सन्वल् लघुनि चङ्परे ऽनग् लोपे

The words of this sutra require a little detailed explanation. The word सन्वत् means \like unto सन् or Desiderative\; i. e. as the Desiderative is treated, so should the चङ् Aorist of the Causative. The words लघुनि and चङ्परे are both in the Locative case, but not in apposition with each other, but refer to different objects. लघुनि means 'when a light vowel follows', namely that reduplicate which is followed by the light root-vowel. The operations to be performed on such a reduplicate, in the चङ् Aorist, after the णि are the same, as on the reduplicate of the Desiderative. अन्-अक्-लोपे \provided that a simple vowel of the Pratyahara अक् has not been elided\. We read the word 'causative' into this sutra, because there can be no other root which will form चङ् Aorist. Causatives form such Aorist. 3.1.48, as well as the simple roots श्रि, द्रु and स्रु ॥ The words चङ्परे qualifies the word अङ्ग understood: that stem which is followed by चङ्; therefore, it refers to the Causative stem, and not to the simple roots sri, dru and sru. The light vowel, therefore refers, to the light vowel of the Causative stem before चङ् ॥

The word अनग्लोपे is in apposition with चङ्परे ॥ Thus कम् + णिङ् 3.1.30 = अकाम् + इ + अत् 3.1.48 = अकाम् + अत् 6.4.51 = अकम् + अत् 7.4.1 = अचकम् + अत् 6.1.11 = आचकम् + अत् (7.4.79 read with 7.4.93) = अचीकमत् 7.4.94.

Thus 7.4.79 teaches the substitution of इ for अ in the reduplicate of the Desiderative. The same substitution will take place in the reduplicate of the Aorist: as अचीकरत्, अपीपचत् ॥ Thus by 7.4.80, इ is substituted for the उ of the reduplicate in the Desiderative, the same will be the case in the reduplicate of the Aorist, as अपीपवत् and अलीलवत्, and अजीजवत् ॥ Thus by 7.4.81, इ is optionally substituted for उ in the Desiderative reduplicate of स्रु &c, the same will hold good in the Aorist-reduplicate, as असिस्रवत् or अस्रुस्रवत्, अशिश्रवत् or अशुश्रवत्, अदिद्रवत् or अदुद्रवत्, अपिप्रवत् or अपुप्रवत्, अपिप्लवत् or अपुप्लवत्, अचिच्यवत् or अचुच्यवत् ॥ Why do we say 'having a light vowel'? Observe अततक्षत्, अररक्षत्, अजजागरत् ॥

Some say, that in अजजागरत्, the syllable ग is light, and therefore, the san-vat rule would apply : for a light vowel no where immediately follows a reduplicate; therefore, though a long syllable जा intervenes, yet the rule will apply, because of the express text. This reasoning is wrong. The maxim येन नाव्यवधानं तेनव्यवहितेऽपि वचनप्रामाण्यात् cannot be extended to cases like this. It applies only when the intervention consists of one letter and not of more than one. Objection: If so, how do you form अचिक्षणत् for here two letters क् and ष् (क्ष) intervene between the reduplicate and the light vowel. Answer: The author indicates by implication in 7.4.95 that these roots like क्षण् do take इ in the reduplicate; for had it not been so, what was the necessity of making an exception in favor of roots like स्मृ, त्वर, स्तॄ, स्पश् in 7.4.95. So that a conjunct consonant is not considered an intervention for the purposes of this rule. Therefore, स्मृ &c would have taken इ in the reduplicate by 7.4.79, read with the present sutra, and so the Acharya enjoins अ instead in 7.4.95 with regard to these.

Why do we say 'when चङ् follows'? Observe अहं पपच ॥ Why do we use the word पर \followed by\? The rule would not apply when चङ् alone follows णि, as अचकमत् where कम् has taken चङ् under the vartika कमेरुपसंख्यानम् ॥

Why do we say 'when an अक् vowel has not been dropped'? Observe अचकथत् from the Churadi root कथ which ends in अ, and this अ is elided by 6.4.48. Objection: This lopa being considered sthanivat, will prevent the application of the present rule, as there will be an intervention. Answer: We shall give another example, अददृषत् from दृषदमाख्यातवान् ॥ Here णिच् is added to दृषत् under the Vartika तत्करोतितदाचष्टे, and the टि portion is elided by इष्टवद्भावः, here a vowel and a consonant have been elided, and so the lopa is not sthanivat.

In the double causative Aorist अवीवदत् the present rule applies, though one णि has been elided. अवीवदत् = वादितवन्तं प्रयोजितवान् ॥ In fact, the elision of one णि when followed by another णि is not considered as an ak-lopa; the latter refers to the elision of any other vowel than णि ॥ Therefore we have अवीवदद् वीणां परिवादकेन ॥ In fact, this exception rests on the following vartika सम्बद्भावदीर्घत्वे णे र्णिच्युपसंख्यानम् ॥

The lopa of the reduplicate which takes place before सन् of the roots मी, मा &c 7.4.54 does not, however, take place in चङ् Aorist. The analogy does not extend so far. In fact, the present sutra teaches a रूपातिदेश, namely the form which a reduplicate has in Desiderative, will be the form in the Aorist. But as मी, मा &c have no reduplicate form in the Desiderative, the analogy stops. Therefore, we shall have अमीमपत् ॥ Moreover the word सन्वद् here means the operations that depend solely on सन् ॥ Now the total elision of the reduplicate by 7.4.54 does not depend upon सन् alone, but upon the augment इस् also of 7.4.54. But as there can be no इस् in the Aorist, so there will be no elision also. In fact, an atidesa should be confined to general cases and not to particulars.,