b. In middle, the forms are few: namely, 1st sing., vavṛtīya; 2d sing., vāvṛdhīthā́s, cakṣamīthās; 3d sing., jagrasīta, vavṛtīta, māmṛjīta, dudhuvīta, çuçucīta; 1st pl., vavṛtīmahi. And sāsahīṣṭhās and ririṣīṣṭa appear to furnish examples of precative optative forms.
c. There is no irregular mode of formation of perfect optatives. Individual irregularities are shown by certain forms: thus, cakriyās, papīyāt, çuçrūyā́s and çuçrūyā́tam, with treatment of the final as before the passive-sign yá (770); anajyāt with short initial; çiçrītá from √çri; jakṣīyāt is anomalous: ririṣes is the only form that shows a union-vowel a (unless also siṣet, from √sā).
813. Of regular imperative forms, only a very small number are to be quoted: namely, active, cākandhi, rārandhí, cikiddhi, titigdhi, mumugdhí, çuçugdhí, and piprīhí; cākantu, rārantu, mumoktu, and babhūtu; mumuktam and vavṛktam; jujuṣṭana and vavṛttana (unless we are to add mamaddhí, mamattu, mamáttana); — middle, vavṛtsva and vavṛddhvam. AV. has once dadṛçrām.
814. As irregular imperatives may be reckoned several which show a union-vowel a, or have been transferred to an a-conjugation. Such are, in the active, mumócatam and jujoṣatam (2d du.), and mumócata (2d pl.); in the middle, pipráyasva (only one found with accent), and māmahasva, vāvṛdhasva, vāvṛṣasva (2d sing.), and māmahantām (3d pl.: probably to be accented -ásva and -ántām).
815. Such imperatives as these, taken in connection with some of the subjunctives given above (and a few of the "pluperfect" forms: below, 820), suggest as plausible the assumption of a double present-stem, with reduplication and added a (with which the desiderative stems would be comparable: below, 1026 ff.): for example, jujoṣa from √juṣ, from which would come jújoṣasi etc. and jújoṣate (811 a) as indicative, jújoṣas etc. as subjunctively used augmentless imperfect, and jujoṣatam as imperative. Most of the forms given above as subjunctives with primary ending lack a marked and constant subjunctive character, and would pass fairly well as indicatives. And it appears tolerably certain that from one root at least, vṛdh, such a double stem is to be recognized; from vāvṛdha come readily vāvṛdhate, vāvṛdhánta, and from it alone can come regularly vāvṛdhasva, vāvṛdhéte and vāvṛdhāti (once, RV.) — and, yet more, the participle vavṛdhánt (RV.; AV. vāvṛdhánt: an isolated case): yet even here we have also vāvṛdhīthā́s, not vāvṛdhéthās. To assume double present-stems, however, in all the cases would be highly implausible; it is better to recognize the formation as one begun, but not carried out.
a. Only one other subjunctive with double mode-sign — namely, papṛcāsi — is found to set beside vāvṛdhāti.
816. Forms of different model are not very seldom made from the same root: for example, from √muc, the subjunctives mumócas, múmo-
