Praudhamanorama p142

p142

[On the gloss] 'meaningful, non-root, [excluding] an affix and that which ends in an affix': The import is that both are intended in the rule through single utterance serving multiple purposes, etc. To explain: if only an affix were excluded, the provision of the technical name for that which ends in a taddhita suffix by the rule "kṛttaddhita..." would be pointless. Nor can it be said that there too that which ends in it is not to be taken. That which ends in it is taken on the strength of the continuation of "arthavat". For matup denotes praise. And being well known in ordinary worldly usage through single-integrated-meaning is the basis of praise. Nor does "arthavat" find its purpose in the preceding rule, because that is obtained simply by the exclusion of verbal roots and affixes. Therefore, [the gloss] 'excluding also that which ends in an affix' is entirely proper.
If, on the other hand, an affix were not excluded, then the mention of sāti in the rule "sātpadādyoḥ" would be pointless.
Why [the qualification] 'arthavat'? In order that technical name should not apply to each individual phoneme in dhana, vana, and the like. And if that [technical name] applied, endings beginning with su would occur. If it is objected: Because number, object, etc., are absent, they will not occur?—No, because the established tenet is that the singular number will be applied by default. For su would be inevitable, just as after huṃphaṭ, etc. Nor can it be said that it would not occur in the meaningless by the metarule regarding the mention of meaningful elements, because that applies to the citation of a specific form. Although meaningfulness is obtained by the force of the exclusion of 'adhātuḥ' etc., nevertheless it has been said that it is for the sake of subsequent rules. And this was hinted at in the Mahābhāṣya on the rule "suptiṅantam". As for what they say: 'In adhīte [and] yāvakaḥ, because iṅ is used only when preceded by adhi, only the composite is meaningful, but not the isolated [root]. The mention of the meaning as "iṅ adhyayane" etc., is due to the superimposition of the meaning of the whole onto the part. Similarly, kan is also meaningless, because that meaning is understood even from the word yāva. And because the non-obligatoriness of the maxim concerning connection with nañ and iva is assumed based on the mentions of case ending and kāraka in "oṣadheśca vibhaktāvaprathamāyām" [and] "akartari ca kārake..."'—on this, the following must be said: First, [the assertion that] a verbal root is meaningless is self-contradictory, because being a verbal root is impossible without expressive power for action. If it is said that it is superimposed?—True, the desired result is accomplished by that much alone. The division into base and affix, and the division into their meanings, is entirely artificial. For according to the established tenet, in ultimate reality only the sphoṭa is meaningful. And it has been stated by Hari: