अनवकॢप्त्यमर्षयोरकिंवृत्तेऽपि

When it is to be expressed that somebody hold that something is not likely to take place or is not to be tolerated, the Potential and the I Future are used, even without the Interrogative Pronoun.
The anuvritti of the word 'censure' ceases. The word अनवक्लृप्तिः means 'impossibility, not to be believed'. The word अमर्षः means 'not endurable or not to be tolerated'. This excludes all other tenses, the Potential and the 2nd. Future coming in preference to all other tenses required by the time of the action. In the Dvandva Compound अनवक्लृप्त्यमर्षयोः, the word अनवक्लृप्ति ought to have stood as second member of the compound as it contains larger number of syllables than the word अमर्ष 2.2.14. The non-compliance with rule 2.2.14 indicates that the rule of यथासङ्ख्यं, 1.3.10 does not apply here, which would otherwise have applied-- the sense of the sutra then being 'that the Potential should be employed when the act is not likely to occur, and the 2nd. Future to be used when the act is not to be tolerated'. This is not, however, the interpretation which we should put upon the sutra.

Thus नावकल्पयामि, न सम्भावयामि, न श्रद्दधे, तत्र भवान् नाम वृषलं याजयेत् or याजयिष्यति 'I do not believe, or think it possible or trust that your honor sacrifices (or sacrificed or will sacrifice) for a Sudra'. न मर्षयामि तत्र भवान् वृषलं याजयेत् or याजयिष्यति 'I can not tolerate that your honor does (did or will) sacrifice for a Sudra'.

When past time together with the non-completion of the action is to be expressed, we may optionally employ the Conditional (लृङ्), but necessarily so, when Future time is to be expressed. Thus नावकल्पयामि तत्रभवान् नाम वृषलं अयाजयिष्यत् 'I do not believe that your honor did or will sacrifice for a Sudra'.