Page:Sanskrit Grammar by Whitney p1.djvu/382

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.


after piling the fire, to meet with some mishap or other, or to stagger; içvaraṁ vāi rathantaram udgātuç cakṣuḥ pramathitoḥ (PB.) the rathantara is liable to knock out the eye of the chanter.

b. The dative is used in ÇB. instead of the genitive in a single phrase (īçvarāú jánayitavāí); and, in the later language, sometimes the accusative in turn. In a case or two the masc. sing. nom. īçvaraḥ is used, without regard to the gender or number of the word which it qualifies: thus, tásye ”çvaráḥ prajā́ pā́pīyasī bhávitoḥ (ÇB.) his progeny is liable to deteriorate. And in a very few instances the word īçvara is omitted, and the genitive has the same value without it: thus, dve madhyaṁdinam abhi pratyetoḥ (AB.) two may be added to the noon libation; táto dīkṣitáḥ pāmanó bhávitoḥ (ÇB.) then the consecrated is liable to get the itch.

c. This construction with īçvara, which is the only one for the genitive infinitive in the Brāhmaṇa, is unknown in the Veda, where the genitive is found in a very small number of examples with madhyā́, and with the root īç: thus, madhyā́ kártoḥ (RV.) in the midst of action; ī́çe rāyó dā́toḥ (RV.) he is master of the giving of wealth; ī́çe yótoḥ (RV.) is able to keep away.

985. Unless the infinitives in ṣaṇi and tari are locative in form (their uses are those of datives), the locative infinitive is so rare, and has so little that is peculiar in its use, that it is hardly worth making any account of. An example is uṣáso budhí (RV.) at the awakening of the dawn.

986. In the Veda, the dative infinitive forms are very much more numerous than the accusative (in RV., their occurrences are twelve times as many; in AV., more than three times); and the accusative in tum is rare (only four forms in RV., only eight in AV.). In the Brāhmaṇas, the accusative has risen to much greater comparative frequency (its forms are nearly twice as many as those of the dative); but the ablative-genitive, which is rare in the Veda, has also come to full equality with it. The disappearance in the classical language of all excepting the accusative in tum (but see 968 h) is a matter for no small surprise.

987. The later infinitive in tum is oftenest used in constructions corresponding to those of the earlier accusative: thus, na vāṣpam açakat soḍhurn he could not restrain his tears; taṁ draṣṭum arhasi thou oughtest to see it; prāptum icchanti they desire to obtain; saṁkhyātum ārabdham having begun to count. But also, not infrequently, in those of the other cases. So, especially, of the dative: thus, avasthātuṁ sthānāntaraṁ cintaya devise another place to stay in; tvām anveṣṭum ihā ”gataḥ he has come hither to seek for thee; — but likewise of the genitive: thus, samartho gantum capable of going; saṁdhātum īçvaraḥ able to mend. Even a construction as nominative is not unknown: thus, yuktaṁ tasya mayā samāçvā-