Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Pali Literature and Language c7.s2: B. Word-Formation

Pāli Literature and Language c7.s2

Language
English

Contents

B. Word-Formation

c7.s2.1

Note: The flexion of Pāli is throughout determined by the laws of analogy. The old historical forms have been more and more replaced by new formations in course of the development of the language. The relation between archaic and later forms in particular periods of the language has been discussed already in Introduction II.

I. Noun (Substantive and Adjective)

c7.s2.t1.1

1. Generalities

c7.s2.t1.2

§ 75. In Pāli the nominal stems have undergone multifarious changes. Due to the phonetic law entailing the elision of final consonants, the consonant stems become vowel ones and are inflected like the latter. Thus we get *sumedha* ‘wise’ Dh. 208, Vin. I. 5³⁵ (verse) from *sumedhas*; *āpā* ‘misfortune’ (Loc. Pl. *āpāsu* Jā. II. 317¹³) from *āpad*. In this way originated *sappi* ‘butter’ (Abl. Sg. *sappimhā* D. I. 201²⁶) from *sarpis*; *acci* or *accī* (the latter form in M. III. 273¹⁷) ‘brightness’ from *arcis*; *tādi* ‘like this’ from *tādṛś* etc.; similarly *vijju* ‘lightning’ (N. Pl. *vijjū* Mhvs. 12.13) from *vidyut*; *maru* ‘god’ from *marut* etc.—Very often the transfer to vowel-flexion is effected by adding *ā* to the consonantal stem. The *a*-flexion has supplied most of the types of new formations.¹ Besides *sumedha* we have *sumedhasa* (N. Sg. *sumedhaso* Dh. 29; Fem. *sumedhasā* Mhvs. 22. 36). Similarly *āpadā* Thl. 371, JāCo. III. 12 ¹² beside *āpā* (in JāCo. II. 317 ²¹ *āpāsu* is explained by *āpadāsu*); *vijjutā* (Loc. Pl. *vijjutāsu* D. II. 131 ¹⁹) besides *vijju*. Analogous stems are *sarada* ‘autumn’ = *śarad*; *barihisa* ‘sacrificial grass’ D. I. 141 ²⁹ = *barhis*; *sarita* ‘flowing stream’ D. III. 196 ²⁶ = *sarit*, etc. In this way the consonantal flexion is reduced more and more, and at the side of older consonantal forms new forms according to the vowel flexion appear in the language and gradually come to be regarded as the only possible correct forms.

c7.s2.t1.3

¹ R. O. Franke, Die Sucht nach *a*-Stämmen im Pāli, BB. 22. 202 ff.

c7.s2.t1.4

§ 76. Gender is distinguished on the whole according to the rules of Sanskrit. Syntactical irregularities however often show that the sense for grammatical Gender had already become hazy. Thus the L. Sg. Masc. Neut. *asati* Ud. 81 ⁷⁻⁸ is connected both with the Feminine forms *passaddhiyā*, *ratiyā*, *āgatigatiyā* as well as with *calite*, *cuṭūpapāte*. In Dh. 104 there is *attā jitaṃ* instead of *jito* ¹; Th2. 518: *sakhiyo tiṇi janiyo* ‘ we three women friends ’ instead of *tisso* ; in Ud. 79 ²¹ the Subject *upāsikāyo* is connected with the Predicate *anipphalāni kalaṃkatāni* etc. Particularly the Neuters in *-as* are occasionally treated as Masculine ²: *yattha me nirato mano* (instead of *nirataṃ*) Jā. III. 91 ¹⁵; *tapo sukho* (instead of *sukhaṃ*) Dh. 194; *sukhumo rajo paṭivātaṃ va khitto* (instead of *sukhumam*, *khittam*) Sn. 662; *mahāvegena āgato nadisoto* ‘ the current of the stream coming with great force ’ DhCo. IV. 45 ¹⁷ etc. Also Neuters in *-a* are not seldom treated as Masculine and vice versa. We have, e.g., *je keci rūpā* . . *sabbe vat’* ete S.I 67 ⁵; *sabbe te rūpā* M. III. 217 ³¹; *ime diṭṭhiṭṭhānā* D.I. 16 ³⁴ (cf. A. II. 42 ²,⁴). In Jā. I 289 ²⁹ there is *sabbe kaṭṭhamayā vanā*, although *vana* is Neuter, and in M.I. 67 ¹⁵ *cattāro upādānā* besides the regular *cattāri upādānāni*. Cf. below § 80. 4. On the other hand Masculines too show flexional forms of the Neuter. Thus we have *dhammāni* from Masc. *dhamma* Jā. V. 221 ²⁷; *vandati pādāni* Vv. 51. 1 has been explained in the commentary 218 ¹⁴ by *pade*; *petāni puttāni* (Acc.) Th2. 312 stands for *pete putte* according to the commentary: *‘liṅgavipallāsena’*. Cf. also Ud. 17 ³³. There is *bhujāni poṭhenti* Bu 1. 36 beside *poṭhayam bhuje* Rasav. II. 92 ⁴, and the Acc. *tālataruṇe* immediately before the Nom. Pl. *tālataruṇāni* Vin. I. 189 ¹⁰,¹¹. Accusatives like *puttāni* should be regarded as cases of Ardha-Māgadhīsm. Pischel § 358 There are also cases of confusion between Feminines in *ā* and Neuters in *-a*: Thus Pl. *sabhāni* Jā. IV. 223 ⁷ from Fem. *sabhā*, which has been explained by *sabhāyo* in the commentary. The stem *kucchi* ‘ womb ’ = *kukṣi*, which was originally Masc., has besides the forms *kucchimā*, *kucchimhā*, *kucchismim*, *kucchimhi* also *kucchiyā*, *kucchiyam* JāCo. I. 52 ⁸, 293 ¹⁸ like the Feminine stems of § 86. From *sāli* ‘ rice ’ = *śāli* Masc. we have the Acc. Pl. *sāliyo*. Also *dhātu* ‘ element ’, although originally Masc., knows forms like Nom. Acc. Pl. *dhātuyo* Dhs. 67, Th2. 14, Inst. Sg. *dhātuyā* D.II. 109¹, A. I. 28 ², IV. 313 ²¹, but Gen. Sg. *dhātussa* Mhvs. 20 19. The usually Neuter stem *massu* ‘ beard ’ has in Gen. Sg. *massuyā* Jā. III. 315 ²² etc. Examples of confusion in Gender have been discussed in connection with the changes of word-stems in § 75.

c7.s2.t1.5

¹ Cf. SBE. XI. 1, p. 31.

c7.s2.t1.6

² Similarly in Pkr., Pischel § 356.

c7.s2.t1.7

§ 77. 1. Of the Numbers Pāli has given up the Dual ¹. Its place has been taken by the Plural. Of Dual there have been preserved only dve, duve ‘two’ = dve, and ubho ‘both’ = ubhau. It is therefore usual to say dve cakkhūni ‘the two eyes’ JāCo. IV. 137 ¹⁶, dve antā Nom. Pl. and ubho ante Acc. Pl. ‘the two extremes’ Vin. I. 10 ¹⁰,¹¹,¹⁵. The same use of Plural also in Dvandva-compounds: Acc. Pl. ime candimasuriye M.I. 69 ¹⁸ Gen. Pl. candimasuriyānam D.I. 10 ¹⁴.—2. As for the Cases (cf. R. O. Franke, BB. 16.64 ff.), Pāli replaces the Dative in both Numbers by the Genitive ². Only the a-stems have retained in Singular a Dative in -āya ³. It serves to express direction and purpose. Thus, e.g., saggāya gacchati Dh. 174; jahassu rūpam apunabbhavāya ‘give up the body in order not to be born again’ Sn. 1121. It is also used quite frequently as Infinitive, as in na ca mayam labhāma bhagavantam dassanāya ‘we do not get permission to see the Blessed One’ Vin. I. 253 ¹¹. This Dative is used particularly to express longing after something (cf. icchā lābhāya A. IV. 293 ²⁰) and exertion for something (ghaṭati vāyamati lābhāya, ibid.). It is further used in the sense of ‘it suffices to, it serves to’ (sallekhāya subharatāya viriyārambhāya samvattissati M.I. 13 ³⁰), in connection with hetu, paccaya ‘reason for’ (ko paccayo mahato bhūmicālassa pātubhāvāya D. II. 107 ¹¹), and in connection with alam ‘enough’ (alam vacanāya A. III. 5 ²⁷) etc.—Frequently the Abl. Sg. is formed with the suffix -to = Skr. -tas. It can be also included in the paradigm as has been actually done by V. Henry. As examples let us mention: gharato ‘from the house’ JāCo. I. 290 ²⁶, mukhato Ud. 78 ¹⁰, dūrato ‘from afar’, cāpāta (with lengthening, from cāpa ‘bow’) Dh. 320 (see § 78-80); Nālāto Th2. 294, cūḷāto JāCo. II. 410 ¹⁹, nāvāto DhCo. III. 39 ¹⁴, jihvāto S. IV. 178 ¹⁵ besides jivato S. IV. 175 ¹ with shortening as also in sīmato JāCo. II. 3¹ (see § 81); aggito D. II. 88 ², aṭṭhito Jā. II. 409 ³, dadhito Milp. 41 ¹, bhikkhuto Th1. 1024, kāmandaluto DhCo.

c7.s2.t1.8

¹ The two examples given by E. Müller, PGr. p. 65 f., as instances of retained Dual are unconvincing. One of them (pathamam) to idhāgato Dpvs. 9. 32, even if the reading is not corrupt, goes back only to the author of this work whose knowledge of Pāli was very imperfect. The second form mātāpitu (ca vanditvā) Cp. II. 9. 7 is certainly no Dual at all.

c7.s2.t1.9

² As in Pkr., Pischel § 361.

c7.s2.t1.10

³ Cf. R. O. Franke, BB. 16. 82.

c7.s2.t1.11

III. 448 ³, *cakkhuto* S. IV. 174 ³³ (see § 82, 85) ; *kucchito* JāCo. I. 52 ³¹, *aṅgulito* DhCo. I. 164 ⁷, *Bāraṇasito* Th2. 335 besides *-sito* (with shortening) JāCo. II. 47 ¹⁸, *pokkharaṇito* JāCo. II. 38 ⁴ besides *-ṇito* VvCo. 217 ²¹, *dhātuto* JāCo. I. 253 ²⁹, *jambuto* Bu. 17. 9 (see § 86) ; *abhibhūto* D. I. 18 ⁷, M. I. 2 ²⁷ (see § 87. 2) ; *pitito* ‘from father’, *mātito* ‘from mother’ D. I. 113 ²⁵, A. III. 151 ¹⁶ etc. = *pitṛtas*, *mātṛtas* ; *rājato* Dh. 139 ; *attato* S. III. 46 ¹⁸ ; *hatthito* (from *hatthin* ‘elephant’) JāCo. IV. 257 ²⁰, *Himavantato* JāCo. I. 140 ²⁴ (see § 96); *manato* S. IV. 175 ² (see § 99).—In Plural the suffix *-bhyas* of Dat.-Abl. has been lost. The Abl. formally coincides with Instr. as Dat. with Gen. Also in Singular the form of Instr. is often used as Abl. (§ 82. 2, 90. 1, 91, 92, 95, 96).

c7.s2.t1.12

2. a-declension

c7.s2.t1.13

§ 78. A. Masculine stems in *-a*; stem : *dhamma* ‘law’.

c7.s2.t1.14

| | Singular | Plural |
| N. | *dhammo* | *dhammā* |
| Acc. | *dhammam* | *dhamme* |
| I. | *dhammena*, *dhammā* | *dhammehi* |
| G. D. | *dhammassa* | *dhammānam* |
| Abl. | *dhammā*, *dhammasmā*, *-amhā* | *dhammehi* |
| L. | *dhamme*, *dhammasmim*, *-amhi* | *dhammesu* |
| V. | *dhamma* | *dhammā* |

c7.s2.t1.15

B. Neuter stems in *-a*; stem : *rūpa* ‘figure’.

c7.s2.t1.16

| | Singular | Plural |
| N. | *rūpam* | *rūpāni*, *rūpā* |
| Acc. | *rūpam* | *rūpāni*, *rūpe* |
| V. | *rūpa* | *rūpāni*, *rūpā* |

c7.s2.t1.17

In other cases as in Masculine. On the Dative of *a*-stems in *-āya* cf. § 77 (with § 27. 2).

c7.s2.t1.18

On flexion : 1. The Instrumental Sg. in *-ā* corresponds to the same form of the Vedic language ¹. It is found not infrequently in the Gāthā-language and in canonical prose ; but only occasionally in post-canonical prose. A form to the point is the frequent *sahattha* ¹ ‘ with one's own hand ’ JāCo I. 286 ⁵, D. I. 109 ³³, Vin. I. 18³⁰, JāCo. I. 7³, Mhvs. 5. 72 besides *sahatthena* JāCo. VI. 305 ³. Also *yogā* DhCo III. 283 ²¹ (verse), explained by *yogena* in the word-analysis ; *pādā* ‘ with the foot ’ Jā. III. 269 ¹⁶, DhCo. I. 202 ⁶ (verse) ; *saha vacanā* ‘ along with the word, in the moment he spoke the word ’ Ud. 16 ⁸ ; *mā sokā* (=*sokena*) *pahato bhava* Th1. 82 ; *bhikkhusamghā* (parallel to the Instr. *bhagavatā*) Vin. II. 198 ²³ etc. That these forms were later felt to be archaisms is clear from the fact that as *yogā* is explained by *yogena*, so also is *pādā* explained by *pādena* in the commentary (JāCo. III. 269 ²⁸).—2. The suffixes *-asmā*, *-amhā* of Ablative Sg. and *-asmim*, *-amhi* of Locative Sg. are taken from the pronominal declension.—3. The suffix *-e* of Accusative Pl. is taken from the pronominal declension ². Here the forms *te, ime, sabbe* are used both in N. and Acc. From *te dhammam* gradually originated *te dhamme*.—4. The Instr. Pl. in *-ehi* is either derived from the Vedic forms in *-ebhis*, or is taken over from pronominal declension.—5. As for the Vocative Sg. of neutral declension, cf. *citta* ‘ O soul ’ Th1. 1108 f.—6. The Nominative Plural in *-ā* ³ of Neuter stems is not rare in the first two periods of the language: *rūpā* Th1. 455, Vin. I. 21 ¹⁹, D. I. 245 ¹⁷ etc.; *sotā* ‘ ears ’ Sn. 345; *nettā* ‘ eyes ’ Th2. 257; *phalā* ‘ fruits ’ Jā. IV. 203 ²², Vv. 84. 4. These forms were still felt to be Neuter. Cf., e.g., *tiṇ’ assa lakkhaṇā gatte* Sn. 1019; *moghā* (Com. *moghāni*) *te assū pariphaṇḍitāni* Jā. III. 24 ²⁵. They correspond to the Vedic Plurals in *-ā* like *yugā* ‘ yokes.’—7. As these forms however formally coincided with Masc. Plurals, they gave rise also to Accusative Plurals in *-e* as in Masc. : *rūpe* M. III. 281⁸, S. IV. 8¹⁰ (in Th1. 1099 it occurs at the side of Masc. Accusatives); *sarire* DhCo. III. 208⁹; *pupphe* VvCo. 174¹⁴; *te chidde* S. I. 43²⁰ (verse), where *chiddāni* as Nom. occurs immediately before. Confusion of Gender is thus in evidence.

c7.s2.t1.19

¹ R. O. Franke, ZDMG. 46. 816ff.

c7.s2.t1.20

¹ Sten Konow and D. Andersen however consider it to be Abl.; JPTS. 1909, p. 134.

c7.s2.t1.21

² E. Kubn, Beitr. p. 72. Cf. Pischel. ZDMG. 85.715 f. Scepticism about this interpretation has been expressed by V. Henry, Préc. de Gramm. Pâlie § 158, note 3.

c7.s2.t1.22

³ Frequently also in Pkr.; see Pischel, § 867.

c7.s2.t1.23

§ 79. Individual forms. 1. Not at all rare are Sg. Instrumentals in *-asā*⁴, formed on the analogy of *as*-stems on the basis of the proportion *mano : manasā = dhammo : X*. Examples are found specially in the first two periods of the language, and again in the artificial poetry;

c7.s2.t1.24

⁴ Such forms occur also in Pkr. “ through the influence of preceding Instrumentals of *s*-stems,” Pischel, § 364.

c7.s2.t1.25

they are rare in post-canonical prose. Cf. balasā ‘with force’ (instead of balena) Thl. 1141; Cp. II. 4. 7; damasā Sn. 463 beside damena Sn. 655; vāhasā (instead of vāhena) Thl. 218, Vin. IV. 158²⁰, D. II. 245⁹; padasā ‘on foot’ (instead of padena) JāCo. III. 300²⁹, Mhvs. 14.2. Moreover mukhasā ‘with the mouth’ Pv. I.2.3 is explained by mukhena in the Pv.Co. and vegasā ‘with speed’ Jā. III. 185² is explained by vegena in the Co.¹—2. According to Moggal-lāna II. 108 ff., Singular Locatives in -asi are formed analogically on the basis of Instrumentals in -asā².—3 In Vocative Sg. the final is sometimes extended³. The Voc. ayyo is used in respectful address for both Numbers and Genders (beside ayya, ayyā; ayye, ayyā), as for instance in Vin. I. 75⁸ in Voc. Pl. Masc.—4. In Nom. Pl. the forms in -āse are quite common in the Gāthā-language. They correspond to the Vedic forms in -āsas, and the ending -e instead of -o suggests the influence of Māgadhī⁴ : upāsakāse Sn. 376; paṇḍitāse Sn. 875; dhammāse Sn. 1039; brāhmaṇāse Sn. 1079ff.; vañcitāse Thl. 102; gaḍhitāse Thl. 1216; ussitāse Vv. 84. 15; rukkhāse Jā. III. 399³; ariyāse Jā. IV. 222²¹; duṭṭhāse (and a number of other forms) Iv. 1¹⁰ff.; Gotamasāvakāse D. II. 272²⁶ (verse), gatāse D. II. 255³ (verse), S .I. 27⁸ (verse), Jā. I. 97¹; upapannāse S. I. 60⁴ (verse); niviṭṭhāse S. I. 67⁴ (verse) etc.—5. An Acc. Pl. Masc. in -ān as in Skr. has perhaps been preserved in vehāsān-upasaṃkamim Thl. 564 through the influence of Sandhi. But it should rather be construed as vehāsāni up° according to §70.2b.—6. Besides the ending -ehi in Instr. Pl. there is also the archaic form -ebhi: ariyebhi Ud. 61². To the Skr. ending -ais corresponds -e⁶ in guṇe dasah’ upāgatam Bu. 2.32. Or is it merely a shortened form of guṇehi dasahi⁷?.

c7.s2.t1.26

¹ The same form is used also by secondarily originated s-stems. Cf. § 94

c7.s2.t1.27

² Cf. R. O. Franke, PGr. p. 35.

c7.s2.t1.28

³ Also in Pkr. ; Pischel, § 71, 366 b.

c7.s2.t1.29

⁴ Oldenberg, KZ. 25, 315.

c7.s2.t1.30

⁶ E. Müller, PGr. p.69. I consider the other forms quoted here to be Locative Sg.

c7.s2.t1.31

⁷ Cf. similar phenomena in Skr.; R. Roth, Über gewisse Kürzungen des Wort-endes im Veda, Vhdl. des Wiener Or. Kongr., Ar. Sect., p. 1 ff. (Vienna 1888).

c7.s2.t1.32

§ 80. Māgadhism—1. Forms of the Māgadhi-language are used in isolated passages of the canon. Such forms are: the Singular Nominatives in -e in Masc. instead of -o, and in Neuter instead of -am; (a) Masculine⁸. attakāre, parakāre, purisakāre (instead of -kāro)

c7.s2.t1.33

⁵ Cf. in Pkr. forms in ā like Māh. guṇā = Skr. guṇān, AMāg. rukkhā, purisā etc. Pischel, § 367.

c7.s2.t1.34

⁸ R. O. Franke, D.-übersetzung, p. 56, note 5.

c7.s2.t1.35

D. I. 53²⁹; *bāle ca paṇḍile ca* ‘the fool and the wise’ D. I. 55²⁹, ³⁰; *ke chave sigāle ke sīhanāde* (instead of *ko* etc.) D. III. 24¹⁹; *bahuke jane pāsapāṇike* (comm. *bahuko jano-ṇiko*) Jā. III. 288¹⁵. (b) Neuter: *sukhe dukkhe jīvasattame* D. I. 56²⁶ instead of *sukhaṃ* etc. Further *ye avilakke avicāre se paṇitatare* D. II. 278¹⁶, ³⁰, 279¹² instead of *yaṃ avitakkaṃ avicāraṃ taṃ paṇitataraṃ*. The passage *ye lokāmisa-saṃyojane se vante* M. II. 254²⁵ instead of *yaṃ -janaṃ taṃ vantaṃ* has been already discussed by Trenckner¹. Cf. also *navachandake dāni* (var. lec. *dāne*) *diyyati* Jā. III. 288¹³, which has been replaced in the comm. by *-kaṃ dānaṃ diyyati*.—2. I consider as “Māgadhism” the voc. sg. in *-e* of *a*-stems: *Bhesike* D. I. 225⁷, 226⁹ from the proper name *Bhesika*; *Takkāriye* Jā. IV. 247²⁴ from *Takkāriya*. Cf. Māg. *puttake, ceḍe, bhaṭṭake* etc. These are nominatives used as vocatives². In a Māgadhesque passage in D. I. 54¹², M. I. 518⁵ there occur gen. pl. in *-uno*: *cullāsīti mahākappuno satasapassāni* (DCo. I. 164= *mahākappānaṃ*). Also *pañcakam muno satani* (=*kammānaṃ*) D. I. 54².

c7.s2.t1.36

¹ Trenckner, *Notes*, p. 75.

c7.s2.t1.37

§ 81. Feminines in *-ā*. Sg. N. *kaññā* Acc. *kaññaṃ* Instr. *kaññāya* Abl. *kaññāya* G.D. *kaññāya* L. *kaññāya, -āyaṃ* V. *kaññe*

c7.s2.t1.38

Stem *kaññā* ‘girl.’ Pl. } *kaññā, kaññāyo* } *kaññāhi* *kaññānaṃ* *kaññāsu* *kaññā, -āyo*

c7.s2.t1.39

On flexion: 1. The forms of Instr. sg. (as well as of Abl., Gen., Dat.) in *-āya*, like the Prākrit endings in *-āa*³, are derived from the old ending *-āyās* in Abl.-Gen.; the old Instr. in *-ayā* has disappeared. Beside *-āya* there is also *-ā*. But I do not believe that they are to be connected with the Vedic Instrumentals like *doṣā, barháṇā*. The forms are rather the result of a phonetical process (§ 27.²). The ending *-ā* appears, for instance, also in loc., e.g. *rathiyā* ‘on the street’ Dpvs. 6.34.—2. For voc. sg. cf. the frequent *bhadde* JāCo. II. 29⁴ etc. and *ayye* JāCo. I. 405⁵ etc.; further *therīke* Th2. 1 (the *i* is extended *metri causa*); *devate* Vv. 29.2; *lohitape* (scil. *biḷārike*) Jā. III.

c7.s2.t1.40

² Cf. Pischel, PkrGr. § 366 b.

c7.s2.t1.41

³ Pischel, PkrGr. § 375.

c7.s2.t1.42

266¹⁷ etc. According to Kacc. II. 1.64 (Senart, p. 256), an exception is to be made of ammā, annā, ambā, tātā—all used in addressing the mother. The form ammā is well attested: Th1. 44, D. I. 98⁹ etc.—3. The nom., acc. and voc. pl. kaññāyo is analogically formed after the corresponding forms rattiyo, kumāriyo etc. of the ī-declension¹. The form is written with ī, for instance, in pokkharaṇiyo A. I. 145¹⁹.

c7.s2.t1.43

¹ Oldenberg, KZ. 25. 317.

c7.s2.t1.44

3. i- and u-declension

c7.s2.t1.45

§ 82. Masculine stems in i and u: Stems: aggi ‘fire’, bhikkhu ‘monk’.

c7.s2.t1.46

| | Sg. | Sg. | Pl. | Pl. |
| Nom. | aggi | bhikkhu | } | aggayo, | bhikkhavo, |
| Acc. | aggim | bhikkhum | | aggi | bhikkhū |
| Instr. | agginā | bhikkhunā | | | |
| Abl. | { aggismā, aggimhā, agginā | bhikkhusmā, bhikkhumhā, bhikkhunā | } | aggihi | bhikkhūhi |
| Gen.-Dat. | { agissa, aggino | bhikkhussa, bhikkhuno | } | agginam | bhikkhūnam |
| Loc. | { aggismim, aggimhi | bhikkhusmim, bhikkhumhi | } | aggisu | bhikkhūsu |
| Voc. | aggi | bhikkhu | { | aggayo, | bhikkhavo, bhikkhave, bhikkhū |

c7.s2.t1.47

On flexion: 1. The forms in -ismā, -imhā, -usmā, -umhā in Abl. Sg. are analogy-formations after the a-declension, as also those in -ismim, -imhi, -usmim, -umhi in Loc. Sg., those in -issa, -ussa in Gen. Sg., and those in -ī, -ū in Nom. and Voc. Pl.²—2. The forms in -ino, -uno of Gen.-Dat. Sg. are either modelled on the neuter n-declension of Skr., or they are derived from the declension of in-stems³.—3. The forms of Abl. Sg. in -inā, -unā are transfers from the Instr.⁴ The forms of Acc. Pl. in -ayo, -avo, like those in -ī, -ū, are transfers from the Nom.; cf. Acc. Pl. isayo S. I. 226¹⁸, sattavo Jā. V. 95²⁶, aggi Vin. I. 81⁹, bhikkhū M. I. 84⁹.—4. The protraction of the stem-vowel in -ihi, -ūhi of Instr.-Abl. Pl. and in -īsu, -ūsu of Loc. Pl is probably due to analogy with the form in Gen. Pl.—5. The form bhikkhave in Voc. Pl. is a "Māgadhism" which has penetrated into the literary language from the popular speech in this word of address so often used by Buddha towards his followers. In Sg. the Nominative form is used as Vocative.

c7.s2.t1.48

² The same forms also in Pkr.; Pischel, § 377 ff.

c7.s2.t1.49

³ Similarly Pkr.aggino, vāuṇo beside aggissa, vāussa.

c7.s2.t1.50

⁴ The grammarians (E. Kuhn, Beitr. p. 82) give also kasmā hetunā in Abl.

c7.s2.t1.51

§ 83. Isolated forms: 1 In Acc. Sg. there are sometimes found the forms bhikkhunaṃ Sn. 513, ādiccabandhunaṃ D. II. 287²¹ (verse)—after the analogy of in-stems. An agginaṃ too would be expected accordingly.—2. The form corresponding to the old Gen.-Abl. in -os is to be found in the postposition hetu 'on account of, for the sake of' (§ 22).—3. To the Skr. ending -au in Loc. Sg. corresponds -o in ādo, instead of which however occurs ādu in Th1. 1274 (§22). Cf. § 86. 5.—4. The old ending of Voc. Sg. is to be found in ise 'O wise one!' Sn. 1052. E. Müller (PGr. p. 73) cites an analogous Voc. Sg. Sutano Jā. III. 329⁸ (treated as Nom. in JāCo. III. 325², 329²⁸).—5. The mixing up of in- and i-flexions (§ 95) has led also in the case of original i-stems to the construction of forms according to the in-decl.¹ Thus aggino Saddhammopāyana 584; dummatino Mhvs. 4. 3 (where also the analogous form mittadduno); sāramatino Dh. 11; vajjamatino Dh. 318; also Instr. Sg. nītatavuttinā Th1. 71, 210 (in Skr. too occasionally °vṛttin for °vṛtti).—6. An isolated Acc. Pl. with transfer to the a-decl. is to be found in ise Jā. V. 92²⁴. It is preceded by samaṇe brāhmaṇe.—7. Archaic forms in -bhi instead of -hi in Instr. Pl. are isibhi Th1. 1065, Jā. III. 29¹⁰ (with protraction in isibhi Th2. 206); ñātibhi Cp. 1. 9. 56, Jā. III. 329¹⁹, 495²³. 8. Forms with shortened stem-vowel in Instr. (Dat. Abl.), Loc. and Gen. Pl are not at all rare. The shortening takes place mostly metri causa. Cf. pāṇīhi Jā. VI. 579²⁹; kimīhi Th1. 315; akkhīhi (n.) Sn. 608; sādhūhi Dpvs. 4. 6; ādīsu JāCo. I. 61¹⁵; asīsu M. I. 86³¹; bhikkhūsu Th1 241, 1207; usūsu M. I. 86³⁰; appabuddhīnaṃ Th1. 667; ñātīnaṃ Th1. 240; sādhūnaṃ Mhvs. 37. 232 (= Cūlavaṃsa, Colombo ed., 37. 182); bhikkhūnaṃ Th1. 1231, S. I. 190¹⁵, bandhūnaṃ Th1. 240.

c7.s2.t1.52

¹ E Kuhn, Beitr. p. 80; E. Müller, PGr. p. 71.

c7.s2.t1.53

§ 84. The stem sakhi 'friend'², which belongs to the poetic language and is represented by sahāyaka in prose, has the two supplementary stems *sakha* and *sakhāra*. The latter originated from Acc. Sg. *sakhāraṃ*, which is itself an analogy-formation after the flexion of agent nouns (*satthā* : *satthāraṃ* = *sakhā* : *x*). The flexion is as follows: Sg. Nom. *sakhā* (as in Skr.) Sn. 253, Jā. II. 29¹⁶, III. 50²¹, 296³, V. 509²⁰, S. I. 36² (verse), Dpvs. 11. 26, Mhvs. 19. 13 and (*sabba*) *sakho* Thl 648.—Acc. *sakhāraṃ*¹ Jā. II. 348²⁰, III. 296³, V. 509²⁰.—Instr. *sakhinā* (on the analogy of *agginā*) Jā. IV. 41²⁹ —Abl. *sakhārasmā* Jā. III. 534².—Gen. *sakhino* Jā. IV. 426²³, VI. 478¹ (and *sakhissa* according to Kacc. II. 3. 34 in Senart, p. 288). —Loc. (*sakhe* Kacc. II. 3. 32, in Senart, p. 288) --Voc. *sakhā* (= Nom.) Jā. III. 295²⁰.—Pl Nom. *sakhā* Jā. III. 323¹⁰, Dpvs. 11. 24 and *sakhāro* Jā. III. 492¹⁴, IV. 292²⁷ (cf what has been said above about *sakhāraṃ*), (moreover according to Kacc. II. 3. 30: *sakhāno* after the *n*-flexion, as well as 31: *sakhāyo* and *sakhino*). --Instr. (*sakhehi* and *sakhārehi* according to Kacc. II. 3. 34).—Gen.-Dat. *sakhīnaṃ* Jā. III. 492¹⁴, IV. 42⁸ and *sakhānaṃ* Sn. 123, Jā. II. 228²⁰ (and *sakhārānaṃ* Kacc. II. 3. 36).—Loc. (*sakhesu* and *sakhāresu* Kacc. II. 3. 36).

c7.s2.t1.54

² JPTS. 1909, p. 18 f. All the forms quoted here from "J. A," i.e., Jātakatthakathā, are taken from verses ("J")

c7.s2.t1.55

¹ Instead of *sakhaṃ* (as Acc. Sg. of *sakhi*) Jā. II. 29¹³ we should perhaps read *sakaṃ* as in the Burmese mss.

c7.s2.t1.56

§ 85. Neuters in *i*, *u*. Stems: *akkhi* ‘eye’, *assu* ‘tear’.

c7.s2.t1.57

| | Sg. | Pl. |
| Nom. Acc. Voc. | *akkhi* *akkhim* | *assu* *assum* | *akkhīni* *akkhī* | *assūni* *assū* |

c7.s2.t1.58

For the rest as in Masc. (§82). There occurs however a Sg. Loc. *ambuni* ‘in the water’ Jā. V. 6⁵ like Skr. *madhuni*.

c7.s2.t1.59

On flexion: 1. Analogical formations after the *a*-decl. are the forms in *-im*, *-um* of the Sg. (after *rūpaṃ*), as well as those in *-ī*, *-ū* of the Plural (after *rūpā*).—2. As forms in Nom. Sg. are used, *e.g.*, *dadhiṃ* JāCo. IV. 140⁸; *suciṃ* (*sugandhaṃ salilaṃ*) Jā. VI. 534¹¹; *assuṃ* JāCo. III. 163²⁵; *vatthuṃ* (=*vastu*) JāCo. III. 39⁸; *kusalaṃ bahuṃ* Vv. 18. 15. On the other hand *dadhi* Milp. 48¹⁷, *assu* Th2. 220.—3. For the forms in *-ī*, *-ū* cf. Nom. *akkhī bhinnā* Jā. I. 483²⁹, *madhū* Jā. VI. 537²⁰; Acc. *akkhī* DhCo. I. 9²⁰.

c7.s2.t1.60

§ 86. Feminines in *ī* (ī) and *u* (ū). Stems: *jāti* ‘birth, existence’ (*nadi* ‘river’), *dhenu* ‘cow’ (*sassū* ‘mother-in-law’).

c7.s2.t1.61

| | Sg. | | Pl. |
| Nom. | *jāti* (*nadi*) | *dhenu* (*sassū*) | } *jātiyo* | *dhenuyo* |
| Acc. | *jātim* | *dhenum* | *jāti* | *dhenū* |
| Instr.-Abl. | *jātiyā* | *dhenuyā* | *jātihi* | *dhenūhi* |
| Dat.-Gen. | *jātiyā* | *dhenuyā* | *jātīnam* | *dhenūnam* |
| Loc. | *jātiyā*, *-yam* | *dhenuyā*, *-yam* | *jātisu* | *dhenūsu* |
| Voc. | *jāti* (*nadi*) | *dhenu* (*sassu*) | *jātiyo*, *-ti* | *dhenuyo*, *-nū* |

c7.s2.t1.62

On flexion: 1. The flexions of short-vowel stems and long-vowel stems coincide with each other in Pāli excepting in Nom. Sg. Here the latter mostly retain their length. But shortening too is found in this position, as, e.g., in *sassu* Vv. 29. 7, 8.—2. As a rule, *ī* at the end of the stem is changed into *iy* before vowel-endings. The flexion is thus like that of monosyllabic *i*-stems in Sanskrit. In analogy with it *ū* too is then changed into *uy*. Yet, however, there are numerous forms of the *ī*-stems in which *ī* is changed into *y*—particularly, *metri causa*, in the Gāthā-dialect; but analogous forms occur also in canonical prose. Cf. *ratyā* Th1. 517, 628, Jā. VI. 491²¹ (instead of *rattiyā*) ‘of the night’ = *rātryās*; Nom. Pl. *ratyā* Jā. VI. 26¹⁶ (com. *rattio*) and Loc. Sg. *rattimhi* Jā. V. 102²³; Instr. Sg. *nikatyā* Jā. III. 88¹⁴ (com. *nikatiyā*) ‘through treachery’ = *nikṛtyā*; Gen. Sg. *pathavyā* Dh. 178 (instead of *-viyā*) ‘of the earth’ = *pṛthivyās*; Nom. Pl. *nābhyo* (com. *nābhio*) Vv. 64. 4. The laws of assimilation act in most of these cases when the consonant is immediately followed by *y*. Instr. Sg. *jaccā* (§ 55) Dh. 393, Sn. 136, Jā. III. 395⁶ (com. *jātiyā*); *sammuccā* (for *-tiyā*) Sn. 648; *uppaccā* (for *-tiyā*) S. I. 209⁶ (verse); Loc. Sg. *Naliññam* (for *-niyam*) Jā. VI. 313⁹; Nom. Pl. *pokkharañño* (for *-niyo*) Vv. 44. 11, S. I. 233¹ (verse); *dasso* (com. *dāsiyo*) Jā. IV. 53²⁹; *najjo* (for *nadio*) Vv. 6. 7 In prose: Gen. Sg. *najjā* Vin. I. 1⁶, D. II. 112²²; Nom. Pl. *najjo* S. III. 202⁶, 221¹¹ etc. A remarkable form in Nom. Pl. is *najjāyo* ‘rivers’ Jā. VI. 278¹, which presupposes a stem *najjā*, abstracted out of an Acc. Sg. *najjam* = Ved. *nadyam*¹. —3. The forms in Pl. with extended stem-vowel may again undergo shortening: *naranārīnam* ‘of men and women’ Cp. I. 6. 2; *nārisu* Dh. 284; *jātisu* Th1. 346 etc.—4. For the double-forms in Nom. Acc. Pl. let us mention, for Nom. Pl., *kumāriyo* JāCo. I. 337⁸, *pokkharaṇī* Vv. 81. 5, *jambuyo* Th1. 309, (*accharā*) *puthū* Th1. 1190;

c7.s2.t1.63

¹ Franke, PGr., p. 35, note 4. According to E. Kuhn, Beitr. p. 82 the forms of Gen. Pl. in *-īyānam* collected by Storck are to be explained in the same way.

c7.s2.t1.64

Acc. Pl. *pokkharaṇiyo* D. II. 178²⁸, *raṃsī* Vv. 53. 5, *dhenuyo* Vv. 80. 6.—5. A form corresponding to Skr. Loc. Sg. in -au of i-stems has been retained in *ratto: divā ca ratto ca* ‘day and night’ Sn. 223, Db. 296, Th2. 312, Ud. 15³ (verse), Vv. 84. 32, S. I. 33¹⁶, Sdhs. 51¹⁶ (prose). A Loc. Sg. *bhuvī*¹ is formed from *bhū* ‘earth’ according to Kacc. A case of transfer from the i-flexion to ā-flexion is presented by *aḍḍharattāyaṃ* ‘in the middle of night’ (com. -ttiyaṃ) Vv. 81. 16.

c7.s2.t1.65

¹ E. Kuhn, Beitr. p. 83; E. Müller, PGr. p. 74.

c7.s2.t1.66

§ 87. 1. Flexion of the stems *sirī* ‘prosperity, fortune’ (*Sirī* goddess of prosperity) = *śrī*; *hirī* ‘modesty’ = *hrī*; *itthī* ‘woman’ = *strī*. (a) *sirī*: Sg. Nom. *Sirī* Jā. V. 112³⁰ and *sirī* S. I. 44¹² (verse);—Acc. *siriṃ* Jā. II. 41⁹;—Instr. *siriyā* Sn. 686, VvCo. 323¹⁶;—Voc. *Siri* DCo. 97¹⁸.—(b) *hirī*: Sg. Nom. *hinī* S. I. 33¹¹ (verse), A. I. 95²⁵ and *hirī* Iv. 36⁶, A. I. 51¹⁷, IV. 11²², Nett. 82²⁷, JāCo. I. 207¹⁷;—Acc. *hiriṃ* Sn. 719 etc.; Instr. *hiriyā* Jā. II. 65⁴, A. III. 6¹⁶, Nett. 50²⁶, JāCo. I. 129²³.—(c) *itthī* (*thī*, § 29): *itthī* Jā. 1. 307¹⁴, A. I. 28⁹, Mhvs. 9. 24 and *itthī* Th1. 151, D. II. 273¹⁸ (verse), A. III. 68²³, JāCo. I. 437¹¹;—Acc. *itthim* Th1. 315, Vin. I. 23¹⁴, JāCo. I. 307²³;—Instr. *itthiyā* Vin. I. 23¹⁵, JāCo. I. 290²¹;—Dat.-Gen. *itthiyā* S. I. 33¹³ (verse), JāCo. I. 307¹⁰ (*thiyā* Jā. V. 81¹⁶).—Pl. Nom. *itthiyo* S. I. 185²⁶ (verse), Vin, I. 36¹⁸, JāCo III. 392¹⁷;—Acc. *itthiyo* JāCo. I. 289¹⁰ (*thiyo* Sn. 769, Jā. III. 459¹³);—Instr. *itthīhi*;—Gen.-Dat. *itthīnaṃ* JāCo. III. 392¹⁸ (*thīnaṃ* Jā. I. 295⁸);—Loc. *itthīsu* Th1. 187, S. IV. 346²¹.—2. Flexion of masculines in *ū*²: Sg. Nom. *abhibhū* S. I. 121¹⁶ (verse), D. I. 18⁷ etc., *sayaṃbhū* Bu. 14. 1, *pāragū* D. I. 88⁵, JāCo. II. 99²⁰, *viññū* Iv. 98¹³ etc., and *pāragū* Th1. 66, *mataññū* S. 1V. 175²⁰;—Acc. *abhibhuṃ* Dh. 418, Sn. 534, M. I. 2²⁷, *sabbaññuṃ* JāCo. I. 335³¹;—Instr. *sabbaññunā*, *sayaṃbhunā* Milp. 214²⁹;—Dat.-Gen. *amattaññuno* S. IV. 103²⁷ and *viññussa* A. I. 138³⁰, M. III. 179²⁵, *abhibhussa* S. I. 157¹⁰;—Loc. *abhibhusmiṃ* M. I. 2²⁸.—Pl. Nom.-Acc. *mattaññuno* S. IV. 105⁸, *gotrabhūno* M. III. 256⁷, *sahabhūno* Dhs. 1197 f., *vedagūno* Ud. 14¹⁷ (verse), and *sahabhū* D. II. 260⁶ (verse), *vadaññū* S. I. 34²¹ (verse), *addhagū* Th2. 55 (neut. *sahabhūni* Nett. 16²⁸);—Instr. *viññūhi* D. II. 93³³, S. I. 9¹⁴, *lokavidūhi* Vv. 44. 25.—Dat.-Gen. *viññūnaṃ* Th1. 667, S. IV. 93²², *rattaññūnaṃ* A. I. 25¹⁸.—Loc. *viññūsu* A. III. 153²⁴, V. 15¹⁶.

c7.s2.t1.67

² On the analogy of compounds formed with *bhū* also words compounded with *ā-roots* are transferred to the *ū-flexion*: *viññū* ‘wise’ = *vijña*, *sabbaññu* ‘omniscient’ = *sarvajña*; *pāragū* ‘reaching the other side’ (beside *pāraga*) = *pāraga* etc.

c7.s2.t1.68

4. Diphthong-stems

c7.s2.t1.69

§ 88. 1. The Skr. stem *rai* ‘wealth’ is unknown in Pāli.—2. From *nau* a new stem *nāvā* ‘ship’ has been formed ¹, which is inflected according to § 81 (cf. *nāvāya* DhCo. III. 184¹⁹, *nāvāsu* ib. 185¹).—3. Of *go* ‘cattle’ the following old forms have been preserved: Sg. Nom. *go* S. I. 221³⁴ (verse), *go-r-iva* Jā. V. 15²⁷.—Pl. Nom. *gāvo* Sn. 20, A. II. 43¹⁸; Acc. (transferred from Nom.) *gāvo* Jā. VI. 549⁹, S. IV. 181¹², DhCo. III. 43²;—Instr. *gohi* S. I. 6⁹ (verse), Sn. 33.—Dat.-Gen. *gavaṃ* Jā. III. 111¹⁷, *gonaṃ* (=Ved. *gonām*) Dpvs. I. 76 and its phonetic variant (according to § 15. 3) *gunnaṃ* S. II. 188⁹, A. I. 229¹³, DhCo. III. 243¹⁵. *Gava* ² is a new stem which is the basis of Sg. Abl. *gavā* D. I. 201²⁵, Dat.-Gen. *gavassa* M. I. 429³², Loc. *gave* Sn. 810. From a third stem *gāva* is derived *gāvī* ‘cow’ which is quite common. Finally we have also a stem *goṇa*³: Sg. Nom. *goṇo* Vin. IV. 7¹⁸, S. IV. 195³², DhCo. III. 262⁶; Acc. *goṇaṃ* M. I. 10³⁸, JāCo. I. 494¹¹. Pl. Acc. *goṇe* DhCo. III. 302¹⁸; Gen. *goṇānaṃ* DhCo. III. 239²².—4. Of the Skr. stem *div*, *dyu* ‘day, sky’ only the adverbially used form *divā* ‘by day’ has been preserved in Pāli.

c7.s2.t1.70

¹ Similarly also in Pkr. *ṇāvā*; Pischel, § 394.

c7.s2.t1.71

³ AMāg. *goṇa*; beside it fem. *gāvī*

c7.s2.t1.72

5. Radical Stems

c7.s2.t1.73

§ 89. Only meagre rests have been preserved of the flexion of radical stems. Thus, e.g., Sg. Instr. *vācā* ‘with the word’ Sn. 28² from Skr. *vāc* which otherwise appears as *vācā* in P. (§ 81); Sg. Instr. *padā* ‘with the foot’ Th1. 457, Sn. 768 from Skr. *pād* (cf. Pl. Gen. *khattiyo dvipadaṃ seṭṭho* S. I. 6²² (verse) = Skr. *dvipadām*); Pl. Acc. *sarado sataṃ* ‘hundred autumns’ Jā. II. 16¹⁵ from Skr. *śarad*; Pl. Gen. *sāgaraṃ saritaṃ patiṃ* ‘the ocean, the lord (husband) of the rivers’ Jā. II. 442⁸ from Skr. *sarit*. All the quotable examples belong to the Gāthā-language⁴. In Mhvs. 36. 93 there is the Sg. Loc. *pathi* ‘ on the road ’ as var. lec. in the Ceylonese mss. for *patham* (Acc. Sg.) of the Burmese mss. (§ 93. 4).

c7.s2.t1.74

² Cf. AMāg *ṇg*. Nom. *gave*, Pl. Nom. *gavā* in Pischel, § 393.

c7.s2.t1.75

⁴ It seems unlikely to me that in *āpo ca pathavī ca* ‘water and earth’ Sn. 307 *āpo* is the Nom. Pl. = Skr. *āpas*. Beside the Acc. Sg. *āpaṃ* Sn. 391 we have also the Loc. Sg. *āpe* Sn. 392. A stem *āpa* has therefore to be accepted. In the first member of a compound is found *āpo*-, e.g., in D. II. 108⁶.

c7.s2.t1.76

6. *r*-declension.

c7.s2.t1.77

§ 90. Nomina agentis. Stem: *satthar* ‘ teacher ’.

c7.s2.t1.78

| | Sg. | Pl. |
| Nom. | *satthā* | |
| Acc. | *satthāram*¹ | } *satthāro* |
| Instr. | *sattharā, satthārā, satthunā* | |
| Abl. | *sattharā, satthārā* | } *satthūhi, satthārehi* |
| Dat.-Gen | *satthu, satthuno, satthussa* | *satthūnam, satthārānam* |
| Loc. | *satthari* | *satthūsu, satthāresu* |
| Voc. | *satthā, sattha, satthe* | *satthāro* |

c7.s2.t1.79

On flexion: 1. The following are historical forms used in every period of the language: Sg. Nom. *satthā* (JāCo. III. 20¹⁹), Acc. *satthāram* (JāCo. III. 21¹), as well as Pl. Nom. Voc. *satthāro*. The last form was then used also as Acc. Also the following forms are historical: Sg. Gen. *satthu* (Iv. 79⁸, JāCo. III. 20²⁹, *bhattu* Vv. 15⁵) = Skr. *śastur*; Sg. Loc. *satthari* (Dhs. 1004, DhCo. II. 38¹¹) = *śastari*; also Sg. Instr. *sattharā* = *śastrā* with Svarabhakti. The Instr. is then used also as Abl.—2. In compounds the *r* of the stem appears in Pāli as *u*. Thus *satthukappa* ‘ like the master ’ Mhvs. 14. 65, *bhattuvusānuvattini* ‘ obedient to the will of the husband ’ Jā. II. 348¹⁸. A stem *satthu* was abstracted out of these *u*-forms, from which: Sg. Instr. *satthunā* (Mhvs. 17. 12), Dat.-Gen. *satthuno* (Sn. 547, 573, Thl. 131, *bhattuno* VvCo 110¹¹), *satthussa* (Mhvs. 4. 32); Pl. Instr. *satthūhi*, Gen. *satthūnam* (DCo. I. 20²⁸: *sotūnam*), Loc. *satthūsu*.—3. A stem *satthāra* was abstracted analogically out of the proportion *kammāram* : *kammāra* = *satthāram* : *x*. From it are derived the forms Pl. Instr. *satthārehi*, Gen. *satthārānam* (JāCo. I. 509³), Loc. *satthāresu*; perhaps also Sg. Instr. *satthārā* (D. I. 163⁸, JāCo. II. 24¹⁸, DhCo. II. 45¹, Mhvs. 5. 77) and the form in Sg. Abl. which is identical with it².—4. Transfer to the *a*-declension through the elision of *r* should also be noticed. Thus nahāpita ‘barber’ (Sg. Nom. -to D. I. 225¹⁸, Acc.-taṃ D. I. 225⁹, Pl. Acc. -te Mhvs. 29. 20) presupposes a stem *snāpitar (cf. Skr. nāpitá) ; sallakattu ‘physician’ (Sg. Nom. -tto Sn. 560, Acc. -ttaṃ M. I. 429⁴, Milp. 247¹²) is =śalyakartar¹. From the stem khattar ‘door-keeper’ =kṣattar we have beside the Sg. Nom. khattā D. I. 112²⁹, M. II. 164³¹ the Acc. khattaṃ D. I. 112⁸, M. II. 164¹⁹.—5. The form satthā of Voc. Sg. is taken from the Nom. The form sattha is shortening of the same on the analogy of nadi from nadī, vadhu Vin. III. 16²⁵ from vadhū. As for the form satthe, cf. khatte from khattar D. I. 112¹⁰, M. II. 164²⁶; katte from kattar Jā. V. 229²¹, VI. 492² They are based on the analogy of the Voc. kaññe of the Nom. kaññā (§ 81).

c7.s2.t1.80

¹ Shortened *metri causa*: *sattharam* Bu. 22. 14.

c7.s2.t1.81

² Also in Pkr. the stems *bhattu* and *bhattāra* cross the historical forms; Pischel, § 389.

c7.s2.t1.82

§ 91. Words signifying personal relation. Stems: pitar ‘father’ m., mātar ‘mother’ f.

c7.s2.t1.83

| | Sg. | | Pl. | |
| Nom. | pitā | mātā | pitaro | mātaro |
| Acc. | pitaraṃ | mātaraṃ | pitaro, -tare | mātaro |
| Instr. | pitarā | mātarā | pitūhi, | mātūhi |
| Abl. | pitarā | mātarā mātuyā | pitarehi | |
| Dat.-Gen. | { pitu, pituno, pitussa | mātu mātuyā | { pitūnaṃ, pitunnam, pitarānaṃ | mātūnaṃ |
| Loc. | pitari | { mātari, mātuyā, -yaṃ | { pitūsu, pitaresu | mātūsu |

c7.s2.t1.84

On flexion. The stems pitar (with short stem-vowel in the strong cases) and pitu, which are in use in all the periods of the language, are distributed as in the case of satthar. I can find no form to justify the assumption of a stem pitara². The stem-vowel is long in nattar ‘grandson’ as in Skr. naptar. Cf. Pl. Acc. nattāro Ud. 91²³ = Skr. Nom. naptāras, also Pl. Instr. nattārchi Ud. 92².—2. Attestation of the most important forms: Sg. Instr. pitarā JāCo. III. 37¹⁵, bhātarā JāCo. I. 308², mātarā Th2. 212; Sg. Abl. pitarā, mātarā JāCo. V.214²², dhituyā Mhvs. 8. 7; Sg. Dat.-Gen. pitu Th2. 419 JāCo. IV. 137¹³, mātu Th1. 473, Vin. I. 17¹³, JāCo. I. 52²⁹, duhitu Th2Co. 269³. pituno Vin. I. 17¹, VvCo. 170⁴, bhātussa Mhvs. 8. 9; mātuyā JāCo. I. 53⁵, Mhvs.

c7.s2.t1.85

¹ Cf. E. Müller, PGr. p. 82. ² In Pkr. there are the stems pitu, piti (cf. Pāli pitito, mātito § 77) and pitara. beside pitar. Pischel, § 391.

c7.s2.t1.86

10. 80; Sg. Loc. *bhātari* JāCo. III. 56²³; Pl. Instr. *mātāpitūhi* Th2. 516, JāCo. II. 103⁵; Pl. Gen. *pitūnaṃ* Jv. 110⁹, *pitunnaṃ* DhCo. I. 161¹²; Pl. Loc. *mātāpitūsu* Th2. 499, JāCo. I 152⁷.—3. Isolated forms: Sg. Acc. *pitum* Cp. 2. 9. 3; Pl. Nom. *bhātuno* Th2. 408; Acc. *pitū* (in *mātāpitū*) Th2. 433; further Sg. Nom. *jāmāto* ‘son-in-law’ JāCo. IV. 219²⁵; Pl. Acc. *bhāte* Dpvs. 6. 21, 22 with transfer to the *a* flexion (§ 90. 4). Transfer of feminine stems to *ā*-decl. is also found to occur. Cf. Sg. Gen. *mātāya* JāCo. I. 62¹³. Such transfer is very frequent in the case of *dhitar* ‘daughter’: Sg. Nom. *dhitā* Th2. 46, Acc. *dhītaraṃ* Th2. 98, JāCo. III. 19¹⁶ etc., but also Dat.-Gen. *dhitāya* VvCo. 270²⁸, Mhvs. 5. 169 (beside *dhitu* JāCo. VI. 366¹⁰), Voc. *dhite* JāCo. III. 21²⁸, DhCo. III. 8¹²; Pl. Nom. *dhitā* Mhvs. 2. 18 (beside *dhītaro* JāCo. III. 3⁸), Instr. *dhitāhi* VvCo. 161¹⁷, Mhvs. 7. 68, Gen. *dhitānaṃ* JāCo. III. 4⁷, Loc. *dhitāsu* JāCo. I. 152⁸.

c7.s2.t1.87

7. *n*-declension.

c7.s2.t1.88

§ 92. Masculines in *-an*. Stems *rājan* ‘king’ and *attan* ‘self, soul’.

c7.s2.t1.89

| | Sg. | | Pl. |
| Nom. | *rājā* | *attā* | *rājāno* | *attāno* |
| Acc. | *rājānaṃ* | *attānaṃ*¹ | | |
| Instr. | *raññā*, *rājina* | *attanā* | *rājūhi* | (*attanehi*) (*attehi*) |
| Abl. | *raññā* | *attanā* | | |
| Dat.-Gen. | *rañño*, *rājino* | *attano* | *raññaṃ*, *rājūnaṃ* | (*attānaṃ*) |
| Loc. | *rājini* | *attani* | *rājūsu* | (*attanesu*) |
| Voc. | *rājā* | *attā* | *rājāno* | *attāno* |

c7.s2.t1.90

¹ With Svarabhakti *ātumānaṃ* Sn. 782.

c7.s2.t1.91

On flexion. 1. The forms of the Singular (with the exception of Abl., which is = Instr.) are historical and used in all the periods of the language. The forms Instr. *raññā* (DhCo. I. 164⁹) and Dat.-Gen. *rañño* (Vv. 74. 4, DhCo. I. 164⁵, JāCo. III. 5¹⁹) are = *rājñā*, *rājñas* according to § 53. 1; *rājina* (Mhvs. 6. 2) and *rājino* (Th2. 463, Sn. 299, 415, Mhvs. 2. 14) are affected by Svarabhakti, as also *rājini* = *rājni*. The long-vowel forms in the Voc. Sg. are transferred from the Nom. The stems, which like *attan* ‘soul, self’ end in Skr. with *-man -van* following after a consonant, retain the *a* in the weak cases. Cf. Instr. *amhanā* (§ 50. 2) = *aśmanā*; *attani* JāCo. III. 25². Also *muddhanā* ‘with the head’ Mhvs. 19. 30 = *mūrdhnā*; Loc. *muddhani* Sn. 689, M. I. 168²⁹ (verse), JāCo. IV. 265¹⁷, Mhvs. 36. 66 = *mūrdhni*, *-dhani*. In Plural the forms in Nom. Voc. are historical (used also as Acc., e.g., DhCo. II. 15⁶), as well as the Gen. *raññaṃ* (D. II. 87⁸, Mhvs. 18. 32) = *rājñām*. Moreover a new stem *rāju* appears in Plural (*rājūhi* Ud. 41⁷, M. II. 120²², JāCo. III. 45⁴, Mhvs. 5. 80, 8. 21, archaic *rājubhi* D. II. 258¹⁴; *rājūnaṃ* Ud. 11³, JāCo. II. 104²⁹, III. 487²¹), probably in analogy with the *r*-stems (§ 90) according to the proportion *satthā : satthūhi = rājā : x*. I cannot find attestation for the forms *attanchi* etc.—2. Transfer to the *a*-decl. takes place often as a consequence of the dropping of the final nasal; cf. forms of the stem *rāja*¹ such as Sg. Gen. *rājassa* Dpvs. 17. 41, Pl. Nom. *rājā* Mhvs. 37. 89 (=Colombo ed. II. 37. 39); Sg. Acc. *brahmaṃ* (instead of *brahmānaṃ*) Vv. 17. 4, Sn. 151, 285, M. I. 2¹¹, 328¹⁸ like Pkr. Māg. *bamhaṃ*; *muddhaṃ* (from *muddhan*) Dh. 72, Sn. 987, D. I. 95¹⁹; *attaṃ* Dh. 379; also Pl. Instr. *attehi*, Gen. *attānaṃ*. A stem *rañña* was developed out of the weak-grade form *rājñ-*: Sg. Nom. *rañño* A. II, 113²¹, 116²⁴, 117³; Gen. *raññassa* Jā. III. 70⁷; Loc. *raññe* [sic], II. 145¹⁶, III. 83²⁷; Pl. Instr. *raññehi*² A. I. 279¹⁴. The weak stem extended by *a* gave rise to the forms *attanehi*, *attanesu*. In the same way a stem *addhāna*³ was abstracted out of the strong-grade form of *addhan* ‘way, time’ (Sg. Acc. *addhānaṃ*): *atīta-m-addhāne* ‘in past time’ JāCo. III. 43¹ (verse), *addhānamagga-paṭipanno* D. I. 1⁵.—3. Under the influence of the preceding labial (§ 19. 2), in the weak cases of the stem *brahman* ‘the god Brahman, Brahmin’ the *a* is changed into *u*. Thus Sg. Acc. *brahmānaṃ*, but Instr. *brahmunā* Thl. 1168, Ud. 77¹⁹, D. II. 237⁴ etc., Dat.-Gen. *brahmuno* Thl. 182, D. I. 220³³, 222², S. I. 141². The Loc. Sg. is *brahmani* M. I. 2¹², the Voc. *brahme* (cf § 90. 5) Jā. VI. 525¹⁵, M. I. 328²⁰, Vin. I. 6⁶. Similarly also *adhunā* S. J. 78²⁶, II. 179²⁷, *adhuno* D. I. 17¹⁹, M. III. 184⁹.

c7.s2.t1.92

¹ At the end of a compound there is used in Pāli sometimes *rāja*, sometimes *rājan*. Cf *supaṇṇarājassa* JāCo. III. 188²⁸ and *supaṇṇarañño* JāCo. III. 189⁷. Also *rāju* : *nāgarājūnaṃ* Mhvs. 1. 68.

c7.s2.t1.93

² This is probably the proper reading for *raññāhi*. Pkr. knows neither the *u*-stem nor any stem corresponding to Pāli *rañña*.

c7.s2.t1.94

³ Also in Pkr there are forms such as Sg. Nom. *addhāṇo*, *muddhāṇo*.

c7.s2.t1.95

§ 93. 1. Of the stem san ‘dog’ = śvan the Sg. Nom. sā is quite common: S. I. 176¹³ (verse), D. I. 166⁸, M. I. 77³⁵, II. 232²⁵, Pu. 55¹⁹. In JPTS. 1909, p. 61 also the Pl. Nom. sāno is cited, but no reference is given¹. From the Skr. weak stem śun- a new stem suṇa (sic! with ṇ) has been derived: Sg. Instr. suṇena Jā. VI. 353²⁰⁻²⁹, 354⁶⁻¹²; Voc. suṇa JāCo. VI. 357¹. The frequent form sunakha is another derivative. From the strong Skr. stem śvān- is further derived suvāna, -ṇa : Pl. Nom. suvānā Jā. VI. 247¹⁶, Instr. suvāṇehi M. III. 91²⁵.—2. Of yuvan ‘youth’ the Sg. Nom. yuvā Dh. 280, Sn. 420, D. I. 80¹⁹ is quotable. The reading of the Sg. Gen. yuvino Jā. IV. 222²³ is uncertain. The stem yuva is to be found in yuvassa Mhvs. 18. 28. Yūna and yuvāna² are new formations from the weak and the strong stem respectively.—3. Of maghavan, name of Indra, we have the Sg. Nom. maghavā Dh. 30, Voc. maghavā S. I. 221²⁴ (verse) as should be read instead of mathavā.—4. Corresponding to the Skr. stems path and panthan ‘path’ there are in Pāli the thematised stems patha (Sg. Nom. patho D. I. 63⁷, Acc. pathaṃ JāCo. II. 39¹³, Abl. pathā Jā. VI. 525³¹, Gen. pathussa Thl. 69, Loc. pathe Sn. 176 f., Mhvs. 21. 24) and pantha (panthasakuna Jā. VI. 527²², panthadevatā JāCo. VI. 527³⁰, Sg. Acc. panthaṃ Milp. 157²³, Loc. panthasmiṃ Sn. 121).—5. From puman ‘man’ we have the Sg. Nom. pumā Rasav. II. 83⁹. In Kacc. II. 2. 33 ff. (Senart, p. 271ff.) are given also Voc. pumaṃ and Pl. Nom. Voc. pumāno, besides Sg. Instr. pumanā like brahmunā. There is moreover a stem puma (Sg. Nom. pumo D. II. 273¹⁸ (verse) and Pl. Nom. pumā Jā. III. 459¹³), as well as pumāna (according to Kacc.). There is no trace of the weak stem pums in Pāli.

c7.s2.t1.96

² Cf. Childers, Pāli Dictionary, under the words.

c7.s2.t1.97

§ 94. Neuters in -an. Stem: kamman ‘work, deed’ = karman. In Sg. the forms are historical in Nom.-Acc.-Voc.—kammaṃ Dh. 96, 217; Instr. kammanā Sn 136 etc. and kammunā³ Thl. 143, 786, Vv. 32. 7, Mhvs. 5. 189 ; Gen. kammuno¹ Jā. III. 65¹⁷; Loc. kammani. The old forms are however more and more ousted by those of the a-flexion on the basis of the agreement in Pl. Nom.-Acc.-Voc. kaṃmāni Sn. 263, Dh. 136. Thus Sg. Nom.-Acc. kammaṃ, Instr. kammena etc. Cf. even in the oldest literature nāmaṃ (Sg. Nom.) Sn. 808; kammehi Sn. 215, kammesu Sn. 140 etc. In the same way Sg. Loc. pabbe JāCo. I. 245¹², Pl. Loc. pabbesu S. IV. 171²⁰ from *pabba(n)* ‘knot in a reed, section’ = *parvan*; *thāmena* ‘forcibly’ JāCo. I. 443⁷, Milp. 4³ (beside which, according to § 79. 1 with footnote 1, p. 120, *thāmasā* D. II. 282²⁷, Mhvs. 23. 83) from *thāma(n)* = *sthāman*. New neuter stems are formed also by adding an *a*. Thus Sg. Acc. *jammanaṃ* Sn. 1018 from *jamman* ‘birth’ = *janman*; Sg. Nom. *yakanaṃ* Kh. 3, M. I. 57¹⁷, D. II. 293¹⁴ from *yakan* ‘liver’ = *yakan*. —Masculine compounds with neuter second components in *-an* are inflected mostly according to the *a*-decl. after dropping the final nasal. Thus Pl. Nom. *puññakammī* S. I 97³⁰; Sg. Gen. *puthulomassa* Attanagaluvihāravs. 2. 2 from *loman* ‘hair’; stem *Vissakamma* (name of a god) = *Viśvakarman* (e.g., Sg. Nom. *kammo* JāCo. IV. 325¹⁸, Acc. *kammaṃ* JāCo. V. 132⁵, Instr. *kammena* JāCo. I. 315¹¹); but we have also *kammaṃ* in Acc. *kammānaṃ* Mhvs. 28. 6 and Instr. *kammunā* Mhvs. 31. 76.

c7.s2.t1.98

¹ The paradigm given by Minayeff, PGr. p. 23 is artificially constructed : Sg. Nom.-Voc. sa, Acc. saṃ etc. like an a-stem; but Pl. Instr.-Abl. sāhi, sābhi, Loc. sāsu). Pl. Nom. sā ‘dogs’ S. I. 176¹³.

c7.s2.t1.99

³ Cf. § 92. 8, 19. 2.

c7.s2.t1.100

§ 95. Substantives and adjectives in *-in*, Stem *hatthin* ‘elephant’.

c7.s2.t1.101

| | Sg. | Pl. |
| Nom. | *hatthi*—*hatthi* | *hatthino*—*hatthī* |
| Acc. | *hatthinaṃ*—*hatthim* | *hatthino*—*hatthī* |
| Instr. | *hatthinā* | |
| Abl. | *hatthinā*—*hatthismā*, *-imhā* | } *hatthīhi* |
| Dat.-Gen. | *hatthino*—*hatthissa* | *hatthīnaṃ* |
| Loc. | *hatthini*—*hatthismim*, *-imhi* | *hatthīsu* |
| Voc. | *hatthi* | *hatthino*—*hatthī* |

c7.s2.t1.102

On flexion: 1. Two distinct types are in evidence¹: the old one in *-in* and the new one in *-i* (flexion according to § 82), which is derived either from the stem-form in which the *in*-stems appear in compounds, or from the case-form in Instr. Sg. where both declensions show the same form. Both the types were living in all the periods of the language. Cf., *e.g.*, Sg. Gen. *jhāyino* (from *jhāyin* ‘thoughtful’) Dh. 110, *seṭṭhino* JāCo. I. 122¹⁷ (from *seṭṭhin* ‘merchant’), *hatthino* DhCo. I. 168¹² and *°anupassissa* (from *-ssin* ‘observing’) Dh. 253, *seṭṭhissa* S. I. 90⁷, Vin I. 218⁸, JāCo. IV. 229¹⁰, *hatthissa* Vin. II. 195²⁶, JāCo. I. 187²⁶. Pl Nom. *jhāyino* Dh 23, *sāmino* ‘the masters’ JāCo. II. 32⁰, *gāmarāsino* ‘the villagers’ JāCo. III. 9²⁷, *pāṇino* ‘living beings’ Mhvs. 12. 22 and *hatthī* S. I. 211¹⁴ (verse), Vin. I.

c7.s2.t1.103

¹ As in Pkr. Cf. Pischel, § 405.

c7.s2.t1.104

218³⁰, JāCo. II. 102²², *dhamsi* ‘the brave ones’ M. I. 236¹; Pl. Acc. *hatthi* DhCo. II. 45²⁵. Cf. also Sg. Acc. *hatthinam* Th1. 355 and *sāmim* Sn. 83, *gāmavāsim* JāCo. III. 10¹¹, Sg. Loc *seṭṭhimhi* Vin. I. 17³³. Long-vowel forms, i.e. forms of the i-type, are the rule n Pl. Instr. Abl., Dat.-Gen. and Loc.; metrical shortening is not rare: *pāṇiḥ* Vv. 4. 6; *pāṇīnam* Dh. 135, Jā. VI. 594¹⁹.—2. Occasionally *in*-stems too are thematised by adding an *a*¹, thus giving r se to new stems. Cf. Sg. Acc. neut. *ohāriṇam* Dh. 346 from *ohārin* ‘dragging down’; Sg. Loc. *ariyavuttine* JāCo. III. 12²² (verse); Pl. Nom. *verinā* DhCo. II. 37¹ from *verin* ‘inimical’ = *vairin*; Pl. Acc. *palokine* Th2. 101 from *palokin* ‘doomed to destruction’, *pāṇine* Sn. 220; Pl. Loc. *verinesu* Dh. 197. We have even Sg. Voc. fem. *āveḷine uppalamāladhārine* Vv. 48. 2 from *āveḷin* ‘decorated’, *°dhārin* ‘carrying lotus-wreaths’ beside Vocatives like *alamkate*. Otherwise the *in*-stems form their feminines as in Skr.: *sāminī* ‘mistress’, *gubbhinī* ‘pregnant’ etc.—3. There are some isolated unusual forms, e.g., Pl. Nom. *pāṇayo* Sn. 201, *hatthiyo* Jā. VI. 537³⁰ and the archaic Instrumentals in *-bhi*: *atthadassībhi* Th1. 4, *nettiṃsavara-dhārībhi* Jā. II. 77²³, *jhāyibhi*, *jhānasīlibhi* M. III. 13²⁵ etc.—4. The stem *tādi* = *tādṛś* (cf. §75) is treated as an *in*-stem; cf. Sg. Gen. *tādino* Vv. 82.7 Pl. Gen. *-nam* Vv. 81. 26; also Sg. Loc. *tādine* (cf. 2) Th1. 1173.

c7.s2.t1.105

¹ Similarly in Pkr. stems like *sakkhina* = *sākṣin*, *barahina* = *barhin*. Pischel, §406,

c7.s2.t1.106

8. nt-declension

c7.s2.t1.107

§ 96. Adjectives in *-ant*. Stem: *sīlavant* ‘virtuous’.

c7.s2.t1.108

| | Sg. | Pl. |
| Nom. | *sīlavā* — *vanto* | *sīlavanto* — *vantā* |
| Acc. | *sīlavantam* | *sīlavanto* — *vante* |
| Instr.-Abl. | *sīlavatā* — *vantena* | *sīlavantchi* |
| Dat.-Gen. | *sīlavato* — *vantassa* | *sīlavantam* — *vantānam* |
| Loc. | *sīlavati* — *vante*, *-vantamhi*, *-vantasmim* | *sīlavantesu* |
| Voc. | *sīlavă* — *vanta* | *sīlavanto* — *vantā* |

c7.s2.t1.109

On flexion. 1. Out of the older historical type the later one has been developed through transfer to the *a*-flexion. The Sg. Acc. in *-antam* was the connecting link. Both types persist side by side through all the stages f the language. The younger type completely monopolised the Instr., Abl. and Loc. Pl. even from the beginning. Examples of forms of the later type out of the Gāthā-language: Sg. Gen. sīlavantassa Dh. 110; Loc. sīlavante JāCo. III. 12²² (verse); Voc. yasavanta Vv. 63. 30; Sg. Nom. neut. vaṇṇavantaṃ (pupphaṃ) Thl. 323. 324; Pl. Acc. mahante Jā. IV. 222²⁸. From canonical prose Sg. Nom. mahanto ‘great’ M. III. 185¹; Pl. Acc. mahante Vin. I. 85³¹; Gen. sīlavantānaṃ M. I 334⁴, satimantānaṃ A. I. 24³⁹, dhitimantānaṃ A. I. 25², bhagavantānaṃ S. V. 164⁹ etc. Also Pl. Instr. sīlavantehi D. II. 80²¹ etc. Yet the regular flexion is still the older one. From the stem cakkhumant ‘endowed with eyes, seeing’ we have in Sn. the forms Sg. Nom. cakkhumā, Voc. -ma, Instr. -matā; Pl. Nom. -manto. From satimat ‘of retentive memory’ we have in Dh. Sg. Nom. satimā; Gen. -mato; Pl. Nom. -manto; Gen. -mataṃ etc.¹ In canonical prose the forms of the older type are: Sg Nom. satimā D. I. 37²⁵, vusitavā Perf. Part. Act. ‘he who has dwelt’ M. I. 5¹⁰, sutavā ‘he who has heard, learnt’ M. I. 8³²; Instr. mahatā S. V. 163²⁶, sīlavatā S. III. 167²³; Gen. sīlavato S. IV. 303²⁰, sabbāvato (from sabbāvant ‘full, complete’) M. II. 15¹⁰; Pl. Gen. sabbāvataṃ M. II. 16¹⁸ etc. Also bhagavā, -vatā, -vato, -vati; āyasmā, -matā etc. passim. Forms of the older type in post-canonical prose: Sg. Nom. sīlavā Milp. 224⁹, JāCo. I. 187¹; Instr. (Mārena) pāpimatā Milp. 155¹¹; Gen. mahato Milp. 224¹⁶, JāCo. III. 23¹⁸, (Mārassa) pāpimato Milp. 155⁸; balavato yasavato Milp. 284¹⁶; quite commonly bhagavā, -vatā, -vato, -vati: āyasmā, -matā. Beside them however the forms of the a-flexion go on increasing: Sg. Nom. sumahanto Milp. 155²; Instr. mahantena JāCo. III. 24²⁰, 40³; Pl. Acc. sīlavante JāCo. I. 187²⁸; Gen. bhagavantānaṃ Milp. 226¹³; Sg. Nom. neut. mahantaṃ (pāṭihāriyaṃ) JāCo. IV. 229¹⁵, ojavantaṃ (ratthaṃ) JāCo. III. 111⁹; Pl. Nom. neut. ojavantāni JāCo. III. 110²⁰ etc. Of the stem Himavant², for instance, there occur in JāCo. only the following forms: Sg. Nom. Himavā JāCo. VI. 580⁸, Gen. Himavato JāCo. V. 392¹⁹, 419¹⁸, Loc. Himavati seven times (of which five times with the variant reading -vante). Otherwise the stem Himavanta is used throughout. Cf. also the abstracts like sīlavantatā JāCo. I. 320⁴ etc., derived from a stem extended by -a.—2. Transfer to the a-flexion follows also from the dropping of nt³. Forms of this type are found in the Gāthā-language: Sg. Acc. satimam Sn. 212, bhānumam Sn. 1016, Himavam Jā. VI. 272⁴; Pl. Nom. mutimā Sn. 881. Also Sg. Nom. fem. kittimā Jā. III. 70⁶, VI. 508²¹. The fem. name Sirimā occurs in all the stages of the language¹. The neutral form ojavam Th2. 55 may be derived from a stem ojava, or it may be directly derived from Skr. ojavat. These forms perhaps facilitated the shortening of ant-stems into a-stems.—3. The Nominative-form of the Pl. in -anto is used also in Acc., just as that of the Sg. in -ā is used in Voc.

c7.s2.t1.110

¹ Cf. Fausböll, Sn. II. Glossary, under the word cakkhumat (n. 118), D. Andersen, PGL. under the word sīlavat.

First 111 of 542 passages. Read on

Linked texts (107)