न मु ने

The existence of सु is not considered uneffected when there is to be added ना ॥ On the contrary, it is considered as siddha or existing. Thus सु being considered as siddha, अमु gets the designation of घि by 1.4.7, and as such, its Instrumental Singular is by 7.3.120, अमुना ॥ Had the सु been considered as non-effected, then the stem would not have been called ghi, and there would have been no ना added. But when ना had been added, then the सु being asiddha, अमु is considered to be as अद ending in अ, and this अ would require lengthening by सुपि च 7.3.102: but it is not done on the maxim सन्निपातलक्षणो विधिरनिमित्तं तद्विघातस्य \that which is taught in a rule the application of which is occasioned by the combination of two things does not become the cause of the destruction of that combination\. There being no long आ the उ of अमु remains short. Or this sutra may be considered to be the condensation of two sutras (1) सु, is siddha when ना is to be added, (2) सु is siddha when any operations, otherwise to be caused when ना is added, are to take place. Or the sense of the sutra is ने परतो यत् प्राप्नोति तस्मिन् कर्त्तव्ये मुभावो नासिद्धः \the सु is not non-effected in relation to any operation that would otherwise be occasioned when ना followed\. From this, it would follow by implication that सु must be considered valid for the purposes of नाभाव itself. So सु being always siddha, ना is added : and there is no lengthening.

Vart:- That ekadesa accent which is antaranga, should be considered as siddha. What is the necessity of this vartika? In order to regulate the accents of 1. अय्, 2. आय्, 3. आव् substitutions of ए, ऐ and औ; 4. the accent of ekadesa substitutes, 5. the accent of the शतृ formed words, 6. for the purposes of rule 6.1.158, by which all syllables of a word are anudatta except one, and 7. for the purposes of 8.1.28, by which all syllables become anudatta.

Thus (1) let us take अय् first. वृक्ष꣡ is finally acute by Phit I. 1. The locative of this is वृक्ष + ङि (anudatta 3.1.3) = वृक्षे꣡ (ए is udatta 8.2.5). Now combine वृक्षे꣡ + इदम् = वृक्ष꣡य् + इदम् = वृक्ष꣡ इदम् ॥ So also प्लक्ष इदम् ॥ The udatta ekadesa ए꣡ must be considered as siddha, so that the अय् substitute of ए should also become udatta. (2) आय् : As कुमार्या꣡ इदम् ॥ Here also आ is udatta for similar reasons. कुमारी + ङे = कुमारी + आ॒॒ + ए॒॒ 7.3.112 = कुमार्य् + आ॒॒ + ए॒॒ = कुमार्य् + आ꣡ + ए॒॒ 6.1.174 = कुमार्य् + ऐ 6.2.90 = कुमार्यै꣡ 8.2.5. The ऐ is udatta and its आय् substitute will also be udatta. How do you give this example? This example is then valid, when by 6.1.174, first the affix आ is made udatta, then this आ (आट् 7.3.112) augment is added to ङे, and then (आ + ए) there is vriddhi ऐ; and then कुमार्य् + ऐ = कुमार्यै ॥ But if the order be reversed and आ + ए be first combined into ऐ, and then this ऐ꣡ be made udatta by 6.1.174, then there would be no necessity of this vartika for the purposes of आय् ॥ The word कुमार꣡ is end-acute by Phit accent (Phit I. 1). And to it ङीप् in the feminine 4.1.20, as कुमार꣡ + ई = कुमार् + ई॒॒ (अ is elided by 6.4.148 = कुमार् + ई꣡ (VI. I. 161) = कुमारी꣡ ॥

(3) आव्. As वृक्षावि꣡दम् or प्लक्षावि꣡दम्, for the same reasons as above [ वृक्ष꣡ + औ (anudatta) = वृक्षौ꣡ 8.2.5, वृक्षौ + इदम् ].

(4) एकादेश accent. As गाङ्गेऽनूपे ॥ Here गाङ्ग꣡ + इ = गाङ्गे ॥ The word गाङ्ग is formed by अण् affix (गंगाया इदम्) and is end-acute. The ekadesa ए is udatta by 8.2.5. This udatta accent will remain valid: so that when for ए + अ there is purva-rupa-ekadesa by 6.1.109, this ekadesa ए will be udatta by 8.2.5, or it will be svarita by 8.2.6. The word अनूप꣡ is a प्रादि compound, आपोऽनुगतं = अनूपं ॥ Here by 6.2.2, the Indeclinable first term would have retained its accent: but the word is end-acute by 6.2.189.

(5) शतृ - accent. As तुदती, तुदते ॥ Here in तुद् + श + शतृ, the affix श is udatta, and शतृ is anudatta. The ekadesa अ will be udatta by 8.2.5. This ekadesa - udatta should be considered valid for the purposes of the rule 6.1.173 by which the feminine affix and the weak case-ending are udatta. Thus तुद꣡त् + ई꣡ = तुदती꣡, तुद꣡त् + ए = तुदते꣡ ॥ The prohibition अनुमः in 6.1.173 is a jnapaka or indicator of the fact that the ekadesa accent should be considered siddha, in the accent of the शतृ, because without this ekadesa accent, there is no satri ending word with नुम् which is antodatta.

(6) एकामनुदात्तः accent. As तुदन्ति, लिखन्ति ॥ Here in तुद् + श + अन्ति॒॒ 6.1.186 the ekadesa अ is udatta by 8.2.5, and this ekadesa accent is considered valid for the purposes of rule 6.1.158, by which all the remaining syllables become anudatta, as तु॒॒द꣡न्ति॒॒, लि॒॒ख꣡न्ति॒॒ ॥

(7) सर्वानुदात्तः accent. As ब्राह्मणास्तुद॒॒न्ति॒॒, ब्राह्मणा लि॒॒ख॒॒न्ति॒॒ ॥ Here the ekadesa-accent of तुदन्ति and लिख꣡न्ति being valid, rule 7.1.28 applies, and all the syllables become anudatta.

The word antaranga is used in the vartika to indicate that the Bahiranga ekadesa accent will not be siddha. Thus पचती꣡ति and प्र꣡पचती꣡ति, where the word इ꣡ति is first acute, as it is an Indeclinable. And सोमसुत् पचती꣡ति ॥ The accent of पचति + इति = पचतीति is governed by 8.2.5. This ekadesa accent of long ई has reference to external sandhi, and therefore naturally it is a bahiranga. This bahiranga ekadesa accent is not siddha for the purposes of the application of previous sutras. Thus sutra 8.1.71. requires that the gati should be unaccented before an accented verb: but प्र does not lose its accent, as पचतीति is not considered as an accented verb. In the second example, the ई of ती is not considered as accented, therefore, it does not become anudatta by 8.1.28.

Vart:- The rule 8.2.23 causing the elision of the final consonant in a word ending with a conjunct consonant, should be valid for the purposes of changing रु into उ ॥ What is the necessity of this vartika ? Observe हरिवो मेदिनं त्वा ॥ The word हरिवः is formed by मतुप् affix हरयोऽस्य सन्ति = हरि + मत् ॥ Now by 8.2.15 the म is changed to व, as हरि + वत् or हरिवत्; add सु (Vocative Singular) as हरिवत् + सु, then add नुम् augment, as हरिवन्त् + सु ॥ Then there is elision of the final consonant = हरिवन् ॥ Now by 8.3.1. the final न् is changed to र्, and we have हरिवर्, the र् would be changed to उ by 6.1.114, if the elision of the conjunct consonants be considered as siddha: for then this र् is followed by म, a हश् letter. But if such elision be considered asiddha, then र् is considered not to be followed by हश् letters, but by the consonants which were elided.

Vart:- When ekadesa is to be done, the elision of सिच् is to be considered siddha or valid. As अलावीत् and अपावीत् ॥ Here the सिच् is elided by इट ईटि (VIII. 2. 28.) This elision is considered valid or siddha, and thus we have dirgha single substitution of ई for इ + ई as अलाव् + इ + सीत् = अलाव् + इ + ० + ईत् = अलावीत् ॥

Vart:- The substitute of the Nishtha affixes should be considered as valid or siddha for the purposes of the rules relating to the (1) changing of स to ष्, (2) accent, (3) affix, and (4) इट् augment. As (1) वृकणः, वृकण्वान् ॥ The root is ओव्रश्चु (VI. 11) the indicatory ओ shows that the nishtha त is changed to न 8.2.45. This nishtha substitute is considered as valid or siddha, and the final of the root is not changed to ष, as it otherwise would have been by 8.2.36: for न would have been still considered as त or a झल् letter. The equation is as follows :- व्रश्च् + त = वृश्च् + त 6.1.16 = वृश्च् + न 8.2.45 = वृच् + न 8.2.29 = वृक् + न 8.2.30 = वृक्णः 8.4.1 The च् is changed to क् by 8.2.30, by considering न as asiddha and therefore equal to त or a झल् letter. Thus it will be seen that this न is असिद्ध for the purposes of rule 8.2.30, but it is सिद्ध only for the purposes of rule 8.2.36.

As regards the other three cases, viz, accent, affix and इट् augment, the one word क्षीब्, will illustrate them all. The irregular formation of this word is variously explained. It is formed by \nipatana\ under 8.2.55. It is the Past Participle of the root क्षीब्, thus evolved क्षीब् + इट् + त = क्षीब् + इ + त = क्षीब् + अ (इत् being elided, this is the anomaly) = क्षीब ॥ Here the elision of इत् is considered as valid and siddha, and therefore, क्षी꣡ब is considered as a word of two syllables, for the purposes of accent, under rule निष्ठाच द्व्यजनात् 6.1.205. Had the lopadesa of इत् been considered asiddha, the word would have been considered as if of three syllables, and that rule of accent would not have applied.

Similarly क्षीबेन तरति = क्षी꣡बिक formed by ष्ठन् 4.4.7 which affix is added, because it is considered a word of two syllables, the elision of इत् being considered as valid for the purposes of 4.4.7.

Similarly क्षीब may be considered to have been formed by eliding the त्; as क्षीब् + त = क्षीब् + अ ॥ In this view of its formation, the augment इट् is not added, because the lopa of त् is considered as valid and siddha for the purposes of इट् augment. In the opinion of Patanjali, the words इट् विधि may well be omitted from the vartika, for इट् being a portion of a प्रत्यय, the word प्रत्ययविधि would include इट्-विधि also.

Vart:- The prolation modification of a vowel (pluta) should be considered as valid and siddha, for the purposes of the rule relating to तुक् augment before the letter छ ॥ Thus by 8.2.107, the Vocative words अग्ने and पटो assume the forms अग्ना३इ, and पटा३उ ॥ These इ and उ are pluta-vikaras. As अग्ना ३ इच्छत्रम् । पटा ३ उच्छत्रम् ॥ Here the modification caused by 8.2.107, is considered as valid and siddha; otherwise there would have been no compulsory तुक् augment as required by 6.1.73 but optional तुक् under 6.1.76.

Vart:- The श् and palatal change should be considered siddha and valid before घुट् 8.3.291. The root श्चुतिर् क्षरणे (1. 41) is read as beginning with a स, which is changed to श because of the subsequent च by 8.4.40. This is not considered asiddha. Had it been so, there would come घुट् augment by 8.3.29, in अट् श्च्योतति, रट् श्च्योतति ॥ The words अट् and रट् are अड् and रड् formed from the roots अटति and रटति by क्विप् ॥

Why is the root श्च्युतिर् considered to begin with स् and not with श् as we find it written? Because had it been a root beginning with श् originally, we could not get the form मघुक् which would have been मघुट् ॥ The form मघुक् is thus evolved. Thus मधु श्च्योतति = मधुश्च्युत् by adding क्विप् ॥ From मधुश्च्युत् we form a Derivative root in णिच् in the sense of मधुश्च्युतमाचष्टे = मधुश्च्ययति ॥ Add again क्विप् to this Derivative root मधुश्चि, the णिच् will be elided, and we have मधुश्च्य्, then श् (which represents स्) is elided because it is at the beginning of a compound letter 8.2.29, and य् is elided, because it is at the end of a conjunct letter final in a pada 8.2.23, and thus there remains मधुच्, and च् is changed to क् 8.2.30 we have मधुक् ॥ Had the root been शकारादि, then this श could not be elided, and so we should elide only the final च् and य् and the form would be मधुश् which would be changed to ष् and then to ट् and we should get मधुट् which is not desired.

Vart:- The जश् and चर् substitution of letters in the reduplicate should be considered siddha and valid for the purposes of ए change 6.4.120 and तुक् augment. Thus बभणतुः and बभणुः ॥ Here the जश् change of भ, to ब in the reduplicate should be considered as valid, otherwise this would be अनादेशादि root and the Perfect would be भेणतुः and भेणुः ॥ Similarly from छिद् we have चिच्छित्सति, and from उच्छ, उचिच्छिषति ॥ In the latter, the second syllable छिस् of उछिस् (Desiderative) is reduplicated by 6.1.2. Here had the reduplicate substitute च for छ been considered asiddha, there would not have been तुक् augment by छे च (VI. I. 73)

Vart:- The change of letter homogeneous with the subsequent is valid and siddha for the purposes of doubling. As सय्यन्ता, सव्व्वत्सरः, यल्ल्लोकम्, तल्ल्लोकम् ॥ In सय्यन्ता &c the म् is changed to anusvara by 8.3.23, and the anusvara is then changed to a letter homogeneous with the subsequent by 8.4.58. Had the परसवर्ण change been asiddha, there would have been no doubling by 8.4.47.

Vart:- If there be the adhikara of the word 'pada' in those sutras which ordain the following changes, then those changes are considered siddha for doubling, namely, 1. लत्व the change into ल 8.2.21, 2. ढत्व the change into ढ 8.2.31, 3. घत्व the change in to घ 8.2.33. 4. नत्व the change into न 8.2.56, 5. रुत्व the change to रु 8.2.75, 6. षत्व the change to ष 8.3.85, 7. णत्व the change to ण 8.4.11, 8. anunasika change 8.4.45, 9. छत्व the change to छ 8.4.63.

As 1. गलो गलः; गरोगरः ॥ 2. द्रोग्धा द्रोग्धा ॥ 3. द्रोढाद्रोढा ॥ 4. नुन्नो नुन्नः or नुत्तो नुत्तः ॥ 5. अभिनोऽभिनः or अभिनद् अभिनत् This is लङ् second person singular of भिद्, the स् of सिप् is elided by 6.1.68, and the final त् changed optionally to रु by 8.2.74. The न is the vikarana श्नम् ॥ 6. मातुः ष्वसा मातुः ष्वसा or मातुः स्वसा, मातुः स्वसा, 7. माषवापाणि माषवापाणि or माषवापानि माषवापानि ॥ 8. वाङ् नयनम् वाङ् नयनम् or वाग्नयनम् वाग्नयनम् ॥ 9. वाक् च्छयनं वाक्च्छयनं or वाक्शयन वाक्शयनं ॥

The लत्व &c, changes being all optional, had the changes been considered asiddha, we would have got the following double forms also गरोगल, गलोगरः which are not desired.

All these can be explained by dividing the sutra न मु ने into two. The first being न, and this negative will prohibit all asiddha-ness mentioned in the preceding vartikas. The second sutra would be मु ने, and we would here draw in the anuvritti of न from the preceding.,