our welfare; grant unto us to wake again; syā́n naḥ sūnúḥ ... sā́ te sumatír bhūtv asmé (RV.) may there be to us a son; let that favor of thine be ours. It is not very seldom the case that versions of the same passage in different texts show different modes as various readings.
c. There is, in fact, nothing in the earliest employment of these modes to prove that they might not all be specialized uses of forms originally equivalent — having, for instance, a general future meaning.
576. As examples of the less characteristic use of subjunctive and optative in the older language, in independent clauses, may be quoted the following: ā́ ghā tā́ gacchān úttarā yugā́ni (RV.) those later ages will doubtless come; yád ... na marā íti mányase (RV.) if thou thinkest "I shall not die"; ná tā́ naçanti ná dabhāti táskaraḥ (RV.) they do not become lost; no thief can harm them; kásmāi devā́ya havíṣā vidhema (RV.) to what god shall we offer oblation? agnínā rayím açnavat ... divé-dive (RV.) by Agni one may gain wealth every day; utāí ’nām brahmáṇe dadyāt táthā syonā́ çivā́ syāt (AV.) one should give her, however, to a Brahman; in that case she will be propitious and favorable; áhar-ahar dadyāt (ÇB.) one should give every day.
577. The uses of the optative in the later language are of the utmost variety, covering the whole field occupied jointly by the two modes in earlier time. A few examples from a single text (MBh.) will be enough to illustrate them: ucchiṣṭaṁ nāi ’va bhuñjīyaṁ na kuryām pādadhāvanam I will not eat of the remnant of the sacrifice, I will not perform the foot-lavation; jñātīn vrajet let her go to her relatives; nāi ’vaṁ sā karhicit kuryāt she should not act thus at any time; kathaṁ vidyāṁ nalaṁ nṛpam how can I know king Nala? utsarge saṁçayaḥ syāt tu vindetā ’pi sukhaṁ kvacit but in case of her abandonment there may be a chance; she may also find happiness somewhere; kathaṁ vāso vikarteyaṁ na ca budhyeta me priyā how can I cut off the garment and my beloved not wake?
578. The later use of the first persons subjunctive as so-called imperative involves no change of construction from former time, but only restriction to a single kind of use: thus, dīvyāva let us two play; kiṁ karavāṇi te what shall I do for thee?
579. The imperative negative, or prohibitive, is from the earliest period of the language regularly and usually expressed by the particle mā́ with an augmentless past form, prevailingly aorist.
a. Thus, prá pata mé ’há raṁsthāḥ (AV.) fly away, do not stay here; dviṣáṅç ca máhyaṁ radhyatu mā́ cā ’háṁ dviṣaté radham (AV.) both let my foe be subject to me, and let me not be subject to my foe; urv àçyām ábhayaṁ jyótir indra mā́ no dīrghā́ abhí naçan tamisrā́ḥ (RV.) I would win broad fearless light, O Indra; let not the long darknesses come upon us; mā́ na ā́yuḥ prá moṣīḥ (RV.) do not
