चिण्-णमुलोर् दीर्घो ऽन्यतरस्याम्

Thus अशमि or अशामि, अतमि or अतामि with चिण्; and शमंशमम्, and शामंशामं; तमंतमम् or तामंतामम् with णमुल् ॥ Why have we used the word दीर्घ in the sutra? The rule does not teach merely the optional shortening. So that in the alternative of short, we have अशमि and in the other alternative we have अशामि, so that there is long. For had दीर्घ not been used, it would have taught optional short only, i. e. it would be a ह्रस्वविकल्पविधि only, and there will be this difficulty :- when the causative of causative is taken, as in शमयन्तं प्रयुङ्क्ते, there would not be lengthening in the alternative. Because the lopa substitute of णि would be sthanivat : therefore, the णि which would be followed by चिण् or णमुल्, would not have in it the मित् anga, because the first णि intervenes between the मित् anga and the चिण् and णमुल् affix, and that णि which is preceded by a मित् anga is not followed by चिण् and णमुल्, because the second णि (though elided) intervenes. Therefore, there would not be optional short here, but compulsory short, by the preceding sutra and no lengthening. The rule, therefore, teaches the optional substitution of the long (दीर्घ). For there arises no such anomaly in this view. For taking this rule to be a दीर्घविधि, the lopa-substitution of णि would not be sthanivat, by the express prohibition contained in (l. 1. 58), and so we can get forms of double causatives. But if we take it a ह्रस्वविकल्पविधि, then the lopa-adesa of णि being sthanivat, would prevent getting the alternative long form. Therefore the word दीर्घ is used in the sutra to make this rule a दीर्घविधि, and prevent sthanivat-bhava. Thus take the causative of शम्, which will be शमि by the last sutra. Take its Intensive with यङ्, शमि + यङ् which causes doubling by 6.1.9 = शमि शमि + यङ् = शशमि + यङ् 7.4.60 = शं शमि + यङ् (नुक् or nasal being added to the abhyasa by 7.4.85) = शंशमि + यङ् = शंशम् + य 6.4.51 = शंशम्य. Add णिच् to this i. e. make the causative of the Intensive. शंशम् + य + इ ॥ Then the अ of य is elided by 6.4.48 = शं शम् + य् + इ. Then य् is elided by 6.4.49 = शंशम् + इ = शंशमि ॥ This शंशमि is the causative root of the Intensive of the causative शम् ॥ Now add चिण् or णमुल् to this root; and we get two forms short and long अशंशमि or अशंशामि with चिण् and शंशमम् or शंशामम् with णमुल् ॥ The long forms could not have been obtained had this not been a दीर्घविधि, for then the lopa-adesa of णिच् being sthanivat would have prevented the application of दीर्घ ॥ The roots शम् and तम् (both Divadi) ending in म् do not ever lengthen the root vowel before चिण् and णमुल् by 7.3.34. The present sutra, therefore, does not apply to the simple roots. The derivative causative roots of these, namely, शमि - शमयति, तमि — तमयति, optionally lengthen the penultimate before these affixes. Thus शमि + चिण् = शम् + चिण् (the इ of णि being elided by VI. 4. 51) शामि or शमि (with the augment अ = अशामि or अशमि) ॥ This rule applies when the Causative of the Causative root takes these affixes. In fact, the mention of the word दीर्घ implies as much, otherwise the sutra could have been made without this word, for the word 'optionally' would have brought in both 'short' and 'long'. Thus in शमयन्तं प्रयुङ्क्ते 'he causes another to make quiet,' we add णि (the Causative sign.), to the Causative root शमि, as शमि + णि = शम् + इ 6.4.51 = शामि, the lopadesa here is not sthanivat for the purposes of lengthening (दीर्घविधि) the अ of शम् 1.1.58 ॥ From this शामि with चिण् we get अशामि, and with णमुल् we get शामम् ॥ But we cannot get the short forms, by taking the other alternative, as the lopadesa will then be sthanivat. Hence the necessity of the word दीर्घ in the sutra. Thus the चिण् and णमुल् forms of the Causative of the Causative (i.e. the double Causative) of शम् are अशमि or अशामि; शमंशमम् or शामंशामम् and from the form शंशमयति, we have अशंशमि or अशंशामि, शंशमंशंशमम् or शंशामंशंशामम् ॥ These latter are from the Causative stems of the Intensive root. The sign यङ् of the Intensive has been elided 6.4.49 as shown above.,