Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Pali Literature and Language c7.s2.t3: IV. Verbal System

Pāli Literature and Language c7.s2.t3

Language
English

IV. Verbal System

c7.s2.t3.1

1. Generalities

c7.s2.t3.2

§ 120. In verbal forms Pāli is still farther removed from the basic Sanskrit than in nominal flexion. The historical forms are on the whole well preserved, particularly in the older periods of the language. But the actual life of the language lies in the new formations, which were created in such numbers, either on the basis of analogy, or after existing types, that it is scarcely possible to lay down rules covering all the individual cases.—It is a prominent feature of Pāli distinguishing it off from Skr, that it has lost the dual.—The medium is also disappearing. Passive forms too have active endings already in the oldest period of the language. The Gāthā-language still shows, it is true, a considerable number of medial forms. But they are in part due to the exigencies of metre, and everywhere bear the stamp of archaism. They become rare already in the canonical prose, and rarer still in the non-canonical, in which they are confined only to a few fixed forms (c. g. Imp. 2. Sg. in -ssu, Pret. 3. Sg. in -ittha). The medial forms appear again in the later artificial poetry. The Part. Pres. Med. in -māna was productive in every period of the language. —As for the tempora, the perfect has almost completely disappeared, leaving but slight traces behind. Unlike Prākrit, Pāli has retained the conditional. Imperfect and aorist are no longer sharply distinguished between in Pāli. Both of them have coincided in the preterite which is mostly called “aorist”. The various periphrastic formations are of great importance they are originated by the combination of participles, gerunds or verbal substantives with the verbs “to be” or “to become”, or with other verbs of an indefinite meaning. They represent quite a characteristic feature of the language.—The modes are the same as in Sanskrit. The Gāthā-language has apparently still retained isolated forms of the Vedic subjunctive.—Another important feature is the predominance of *a*-stems in the present system. Their analogy has decided the character of many verbs which are athematic in Skr. It is no longer possible to set up a complete system of paradigms for the different 'conjugation-classes' as they are distinguished in Sanskrit. The present-stems of these classes will be discussed, as is proper, in connection with one chief paradigm, as supplement to it. Besides the expansion of the sphere of the *a*-flexion we have also to notice that of *e*-stems.—The preponderance of the present-stem is of particular importance. Tenses, as well as verbal nouns etc., which in Skr. are based directly on the root, may be derived in Pāli from the present-stem. This applies to preterite (aorist), future, past part. in *-ta*, future pass. part. in *-tabba*, infinitive in (*-tuye* and) *-tum*, and gerund in *-tvā*, *-tvāna* and *-ya* Moreover new passive and causative stems may be derived from present-stems. The innovated forms in all these cases appear side by side with the historical ones—sometimes rare in comparison with the latter, but occasionally even surpassing them in the frequency of use. In particular cases the process goes even further, when, for instance, an historically attested future or passive-stem is made the basis of further new formations.¹

c7.s2.t3.3

¹ I am thinking here, for instance, of the stem *dakkh-* = Skr. *drakṣ-* (cf. § 152, 201. 1c, 213), or of the stem *chijj-* = *chidy-* (§ 196), etc.

c7.s2.t3.4

2. Present-system with Indicative, Subjunctive, Imperative and Optative

c7.s2.t3.5

with Indicative, Subjunctive, Imperative and Optative.

c7.s2.t3.6

A. Present Indicative

c7.s2.t3.7

§ 121. The flexion may be shown by a verb of the I. Class, *labhati* 'gains, receives'.

c7.s2.t3.8

| | | Sg. | Pl. |
| Act. | 1. | *labhāmi* | *labhāma* |
| | 2. | *labhasi* | *labhatha* |
| | 3. | *labhati* | *labhanti* |
| Med. | 1. | *labhe* | (*labhamhe*) |
| | 2. | *labhase* | (*labhavhe*) |
| | 3. | *labhate* | *labhante*, *labhare* |

c7.s2.t3.9

§ 122. 1. Act. Sg. 1. Instead of -āmi there is also found in the Gāthā-language the shorter ending -am: tassāham santike gaccham ‘I am going to him’ Th2. 306. For the rest the endings correspond to those of Sanskrit; -ma is the secondary ending.—2. Med. (the examples are mostly from the Gāthā-language or the artificial poetry) Sg. 1: rame ‘I enjoy myself’ S. I. 180⁸ (verse), kuppe ‘I am angry’ Jā. III. 120¹⁵. In the post-canonical prose we find, for instance, maññe ‘I think’ JāCo. II. 249⁷ etc. Sg. 2: anupucchase ‘you ask’ Vv. 17. 5; labhase Jā. II. 220¹² (Comm. labhasi). Sg. 3: labhate Th1. 35; sobhate ‘is beautiful’ Th2. 255 ff.; rocate ‘suits (one's) taste’ Th2. 415; bhāsate ‘speaks’ Sn. 452. Pl. 3: lambante ‘they hang’ Th2. 265; haññante ‘they are beaten’ Th2. 451. The ending -are in 3. Pl. is quite frequent: labhare S. I. 110³² (verse); khādare ‘they consume’ Jā. II. 223¹⁴ (Comm. khādanti); jāyare ‘they are born’ S I. 34¹⁶; socare ‘they suffer pain’ Sn. 445 (against socanti Sn. 333); obhāsare ‘they light up’ Vv. 9. 3 (v. l. obhāsate); jīyare ‘they vanish away’ Jā. VI. 528⁵ (Skr. jīyante); miyyare ‘they die’ Sn. 575 (Skr. mriyante); haññare ‘they are killed’ S. I. 76²² etc. These forms are connected with the Vedic presents like śere, īśire, and they correspond to the forms in -ire in Pkr.¹—The 1. Pl. Med. deserves special consideration. Kacc. 3. 1. 2 and 18 (Senart, pp. 423, 429) gives as ending -mhe, which is probably derived from -mahe through syncope The fuller form occurs in bhavāmahe² Mhvs. 1. 60. Also the ending -mase (and -mhase) seems to have been in existence at its side. All the forms with this ending have not a subjunctive meaning (cf. below § 126), as for instance (na) tappāmase (dassanena tam) ‘we are (not) tired of (looking at you)’ Vv. 17. 4, which is indicative in meaning (cf. Skr. tṛpyate). Same perhaps also with abhinandāmase ‘we are glad’ Vv. 17. 7; saremhase (according to e-flexion) ‘we remember’ Th2. 383 The ending -mase is evidently the medial counterpart of the Act. Vedic -masi, and -mhase looks like a cross of -mhe and -mase.

c7.s2.t3.10

¹ Whitney, Sanskrit Gramm. § 550; Pischel, PkrGr. § 458; Windisch, Abhdl. Sächs. Ges. d. W., Nr. VI, 1887, p. 478 f.; E. Kuhn, Beitr. p. 94; E. Müller, PGr. p. 97.

c7.s2.t3.11

² E. Kuhn, loc. cit.

c7.s2.t3.12

B. SUBJUNCTIVE

c7.s2.t3.13

§ 123. It is not possible to set forth a paradigm, because we have to do here only with isolated forms preserved in the Gāthā-language. The Subjunctive is distinguished from the Indicative by the extended stem-vowel. Yet only those forms may be relied upon as Subjunctive without any hesitation in which the Subjunctive (Imperative) meaning is quite clear and the possibility of a mere metrical protraction is out of the question. This appears to be the case with one of the two passages pointed out by Pischel¹: *no vitarāsi bhottum* ‘do not go on eating!’ Jā. II. 14¹⁷ (Fausböll, Ten Jāt. 19⁴). The Comm. gives the explanation: *mā nāgamaṃsakhādako ahosi*. I add to it: *attānaṃ yeva garahāsi ettha* ‘scold yourself for this affair!’ Jā. IV. 248⁸, which is explained in the Comm. by *attānaṃ eva garaheyyāsi*. True Subjunctives are to be found perhaps also in the forms *kāmayāsi* and *cajāsi* Jā. V. 220²⁰·²⁴, which are dependent on *sace* and *ce* respectively. Pischel’s second example is, however, doubtful: *ātāpino saṃvegino bhavātha* ‘be zealous and enthusiastic’ Dh. 144ᵇ. The form in question here may be simply that of Imp. 2. Pl. protracted *metri causa*. Similar cases are: *adhimanasā bhavātha* Sn. 692; *tam ca* (i.e. *dhammam*) *dharātha*² *sabbe* ‘all should hold fast to it (the truth)’ Sn. 385; *pāpāni kammāni vivajjayātha, dhammānuyogañca adhiṭṭhahātha* ‘give up sinful practices and hold fast to zeal for the truth!’ Vv. 84. 38; *abhinibhajji-yātha nam* ‘avoid that!’ Sn. 281 (from root *varj*, *varjayati*). Of the three examples given by E. Müller³, *dahāsi* and *dahāti* Sn. 841, 888 are certainly no Subjunctives: they are simply the representatives of Skr. *dadhāsi*, *dadhāti* (§ 37). Also *saddahāsi* Jā. I. 426⁸ is reproduced in the Comm. simply as *saddahasi*. But even the third *ko tam paṭibhaṇāti me* ‘who can give me answer to that?’ Jā. III. 401⁴ is very doubtful on account of the *paṭibhaṇāmi* and *-bhaṇāsi* in the parallel verses 404¹⁰·²⁰ and 404¹³, 405⁸, where the latter certainly has no Subjunctive meaning. It is wanting also in *āvahāti* Thl. 303 (cf. Sn. 181, 182, S. I. 425¹⁹, 214¹⁸·²²), for which there occurs *rakkhati* in the parallel passages, and it cannot be traced either in *hanāsi* Jā. III. 199² (Comm. = *paharasi*), V. 460¹⁹ and *hanāti* Jā. V. 461²⁴.

c7.s2.t3.14

¹ Pischel, KZ. 23, p. 424. ² It should be noticed that in this passage the Imp. *sunātha* ‘hear!’ occurs immediately before. ³ E. Müller, PGr. p.

c7.s2.t3.15

C. IMPERATIVE

c7.s2.t3.16

§ 124. The paradigm is:

c7.s2.t3.17

Sg. Act. 1. *labhāmi*
2. *labha*, *labhāhi*
3. *labhatu*

c7.s2.t3.18

Pl. *labhāma* *labhatha* *labhantu* Med. 1. *labhe* *labhāmase*
2. *labhassu* *labhavho*
3. *labhatam* *labhantam*

c7.s2.t3.19

¹⁸⁰ Also the 1. Pl. Med. of the Imperative is of Subjunctive origin. See § 125. 2.

c7.s2.t3.20

§ 125. Active. The 1. Sg. and Pl. are simply transfers from the Indicative: *vandāma* ‘let us praise!’ D. III. 197²⁴ (verse); *dhunāma* ‘let us destroy!’ Thl. 1147. Hence it is also said *kassa naṃ dema* ‘to whom should we give it?’ JāCo. II. 196²⁴, *handa karomi* M. III. 179²⁷, *handa karoma* Vin. II. 295⁵. Similarly we have in Thl. 1146 *dālemu* ‘let us smash!’ (with the ending *-mu*, cf. § 128) = Skr. *dālayāma* parallel to *dhunāma*.—In the 2. Sg. the type *labhu* corresponds to the Skr.-form of the thematic conjugation. Thus *piva* ‘drink!’ JāCo. III. 110²²= *piba*; *siñca* ‘pour out!’ Dh. 369 = *siñca*; *nipajja* ‘seat yourself!’ JāCo. II. 223² from *nipadyate*. Also *kara* ‘do!’ JāCo. IV. 1¹⁴ may be regarded as an historical form = Ved. *kara*. Verbs which were not originally thematic gradually began to form their Imperatives after the type *labha*. Thus *gaṇha* ‘seize!’ JāCo. II. 159⁵ from *gaṇhāti* = *gṛhṇāti*,—even *paṭiggaha* ‘accept!’ Jā. I. 233¹⁹; *saddaha* ‘believe!’ JāCo. IV. 52¹⁸ from *saddahati* = *śraddadhāti* etc. The second form *labhāhi* has derived its *-hi* from the forms of the athematic conjugation. Historical are the forms like *akkhāhi* ‘describe!’ Jā. III. 279⁷ = *ākhyāhi*; *brūhi* ‘speak!’ Sn. 76 = *brūhi*; *dehi* ‘give!’ JāCo. I. 223¹⁹ = *dehi*. On the analogy of these types were further formed *uggaṇhāhi* ‘learn!’ M. III. 192²² from *uggaṇhāti* = *udgṛhṇāti*; *sāvehi* ‘proclaim!’ JāCo. I. 344¹⁴; *ānchi* ‘bring here!’ JāCo. II. 254¹⁹; *vissajjehi* ‘give up!’ JāCo. I. 223²⁰; *karohi* ‘do!’ JāCo. III. 188¹⁸ etc. from long-vowel stems. Similarly, also from *a*-stems: *jivāhi* Sn. 1029; *sarāhi* ‘remember!’ Milp. 79²⁵ (beside *sara* Thl. 445); *pakkosāhi* ‘call here!’ DhCo. IV. 28⁴; *tussāhi* ‘be content!’ JāCo. I. 494²⁶ etc.—The 3. Sg. and Pl. in *-tu* and *-ntu* are frequent: *passatu* ‘he should see’ Sn. 909; *etu* ‘he should go’ D. I. 179¹⁶; *ijjhatu* ‘should succeed’ Th2. 329 (from Skr. *ṛdhyate*); *hanantu* ‘they should kill’ Jā. IV. 42²⁶; *vinassantu* ‘they should die’ JāCo. IV. 2²⁴. The 2. Pl. in *-tha*, as also in Pkr.², is a transfer from the Indicative, and is thus different from the Skr. suffix *-ta*: *āharatha* ‘bring here!’ JāCo. I. 266⁹; *anurakkhatha* ‘protect!’ Dh. 327; *vijānātha* ‘learn to distinguish!’ Sn. 720; *gaṇhatha* ‘take!’ JāCo. III. 126²⁵;

c7.s2.t3.21

¹ Similarly in Pkr. Māg. *bhaṇāhi*, AMāg. *harāhi*, *raṇāhi*, JMāh. *kaḍhehi*, etc.; Pischel, § 468.

c7.s2.t3.22

² The suffix in Pkr. is *-ha*. Cf. Māh. *ṇamaha*, AMāg. *haṇaha*, *ḍahaha* etc. Pischel. § 471.

c7.s2.t3.23

karotha ‘do!’ Th2. 13, JāCo. II. 196²⁰; voropetha ‘rob!’ D. II. 386⁴ etc.

c7.s2.t3.24

§ 126. Medium. The 1. Sg. is a transfer from the Indicative. The 2. Sg. in -ssu’ = Skr. -sva is very common. Thus in the Gāthā-language: labhassu Th2. 432=labhasva; pucchassu² ‘ask!’ Sn 189; jahassu ‘give up!’ (from jahāti) Sn. 1121 and frequently elsewhere. In bhikkhasu ‘go to beg!’ Th1. 1118 the ss has been simplified metri causa. Further in the canonical prose: bhāsassu ‘speak!’ M. II. 199⁸=bhāsasva; sikkhassu ‘learn!’ A. V.79²⁰; payirupāsassu ‘worship!’ M. II. 196²⁵; nivattassu ‘return!’ Vin.II. 182³³; pātu-bhavassu ‘appear’ Vin. II. 185¹² etc. Also in the post-canonical prose: bhāsassu Milp. 27²⁵; tikicchassu ‘cure!’ JāCo. II. 213³³; naccassu ‘dance!’ JāCo. I. 292²³. The medial meaning of the suffix does not seem to have been felt any more, for it is taken also by those roots which were never medial, as, for instance, by nart.—In the 3. Sg., suffix -tam=Skr. -tām; cf. acchatam ‘she should remain’ Jā. VI. 506⁸ (Comm. acchatu); labhatam D. II. 150¹³. In Sandhi: vaḍḍhatām-eva ‘he should indeed grow’ Jā. III.209⁹.—A true Subjunctive form is to be found in the 1.Pl. in -mase, -mhase. The suffix is probably derived from -masai, which is related to the suffix -mase discussed in §122 (at the end) as Skr. -mahai to -mahe. The two suffix-forms necessarily coincided with each other in Pāli. Forms with Subjunctive (Imperative or Futural) meaning are not rare in the Gāthā-language: labhāmase ‘we should attain’ Jā. III. 26¹⁰; ramāmase ‘we would enjoy’ Th2. 370 f.; bhaṇāmase ‘we wish to speak’ S. I. 209²⁸ (verse) (parallel to it are to be found there the optatives sikkhema, muccema); carāmase ‘we wish to do (carry out)’ and bhavāmase ‘we wish to be’ Sn. 32 etc. Similarly karomase D. II. 288¹ (verse). On vademase, mahemase etc. see § 129. The suffix-form -mhase occurs in labhamhase Pv. 3. 2. 24, 29 (governed by yathā, explained as labheyyāma in the Comm. 185¹); mā pamadamhase ‘we do not wish to neglect’ Jā. III. 131¹⁶ etc.—Examples for the 2. Pl., of which the suffix -vho in contrast to Skr. -dhvam is difficult to explain, are the following: passavho ‘look up!’ Sn. 998; bhajavho ‘seek out!’ Jā. I. 472¹⁸ (Comm. bhajatha, gacchatha); pucchavho ‘ask!’ Sn. 1030; kappayavho ‘carry out!’ Sn. 283. Also in the canonical prose: mantavho ‘take counsel!’ D. I. 122¹⁴, instead of mantayavho (as in Jā. II. 107¹⁸ beside mantavho 107¹⁹). If the reading is correct, a remarkable double-ending is to be found in *pamodathavho*¹ ‘rejoice!’ Jā. IV. 162²²⁻²⁶ in which both the active and the medial endings have been combined.—An interesting form of the 3. Pl. is presented by *visiyarum* ‘they should dissolve’ Thl. 312, from Skr. *śyā*, *śiyate*. The Comm. says: *visiyantu ito c’ ito viddhamsantu*. The suffix *-rum* is pretty certainly the descendant of Ved. *-rām*².

c7.s2.t3.25

¹ In Pkr. the corresponding suffix is -su, which Pischel § 467 however would separate from Skr. -sva and connect with -si.

c7.s2.t3.26

² In the parallel passage S. I. 215⁸ there is pucchassa in the text.

c7.s2.t3.27

¹ R. O. Franke, BB. 22. 215.

c7.s2.t3.28

² Macdonell, Vedic Grammar § 412 a, with foot-note 16.

c7.s2.t3.29

D. OPTATIVE (POTENTIAL)

c7.s2.t3.30

§ 127. Paradigm:

c7.s2.t3.31

| | Sg. | Pl. |
| Act. 1. | { *labheyyam*, *labhe* *labheyyāmi* | { *labhema*, *labhemu* *labheyyāmā* |
| 2. | { *labhe* *labheyya*, *labheyyāsi* | { *labhetha* *labheyyātha* |
| 3. | { *labhe* *labheyya*, *labheyyāti* | } *labheyyum*, *-yyu* |
| Med. 1. | (*labheyyam*) | (*labheyyamhe*) *labhemase* |
| 2. | *labhetho* | (*labheyyavho*) |
| 3. | *labhetha* | (*labheram*) |

c7.s2.t3.32

§ 128. Active. Two types of forms are in vogue side by side. The forms given first: *labheyyam*, *labhe*, *labhe*; *labhema*, *labhetha*, *labheyyum* are direct continuations of the Skr.-flexion. Only in the 2. Pl. the ending *-tha* (against Skr. *ta*) is taken from the Indicative. On the analogy of the Imperfect a 1. Sg.* *labhem* (= Pāli *labhe*) was formed to match *labhes*, *labhet*.—The forms given second: Sg. 2. *labheyya* etc., have been formed, by similar analogy, on Sg. 1. *labheyyam*, Pl. 3. *labheyyum*³. Then, further, on the analogy of the relation between *labhāmi* and *labhāma* of the Indicative, primary endings were introduced into the Sg. of the Opt., at first into the 1. Person *labheyyāmi*, and then also into the 2. and 3. Sg.,—the long ā of the 1. Sg. being extended also to the latter¹.—Considered historically, the forms should be grouped according to types in the following way: The older type is predominant in the Gāthā-language: Sg. 1. nisumbheyyam ‘I would strike down’ Th2. 302; kareyyāmi ‘I would do’ Jā. V. 308¹⁸. Also the new formations in *e* are found in the Gāthā-language: passe ‘I would see’, suṇe ‘I would hear’ (Comm. suṇeyyam), saṃvase ‘I would live together (with)’ Jā. IV. 240²⁰ (cf. 240³⁰, 241⁸⁹); ānaye ‘I could have brought’ (Comm. āneyyam) Jā. I. 308⁸; jive ‘(if) I live’ Sn. 440.—Sg. 2. yājeyya ‘(if) you offer sacrifice’ Jā. III. 515²⁴.—Sg. 3. icche ‘he should wish for’ Th1. 228, hane ‘he should kill’ Sn. 394, vaje ‘he should go’ and pamuñceyya ‘he should free himself’ Jā. II. 247¹⁰; iccheyya Sn. 148, rakkheyya ‘he should protect’ Sn. 702.—Pl. 1. sikkhema ‘we would learn’ Sn. 898, and with the ending -mu: vasemu ‘we would stay’ (Comm. vaseyyāma), jānemu ‘we would know’ Jā. III. 259¹³⁻¹⁴, viharemu ‘we would stay’ Jā. II. 33²⁵.—Pl. 2. bhuñjetha ‘you should enjoy’ Mhvs. 25. 113.—Pl. 3. saheyyum ‘they should withstand’ Sn. 20; pajaheyyu ‘they should give up’ Sn. 1058.—In the canonical and non-canonical prose on the other hand the older type of flexion (labhe etc.) has been given up. Apart from isolated forms of the athematic flexion which have been retained in the language (see below), the regular endings now are: Sg. 1. -eyyaṃ and -eyyāmi, 2. -eyyāsi, 3. -eyya and -eyyāti; Pl. 1. -eyyāma, 2. -eyyātha, 3. -eyyum. This is apparent also from the fact that in the word-explanations these forms are substituted for the older ones. Thus in JāCo. II. 205¹⁸ bhajeyya is given as explanation of bhaje and in 223¹⁹ udabbaheyya is given as explanation of udabbahe. Cf. also above. Examples are: Sg. 1. pabbajeyyaṃ Vin. II. 180¹⁵, puccheyyāmi D. I. 51³; Sg. 2. kareyyāsi Vin. II. 190¹⁹, āgaccheyyāsi JāCo. II. 212²⁶; Sg. 3. bhāseyya Vin. II. 189¹⁹, dadeyya JāCo. II. 241²⁵, jāneyyāti Vin. II. 190²²; Pl. 1. āroceyyāma Vin. II. 186²⁸, vādeyyāma JāCo. II. 254²⁵; Pl. 2. āneyyātha ‘may you bring’ S. I. 221⁷, gaccheyyātha JāCo. II. 249²⁰; Pl. 3. khādeyyum Vin. II. 197¹¹, vissajjeyyum JāCo. II. 241²⁴.

c7.s2.t3.33

³ The corresponding forms in Pkr. are evidently those of Opt. in *-ejjā*, *-ejjāmi* (Paiś. *-eyya*) etc. Differing from Jacobi, KZ. 36. 577, Pischel § 459 is inclined to derive them from the Optatives of the athematic conjugation (Skr. *duhyām*), on which hypothesis, indeed, the *ā* of the Pkr.-forms, as well as of Pāli *-eyyāsi*, would be at once explained.

c7.s2.t3.34

¹ The length of the vowel ā was then transferred also to the 2. Pl.

c7.s2.t3.35

§ 129. Medium. A form of the 2. Sg. is to be found in labhetho Sn. 833. The suffix corresponds to Skr. -thās. Not infrequently the suffix is -ctha in 3. Sg., taken also by those verbs which are otherwise inflected in the Active. Examples of this -ctha are: rakkhetha Dh. 36; labhetha Sn. 45; sevetha Sn. 72, Vin. II. 203¹⁸ (verse); jāyetha Dh.

c7.s2.t3.36

58; *nametha* Sn. 806; *saṅketha* Jā. II. 53²²; *atimaññetha* Sn. 148; *saddahetha* Jā. III. 192²⁶; *jhāyetha* Sn. 709; *kubbetha*¹ Sn. 702, 719, 917 etc.; *āsetha* in *sukhaṃ manussā āsetha* ‘men should live happily’ Jā. V. 222¹⁶ (Comm. = *āseyyuṃ*) has been used in the plural sense. Also in the post-canonical prose: *jahetha* ‘he should forsake’ JāCo. II. 205²⁰. The aspirate in the ending as against Skr. *-ta* is remarkable. It is found also in the 3. Sg. Cond. and Aor.; cf. § 157, 159. II.—A form of the 1. Pl. is to be found in *sādhayemase* ‘we would accomplish’ Jā. II. 236¹⁹, which is explained in the Comm. by *sādheyyāma*. There are also other forms in *-emase*: *vademase* ‘we would speak’ D.III. 197²²; *mahemase* ‘we would worship’ (Comm. *mahāmase*) Vv. 47. 11; *samācaremase* ‘we would wander’ (Comm. *paṭipajjāmase*) Vv. 63. 7; also *viharemasi* ‘(if) we stay’ (Comm. *vasāma*) Th2. 375. It is however not always possible to decide whether the forms in question are those of the 1. Pl. Imp. (§ 126) of the *e*-flexion or simple Optatives. Cf. also *saremhase* in § 122.

c7.s2.t3.37

¹ Also in S. I. 17³ (verse) = Jā. II. 112²¹ we have to take *kubbetha* (against Andersen, PGl. under the word *karoti*. who considers it to be a 2. Pl.) as 3. Sg. Med. in the sense ‘one should do’, as also *samāsetha* ‘one should be with’ in the same verse.

c7.s2.t3.38

E. The Verbal Classes of Sanskrit in Pāli

c7.s2.t3.39

1. Thematic Conjugation.

c7.s2.t3.40

§ 130. Examples of present-stems of Cl. I are: 1. from roots with medial *a*: *patati* ‘falls, flies’, *pacati* ‘cooks’, *vasati* ‘stays’, *vadati* ‘speaks’ (all as in Skr.), *vajati* ‘goes’ = *vrajati*, *kamati* ‘strides’ = *kramate*, but *krāmati*², *bhamati* ‘roams about’ = *bhramati*; *khamati* ‘forgives’ = *kṣamate* etc.—2. From long-vowel roots: *khādati* ‘eats’, *jīvati* ‘lives’, *nindati* ‘slanders’ (all as in Skr.), *vandati* ‘worships’ = *vandate*, *sandati* ‘flows’ = *syandate*; *dhovati* ‘washes’ (cf. § 34) Vin. I. 28²⁷; Sn. p. 101 = AMāg. *dhovai*, as against Skr. *dhāvati* etc.—3. From roots with a final *u* (on roots in *ī* cf. § 131): *savati* ‘flows’ = *sravati* etc.—4. From roots with a final *r*: *sarati* ‘goes’, *carati* ‘goes, does, etc.’ (both as in Skr.), *sarati* ‘remembers’ (*sumarati* Dh. 324 comp. *anussarati* D. I. 13¹⁵) = *smarati* etc.—5. From roots with medial *i, u, ṛ*: *lchati* ‘licks’ JāCo. II. 44²¹ as against Skr. *leḍhi* (Cl. II), *jotati* ‘lightens’ JāCo. I. 53⁴ = *dyotate*, *vassati* ‘rains’ = *varṣati*;

c7.s2.t3.41

² Also in Pkr. (Pischel, § 481) there is no protraction of the radical vowel.

c7.s2.t3.42

vattati 'becomes, originates' = vartate; ghaṃsati 'rubs' (cf. § 6. 3) = gharṣati; haṃsati 'stands on end (as hair of the body)' Vin. III. 8¹³ = harṣati; kaḍḍhati 'draws' = *kardhati, side-form of karṣati, etc.—6. The secondary verbal stems too take after the paradigm labhati in the present-flexion. On Passives, Causatives and Denominatives in ya, aya see particularly § 136. 4, 138, 139. For Desideratives (§ 184), Intensives (§ 185) and Denominatives in a (§ 188. 1.) cf. Pres. Sg. 1. jigucchāmi Vin. III. 3⁴, 3. dandhati Jā. III. 141²; Pl. 3. sussūsanti A. IV. 393¹³, Med. dicchare S. I. 18²⁷, siṃsare Vv. 64. 7. Imp. Sg. 2. tikiccha S. I. 238³⁴ and tikicchāhi Vin. I. 71³⁶, Med. sikkhassu Th2. 4; Pl. 2. vimamsatha JāCo. VI. 367²⁰. Opt. Sg. 1. vimaṃseyyaṃ M. I. 125¹⁶, 3. jiguccheyya Th2. 471 etc.

c7.s2.t3.43

§ 131. The following details should be noted regarding Class I: 1. The roots in i, ī show contracted forms¹ besides those corresponding to Skr. forms. Such contracted forms are: jemi 'I conquer', nemi 'I lead', jesi, nesi etc. In the oldest period of the language both types are found side by side. Cf. ānenti Jā. VI. 507⁴, vinayanti Th1. 3. The contracted forms get the upper hand later: ānemi JāCo. VI. 334¹⁰, ānema JāCo. VI. 334¹². The Imp. Sg. 2. is nehi JāCo. II. 160², beside vinaya Sn. 1025, vinayassu Sn. 559; Pl. 2. ānetha Mhvs. 5. 253. In Opt. we have jeyyaṃ and neyyaṃ (instead of jaycyyaṃ, nayeyyaṃ) etc. Cf. Sg. 1. apaneyyaṃ JāCo. III. 26⁶; Sg.3. vijeyya Sn. 1002, vinceyya M.I. 56⁵, beside the older form naye Dh. 256=nayet and nissayeyya Sn. 798 from root śri with ni. Like jeti also ḍeti 'flies' = ḍayati D. I. 71⁷, M. I. 268³⁴, III. 34²⁶. The root ci 'to collect' too may take this contracted form although it otherwise belongs to Cl. IX: Opt. Sg.1. abhisamceyyaṃ 'I would heap up' (Comm. -cineyyaṃ) Vv.47.6; Sg.3. niccheyya (ci with nis) Sn. 785,801. Also in DhCo. III.381¹⁴ we should probably read viniccheyya. From the root hi 'to send' we have the pres. pāheti (p. 79, foot-note 3) beside pāhiṇati (§ 147. 2). On the other hand the root ji (corresponding to Ved. jināti) may form the pres.-stem also according to Cl. IX²: Ind. Sg. 2. jināsi D. II. 348²³, Sg. 3. jināti Sn. 439; Imp. Sg. 2. jināhi Th1. 415, abhivijina M. II. 71³²; Opt. Sg 3. jine Dh. 103; Pl. 3. jineyyaṃ S. I. 221⁵.—2. Similarly there is found an uncontracted and another contracted form of the root bhū 'to be' in the Indic. Pres. and in Imp.¹ The contracted forms are (cf. § 37):

c7.s2.t3.44

¹ In Pkr. the form jedu = Pāli jetu as against jaadu = Pāli jayatu is not well attested; Pischel, § 473. With roots in i on the other hand, contraction is the usual rule (Māh. ṇei = Pāli neti); Pischel, § 474.

c7.s2.t3.45

² Similarly AMāg. jiṇāmi etc.; Pischel, § 473.

c7.s2.t3.46

| | Sg. | Pl. |
| Ind. | 1. homi | homa |
| | 2. hosi Vv. 84.20, M. III. 140² | hotha JāCo. I. 307³ |
| | 3. hoti pass. | honti pass. |
| Imp. | 2. hohi Sn. 31, M.III.134¹⁴, | hotha Dh. 243, |
| | JāCo.I.32³⁰; hehi Bu.2.10 | D. II. 141²⁰, JāCo. II. 302⁶ |
| | 3. hotu Sn. 224, JāCo. III.150²⁵ | hontu Sn. 145, JāCo. II. 4¹³ |

c7.s2.t3.47

Beside these there are the archaic forms *bhavāmi* etc., Imp. Sg. 2. *bhava* Th2 8, Sn. 701 and *bhavāhi* Sn. 510; Pl. 1. Med. *bhavāmase* Th1. 1128, Sn. 32; 2. *bhavatha* JāCo. II. 218⁸ and *bhavātha* Sn. 692, Dh. 144ᵇ (cf. § 123); 3. *bhavantu* Sn. 145. Moreover Opt. Sg. 1. *bhaveyyaṃ* JāCo. VI. 364¹⁶; 2. *bhaveyyāsi* Ud. 91³³, PvCo. 11²³; 3. *bhave* Sn. 716 and *bhaveyya* JāCo. II. 159²²; Pl. 2. *bhavetha* Sn. 1073; 3. *bhaveyyaṃ* Sn. 906. A dialectical side-form is to be found in Sg. 3. *hupeyya* (§ 39. 6) which is clearly = Paiś. *huveyya*.² As for compounds, we have Ind. Sg. 1. *anubhomi* Vv. 15. 10; 2. *anubhosi* Vv. 40 3; 3. *vibhoti* Sn. 873, *saṃbhoti* Sn. 743 (cf. D. II. 232¹⁹⁻²¹), *anubhoti* JāCo. II. 202¹¹, 252¹ and *saṃbhavati* Milp. 210⁴, *anubhavati* JāCo. II. 202¹⁴; Pl. 1. *abhisambhoma* ‘we attain’ Jā. III. 140²⁴; 3. *anubhonti* Th2. 217. Sometimes certain compounds of *bhū* form the present-stem after Cl. IX³: *saṃbhuṇāti* ‘attains’ Vin. I. 256⁸, *abhisambhuṇāti* VinCo. Rangoon ed. I. 2² etc. Cf. also § 190, 191.

c7.s2.t3.48

³ Kern, Revue Celtique 22. 337 ff. and Festschrift Thomsen 70 ff.

c7.s2.t3.49

§ 132. Of reduplicating roots of Cl. I., *pivati* ‘drinks’ (cf. *pivāmi* M. I. 77³⁷, *pivasi* JāCo. II. 417⁷; *piva* JāCo. III. 110²², *pivatha* JāCo. II. 128²; *piveyya* D. I. 123²³) and *pipati* (in Gen.-Dat. Pl. Part. Pres. *pipataṃ* Sn. 398) correspond to Skr. *pibati* (root *pā*); *sidati* (cf. *nisīda* ‘sit down!’ Th¹. 411, *nisīdatha* Th2. 13) is = *sidati* (root *sad*). The root *ghrā* ‘to smell’ assumes in Pāli the form *ghāyati* D. II. 338²⁰ as against Skr. *jighrati*.—The present-stems of *sthā* ‘to stand’ are multifarious. We have 1. the stem *tiṭṭha*-⁴ = Skr. *tiṣṭha*-. Thus Ind. Sg. 1. tiṭṭhāmi, 2. tiṭṭhasi, 3. tiṭṭhati; Pl. 1. tiṭṭhāma, 2. tiṭṭhatha, 3. tiṭṭhanti. Imp. Sg. 2. tiṭṭha Mhvs. 7. 13 and tiṭṭhāhi Thl. 461, DhCo. III. 194¹⁷, 3. tiṭṭhatu D. I. 94⁴. Opt. Sg. 2. tiṭṭheyyāsi M. III. 129⁷, 3. tiṭṭhe Sn. 918 and tiṭṭheyya Sn. 929, Milp. 28¹⁰ etc. Also in compounds, as Ind. Sg. 1. samtiṭṭhāmi A. IV. 302¹⁷, Opt. Sg 3. uttiṭṭhe Dh. 168 etc.—2. Stem ṭhā- (according to Cl. II) formed on analogy of roots like yā (Pāli yāti): Ind. Sg. 3. uṭṭhāti Dpvs. 1. 53, samṭhāti Pu. 31²⁴, A. I. 197³⁴, adhiṭṭhāti A. II. 45¹⁰; Imp. Sg. 2. uṭṭhāhi Thl. 411, S. I. 233³², 3. uṭṭhātu Jā. III. 297¹⁵.—3. Stem ṭhāya- (Cl. IV) formed after roots like dhyā (Pāli jhāyati): Ind. Sg.1. ṭhāyāmi Thl. 888.—4. Stem ṭhaha-, formed after the stem daha of root dhā: Ind. Pl. 1. upaṭṭhahāma Jā.III. 120²⁶, 3. vuṭṭhahanti Mhvs. 5. 124; Imp. Sg. 2. adhiṭṭhaha Vin. I. 183², vuṭṭhaha Vin. I. 128²³ and upaṭṭhahassu S. I. 167¹² (verse); Pl. 2. uṭṭhahatha Sn. 331; Opt. Sg. 3. samuṭṭhahe Jā. III. 156¹² and samṭhahcyya S. V. 329⁹, adhiṭṭhaheyya Vin. I. 125²¹; Pl. 2. uṭṭhaheyyātha S. I. 217¹⁸.—5. Stem ṭhe- in Ind. (and Imp.) Pl. 1. adhiṭṭhema Vin. IV. 23²⁴; Imp. Sg. 2. uṭṭhehi, (on analogy of dehi from dā) S. I. 198⁷ (verse), Ud. 52¹⁹, Vin. I. 6³, JāCo. I. 151²³; Pl. 2. uṭṭhetha Jā. VI. 444¹.

c7.s2.t3.50

¹ For Pkr. cf. Pischel, § 475.

c7.s2.t3.51

² The form *huveyya* presupposes a pres. *huva* (Māh. *huvanti*). For Pāli *heyya* (Minayeff, PGr. p. 77) I cannot find attestation. The corresponding form in Pkr. would be *hojjā*.

c7.s2.t3.52

⁴ In Pkr. the corresponding stem is *ciṭṭha*- in Māh., AMāg., JMāh. There are besides the stems *ṭha*-, *ṭhaya*- and *ṭhe*-; see Pischel, § 483.

c7.s2.t3.53

§ 133. 1. The form corresponding to Skr. Pres. gacchati from root gam is gacchati also in Pāli. Cf. Ind. Sg. 1. gacchāmi Milp. 26³², 2. gacchasi etc.; Imp. Sg. 2. gaccha Jā. II. 160¹², gacchāhi S. I. 217⁴ (verse) and gacchassu Thl. 82, Pl. 2. gacchatha Vin. II. 191³⁵, JāCo. I. 222¹⁹; Opt. Sg. 1. -gaccheyyaṃ D. II. 340⁹; 3. -gacche Thl. 11 and gaccheyya Sn. p.14, Pl.3. gaccheyyaṃ Milp. 47²⁴ etc. On the other hand the present-stem of yam ‘to restrain’ is however yama-(Ind. Pl.1. Med. saṃyamāmase S. I. 209³⁷), not yaccha- as in Skr.—2. To Skr. daśati (from root daṃś-) corresponds ḍasati (§ 42. 3) in Pāli.—3. Of the roots with a medial u, ruh ‘to mount’ in compounds may both retain it unchanged¹ or lengthen it. Thus ārūhati ‘climbs up’ besides ārohati, virūhati ‘sprouts, grows’ JāCo. III. 12²¹; orūhati ‘climbs down’ besides orohati. It thus takes after Cl. VI, or is treated like the root guh, gūhati ‘to conceal’: nigūhati JāCo. I. 286²⁵, III, 392¹⁴; Imp. Sg. 2. Med. upagūhassu JāCo. III. 437²⁸.

c7.s2.t3.54

¹ Similarly in Pkr.; Pischel, § 482.

c7.s2.t3.55

§ 134. Present-stems after Cl. VI are: kasati ‘ploughs’ = kṛṣati (besides kassati after Cl.I = karṣati: cf. Imp. Pl.2. apakassatha Sn. 281); khipati ‘hurls’ = kṣipati; tudati ‘goads’ Jā. I. 500¹⁸ = tudati; disati ‘directs’ = diśati; nudati ‘presses’ Sn. 480, 928, Dh. 388 = nudati;

c7.s2.t3.56

pucchati ‘asks’ = prcchati; phusati ‘touches’ = sprśati (Ind. Sg. 1. phusāmi Dh. 272, Imp. Sg. 2. phusāhi Th1. 212, Opt. Pl. 3. phuseyyu Dh. 133; on the other hand Opt. Sg.³. phasse¹ Sn. 967 after Cl. I, and Imp. Sg. 2. phuschi Th2. 6 according to e-flexion); rudati ‘laments’ = Ved. rudati; vidati ‘knows’ = vidati; -visati ‘goes’ = viśati etc. Also the verbs kirati ‘scatters’ (Ind. Sg. 3. Med. ākirate Dh. 313, Sg. 2. ākirasi Sn. 665; Opt. Pl. 3. parikireyyuṃ Th1. 1210) = Skr. kirati (root kṛ according to Indian grammarians) and girati (JāCo. I. 150¹⁰), gilati ‘devours’ (Imp. Sg. 2. gila Jā. I. 380¹⁰ and gilāhi JāCo. I. 380¹⁴, Opt. Sg. 3. gileyya JāCo. I. 508¹⁷) = girati (root gṛ according to Indian grammarians).—Also from the root svap ‘to sleep’ (Skr. svapiti) the pres.-stem supati² is formed similarly after Cl. VI: Ind. Sg. 3. supati Sn. 110, JāCo. III. 101¹⁵; Imp. Sg. 2. supa Vin. III. 110¹⁵ and supāhi Th2. 1 etc. Cf. below § 136. 2.

c7.s2.t3.57

¹ Like Pkr. saṃphāsai in Hem. 4. 182. Cf. Pischel, PkrGr. § 486.

c7.s2.t3.58

² In agreement with Pkr.; Pischel, § 497.

c7.s2.t3.59

§ 135. 1. Corresponding to Skr. icchati from root iṣ ‘to wish’, we have icchati also in Pāli: Ind. Sg. 1. icchāmi Th1. 186, D. I. 193⁵, JāCo. I. 292²², Med. icche Th2. 332, DhCo. III. 199⁴ (verse): Opt. Sg. 1. iccheyyāmi Ud. 17³³, 2. iccheyyāsi Ud. 17³², Pl. 2. iccheyyātha M. II. 79⁸ etc.—2. Here I include also Pāliacchati ‘sits, remains’, which I consider to be an old inchoative formation related to root ās in the same way as icchati to iṣ³. Forms: Ind. Sg. 2. acchasi Vv. 11. 2, 12. 1, 3. acchati D. I. 101²³, Pl. 3. acchanti Vin. III. 195⁸, Th2Co. 60³⁰ and Med. acchare Th2. 54, samacchare Jā. II. 67¹⁹; Imp. Sg. 2. acchassu Jā. VI. 516¹⁸, 3. acchatu Jā. VI. 506¹³ and Med. acchatam Jā. VI. 506⁸.—3. Roots which show nasal stems in present in Skr.⁴ do the same also in Pāli. Thus muñcati ‘liberates’, limpati ‘besmears’, lumpati ‘robs’, vindati ‘finds’ (nibbindati ‘feels disgust’), siñcati ‘pours out’ (the same forms also in Skr.), kantati ‘cuts’ = kṛntati. Cf. sumbhati, sumhati ‘strikes’ (§ 60); Opt. Sg. 1. nisumbheyyam Th2. 302.

c7.s2.t3.60

³ Pischel, PkrGr. § 480 derives the verb and the forms corresponding to it in Pkr. from ṛcchati This is, however, impossible on account of the meaning. See ibid. the various attempts to explain the forms by Ascoli, Childers, E. Müller, Trenckner, Torp, E. Kuhn, Johansson. Cf. also Johansson. IF. 3. 205-212.

c7.s2.t3.61

§ 136. Present-stems after Cl. IV. 1. Example of root ending in vowel: allīyati ‘attaches’ JāCo. 1. 433⁴, 502⁸, III. 65²² (o-līyati Iv.

c7.s2.t3.62

⁴ Unnasalised forms, which are normal in Pkr. Māh., JMāh., AMāg. (Pischel, § 485), are unknown in Pāli.

c7.s2.t3.63

43¹⁴, niliyati JāCo. I. 292¹⁸)=ā-liyate, root li. In the case of roots ending in consonant the y is assimilated to the preceding consonant. Thus ijjhati ‘flourishes’=ṛdhyati; kujjhati ‘is angry’=krudhyati; kuppati ‘is angry’=kupyati; gijjhati ‘is eager’ = gṛdhyati; naccati ‘dances’ = nṛlyati; nassati ‘is destroyed’ =naśyati; samnayhati ‘guards up, prepares’=samnahyati; āpajjati ‘gets involved in something’ and many other compounds of the root pad=āpadyate; bujjhati ‘wakes up, perceives’=budhyate; maññati ‘thinks’=manyate; yujjhati ‘fights’=yudhyate; sussati ‘dries up’= śuṣyati etc. Also siniyhati (§ 49.1) DhsCo. 192³¹=snihyati. There are found moreover, in agreement with Skr.: majjati ‘rejoices’ Jā. II. 97¹⁵, A. IV. 294⁶ (Opt. Sg. 3. majjeyya Jā. III. 87²⁵)=mādyati (root mad); sammati ‘rests’=śāmyati (root śam). Also bhassati ‘falls down’ Jā. VI. 530¹¹=bhraśyati (root bhraṃś); rajjati ‘takes delight in something’ S. IV 74²¹ (verse), DhCo. III. 233³⁴=rajyati (root rañj); vijjhati ‘bores through’=vidhyati (root vyadh). To the Skr. pres.-stem krāmya- from root kram (not attested) corresponds kamma- in Imp. Sg. 2. paṭikamma ‘go back!’ S. I. 226²⁸ (verse), and to Skr. medya- from root mid ‘to feel oneself drawn towards something’ corresponds the stem mejja- DhsCo. 192³¹ (var. lec. mijja-).—2. Though not in Skr.¹, a pres.-stem lagga- after Cl. IV is derived in Pāli from the root lag ‘to hang’ (Imp. Sg. 3. laggatu DhCo. I. 131¹²). Similarly from root ruc ‘to be liked’ ruccati¹ Vv. 63. 8, DhCo. I. 13²³ against rocate. In the same way Pāli has besides supati (§ 134) from root svap ‘to sleep’ also suppati, soppati (§ 10) S. I. 107¹⁹ (verse).—3. To the Skr. Pres. paśyati from root darś corresponds Pāli passati. Cf. Ind. Sg. 1. passāmi Sn. 776, Vin. I. 126³, 2. passasi etc. Imp. Sg. 2. passa Sn. 435, JāCo. II. 159²⁵, 3. passatu Sn. 909, Pl. 2. passatha Sn. 176, JāCo. III. 126²⁰, Med. passavho Sn. 998; Opt. Sg. 1. passe Jā. IV. 240²⁹ and passeyyaṃ JāCo. I. 356²⁹, 2. passeyyāsi M. III. 131¹, JāCo. I. 137²⁹, 3. passe Dh. 76 and passeyya JāCo. III. 55²² etc. Beside it a new pres.-stem dakkha- has arisen in the language. It is abstracted out of the future-stem (drakṣyati, § 152). Cf. Opt. Pl. 1. dakkhema or .mu DhCo. III. 217¹⁹, 218⁷ (verse).—4. The Passives (§ 175 f.) and the ya-Denominatives (§ 188. 2, 3) have formally coincided with the presents of Cl. IV. Cf. Ind. Sg. 1. ñāyāmi ‘I am mentioned’ Milp. 25⁸, vediyāmi ‘I feel’ Vin. III. 37²⁵, namassāmi ‘I worship’ Sn. 1058, aṭṭiyāmi ‘I suffer’ D. I. 213²²; 2. vediyasi M. II. 70¹⁴, 3. sūyati suyyati ‘is heard’ Jā. IV. 141²⁰, JāCo. I. 72¹, khīyati ‘weakens’ Th1. 145; Pl. 1. jiyyāma ‘we lose’ Jā. II. 75²², posiyāmasc ‘we are nourished’ Jā. III. 289⁷; 3. sūyanti M. I. 30¹⁹, sūyare Jā. VI. 528³⁰, vuccanti ‘are mentioned’ D. I. 245¹⁶. Imp. Sg. 2. samādiya ‘take up!’ Bu. II. 118, samādiyāhi Th2. 249; Med. samādiyassu Vv. 83. 16, muccassu ‘be free!’ Th2. 2; 3. bhijjatū ‘should be destroyed’ Th1. 312; Pl. 2. namassatha Mhvs. 1. 69. Opt. Sg. 1. vediyeyyam M. II. 70¹³; 3. upādiye ‘he should cling’ Sn. 400, muccyya D. I. 72⁸, namasseyya Dh. 392, hāyetha ‘may decrease!’ D. I. 118³, niyclha, niyyetha ‘may be guided!’ Sn. 327, 931; Pl. 3. palujjeyyum ‘may they be destroyed’ M. I. 488²⁹, hāyeyyum D. I. 118³.

c7.s2.t3.64

¹ As also in Pkr.; Pischel, § 488.

c7.s2.t3.65

§ 137. The root jur (jṛ) ‘to grow old’, Skr. jiryati, gives in Pāli (besides jiriyati M. I. 188⁷ with Svarabhakti) the forms jirati Jā. III. 38⁸ (Ind. Pl. 3. jīranti Dh. 151, Imp. Sg. 3. jīratu Mhvs. 22. 76) and jiyati (Ind. Pl. 3. jīyanti M. III. 168⁹, Med. jīyare Jā. VI. 528⁵, Opt. Sg. 3. Med. jīyetha D. II. 63²⁷) and jīyyati M. III. 246²⁰ (parijīyyati Th1. 1215). Cf. § 52. 5. From the root śar (śṛ) ‘to wither’, Skr. śīryati, -te, we have Ind. Sg. 2. seyyasi (instead of *siyyasi, § 10) Jā. I. 171⁹, in Comm. = visiṇṇaphalo hoti. Similarly from root mar ‘to die’, Skr. mriyate, we have in Pāli miyati (Ind Pl. 3. mīyanti Dh. 21, M. III. 169⁹, Opt. Sg. 3. Med. mīyetha D. II. 63²⁷) and mīyyati¹ Sn. 804 (Ind. Pl. 3. mīyyare Sn. 575, Opt. Sg. 1. mīyye in mīyyāham Jā. VI. 498²⁰). Moreover marati (as in Vedic) in Ind. Pl. 3. maranti Mhvs. spurious verse after 5. 27, Opt. Sg. 1. mareyyam JāCo. VI. 498³⁰, 2. mareyyāsi JāCo. III. 276²².

c7.s2.t3.66

§ 138. To Skr. jāyate from root jan ‘to be born’ there corresponds in Pāli jāyati; to Skr. ā-hvayati from root hvā ‘to call’ the Pāli forms avhayati and avheti (§ 49. 1.): Ind. Pl. 1. avhayāma D. I. 244²⁵, 3. avhayanti Jā. VI. 529¹; Opt. Sg. 3. avhcyya D. I. 244¹⁶. Various roots in ā form their present-stems in the same way as jāyati, partly in agreement with Skr. (the roots in ai of the Indian grammarians), and partly deviating from it². Thus vāyati ‘blows’ besides vāti, Skr. vāti (Ind Pl. 3. vāyanti Jā. VI. 530¹², Vin. I. 48³³, D. II. 107²⁵; also nibbāyati ‘is extinguished’ JāCo. 1. 61³, Opt. Sg. 3. nibbāyeyya M. I. 487²³ besides parinibbanti Dh. 126, parinibbātu D. II. 105⁵). Similarly yāyati ‘goes’ besides yāti, Skr. yāti (Ind. Pl. 3. yāyanti Vin. I. 191¹⁸, Opt. Sg. 3. yāyeyya Vin. 191²²); gāyati ‘sings’ = gāyati; milāyati ‘withers’ S. I. 126²¹³ = mlāyati; jhāyati ‘meditates’ = dhyāyati; jhāyati ‘burns’ (§ 56. 2.) = kṣāyati (vijjhāyati ‘is extinguished’ Vin. I. 31²⁹); nahāyati ‘bathes’ = snāyati besides snāti; khāyati ‘becomes clear’ (Ind. Pl. 8. pakkhāyanti D. II. 99²³ besides pakkhanti Th1. 1034) = khyāyate; tāyati ‘protects’ DCo. 18¹ (Imp. Sg. 2. Med. tāyassu DhCo. 1. 218⁴ (verse)) = trāyate besides trāti; antaradhāyati ‘disappears’ D. II. 109¹⁹, A. IV. 307²⁷ = antardhāyate. In the same way is formed also bhāyati ‘fears’¹; Ind. Sg. 1. bhāyāmi Th1. 21, Sn. p. 47, 2. bhāyasi Th2. 248, Sn. p. 47; Pl. 1. bhāyāma JāCo. II. 21²², 3. bhāyanti Dh. 129; Imp. Pl. 2. bhāyatha Ud. 51⁹, JāCo. III. 4⁴; Opt. Sg. 3. bhāye Sn. 964 and bhāyeyya Milp. 208²⁶, Pl. 3. bhāyeyyum Milp. 208²⁰. Palāyati ‘flees’ = palāyate is inflected in the same way: Imp. Sg. 2. palāyassu DhCo. III. 334⁹, Pl. 2. palāyatha Mhvs. 7. 66, 3. palāyantu JāCo. II. 90¹⁷. Denominatives of the type cirāyati, dhūpāyati (also sajjhāyati) along with forms like gahāyati, phusāyati, sumkasāyati are to be grouped herewith so far as the form is concerned. Cf. § 186.

c7.s2.t3.67

¹ AMāg. mijjai, mijjanti might be the corresponding forms in Pkr.; Pischel, § 477.

c7.s2.t3.68

² On ghāyati and thāyati see § 132. The deviating forms get the upper hand in Pkr. according to Pischel, § 487.

c7.s2.t3.69

§ 139. The formans aya is contracted into e also in the present-stems of Cl. X.—1. To this group belong verbs like cinteti ‘thinks’ Sn. 717, JāCo. I. 221³⁰ = cintayati, pūjeti ‘worships’ = pūjayati, particularly however denominatives like katheti ‘relates’ = kathayati, gaṇeti ‘counts’ = gaṇayati, pattheti ‘begs’ = prārthayati and the whole category of causatives. Similarly also bhemi ‘I fear’ S. I. 111² (verse) besides bhāyāmi and paleti ‘flees’ Dh. 49, Sn. 1074 besides palāyati (see p. 74, f.-n. 4 and § 138). In the Gāthā-language both uncontracted and contracted forms are found side by side. In Sn., for instance, they almost hold the balance if the prose portions are left out of consideration. But already in the canonical prose contraction is the rule. But occasionally even later there are found forms like lappayati Milp. 227⁹⁻¹², pihayāmi, patthayāmi Th2Co. 239³⁰, mantayatha JāCo. II. 107²². The flexion will be clear from the following examples:

c7.s2.t3.70

Older type:

c7.s2.t3.71

Ind. Sg. 1. sāvayāmi Sn. 385; āmanlayāmi D. II. 156¹; Med. patthaye Th2. 341 (patthe Th2. 32).

c7.s2.t3.72

¹ Cf. in Pkr. Māg., Ś. bhāāmi etc., in Pischel, § 501.

c7.s2.t3.73

2. patthayasi Sn. 18; maggayasi Th2. 384.

c7.s2.t3.74

3. patthayati Sn. 114; Med. kārayate Jā. VI. 360¹⁰.

c7.s2.t3.75

Pl. 1. ṭhapayāma D. I. 120³³, Med. ujjhāpayāmasc S. I. 209¹⁴ (verse).

c7.s2.t3.76

2. *bhamayatha* Sn. 680.
3. *dassayanti* Dh. 83; *vādayanti* Sn. 682; *ramayanti* Th1. 13. Imp. Sg.2. *sāvaya* Jā. III. 437¹³; *nīyādayāhi* Th2. 323; Med. *parivajjayassu* Vv. 53. 15. Pl. 2. Med. *kappayavho* Sn. 283. Pl. 3. *pālayantu* Jā. II. 34¹³. Opt. Sg. 1. *papothaycyyaṃ* Jā. III. 175²².
3. *pūjaye* Dh. 106 f.; *kāraye* Milp. 211⁹ (verse); *phassaye* Sn. 54; *kathayeyya* Sn. 930. Pl. 1. Med. *sādhayemase* Jā. II. 236¹⁹.

c7.s2.t3.77

Later Type:

c7.s2.t3.78

Ind. Sg. 1. *kathemi* PvCo. 11¹²; *vattemi* Sn. 554.
2. *kathesi* JāCo. I. 291²⁹.
3. *katheti* JāCo. I. 292¹²; *dasseti* JāCo. III. 82⁷ *vaḍḍheti* Sn. 275. Pl. 1. *pavedema* M. II. 200⁹; *nisāmemā* Vin. I. 103²².
2. *sobhetha* DhCo. I. 56¹¹.
3. *gaṃenti* Sn. 390; *paññāpenti* D. I. 13⁷; *pūjenti* D. I. 91⁴; *kathenti* JāCo. II. 133²⁶. Imp. Sg. 2. *kārehi* Jā. III. 394⁷, *kathehi* JāCo. III. 279²²; *palehi* Sn. 831.
3. *desetu* M. II. 207⁹; *dhāretu* Sn. p. 25. Pl. 2. *bhāvetha* Th1. 980, *pulethe* Vv. 84. 36.
3. *āgaṃentu* Sn. p. 103; *pālentu* Jā. II. 34²⁵. Opt. Sg. 1. *manteyyaṃ* Sn. p. 103.
2. *āroceyyāsi* M. II. 210¹⁷; *dhāreyyāsi* Milp. 47²⁵
3. *jāleyya* M. II. 203²⁰; *dasseyya* Milp. 47⁴. Pl. 1. *saṃvejeyyāma* S. I. 146³⁵; *sādheyyāma* JāCo. II. 236²⁵.
2. *katheyyātha* Ud. 11¹⁸; *pāteyyātha* DhCo. III.201⁸.
3. *vāceyyaṃ* D. I. 97¹⁴; *tāseyyaṃ* Milp. 209⁶.

c7.s2.t3.79

2. The *e*-flexion has however extended its sphere on all sides, and verbs which originally did not belong to Cl. X were transferred to it. Thus from root *vad* ‘to speak’ we have not only *vadati* but also *vadeti* (the Causative is *vādeti*) Sn. 825, D. I. 36³⁰, Vin. II. 1¹¹, JāCo. I. 294²¹; *bhajehi* ‘worship!’ occurs in Jā. III. 148¹¹⁻¹³ for the usual *bhaja*, *bhajāhi* (Comm. *bhajeyyāsi*); to Skr. *upahadati* corresponds Pāli *ūhadeti* ‘defiles with dung’; *maññesi* Pret. Sg. 2. ‘you thought’ presupposes maññeti besides maññati; gaheti, without any Causative sense (the Causative is gāheti), is the oft-used side-form of gaṇhāti ‘seizes’. Instead of the usual akkhāhi (§ 140.2) there also occurs akkhehi in Jā. VI. 318²⁰ etc.

c7.s2.t3.80

2. Athematic Conjugation.

c7.s2.t3.81

§ 140. 1. An isolated form of athem. flexion after Cl. II. is to be found in hanti¹ ‘strikes’ Sn. 118, 125, Dh. 72, 355, S. I. 154³ (verse); also Milp. 214⁷, besides thematic hanati Jā. I. 432¹³, Milp. 220⁴, 2. Pl. hanatha JāCo. I. 263³, Opt. Sg. 3. haneyya Sn. 705 etc. Similarly veti ‘knows’ Th1. 497=vetti. In other cases however the thematic flexion has taken the place of athematic in Pāli: āsati ‘sits’ (Dh. 61; Opt. Pl. 1. -āseyyāma JāCo. I. 509¹) as against Skr. āste (Ved. also āsate), ghasati ‘eats’, lehati ‘licks’, rodati ‘cries’, ravati ‘roars’, abhi-tthavati ‘praises’ S. I. 190⁶ against stauti (but Ved. also stávate) etc.—2. More numerous are the athematic forms of roots in ā, which are otherwise transferred to the flexion of Cl. IV. Individual examples have been given in § 138. Cf. Ind. Sg. 2. yāsi ‘you go’ JāCo. I. 291¹⁵, 3. yāti Sn. 720, Dh. 29, Pl. 1. āyāma D. II. 81¹⁴, 3. āyanti Th2. 237; Imp. Sg. 2. yāhi Mhvs. 13. 15, Pl. 2. yātha Mhvs. 14. 29 from root yā. Similarly Ind. Sg. 2. vāsi Jā. II. 11²¹, Pl. 3. pavanti Th2. 371 from root vā ‘to blow’; Ind. Sg.1. akkhāmi Sn. 172, Imp.Sg.2. akkhāhi Th1. 168 from root khyā with prefix ā- ‘to proclaim’; Imp. Sg. 2. sināhi ‘bathe!’ M. I. 39²¹ (verse), or nahāhi JāCo. VI. 32¹⁰ (besides nhāya Vin. III. 110¹⁵); Ind. Pl 3. abhanti ‘they light up’ Vv. 6. 10, paṭibhanti ‘they become clear’ JāCo. II. 100¹⁹ from root bhā etc.—3. The root i ‘to go’, after generalising the strong stem, has given rise to the forms emi, esi, eti; ema, etha, enti², both as simplex and also in numerous compounds. On the basis of such historical forms as eti (sameti etc.) the pres.-flexion has been completely adapted to that of verbs like nī, ji (§ 131), or to that of e-stems (according to § 139) as the case may be. Examples are numerous: Ind. Sg. 1. paccemi D. I. 186¹, 2. paccesi D. I. 185³³, 3. pacceti Dh. 125, Pl. 1. paccema Milp. 313⁶, 3. accenti Th1. 231; Imp. Sg. 2. ehi Th1. 175, JāCo. II. 159¹⁵, 3. etu D. I. 179¹⁶, Pl. 2. etha D. II. 98²⁶, apetha DhCo. III. 201¹³; Opt.

c7.s2.t3.82

¹ The form Imp. Sg. 3. sumūhantu D. II. 154¹⁷ is not quite certain. Buddhaghosa (DCo. ed. Rangoon, II. 165³⁰) reads -hanatu. So also in the quotation in Milp. 142¹⁶.

c7.s2.t3.83

² The Pl. 3. is enti also in Pkr. Māh., AMāg.; Pischel, § 493. It is doubtful if inti in Jinālaṅkāra is right.

c7.s2.t3.84

Sg. 2. *upeyyāsi* Jā. IV. 241²⁴, 3. *pacceyya*¹ Nett. 93¹⁴, *upeyya* M. III. 173³³. The analogy of *e*-stems then also gave rise to forms like Ind. Pl. 3. *accayanti* Thl. 145, S. I. 109¹ (verse), Opt. Sg. 3. *accayeyya* Sn. 781.—4. The flexion of the root *śi* should be judged precisely in this light. Forms such as Ind. Sg. 2. *sesi* Jā. III. 34¹², S. I. 110²² (verse) and Sg. 3. *seti* Dh. 79, Jā. I. 141²⁵ may be direct continuations of Skr. *śeṣe, śete*. After them was formed (as *nenti* to *neti*) the 3. Pl. *senti* Sn. 668 (against Skr. *śerate*). And just as there are forms like *nayāmi* etc. besides *nemi*, *kathayāmi* etc. besides *kathemi*, so we have also forms like *sayāmi* Thl. 888, S. I. 110²⁶ (verse), *sayati* Vin. I. 57³⁰, Jā. II. 53¹⁶ (cf. Ved. *śayate*); Imp. Sg. 2. *saya* JāCo. III. 23²¹; Opt. Sg. 3. *saye* Iv. 120¹⁰ (verse), Med. *sayetha* Thl. 501.

c7.s2.t3.85

¹ Also of the simplex the Opt. Sg. 3. is *eyya*. Cf. M. III. 159²⁸, where the proper division of words would be *matam-eyya* ‘he goes unto death, dies.’

c7.s2.t3.86

§ 141. 1. The present-flexion of *as* ‘to be’ is as follows:—

c7.s2.t3.87

| | Sg. | Pl. |
| Ind. 1. | { *asmi* *amhi* | { *asmă* (*asmase* Sn. 595), *amhă* (*amhăse* Jā. III. 309²⁷, D. II. 275¹¹ (verse) ) |
| 2. | *asi* | *attha* |
| 3. | *atthi* | *santi* (*sante* Sn. 868) |
| Imp. 3. | *atthu* | |
| Opt. 1. | *siyam, assam* | *assāma* M. III. 250¹⁵ |
| 2. | *assa* | *assatha* D. I 3⁵ |
| 3. | *siyā, assa* | *siyum, assu* |

c7.s2.t3.88

The Medial forms in Ind., occurring only in the Gāthā-language, are innovations on the analogy of *labhāma*: *labhāmase, labhanti*: *labhante*. In Opt. the forms *siyam, siyā, siyum* correspond to Skr. *syām, syāt, syus*; the form *siyamsu* M. II. 239⁴ in Pl. 3. is remarkable. It is a new formation in the place of *siyum*, just as in Aor. there is *addasamsu* besides *addasum*. The forms *assam* etc. are derived from the strong stem like Greek *eīen*. They occur already in the Gāthā-language. In the post-canonical prose the forms of *atthi* are used mostly in periphrastic perfect. But they were more and more replaced by forms of *bhavati-hoti*. Quite frequently *atthi* is used, also with a plural subject, as a petrified form in the indefinite sense of ‘there is’. Cf., e. g., DhCo. I. 41²⁵, JāCo. III. 126¹⁹ etc.—2.

c7.s2.t3.89

In the pres.-forms of the root brū the stem of the 1. Pl. Skr. brūmas was generalised¹. We have Sg. 1. brūmi Sn. 458, Dh. 385, Th1. 214, pabrūmi Sn. 870, 2. brūsi Sn. 457, Jā. II. 48²³, Th2. 58, S. I. 8¹⁰⁻¹¹, 3. brūti Sn. 122, pabrūti Sn. 131, Pl. 3. pabrūnti Sn. 649; Imp. Sg. 2. brūhi Sn. 76, pabrūhi Sn. 599. Quite remarkable is the Imp. Sg. 3. brūmetu D. I. 95¹⁹; but the form is not above all doubts. This verb may be regarded as an archaism when it occurs still in the post-canonical prose (e. g., Milp. 327³). That is why brūmi is explained as kathemi in PvCo. 11¹².

c7.s2.t3.90

§ 142. Present-stems after Cl. III. 1. A stem jaha- (besides jahā-) has been abstracted out of jahāmi from root hā- 'to leave', and it is the basis of the forms of the present: Ind. Pl. 3. jahanti Dh. 91; Imp. Sg. 2. jaha Th1. 83 (also jahi Th2. 508) and Med. jahassu Sn. 1121, Th1. 1219, Pl. 2. pajahatha S. IV. 8¹⁰; Opt. Sg. 1. jaheyyam JāCo. I. 153¹, 2. pajaheyyāsi S. IV. 350²³; 3. Med. jahetha (§ 129) etc. The stem jahā- in Sg. 3. jahāti Sn. 1. ff., 506, 589, pajahāti Sn. 789.—2. The stem daha- stands in the same relation to the root dhā 'to set' (cf. particularly also saddahati 'believes' = śraddadhāti). The forms dahāsi, dahāti (§ 123) are older. From the stem daha- we have Ind. Sg. 1. samadahāmi M. I. 116¹⁵, 2. saddahasi S. IV. 298¹², JāCo. I. 426¹⁹, 3. samdahati Milp. 40²⁹, Pl. 1. saddahāma D. II. 328¹, 2. saddahatha JāCo. I. 222⁶, 3. dahanti Sn. 882, D. I. 92¹⁵; Imp. Sg. 2. saddaha JāCo. IV. 52¹⁸, Med. odahassu Sn. 461, Pl. 2. pidahatha Thūpavs. 76³²; Opt. Sg. 2. nidaheyyāsi Jā. VI. 494¹⁷, 3. vidahe Sn. 927 and padaheyya M. II. 174¹¹, Med. saddahetha Jā. III. 192²⁶, Pl. 1. saddaheyyāma Milp. 330², 3. saddaheyyum S. II. 255²⁶. etc. The root dhā, however, also takes the e-flexion, particularly in the Gāthā-language²: Ind. Sg. 1. samadhemi Th2. 50, 114, Pl. 3. odhenti Th1. 1283 = S. I. 190²⁹; Imp. Sg. 2. paṇidhehi Th2. 197, S. IV. 302²⁵; Opt. Sg. 3. saddheyya Jā. II. 446¹⁴ (Comm. = saddaheyya) etc.—3. From root hu (juhoti) 'to pour into the fire' we have the stem juha-³: Ind. Sg. 1. juhāmi Th1. 343, 3. juhati S. I. 167²¹, Sn. p. 79.—4. The pres.-stem of root gar (jāgarti, jāgarati) 'to wake up' is jāgara- or (with the elision of a according to § 20 and the assimilation of *gr* *jagga-*. From the first we have, e. g., Imp. Sg. 2. *jāgarassu* Th¹. 411, as well as the Participles *jāgarant* Db. 39, Vin. III. 31³⁵ and *jāgaramāna* Dh. 226. From the second the Ind. Sg. 1. *paṭijaggāmi* JāCo. I. 438³⁰, 3. *jaggati* A. III. 156⁶, Pl. 3. *jagganti* A. III. 156⁷; Opt. Sg. 3. *paṭijaggeyya* Dh. 157.

c7.s2.t3.91

¹ The form brūmi may be found occasionally also in Skr. In Pkr. we have AMāg. Ind. Pl. 1. būma, Imp. Sg. 2. bāhi. In AMāg. the Ind. Sg. 1. is bemi, Pl. 3. benti. Pischel, § 494.

c7.s2.t3.92

² On the basis of the 2. Sg. Imp. dhehi. Similarly in Pkr. Cf. Pischel, § 500.

c7.s2.t3.93

³ As var. lec. we have jūhati Sn. p. 79, and its Part. Pres. Sg. Gen. jūhato Sn. 428. Jūh- may be derived also from juvh- = juhv- (Skr. juhvati 3. Pl.).

c7.s2.t3.94

§ 143. The present forms of the root *dā* 'to give' have had a multifarious development. There are found (*a*) the stems *dadā-* and *dada-*: Ind. Sg. 1. *dadāmi* Sn. 421, Th2. 245, 2. *dadāsi* Mhvs. 10. 50, 3. *dadāti* D.I. 103²³, Sn. p. 86, Pl. 1. *dadāma* Th1. 475, JāCo. III. 47¹⁹, Med. *dadamhase* Jā. III. 47³, 3. *dadanti* Vv. 44. 25; Imp. Sg. 2. *dada* Jā. III. 412⁶ and *dadāhi* Jā. III. 109¹⁴, JāCo. III. 109¹⁷, Pl. 1. Med. *dadāmase* Jā. III. 131¹⁵, 2. *dadātha* Vv. 44. 19. Moreover Opt. Sg. 1. *dadeyyaṃ* Vin. I. 39¹⁴, S. I. 97⁷, JāCo. I. 254¹⁸, 2. *dadeyyāsi* JāCo. III. 276²¹, 3. *dade* Vv. 62. 5 and *dadeyya* Vin. I. 49²¹, Milp. 28¹¹, Med. *dadetha* S. I. 32⁴ (verse), Pl. 1. *dademu* Jā. VI. 317¹⁶ and *dadeyyāma* M. II. 116²³, S. I. 58¹³, 2. *dadeyyātha* JāCo. III. 171¹⁸, IV. 230¹⁸, 3. *dadeyyaṃ*.—(*b*) The stem *de-* abstracted out of 2. Sg. Imp. *dehi*: Ind. Sg 1. *demi* JāCo. I. 307¹⁷, DhCo. I. 42¹³, 2. *desi* D. I. 50⁵, JāCo. I. 279¹⁵, 3. *deti* Sn. 130, S. III. 245⁹, JāCo. II. 154⁵, Pl. 1. *dema* JāCo. III. 127¹, 2. *detha* JāCo. III. 126²⁵, 3. *denti* Sn. 244, JāCo. II. 104²⁶; Imp. Sg. 2. *dehi* Th2. 49, JāCo. I. 254¹⁷, DhCo. I. 33³, 3.*detu* JāCo. II. 104⁸, Pl. 2. *detha* JāCo. II. 103²², 3. *dentu* Mhvs. 5. 179. Also Opt. Sg. 1. *deyyaṃ* Mhvs. 7. 31. Already the Gāthā-language knows the flexion *demi* etc. in Ind. and Imp. Along with the Opt. *dadeyyaṃ* etc. this can be regarded as the regular flexion in the canonical and the post-canonical prose.—(*c*) An old form which is met with in all the periods of the language is to be found in the Ind. Sg. 1. *dammi* Sn. p. 14, Vin. I. 39¹⁷, JāCo. I. 127²⁸, II. 231²¹, DhCo. I. 100⁹. It is derived from *dadmi* which is current in epic Sanskrit. Also Pl. 1. *damma* in Kacc. 3. 4. 1 (Senart, p. 452).—(*d*) The following Optative forms are also old: Sg. 1. *dajjaṃ* Vin. I. 148²⁵, 2. *dajjāsi* Jā. VI. 251²⁶, 3. *dajjā* Dh. 224, Th1. 468, D. II. 267¹⁰ (verse), S. I. 57⁸³ (verse). They are derived from Skr. *dadyām* etc. and are a special feature of the Gāthā-language. The JāCo. I. 322¹⁵ explains *dajjā* by *dadeyya*. A present-stem *dajja-* or *dajje-*¹ was abstracted out of these forms. Hence, e. g., Imp. Sg. 2. *dajjehi* Vin. III. 217⁴ and the double-forms *-dajjeyya*, *-dajjeyyāma* Vin. III. 259³⁵⁻³⁶, *dajjeyyātha* Vin.

First 94 of 337 passages. Read on

Cites (169)