The vṛddhi is not substituted before the Aorist sign ciṇ or a kṛt affix with an indicatory ñ or ṇ for the vowel of that root which ends in ma and is acutely accented (udātta) in its original enunciation (dhātupāṭha), but not so in cam after ā,
The vriddhi of the penultimate अ takes place before णित् and ञित् affixes 7.2.116, that vriddhi does not take place in the case of udatta roots ending in म् ॥ Thus अशमि, अतमि, and अदमि in चिण् ॥ Compare 6.4.92, 6.4.93. Similarly with कृत् affixes, as शमकः, तमकः, दमकः, शमः, तमः, दमः ॥ Why do we say 'acutely accented'? Observe यामकः, रामकः ॥ How do you explain उद्यम and उपरम? These are irregular forms exhibited by Panini himself in the Dhatupatha अडउद्यमे (Bhuadi 380), यम उपरमे (Bhuadi 1033) Why do we use \in the original enunciation or upadesa\? So that the rule may apply to शमी, दमी, तमी, but not to याममः, रामकः ॥ Here to the root शम्, तम् and दम् is added the affix घिनुण् 3.2.141. The words शमिन्꣡ &c. get the affix-accent, namely acute इ꣡; and thus the root-vowel becomes anudatta. Though the root now becomes anudatta, yet because in its upadesa it was udatta, the present sutra will apply and prevent vriddhi. The roots यम्, रम् are anudatta in upadesa, but in यामकः, रामकः they become udatta by लित् accent. This accent is a secondary accent and not the 'original' accent; and hence the present rule does not apply and there is vriddhi. Why do we say ending in म्? Observe चारकः पाठकः ॥ Why with the exception of आचम्? Observe आचामकः ॥
Vart:- Prohibition must be stated in the case of the roots आ-चम्, कम् and वम्, as वामः, कामः and आचामः ॥ In the case of कस्, the affix घञ् is added in that alternative, when the root does not take the affix णिङ् 3.1.31. It thus gets vriddhi.
The word आमः is formed from the Churadi अम्, which with the affix णिच् gets Vriddhi, because णिच् is not a krit-affix, and is not therefore governed by this rule. If you say \let there be vriddhi of णिच्, but this vriddhi will be shortened by 6.4.92 because it is a मित् root\, we reply \this root is not मित्\ ॥ The मित् roots are those enumerated in Bhuadi class, subdivision घटादिः (800). No doubt, there it is said that the roots ending in अम् are मित् (in अमन्ताश्च). But a root is regarded मित् only with regard to the Causative णिच् affix, and not with regard to that णिच् of the Churadi class where the sense of the causative is not involved in it. Therefore this root is not मित् 6.4.93.
The phrases सूर्यविश्रामा भूमिः and others like it are incorrect. Why do we say 'चिण् and krit only'? Observe शशाम, ददाम, चचाम ॥,