wrong in the print itself and in ours: 'ro ri' is given as 1731 (SK 1731 is daṇḍādibhyo yat; ro ri is SK 173, as cited a few lines earlier); 'daś ca' as 2668 (SK 2668 is lohitādiḍājbhyaḥ kyaṣ; daś ca is SK 2468); and 'jvaratvara…' as 2564 (print '2564', NSP p. 443, scan page-0453, read; Wikisource also 2564; SK 2564 is ṇicaś ca, and jvaratvara… is SK 2654, the next unit). The English gives SK 173, SK 2468 and SK 2654.
  • textual MŪLA, for Ajai. 'arārīt' (luṅ, ruk form) is the reading of ours and of the print (NSP p. 442, scan page-0452, read). TB (sk.2653.t1, 'luṅi | ārārīt | āriyārīt') and BM (WS uttara-2/0147, 'luṅi ārārīt-āriyārīt') both read ārārīt, with āṭ, and luṅ of an ac-initial root requires āṭ. The English keeps the transmitted 'arārīt'.
  • textual NSP footnote, printed under sk.2653.n1, on ajarghāḥ: a mnemonic verse (OCR garbled) listing the steps for gṛdh: luk of yaṅ, laṅ, sip without i[ṭ], hal-ṅyādi deletion, guṇa with r, bhaṣ and jaś, r [for d], lengthening after r-deletion — 'bhaved ajarghāḥ'.
  • textual Neighbour-filed TB: the tail of sk.2653.t1 (from 'jvaratvara—' on) is TB on SK 2654 and SK 2655. The kaumudī's closing 'mava bandhane' is the lead-in to the examples under SK 2654.
SK 2654 · A 6.4.20V
ज्वरत्वरस्रिव्यविमवामुपधायाश्च ॥ २६५४ ॥
jvaratvarasrivyavimavāmupadhāyāśca
jvaratvarasrivyavimavām upadhāyāś ca — Of jvara, tvara, srivi, avi and mava, [ūṭh — carried forward (anuvṛtti) from cchvoḥ śūḍ anunāsike ca, SK 2561 —] replaces the penultimate (upadhā) and (ca) [the v — carried forward from the same], [when kvi or a jhal-initial suffix — 'kvijhaloḥ' carried forward from anunāsikasya kvijhaloḥ kṅiti, SK 2666 — or a nasal-initial suffix — 'anunāsike' carried forward from SK 2561 — follows].

Rule. Of the roots jvar, tvar, srivi, av and mav, the penultimate and the v are replaced by ūṭh. This happens before kvi, before a suffix that begins with a jhal, and before a suffix that begins with a nasal. Ūṭh is the substitute ū; its ṭh is a marker. Kvi is a kṛt affix of which no sound remains. The penultimate (upadhā) is the sound before the last.

The sūtra borrows much. One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators lists it. From cchvoḥ śūḍ anunāsike ca (SK 2561) come "v", "ūṭh" and "before a nasal". From anunāsikasya kvijhaloḥ kṅiti (SK 2666, taught later) comes "before kvi or a jhal". The ca of this sūtra adds the v to the penultimate.

Two points on the anuvṛtti. Bhaṭṭoji tests each by a word.

  • "Before a kit or ṅit" (kṅiti) of SK 2666 is not carried here. The proof is otuḥ, from av with the affix tun:

av + tu → ūṭh for a and v → ū + tu

→ guṇa, possible only because tun is not kit → otu → otuḥ.

One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators says the earlier commentary (the vṛtti) has kṅiti here, and that it is a mistake.

  • "Before a nasal" (anunāsike) of SK 2561 is carried. The proof is om, from av with the affix man, whose ṭi is deleted. Ṭi is the last vowel with whatever follows it.

av + man → ṭi (an) deleted → av + m

→ ūṭh before the nasal → ū + m → guṇa → om.

Example. mav "to bind", in yaṅ-luk:

mav mav → halādiḥ śeṣaḥ → ma mav → dīrgho 'kitaḥ → māmav

→ laṭ, tip, no īṭ → māmav + ti

→ this rule: ūṭh before the jhal t. On one view, one ū replaces a and v together → māmū + ti

→ tip is pit, so not ṅit, and the ū takes guṇa (SK 2168) → māmoti.

Both views are from one of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators, the Bālamanoramā. The first is the one just shown. On the second, each of a and v takes ūṭh, and the two ū merge. It places both views in the Bhāṣya on ekaḥ pūrvaparayoḥ.

The forms:

  • laṭ māmoti; with īṭ, māmavīti (a vowel follows, so no ūṭh). 3rd du. māmūtaḥ: tas is ṅit, so no guṇa. 3rd pl. māmavati.
  • 2nd sg. māmoṣi; 1st sg. māmomi.
  • 1st du. māmāvaḥ. V is not a jhal, so there is no ūṭh. One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators gives the steps: the v of the root is lost before v (SK 873), and the a is lengthened (SK 2170).
  • 1st pl. māmūmaḥ: ūṭh before the nasal m; mas is ṅit, so no guṇa.
  • loṭ māmūhi; 1st sg. māmavāni.
  • laṅ amāmot, amāmoḥ, amāmavam, amāmāva, amāmūma.

The same commentator adds the other roots: jājvarīti, tātūrti, sesroti. Av has no yaṅ, so he illustrates it with kvip: ūḥ.

Bhaṭṭoji's passage ends with the root turvī "to injure" and the form totūrvīti. That leads into the next sūtra.

Siddhānta-kaumudī
ज्वरादीनामुपधावकारयोरूठ् स्यात् क्वौ झलादावनुनासिकादौ च प्रत्यये । अत्र क्ङितीति नानुवर्तते । अवतेस्तुनि कृते ओतुरिति दर्शनात् । अनुनासिकग्रहणं चानुवर्तेते । अवतेर्मन्प्रत्यये तस्य टिलोपे ओमिति दर्शनात् । ईडभावे ऊठि पिति गुणः । मामोति । मामवीति । मामूतः । मामवति । मामोषि । मामोमि । मामावः । मामूमः । मामूहि । मामवानि । अमामोत् । अमामोः । अमामवम् । अमामाव । अमामूम । तुर्वी हिंसायाम् । तोतूर्वीति ॥

Let ūṭh come in place of the penultimate and the v of jvara and the others, when kvi, a suffix beginning with jhal, or a suffix beginning with a nasal follows. 'kṅiti' [of SK 2666] is not carried forward (anuvṛtti) here, because 'otuḥ' is found when tun has been added to av. And the mention of 'anunāsika' [in SK 2561] is carried forward, because 'om' is found when the suffix man has been added to av and its ṭi deleted. In the absence of īṭ, when ūṭh [has come], guṇa before a pit [suffix]: māmoti [laṭ 3rd sg.]; māmavīti [with īṭ]; māmūtaḥ [3rd du.]; māmavati [3rd pl.]; māmoṣi [2nd sg.]; māmomi [1st sg.]; māmāvaḥ [1st du.]; māmūmaḥ [1st pl.]; māmūhi [loṭ 2nd sg.]; māmavāni [loṭ 1st sg.]; amāmot [laṅ 3rd sg.]; amāmoḥ [2nd sg.]; amāmavam [1st sg.]; amāmāva [1st du.]; amāmūma [1st pl.]. turvī — in the sense of injuring: totūrvīti.

translator notes
  • commentary BM (absent from our source.json; read in Wikisource uttara-2/0151): the compound is a dvandva of jvara, tvara, srivi, avi and mav. From cchvoḥ śūḍ anunāsike ca [SK 2561] the mention of v, the mention of ūṭh and 'anunāsike' are carried forward (anuvartante); 'ś for ch' is not carried, since none of these roots has ch. From anunāsikasya kvijhaloḥ kṅiti [SK 2666], 'kvijhaloḥ' is carried forward. The ca is for gathering in the v (vakārasamuccayārtha). Followed: the anuvṛtti brackets and '[the v]' in sutra_en.
  • commentary TB (printed at the tail of sk.2653.t1, NSP p. 443): jvara 'roge', tvarā 'sambhrame'. The vṛtti says 'jhalādau kṅiti' here, and 'kṅiti' there is simply a mistake (bhramakṛta), which is why Bhaṭṭoji says it is not carried forward. On 'avates tuni': otu is obtained only when ūṭh replaces the penultimate and the v and guṇa follows, so 'kṅiti' must not be carried. On 'avateḥ': with ūṭh for penultimate and v, guṇa, and deletion of the ṭi of the suffix man, om is obtained. TB lists kvip and jhal-initial examples (jūḥ, jūrtiḥ, tūḥ, sūḥ, ūḥ, mūḥ …). Followed: '[of SK 2666]'.
  • commentary BM (WS uttara-2/0151): otu is av with the uṇādi tun; with 'kṅiti' carried forward it could not be formed. om is from the uṇādi sūtra 'avater ṭilopaś ca': man is added to av and its ṭi deleted; ūṭh for the penultimate a and the v, and guṇa, give om. Without 'anunāsike' carried forward, ūṭh could not come before man(in), as only kvi and jhal would condition it. Followed.
  • commentary BM (WS uttara-2/0151–0152) on māmoti: yaṅluk of mav gives māmav-ti. Without īṭ, one ūṭh replaces both a and v; tip is pit and so not ṅit, and the ū takes guṇa. On the alternative view, each of the two takes ūṭh and savarṇa-lengthening follows; both views are in the Bhāṣya on ekaḥ pūrvaparayoḥ. māmavīti has no ūṭh, since ī follows. In māmūtaḥ and māmūmaḥ, tas and mas are ṅit, so no guṇa. In māmāvaḥ there is no ūṭh, v not being jhal; the v is deleted by lopo vyoḥ and the a lengthened by ato dīrgho yañi. māmavāni has guṇa because āṭ is pit. BM adds the other roots (jājvarīti, tātūrti, sesroti) and that av, having no yaṅ, is illustrated with kvip (ūḥ, uvau, uvaḥ). Followed: the person and number labels.
  • commentary TB (tail of sk.2653.t1) on 'māmoṣītyādi': with īṭ, māmavīṣi, māmavīmi, māmavītu, amāmavīt, amāmavīḥ. Recorded.
  • textual Ours reads 'anunāsikagrahaṇaṃ cānuvartete'; the print has 'cānuvartate' (NSP p. 444, scan page-0454, read; batch10), which suits the singular subject, and Wikisource agrees. The English follows the print. Ours agrees with the print against Wikisource in three places: 'avates tuni kṛte otur iti' (WS without kṛte), 'avater manpratyaye' (WS mānan-) and 'māmūmaḥ | māmūhi' (WS adds 'māmotu-māmūtāt').
  • textual Neighbour-filed TB: there is no TB block in this unit. TB on this sūtra is printed at the tail of sk.2653.t1 (from 'jvaratvara—' to 'amāmavīr iti bodhyam'). The last words of the kaumudī of SK 2653, 'mava bandhane', introduce the root of the examples here. 'turvī … totūrvīti' at the end of this block leads into SK 2655.
SK 2655 · A 6.4.21V
राल्लोपः ॥ २६५५ ॥
rāllopaḥ
rāl lopaḥ — After r, [ch and v — 'cchvoḥ' carried forward (anuvṛtti) from cchvoḥ śūḍ anunāsike ca, SK 2561 —] are deleted (lopa), [when kvi or a jhal-initial suffix — 'kvijhaloḥ' carried forward from anunāsikasya kvijhaloḥ kṅiti, SK 2666 — or a nasal-initial suffix — 'anunāsike' carried forward from SK 2561 — follows].

Rule. After r, ch and v are deleted before kvi, a jhal-initial suffix, or a nasal-initial suffix. "ch and v" and "before a nasal" come from SK 2561, and "before kvi or a jhal" from SK 2666. One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators adds that ūṭh is not carried, nor "before a kit or ṅit".

Example. turv (turvī) "to injure":

turv turv → halādiḥ śeṣaḥ → tu turv → guṇa of the abhyāsa (SK 2630) → toturv.

With īṭ: toturv + īti → the u is lengthened (upadhāyāṃ ca, SK 2265, one of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators) → totūrvīti.

Without īṭ:

toturv + ti → this rule: v after r is deleted before the jhal t → totur + ti

→ tip is pit, so not ṅit: guṇa of the light penultimate (SK 2189) → totorti.

Bhaṭṭoji: "thus the deletion of v; then guṇa of the light penultimate."

Applies when / blocked by. Is this rule needed in totorti? One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators, the Tattvabodhinī, notes that lopo vyor vali (SK 873) would already delete the v before t here. The other cites this rule at totorti as the proper one. Both say the rule is needed in totūrtaḥ:

toturv + tas → ūṭh by cchvoḥ… (SK 2561) would replace the v, and would set lopo vyor vali aside

→ this rule deletes the v instead → totur + taḥ

→ hali ca (SK 354) lengthens the u → totūrtaḥ.

One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators gives forms with kvi: tūḥ, dhūḥ, mūḥ.

Siddhānta-kaumudī
रेफात्परयोश्छ्वोर्लोपः स्यात् क्वौ झलादावनुनासिकादौ च प्रत्यये । इति वलोपः । लघूपधगुणः ॥

Let ch and v, when they come after r, be deleted when kvi, a suffix beginning with jhal, or a suffix beginning with a nasal follows [— 'cchvoḥ' and 'anunāsike' carried forward (anuvṛtti) from SK 2561, 'kvijhaloḥ' from SK 2666]. Thus [in totūrv-ti] the deletion of the v; [then] guṇa of the light penultimate.

translator notes
  • commentary BM (absent from our source.json; read in Wikisource uttara-2/0152): the sūtra cchvoḥ śūḍ anunāsike ca [SK 2561] is carried forward (anuvartate) except for ūṭh, and 'kvijhaloḥ' from anunāsikasya kvijhaloḥ [SK 2666]. Here too 'kṅiti' is not carried forward, because it was not carried into the preceding sūtra. On 'valopaḥ': totur-ti results, and the u takes laghūpadha-guṇa because tip is pit and so not ṅit. Before this, BM explains totūrvīti: lengthening by upadhāyāṃ ca. Without īṭ, in totūrv-ti, ūṭh by cchvoḥ śūṭh would otherwise apply. Followed: the anuvṛtti brackets and '[in totūrv-ti]'.
  • commentary TB (printed at the tail of sk.2653.t1, NSP p. 444): 'cchvoḥ' is carried forward (anuvartate) from cchvoḥ śūḍ…. Examples for kvi: tūḥ, turau, turaḥ; dhūḥ, dhurau, dhuraḥ (dhurvī); mūḥ, murau, muraḥ (murchā). Followed: 'cchvoḥ' in sutra_en.
  • commentary TB (sk.2656.t1) on totorti: the v could already be deleted by lopo vyor vali here. rāl lopaḥ is cited for the deletion of v in totūrtaḥ and the like, where ūṭh by cchvoḥ… would otherwise set aside lopo vyoḥ. Recorded.
  • commentary BM (WS uttara-2/0153): rāl lopaḥ is needed for the deletion of v in totūrtaḥ, where lopo vyoḥ would be set aside by ūṭh by cchvoḥ…, and it is cited at totorti as the proper rule. Recorded.
  • textual Neighbour-filed TB: there is no TB block in this unit. TB on this sūtra is printed at the tail of sk.2653.t1 ('rāllopaḥ | cchvoḥ śūṭh— ity ataḥ…'). Ours = print (NSP p. 444, scan page-0454, read; batch10 lists 2655 as clean).
SK 2656 · A 1.1.4V
न धातुलोप आर्धधातुके ॥ २६५६ ॥
na dhātulopa ārdhadhātuke
na dhātulopa ārdhadhātuke — [Guṇa and vṛddhi in place of ik — 'iko guṇavṛddhī' carried forward (anuvṛtti) from iko guṇavṛddhī, SK 34 — do] not [come] when an ārdhadhātuka that causes the deletion of [part of] a dhātu (dhātulopa) follows.

Rule. Guṇa and vṛddhi do not replace an ik vowel before an ārdhadhātuka that causes the deletion of part of a dhātu. An ārdhadhātuka is any affix after a root other than the sārvadhātukas (SK 2187). "Guṇa and vṛddhi in place of ik" comes by anuvṛtti from iko guṇavṛddhī (SK 34). Bhaṭṭoji's gloss: "when an ārdhadhātuka follows that is the cause of the deletion of part of a dhātu (dhātvaṃśalopanimitte), guṇa and vṛddhi do not come in place of ik".

Why "part of" a dhātu? One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators tests the literal readings.

  • "When the dhātu is deleted" fails for loluvaḥ, where only the yaṅ, a part, is lost.
  • "When part of the dhātu is deleted", without "the cause", would wrongly bar guṇa in śayitā, where the ṅ of śīṅ is lost.

So the ārdhadhātuka must itself cause the deletion. How the compound dhātulopa yields this sense, scholars discuss.

Example: where the sūtra applies. Bhaṭṭoji's commentators give its own domain: the conditioned luk of yaṅ before the kṛt suffix ac (SK 2650). One of them names loluvaḥ, popuvaḥ and marīmṛjaḥ.

lolūya + ac → ac causes the luk of yaṅ, part of the dhātu lolūya → lolū + a

→ guṇa of ū would come before ac (SK 2168)

→ this rule: ac is an ārdhadhātuka that caused part of the dhātu to be deleted, so no guṇa

→ uvaṅ (SK 271) → loluva → loluvaḥ.

Example: where it does not. Bhaṭṭoji: "this prohibition does not apply here, because tip and the rest are not ārdhadhātuka". So in totur + ti the guṇa stands → totorti. The luk of yaṅ in this chapter is the unconditioned one in any case (SK 2650).

Bhaṭṭoji's remaining forms:

  • totūrtaḥ, with lengthening by hali ca (SK 354); totūrvati.
  • thurvī: tothorti. durvī: dodorti. dhurvī: dodhorti. The root names are his commentators'.
  • murchā: momūrcchīti; momorti, where ch is deleted by SK 2655; momūrtaḥ; momūrchati.

The status of the sūtra. Bhaṭṭoji's commentators report that the Bhāṣya rejects this sūtra (pratyākhyāta): it is not needed. One of them gives the reason: the deleted a is treated as still present (sthānivadbhāva), and that already prevents the guṇa and vṛddhi. The other adds that Haradatta reinstates the sūtra and that the Kaustubha rejects it again.

A note on aj. Bhaṭṭoji closes with the root aj. The rule ajer vy aghañapoḥ (SK 2292) replaces aj by vī before an ārdhadhātuka. In it, the carried word ārdhadhātuke is a locative of domain (viṣayasaptamī), not of something that actually follows. So vī replaces aj as soon as yaṅ is intended, before yaṅ is added: vevīyate. One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators adds why this matters. Vī begins with a consonant, so yaṅ can now come at all.

But aj has no yaṅ-luk, says Bhaṭṭoji. When the yaṅ is removed by luk, there is no domain of an ārdhadhātuka, so vī does not come. One of his commentators puts it thus: a yaṅ removed by luk cannot be the thing intended in advance.

Here ends the yaṅluganta-prakriyā.

Watch out. SK 2656 is a sūtra of the first book (A 1.1.4), though Bhaṭṭoji teaches it here. Its prohibition needs two things: an ārdhadhātuka, and a deletion that this ārdhadhātuka causes. The endings tip and the rest are sārvadhātuka, so it cannot touch totorti, momotti or bobhoti. And where an ārdhadhātuka does follow, as tās in momoditā, the luk of this chapter was not caused by it, so the guṇa stands (SK 2651).

Siddhānta-kaumudī
धात्वंशलोपनिमित्ते आर्धधातुके परे इको गुणवृद्धी न स्तः इति नेह निषेधः । तिबादीनामनार्धधातुकत्वात् । तोतोर्ति । हलि च SK 354 इति दीर्घः । तोतूर्तः । तोतूर्वति । तोथोर्ति । दोदोर्ति । दोधोर्ति । मुर्छा । मोमूर्च्छीति । मोमोर्ति । मोमूर्तः । मोमूर्छतीत्यादि । आर्धधातुक इति विषयसप्तमी । तेन यङि विवक्षिते अजेर्वी । वेवीयते । अस्य यङ्लुङ्नास्ति । लुकापहारे विषयत्वाभावेन वीभावस्याप्रवृत्तेः ॥

"When an ārdhadhātuka follows that is the cause of the deletion of part of a dhātu, guṇa and vṛddhi do not come in place of ik" [— 'iko guṇavṛddhī' carried forward (anuvṛtti) from SK 34]: this prohibition does not [apply] here [to the guṇa in totorti], because tip and the rest are not ārdhadhātuka. totorti. Lengthening by hali ca (SK 354): totūrtaḥ; totūrvati. [From thurvī:] tothorti; [from durvī:] dodorti; [from dhurvī:] dodhorti. murchā: momūrcchīti; momorti; momūrtaḥ; momūrchati, and so on. In 'ārdhadhātuke' [as carried into ajer vy aghañapoḥ, SK 2292,] the seventh case is one of domain (viṣayasaptamī). Therefore vī [replaces] aj when yaṅ is intended: vevīyate. This [root] has no yaṅluk. When [the yaṅ] is removed by luk there is no domain [for an ārdhadhātuka], so the substitution of vī does not apply. [Here ends the yaṅluganta-prakriyā.]

Tattvabodhinī
NSP p. 454–455
—न धातुलोप—। आर्धधातुके धातुलोपो नास्तीति लक्षणया व्याचष्टे—धात्वंशेति । यद्यपि ‘दुरिणो लोपश्च’ इत्यौ-णादिके रक्प्रत्यये धातुलोपः प्रसिद्धस्तथापि प्रयोजनवानप्रसिद्धः । इणो लुप्तत्वादेव गुणाप्रसङ्गात् । प्रत्ययसन्नियोगेन धातुलोपविधानात् आर्धधातुकस्य निमित्तलमपि नास्ति । अत एव दूरमित्यत्र ‘ढ्रलोपे—’ इति दीर्घे कर्तव्ये धातुलोपस्य स्थानिवत्त्वं नास्ति, इह धातोर्लोपो यस्मिन्निति बहुव्रीहिर्विशेष्यं चार्धधातुकमित्याशयेनाह—लोपनिमित्ते इति ।—गुणवृद्धी न स्त इति । यद्यपि ‘क्विति च’ इति सूत्रे लैगवायन इत्यत्र गुणनिषेधो माभूदिति ‘इग्लक्षणे गुणवृद्धी न स्तः’ इति व्याख्यातं, तथापि इह प्रयोजनाभावादिग्लक्षण इति नोक्तम् । धात्विति किम् । लूञ् । लविता । पूञ् । पविता । नन्वत्रानुबन्धलोपनिमित्तमार्धधातुकं न भवतीति व्यङ्गविकलमिदमिति चेत् । अत्राहुः । धातुग्रहणे सति धातोर्लोपो यस्मिन् इति बहुव्रीहिलाभात् लोपनिमित्त इत्यर्थो लभ्यते, तदभावे तु लोपे सत्यार्धधातुक इत्यर्थाल्लवितेत्यादौ दोषः स्यादेवेति । यदा तु लोपयतीति लोपः तस्मिँल्लोपनिमित्ते आर्धधातुके इको गुणवृद्धी न स्त इति व्याख्यायते, तदा धातुग्र-हणं स्पष्टप्रतिपत्त्यर्थम् । उत्सृष्टानुबन्धस्य धातुलमिति कैयटादिमते तु धातुलोप इत्यत्र बहुव्रीह्याश्रयणं विनापि धात्व-यवलोपे सत्यार्धधातुक इति व्याख्यायां लवितेत्यादौ नातिप्रसङ्ग इति वोध्यम् । आर्धधातुके किम् । ‘त्रिधा वद्धो वृषभो रोरवीति’ । रु शब्द इत्यस्मात् ‘धातोरेकाच—’ इति यङि तस्य लुक् यङन्तस्य धातुत्वे यङो धात्वयवत्वाल्लुप्तत्वाच्चात्रापि निषेधः स्यात्तन्माभूदिति । नन्वत्र यङ्लुकोऽनैमित्तिकत्वादिको लोपनिमित्तपरत्वं नास्तीति व्यङ्गविकलमिति चेत् । अत्राहुः । आर्धधातुकग्रहणे सति अन्यपदार्थलाभात् बहुव्रीहिर्लभ्यते, तदभावे त्ववयवलोपे सति गुणवृद्धी न स्त इत्यर्थाद्रोरवीतीत्यत्र दोषः स्यादेवेति । केचित्तु धातुं लोपयतीति धातुलोपः, ‘ढ्रलोपे—’ इत्यत्रेव ‘कर्मण्यण्’ इत्यभ्युपेत्य व्यधिकरणबहुव्रीह्याश्रयणं विनैव धात्वयवलोपनिमित्ते गुणवृद्धी न स्त इति व्याचक्षते । इक इति किम् । रागः, अभाञि । ‘घञि च भावकरणयोः’ इति रजेर्नलोपे कृते वृद्धिः । अभाजीत्यत्र तु ‘भजेश्च चिणि’ इति नलोपे वृद्धिः । तेन नेह निषेध इति । सूत्रस्योदाहरणं तु लोलुवः, पोपुवः, मरीमृज इत्यादि वोध्यम् । तत्र लोलूयपोपूयशब्दाभ्यां पचायचि ‘यङोऽचि च,’ इति यङ्लुकि कृते अच्प्रत्ययमाश्रित्य प्राप्तो गुणो निषेध्यते, मरीमृज इत्यत्र तु वृद्धिः । ननु लोलूयादिभ्योऽच्प्रत्यये ‘अतो लोपः’ इत्यल्लोपे यकारस्य ‘यङोऽचि च’ इति लुक्यल्लोपस्य स्थानिवत्त्वादच्प्रत्ययनिमित्तः ‘सार्वधातुकार्धधातुकयोः’ इति गुणो ‘मृजेर्वृद्धिः’ इति वृद्धिश्च न भवेदिति किमनेन निषेधसूत्रेण । न चैवमपि लोलुव इत्यादावुवङि कृते लघूपधगुणः स्यात् तद्वारणाय निषेधोऽयमावश्यकः । उवङ आदिष्टादचः पूर्वत्वेन लघूपधगुणे कर्तव्ये स्थानिवत्त्वाभावादिति वाच्यम् । स्थानिद्वारानादिष्टादचः पूर्वत्वेन उवङो दृष्टत्वात् । स्थानिद्वारा दृष्टत्वेऽपि स्थानिवद्भवतीत्येतत् ‘न पदान्त—’ इति सूत्रे सवर्णग्रहणेन ज्ञापितम् । न हि शिण्डि इत्यत्र स्थानिभूतादचः पूर्वत्वेनानुस्वारो दृष्टः किं तु स्थानिद्वारा । तथा च अनुस्वारस्य परसवर्णे कर्तव्ये श्नम अल्लोपस्य स्थानिवत्त्वनिषेधाय तत्र सवर्णग्रहणं कृतमितीह स्थानिवद्भावः सिद्धः । नोनावे-त्यत्र तु लिङ्गत्पत्तेः प्रागेव वहुलग्रहणादकारविशिष्टस्य यङो लुकि स्थानिवद्भावाप्रसक्त्या न वृद्ध्यभावशङ्केति ‘न धातुलोप—’ इति सूत्रस्य न किञ्चित्प्रयोजनमिति चेत् । सत्यम् । अत एव भाष्ये प्रत्याख्यातमिदमिति संक्षेपः ॥—तोतोर्तीति । यद्यप्यत्र ‘लोपो व्योः—’ इत्यनेन वलोपः सिध्यति, तथापि तोतूर्तः इत्यादौ वलोपार्थं ‘राल्लोपः’ इत्युपन्य-स्तम् । अन्यथा तत्र ‘लोपो व्योः—’ इति लोपं बाधित्वा वस्य ‘च्छ्वोः शूठ्—’ इति ऊठ् स्यात् ॥—तोथोर्तीत्यादि । थुर्वी धुर्वी हिंसायाम् । मुर्छा मोहसमुच्छ्रययोः । मोमूर्छीषि । मोमोर्षि । मोमूर्थः । मोमूर्थ । मोमूर्छीमि । मोमोर्मि । मोमूर्छ्यः । मोमूर्मः । मोमूर्छाचकार । मोमूर्छिता । मोमूर्छीतु । मोमोर्तु । मोमूर्तात् । मोमूर्हि । अमोमूर्छीत् । अमोमोः । अमोमूर्छ्यः । मोमूर्छ्यात् । अमोमोर्छीत् । अमोमूर्छिष्यत् । अमोमूर्छिष्यत् ॥ ॥ इति यङ्लुगन्तप्रक्रिया ॥
translator notes
  • commentary BM (absent from our source.json; read in Wikisource uttara-2/0152–0153): 'iko guṇavṛddhī' is carried forward (anuvartate). BM rejects three literal readings of the compound. 'When there is deletion of the dhātu' fails for loluvaḥ, where only the yaṅ, a part, is deleted. 'When there is deletion of a part of the dhātu' would wrongly bar guṇa in śayitā, where the ṅ of śīṅ is lost. 'When there is a deletion of a part of the dhātu before an ārdhadhātuka' would wrongly bar it in śete. Hence Bhaṭṭoji's gloss 'dhātvaṃśalopanimitte': dhātulopa is 'that which causes the deletion of the dhātu' (dhātuṃ lopayatīti), with aṇ by karmaṇy aṇ. Followed: the anuvṛtti bracket and 'that is the cause of the deletion of part of a dhātu'.
  • commentary TB (sk.2656.t1): Bhaṭṭoji glosses by secondary signification (lakṣaṇayā) 'dhātvaṃśa-', because the loss of a whole dhātu before an ārdhadhātuka does not occur to any purpose. In dūra (dur + iṇ with uṇādi rak) the root is lost, but there is no guṇa to bar, and the ārdhadhātuka is not the cause of the loss. 'lopanimitte' is got from a bahuvrīhi, 'in which there is deletion of the dhātu' (dhātor lopo yasmin), qualifying ārdhadhātuka. TB reports as the view of 'some' the analysis dhātuṃ lopayatīti with karmaṇy aṇ, which avoids a vyadhikaraṇa bahuvrīhi. Recorded: TB's own derivation of 'lopanimitta' differs from the one in the BM note above, and the English renders only the shared sense.
  • commentary TB (sk.2656.t1): 'guṇavṛddhī na staḥ' — under kṅiti ca the prohibition was explained as covering guṇa and vṛddhi taught with the word ik (iglakṣaṇa), so as not to bar guṇa in laigavāyana; here Bhaṭṭoji does not add 'iglakṣaṇa', there being no purpose. The sūtra's own examples are loluvaḥ, popuvaḥ and marīmṛjaḥ, from the yaṅanta with ac and yaṅo 'ci ca. TB argues that sthānivadbhāva of the deleted a would already prevent the guṇa and vṛddhi, and concludes that the sūtra is rejected (pratyākhyāta) in the Bhāṣya. Recorded.
  • commentary BM (WS uttara-2/0153): the sūtra is rejected (pratyākhyāta) in the Bhāṣya; Haradatta reinstates it, and the Kaustubha rejects it again. Recorded.
  • commentary BM (WS uttara-2/0153) on 'iti neha': 'this guṇa-prohibition does not apply in totur-ti'. On 'hali ca': in totur(v)-tas, lopo vyoḥ would be set aside by ūṭh by cchvoḥ śūṭh; rāl lopaḥ deletes the v, and hali ca lengthens. tothorti is from thurvī, dodorti from durvī, dodhorti from dhurvī; in momorti the ch is deleted by rāl lopaḥ. Followed: '[to the guṇa in totorti]' and the bracketed root names.
  • commentary TB (sk.2656.t1) on the forms after 'hali ca': it names thurvī and dhurvī (hiṃsāyām; OCR 'dhurvī dhurvī') and murchā (mohasamucchrāyayoḥ), and lists further forms. Followed: the bracketed root names.
  • commentary BM (WS uttara-2/0153) on 'viṣayasaptamī': in the vī-substitution rule ajer vy aghañapoḥ, the carried-forward 'ārdhadhātuke' is taken as a seventh case of domain, not of something that follows (parasaptamī). So vī replaces aj before yaṅ, as soon as yaṅ is intended; vī being consonant-initial, yaṅ is then available, giving vevīyate. On 'asya yaṅluṅ nāsti': it answers why the optional luk of that yaṅ by yaṅo 'ci ca is not illustrated. A yaṅ elided by luk cannot be the object of the anticipating intention, so vī does not come in. Followed: '[as carried into ajer vy aghañapoḥ, SK 2292,]'.
  • textual The print ends this unit, and the prakaraṇa, with '|| iti yaṅluganta-prakriyā ||' (NSP p. 445, scan page-0455, read; batch10). Ours lacks the colophon, so the English supplies it in brackets. TB's colophon '|| iti yaṅluganta-prakriyā ||' survives inside sk.2656.t1, and BM's (Wikisource) is '… bālamanoramāyāṃ yaṅluganta-prakriyā samāptā'. Otherwise ours = print, except that ours spells 'momūrcchīti' where the print has 'momūrchīti'. Wikisource has 'viṣayatvāsambhavena' for ours and the print's 'viṣayatvābhāvena'.
  • textual Neighbour-filed TB: the TB on SK 2657 (sup ātmanaḥ kyac — 'dhātoḥ karmaṇaḥ…' … 'arthadvārakaṃ bodhyam') that followed the colophon in sk.2656.t1 was re-filed to sk.2657.t1 on 2026-10-05.
← all prakaraṇasoutline →