I am editing a portion of the Seśvaramīmāṃsā on a linguistic controversy about what is the vehicle of meaning. As often the case in Indian philosophy, an upholder of the sphoṭa theory speaks and says that the sphoṭa is the vehicle of the meaning, as hinted at by our own intuition that we understand a meaning śabdāt, i.e., from a unitary linguistic unit, not from various phonemes. The opponent replies saying that no independent sphoṭa exists independently and above the single phonemes, like no unitary assembly (pariṣad) exists independently of the single people composing it. The Sphoṭavādin replies that phonemes are unable to convey the meaning either one by one or collectively (because they never exist as a collective entity, given that they disappear right after having been pronounced.
Readers will recognise a sequence of arguments found also, e.g., in Jayanta’s Nyāyamañjarī, book 6.

Nonetheless, I am unable to reconstruct a reading I found in the manuscripts. Here comes the passage as found in the editio princeps (1902), which often just silently emends the text of the manuscript the editor had in front of him, and my preliminary translation of it:

kathaṃ vāyogyam upalabdham. pratyekasamudāyayaugapadyādivikalpanānupapatyā varṇānām± vācakatvāsiddhau gatyabhāvāt tadatiriktaḥ kaścid artthaḥ pratyayahetuḥ kalpyata iti cet

[Opponent:] Alternatively, how is something not fit (to be perceived) (like, according to you, the sphoṭa), perceived?

[Sphoṭavādin:] Given that the phonemes [can]not be established as the expressing elements, because all the alternatives, namely that [they are seized] one by one or as a group, simultaneously etc. (i.e., sequentially) are not viable, there is no way (gati) [to make the signification work]. Therefore, one needs to postulate a cause for the notion of the meaning which is different from them (phonemes).

And here comes the text as found in two manuscripts (1748 and 2242, GOML Madras):

kathaṃ vāyogyam upalabdham ata ity ārttha pratyekasamudāyakam± yaugapadyādivikalpanānupapatyā varṇānām± vācakatvāsiddhau gatyabhāvāt tadatiriktaḥ kaścid artthaḥ pratyayahetuḥ kalpyata iti cet

And in a further one (70054 Adyar, usually better than the above two):

kathaṃ vāyogyam upalabdha{m±}nta ity ārttha pratyekasamudāyakramayaugapadyādivikalpanānupapatyā varṇānām± vācakatvāsiddhau gatyabhāvāt tadatiriktaḥ kaścid artthaḥ pratyayahetuḥ kalpyata iti cet

Do readers have an intuition about what this ata/ta ity ārttha means?

(I will not discuss it here the other variant right after pratyekasamudāya. I am inclined to think that the variant found in 70054 makes sense).