स्नु-क्रमोर् अनात्मनेपदनिमित्ते

The roots स्नु and क्रम् are udatta, and will get इट् augment naturally, the sutra makes a restriction or niyama. The restriction is that when the roots themselves occasion atmanepada affixes, then they do not take इट्, otherwise they will.

When do roots give occasion to Atmanepada affixes? The roots occasion atmanepada affixes when employed in the Impersonal, Passive, and Intensive senses. Sutras 1.3.38 — 1.3.43, teach us when क्रम takes Atmanepada affixes. Thus प्रस्नविता, प्रस्नवितुम्, प्रस्नवितव्यम्, प्रक्रमिता, प्रक्रमितुम्, प्रक्रमितव्यम् ॥ Why do we say 'when not the occasion of getting the Atmanepada affixes'? Observe, प्रस्नोषीष्ट, प्रक्रंसीष्ट, प्रस्नोष्यते, प्रक्रंस्यते, प्रस्नुषिष्यते, प्रचिक्रंसिष्यते ॥ In all these examples स्नु and क्रम् have become the causes of taking the Atmanepada affixes. The Desiderative is also Atmanepadi because of 1.3.62.

Why have we used the word निमित्त in the sutra? Would it not have been simpler to say स्नुक्रमोरमात्मनपदे ? This form of sutra would have indicated that whenever an atmanepada affix followed, then there would be no इट् augment. Now the rule is that all words exhibited in the Locative case in this Grammar, have the force of परसप्तमी, i. e. when that word follows. Therefore आत्मनेपदे would mean when an atmanepada affix followed. If then this \atmanepada\ be taken as qualifying स्नु and क्रम्, then it must follow immediately after those roots, as in प्रस्नोषीष्ट and प्रक्रंसीष्ट; but we would not get the forms प्रस्नोष्यते and प्रक्रंस्यत, because स्य intervenes between the atmanepada and the affix. On the other hand if \atmanepada\ be taken to qualify the word \ardhadhatuka affix\ understood, viz, if the sutra meant स्नुक्रमिभ्यां परस्यार्धधातुकस्यात्मनेपदेऽनन्तरे then the forms प्रस्नोष्यते and प्रक्रंस्यते would be valid, but we should not get the forms प्रस्नोषीष्ट and प्रक्रंसीष्ट, because the augment सीयुट् is a portion of the atmanepada affix, and there is no ardhadhatuka affix here. If the sutra be taken to have both the above senses, then we could not get the form प्रचिक्रंसिष्यते in the Desiderative, because here the atmanepada does not follow immediately after the sarvadhatuka affix that follows क्रम् ॥ Therefore, the word निमित्त should be taken. For by so doing, there takes place prohibition with regard to सीयुट् &c, and also with regard to that after which comes the atmanepada, as the स्य in प्रचिक्रंसिष्यते, and also with regard to that which precedes the latter, as the सन् affix in the above. In प्रस्नवित्रीयते (प्रस्नवितेवाचरति), the root स्नु has not occasioned the atmanepada affix, but the affix क्यङ्, hence the prohibition of this sutra does not apply.

Vart:- Prohibition of इट् augment should be stated with regard to क्रम् when an Krit-affix, with active force, follows not in the atmanepada, though in the Active voice such क्रम् was subject of Atmanepada. When क्रम् takes no upasargas, we have according to one view two forms क्रन्ता and क्रमिता 1.3.43 because the atmanepada here is optional. According to the other view there will be only one form, as क्रमिता ॥ But with प्र and उप् we have प्रक्रन्ता and उपक्रन्ता ॥ Why do we say 'the Krit-affix should have an active force'? Observe प्रक्रमितव्यम्, उपक्रमितव्यम् ॥ Why do we say \when it was subject of Atmanepada\? Observe निष्क्रमिता ॥ Here there is इट् augment ; for by 1.3.42, क्रम् is subject of atmanepada, when the upasargas प्र and उप precede, but not otherwise.

With regard to स्नु, it will take no इट् in the Desiderative, and before a कित् affix, by virtue of 7.2.11 and 7.2.12. Therefore, we have the forms प्रसुस्नुषति, प्रस्नुतः, प्रस्नुतवान् ॥,