The affix ṇamul comes after the verbs 1. viś 'to enter' 2. pat 'to fall' 3. pad 'to pace, to go' 4. skand 'to leap', when a word in Accusative -2nd case is in composition and when the sense denoted is that of complete pervasion and total absorption.,
The word व्याप्ति (or व्याप्यमान) means the full and complete pervasion of the substances with the actions (denoted by the verbs विश्, &c). The word आसेवा means 'assiduous performance of any action, or absorption into it'. In other words, 'frequency' of an action is आसेवा । The word व्याप्ति therefore refers to the noun (in the accusative case) and आसेवा to the verb (such as vis &c). These two words have the same significance here as the words नित्य and वीप्सा in sutra (VIII. 1. 4.) and by the application of that rule, both the noun and the verb require to be repeated. That rule, however, will not apply here, when there is compounding by 2.2.21. But when there is no compounding, (for rule (II. 2. 21.) makes composition only optional) then there is repetition of the noun if व्याप्ति 'all' is meant; and of the verb, if आसेवा 'frequency or assiduous performance' is meant. Thus गेहानुप्रवेशमास्ते, (or गेहङ्गेहमनुप्रवेशमास्ते or गेहमनुप्रवेशमनुप्रवेशमास्ते) 'having entered the house, he sits down', meaning either, 'having entered every house in succession, he sits down', or 'having repeatedly entered the house, he sits down'.
Similarly with the root पत्, we may have three examples as in the last, and so also with the roots पद् and स्कन्द् । Thus गेहानुप्रपातमास्ते (or गेहङ्गेहमनुप्रपातमास्ते or गेहमनुप्रपातमनुप्रपातमास्ते); गेहानुप्रपादमास्ते (or गेहङ्गेहमनुप्रपादं or गेहमनुप्रपादमनुप्रपादम्); गेहावस्कन्दमास्ते (or गेहगेहमवस्कन्दं or गेहमवस्कन्दमवस्कन्दम्) ।
Why do we say 'when the sense is that of all or frequency'? Observe, गेहमनुप्रविश्य भुङ्क्ते 'having entered the house, he eats'.
Q.- By sutra 3.4.22, namul would have been valid, when abhikshna was meant; and abhikshna and aseva mean the same thing i. e, 'frequency'. Why then ordain namul again, by the present sutra, in the sense of aseva ? If you say, \we repeat it, in order to prevent the coming of the affix क्त्वा\, that is not so. For क्त्वा would come by वाऽसरूप rule; (see 3.1.94 and 3.4.47).
A.- The repetition is for the sake of Upapada-samasa with a word in the accusative case. Under rule 22, there was no upapada, while in the present case there is an upapada.
Professor Bohtlingk translates this sutra thus:- \विश्, पत्, पद्, and स्कन्द् in composition with an accusative, form the absolutive gerund in अम् (namul), when one wishes to express that every object of that name is completely affected by the action, or that the action is constantly repeated in that object.\,