342. Subjunctive mood.

The subjunctive mood is expressed in Sanskrit by four tenses: 1. liṅ, called by some optative, by others potential, 2. āśiṣi liṅ the precative or benedictive, 3. lṛṅ the conditional, 4. loṭ the imperative. The dialect of the Veda (mantra and brâhmaṇa) has moreover a fifth tense called leṭ, by vernacular, conjunctive by European grammarians, which was already obsolete in the days of Pâṇini. The duties of the missing tense are performed by the imperative, partly also by the present (laṭ). Nor is the present the only tense, which apart from its expressing the indicative, may sometimes have the force of a subjunctive; for the future in -syati — and, in prohibitions, even the aorist — is occasionally concurrent with liṅ and loṭ. That the conditional (lṛṅ) was at the outset an indicative tense, appears sufficiently not only from its outer form, but also from its original employment. Upon the whole, the boundaries between indicative and not-indicative are less marked in Sanskrit than in Latin and Greek.

342. 仮定法

サンスクリットにおいて、仮定法（subjunctive mood）は4つの時制によって表される：
1. liṅ（願望法；optative, potential）
2. āśiṣi liṅ（祈願法；precative, benedictive）
3. lṛṅ（条件法；conditional）
4. loṭ（命令法；imperative）

ヴェーダ語（マントラとブラーフマナ）は更に5つ目の時制をもつ。インドの文法家にはleṭ、西洋の文法学者には接続法（conjunctive）と呼ばれるもので、Pāṇiniの生きた当時には既に廃れていた。この欠けた時制の役割はImpv.によって、部分的にはPres.（laṭ）によっても果たされる。Pres.だけが、直説法（indicative）の表現とは別に仮定法のはたらきを持ちうる唯一の時制である、というわけでもない；単純未来-syati—禁止文においてはaor.も—は、時にliṅやloṭと共起する。条件法（lṛṅ）が当初直説法であったことは、その外形のみならず、その元の用法からも十分に現れている。全体として、直説法と非-直説法の境界は、サンスクリット語では、ラテン語とギリシャ語よりも目立たない。

343. The liṅ (optative or potential) is the general exponent of the subjunctive mood.

The subjunctive mood finds its general expression in the tense termed liṅ by Pâṇini, and which one is wont in Europe to name either optative or potential, though it is not restricted to the expression of both wishes and possibility. In fact, any shade of meaning, inherent to the Latin conjunctive, may be imported by it. Its manysidedness entails the great variety of its translation. According to sense kuryām may be = I can (could) do, I may (might) —, will (would) —, shall (should) —, must do, let me do, sim.

Its subdivisions.

We may make some main distinctions:

a.) liṅ is used in exhortations and precepts: hortative.

b.) it is expressive of wishes: optative.

c.) it is a potential, that is, it may purport a possibility, or a probability, on the other hand also uncertainty and impossibility or improbability.

d.) it is used in hypothetical sentences.

e.) it may be used in such relative sentences, as bear a general import.

f.) it may be used in subordinate sentences expressive of a design or of inevitable consequence.

a.) hortative.

a.) Ch. Up. 7, 3, 1 mantrān adhīyīya (let me study the mantras), karmāṇi kurvīya (let me do sacrificial acts) {P. 3, 3, 161.}; Panc. V, 103 ekaḥ svādu na bhuñjīta naikaḥ supteṣu jāgṛyāt / eko na gacchedadhvānaṃ naikaścāryānpravintayet (one must not take sweetmeats alone, nor wake alone among sleeping people, nor must one walk alone nor consider one’s affairs alone); Kumâras. 4, 36 jvalanaṃ… tvarayerdakṣiṇavātavījanaiḥ (you [Spring] must inflame the fire by the breezes of the southwind); Daç. 152 eṣā cāhaṃ pituste pādamūlaṃ pratyupasarpeyam (and now, I might return to your father). — From these examples it appears, that the hortative liṅ is expressive of any kind of exhortation. bhavān adhīyīta may be = »you must study” or »you may,” »you might,” »you are allowed to study,” »it is your duty, the due time —” etc. See P. 3, 3, 161; 163; 164 with comm.

b.) optative.

b.) R. 3, 19, 20 Çûrpaṇakhâ utters this wish tasyās tayoś ca rudhiraṃ pibeyamahamāhave (o, that I might drink their blood). {P. 3, 3, 157 and 159.} To this pure and optative often the particle api is added or api nāma. Mudr. II, p. 89 api nāma durātmanaś cāṇakyahatakāc candragupto bhidyeta; R. 2, 43, 9 apīdānīṃ sa kālaḥ syāt… paśyeyam iha rāghavam (if that time were already present and I should see Râma here). — The verb of »wishing” being added, it may also be put in the liṅ. {P. 3, 3, 160.} One says either icchāmi bhuñjīta bhavān or iccheyaṃ bhuñjīta bhavān. Cp. R. 3, 58, 5.

c.) potential.

c.) The potential liṅ comprises various kinds:

1. possibility and ability, as Panc. 226 kadācid ayaṃ brāhmaṇo gośabdena budhyeta (perhaps this brahman will awake by the lowing of the cows), Mṛcch. VII, p. 238 paśyeyuḥ kṣitipatayo hi cāradṛṣṭyā (for princes can see through the eye of their spies), Kathâs. 2, 37 sakṛcchrutam ayaṃ bālaḥ sarvaṃ cādhārayeddhṛdi (this boy is able to retain by heart all he has heard but once).

2. probability. Mṛcch. VIII, p. 268 the rake says athavā mayi gate nṛśaṃso hanyād enām (in my absence the cruel man will kill her), Kathâs. 25, 24 jānīyātsa vṛddho jātu tāṃ purīm (that old man, methinks, will know that town);

3. doubt. Çâk. V kim uddiśya kāśyapena matsakāśamṛṣayaḥ preritāḥ syuḥ (for what reason may the Reverend K. have sent holy men to me?), Panc. I, 215 ekaṃ hanyānna vā hanyādiṣurmukto dhanuṣmatā / buddhir buddhimatotsṛṣṭā (the arrow shot by an archer may hit one individual or may not hit him, but the wit of a witty man hits a [whole] kingdom with its ruler);

4. in negative and interrogative sentences liṅ may express improbability or impossibility. Daç. 92 nipuṇamanviṣyannopalabdhavān [sc. enam] kathaṃ vopalabhyeta (he sought carefully, but did not find him; how could he?), Mṛcch. VII, p. 236 api prāṇān ahaṃ jahyāṃ na nu tvāṃ śaraṇāgatam (I had rather forsake my life, than you who are a supplicant to me), R. 2, 37, 32 loke nahi sa vidyeta yo na rāmam anuvrataḥ;

5. A special kind is the liṅ being employed for asserting one’s power »he may even do this.” {P. 3, 2, 154.} R. 3, 49, 3 Râvaṇa boasts udvaheyaṃ bhujābhyāṃ tu medinīmambare sthitaḥ / āpibeyaṃ samudraṃ ca mṛtyuṃ hanyāṃ raṇe sthitaḥ / arkaṃ tudyāṃ śarais tīkṣṇair vibhindyāṃ hi mahītalam (I am able to lift up the earth with my arms, drink up the ocean etc.). So often with api (or uta) see P. 3, 3, 152. — But if one says »he may even do this,” in order to express blame on that account, the present is necessary, and the liṅ is forbidden (P. 3, 3, 142). Kâç. gives this example api — or jātu — tatrabhavān vṛṣalaṃ yājayati (he is even able to officiate for a çûdra).

d.) hypothetical.

d.) the hypothetical liṅ is used, if it is wanted to say, what will happen or would happen, if some other fact occur or should occur. It is used in the protasis as well as in the apodosis of hypothetical sentences, Mhbh. 1, 82, 21 Çarmishṭhâ says to Yayâti tvatto’patyavatī loke careyaṃ dharmam uttamam (if I had offspring from you, I would walk in the highest path of duty), Pat. I, p. 2 yo hy ajānanvai brāhmaṇaṃ hanyātsurāṃ vā pibetso ’pi manye patitaḥ syāt (for he, who should kill a brahman or drink strong liquor without knowing it, even such a one would be an outcast, methinks), Panc. III, 203 yadi syāt pāvakaḥ śotaḥ proṣṇo vā śaśalāñchanaḥ / strīṇāṃ tadā satītvaṃ syād yadi durjano hitaḥ. Cp. 489 and 470 R. 3.

e.) liṅ used in relative sentences of general import.

e.) liṅ used in relative sentences of general import. Âçv. 1, 3, 1 yatra kva ca hoṣyantsyāt (wheresoever one has the intention of performing oblations), Panc. I, 165 kālātikramaṇaṃ vṛtter yo kurvīta bhūpatiḥ / kadācit taṃ muñcanti bhartsitā api sevakāḥ (the king who duly observes the time of paying the wages to his officials, him —), ibid. I, 271 ardharājyaharaṃ bhṛtyaṃ na hanyātsa hanyate.

f. liṅ used in final and consecutive clauses.

f.) liṅ expressive of a design or a consequence. Kathâs. 36, 106 hariṃ śaraṇamāśraye yena syāṃ naiva duḥkhānāṃ punar bhājanam īdṛśām (I betake myself to Hari, in order that such grief may never again befall me), R. 3, 13, 11 ādiśa me deśaṃ… yatra vaseyam, ibid. 3, 50, 18 sa bhāraḥ saimya bhartavyo yo naraṃ nāvasādayet (one must bear only such a burden, as will not exhaust its bearer).

Rem. mā — in epic poetry also na — with liṅ = »lest.” Cp. 405 R. 1.

It needs no argument, that the subdivisions laid down here and other similar ones are somewhat arbitrary. It is one and the same liṅ that is involved in all of them, and it is only for the sake of developing the variety of the logical relations, which are signified by that so-called „optative” or „potential,” that we have tried to distinguish at all.

343. 一般的な仮定法の指示語—liṅ（願望法, optative）

仮定法は、Pāṇiniのいう時制liṅでその一般的な意味が説明される。西洋ではoptativeやpotentialと呼ばれることが常ではあるが、願望と可能性を表すことに限定されない。実際、ラテン語の接続法特有の意味の濃淡が、liṅによって意味される場合がある。この多面性を表すには、多くの訳語が必要である。kuryāmの意味をとるならば、"I can (could) do"、"I may (might) —, will (would) —, shall (should) —, must do"、"let me do"…などなど。

○liṅの分類

いくつかの主な区分ができる：

a.) 奨励（exhortation）や勧告（precept）に用いられるもの：勧奨（hortative）

b.) 願望を表すもの：願望法（optative）

c.) 可能性、すなわち、可能であること（possibility）や起こりそうなこと（probability）を表すもの。一方で、不確実さ（uncertainty）や不可能性（impossibility）、起こりそうもないこと（improbability）をも表しうる。

d.) 仮定文で用いられるもの

e.) 普遍的なものを表す意味をもつ関係文で用いられるもの

f.) 計画や必然的な帰結を表す従属節で用いられるもの

a.) 勧奨（hortative）

Ch. Up. 7, 3, 1 mantrān adhīyīya (let me study the mantras), karmāṇi kurvīya (let me do sacrificial acts) {P. 3, 3, 161.}
Panc. V, 103 ekaḥ svādu na bhuñjīta naikaḥ supteṣu jāgṛyāt / eko na gacchedadhvānaṃ naikaścāryānpravintayet (one must not take sweetmeats alone, nor wake alone among sleeping people, nor must one walk alone nor consider one’s affairs alone)
Kumâras. 4, 36 jvalanaṃ… tvarayerdakṣiṇavātavījanaiḥ (you [Spring] must inflame the fire by the breezes of the southwind)
Daç. 152 eṣā cāhaṃ pituste pādamūlaṃ pratyupasarpeyam (and now, I might return to your father)

これらの用例から、勧奨のliṅはあらゆる類の奨励を表しているように見える。bhavān adhīyītaは“you must study”、“you may”、“you might”、“you are allowed to study”、“it is your duty, the due time —”等となる。P. 3, 3, 161; 163; 164と諸注釈をみよ。

b.) 願望法（optative）

R. 3, 19, 20 Çûrpaṇakhâ utters this wish tasyāstayośca rudhiraṃ pibeyamahamāhave (o, that I might drink their blood). {P. 3, 3, 157 and 159.}

純粋なopt.にはしばしば不変化辞apiやapi nāmaが付加される。
Mudr. II, p. 89 api nāma durātmanaścāṇakyahatakāc candragupto bhidyeta
R. 2, 43, 9 apīdānīṃ sa kālaḥ syāt… paśyeyamiha rāghavam (if that time were already present and I should see Râma here)

願望の動詞が〔opt.の義の上にさらに〕加えられて、liṅに置かれることもある（P. 3, 3, 160）。その場合icchāmi bhuñjīta bhavānかiccheyaṃ bhuñjīta bhavānとなる。R. 3, 58, 5をみよ。

c.) 可能性（potential）

可能性のliṅには様々な種類がある：

1. ありうること（possibility）・できること（ability）
Panc. 226 kadācid ayaṃ brāhmaṇo gośabdena budhyeta (perhaps this brahman will awake by the lowing of the cows)
Mṛcch. VII, p. 238 paśyeyuḥ kṣitipatayo hi cāradṛṣṭyā (for princes can see through the eye of their spies)
Kathâs. 2, 37 sakṛcchrutam ayaṃ bālaḥ sarvaṃ cādhārayeddhṛdi (this boy is able to retain by heart all he has heard but once)

2. ありそうなこと（probability）
Mṛcch. VIII, p. 268 the rake says athavā mayi gate nṛśaṃso hanyād enām (in my absence the cruel man will kill her)
Kathâs. 25, 24 jānīyātsa vṛddho jātu tāṃ purīm (that old man, methinks, will know that town)

3. 疑惑
Çâk. V kim uddiśya kāśyapena matsakāśamṛṣayaḥ preritāḥ syuḥ (for what reason may the Reverend K. have sent holy men to me?)
Panc. I, 215 ekaṃ hanyānna vā hanyādiṣurmukto dhanuṣmatā / buddhir buddhimatotsṛṣṭā (the arrow shot by an archer may hit one individual or may not hit him, but the wit of a witty man hits a [whole] kingdom with its ruler)

4. 否定文・疑問文において不可能性（impossibility）、起こりそうもないこと（improbability）を表すもの
Daç. 92 nipuṇamanviṣyannopalabdhavān [sc. enam] kathaṃ vopalabhyeta (he sought carefully, but did not find him; how could he?)
Mṛcch. VII, p. 236 api prāṇān ahaṃ jahyāṃ na nu tvāṃ śaraṇāgatam (I had rather forsake my life, than you who are a supplicant to me)
R. 2, 37, 32 loke nahi sa vidyeta yo na rāmam anuvrataḥ

5. 特殊：ある者の能力を誇張するもの（P. 3, 2, 154）
R. 3, 49, 3 Râvaṇa boasts udvaheyaṃ bhujābhyāṃ tu medinīmambare sthitaḥ / āpibeyaṃ samudraṃ ca mṛtyuṃ hanyāṃ raṇe sthitaḥ / arkaṃ tudyāṃ śaraistīkṣṇair vibhindyāṃ hi mahītalam (I am able to lift up the earth with my arms, drink up the ocean etc.)

しばしばapi（あるいはuta）を伴う。P. 3, 3, 152をみよ。—しかしながら、「彼はこれを行うことさえできる」（he may even do this）と言う場合、譴責を表すためにはPres.が必要であり、liṅは許されない（P. 3, 3, 142）。Kāśikāはこの例を提供している：api (/ jātu) tatrabhavān vṛṣalaṃ yājayati (he is even able to officiate for a çûdra)

d.) 仮定文で用いられるもの

仮定的liṅは、ある事実が生じるとき何が起こるのか、を言いたい場合に用いられる。条件節の帰結文だけでなく前提文にも用いられる。
Mhbh. 1, 82, 21 Çarmishṭhâ says to Yayâti tvatto’patyavatī loke careyaṃ dharmam uttamam (if I had offspring from you, I would walk in the highest path of duty)
Pat. I, p. 2 yo hy ajānanvai brāhmaṇaṃ hanyātsurāṃ vā pibetso’pi manye patitaḥ syāt (for he, who should kill a brahman or drink strong liquor without knowing it, even such a one would be an outcast, methinks)
Panc. III, 203 yadi syāt pāvakaḥ śotaḥ proṣṇo vā śaśalāñchanaḥ / strīṇāṃ tadā satītvaṃ syād yadi durjano hitaḥ

489および470-補足3をみよ。

e.) 総称的意味（general import）をもつ関係文で用いられるもの

Âçv. 1, 3, 1 yatra kva ca hoṣyantsyāt (wheresoever one has the intention of performing oblations)
Panc. I, 165 kālātikramaṇaṃ vṛtter yo kurvīta bhūpatiḥ / kadācit taṃ muñcanti bhartsitā api sevakāḥ (the king who duly observes the time of paying the wages to his officials, him —)
ibid. I, 271 ardharājyaharaṃ bhṛtyaṃ na hanyātsa hanyate

f.) 計画（design）や必然的な帰結（consequence）を表す従属節で用いられるもの

Kathâs. 36, 106 hariṃ śaraṇamāśraye yena syāṃ naiva duḥkhānāṃ punar bhājanam īdṛśām (I betake myself to Hari, in order that such grief may never again befall me)
R. 3, 13, 11 ādiśa me deśaṃ… yatra vaseyam
ibid. 3, 50, 18 sa bhāraḥ saimya bhartavyo yo naraṃ nāvasādayet (one must bear only such a burden, as will not exhaust its bearer)

【補足】
mā（叙事詩ではna）を伴うliṅは禁止の意味をもつ。405-補足1をみよ。

ここに規定された下位区分、および他の同様の区分、がいくぶん恣意的であるということに議論の余地はない。それらすべてに関わっているのは1つのliṅであり、我々が区別しようとしてきたのは、いわゆるoptativeやpotentialによって指示される論理的関係の多様性を展開するためである。

344. The idioms, concurrent with liṅ.

Apart from the many-sidedness of its employment, it is to be observed, that the liṅ is in most cases not indispensable. The imperative, the present, the future, kṛtyas are often concurrent idioms, occasionally the conditional. The imperative in the subdivisions a), b) and c), as will be shown hereafter (348-352), the present in the subdivisions e) and f), as will plainly appear when we treat of subordinate sentences (458 b, 468, 471) (*1). On the kṛtyas see 357, on the conditional 347.

Especially the future in -syati.

But it is especially the future in -syati that often is employed so as to express a kind of subjunctive mood. The difference which logically exists between the positive statement of some future fact on one hand and the utterance of an exhortation, a wish, a doubt, a supposition, sim. on the other, is not so strong a bar practically as to keep wholly apart the functions of the future tense and the subjunctive mood. Occasionally the same grammatical form may do duty for both. As far as Sanskrit is concerned, we may even state that in the majority of cases there is no boundary between the two. Indeed, the future in -syati is available in almost every subdivision, belonging to the department of the liṅ, save the hypothetical mood.

Examples of the future = subjunctive mood.

a.) exhortation and precept. R. 1, 61, 2 diśam anyāṃ prapatsyāmas tatra tapsyāmahe tapaḥ, from the context it is evident that these words mean: let us go to another region, let us do penance there. Kathâs 43, 86 tadgaccha pārśvaṃ tasyādya prabhāte drutameṣyasi (— you shall return quickly at daybreak).

b.) wish. R. 2, 96, 21 api nau vaśam āgacchet kovidāradhvajo raṇe / api drakṣyāmi bharatam (o that I might see the banner —, that I might see Bharata).

c.) possibility and doubt. Panc. 282 dhūrtaś cintayām āsa / kim aham anayā… kariṣyāmi / kiṃ ca kadāpy asyāḥ pṛṣṭhataḥ ko ’pi sameṣyati tan me mahān anarthaḥ syāt (the rogue reflected: What shall I do with her? And perhaps somebody will come after her; then I shall get into great inconvenience). — Especially the future of the auxiliary, bhaviṣyati, often expresses probability, Mhbh. 1, 76, 32 vyaktaṃ (I am sure, father, Kaca will have been injured or has died), Panc. 176 the deer Citrânga tells how himself has escaped the hunters, but mama yūthaṃ tair lubdhakair vyāpāditaṃ bhaviṣyati (my flock is sure to have been killed by them).

Rem. 1. If such phrases, as »I blame,” »I do not believe,” »I cannot endure,” »I wonder if (yadi),” »I suppose, surmise,” »it is time” are added to the potential statement, liṅ is idiomatic (see P. 3, 3, 147-150; 152-153; 168), the future being but rarely allowed, cp. P. 3, 3, 146 and 151 with comm. But if the said verbs are only implied, the future in -syati is used side by side with the optative. (*2)

f.) purpose. Pat. I, p. 7 the master of the house comes to the potter and asks him kuru ghaṭaṃ kāryam anena kariṣyāmīti (make me a pot, that I may make use of it). Likewise R. 2, 54, 28 Bharadvâja says to Râma daśakrośa itastāta girir yasminnivatsyasi (at a distance of ten kroça from here there is a mountain where you may dwell, cp. Lat. mons in quo habites). Cp. also na with fut. = »lest” 405 R. l.

(*1)
The interchangeableness of present and optative in such relative sentences will be made clear by this. In Panc. I we have a series of ten çlokas (54-63) expounding what kind of people are fittest for attending on a king. All of these çlokas are framed on the same scheme, three pâdas being made up of a relative sentence, whereas the fourth makes up the apodosis, being the refrain sa bhaved rājavallabhaḥ. Now, in five çlokas out of the ten, the verb of the protasis is an optative, but in three it is a present, in one it is wanting. In the tenth the optative is employed together with the present (I, 55) prabhuprasādajaṃ vittaṃ supātre yo niyojayet / vastrādyaṃ ca dadhāty aṅge bhaved rājavallabhaḥ.

(*2)
The sûtra P. 3, 3, 146 is accepted too narrowly by the commentators. It enjoins the future in -syati for expressing the notion »to be sure, certainly,” and s. 147 is to be considered an exception to it.

344. liṅと同じはたらきをするイディオム

その用法の多面性は別として、liṅはほとんどのばあい必須でないことに注意せねばならない。Ipv.・Pres.・Fut.・kṛtyaがしばしば共起表現となり、時には条件法となる。先の分類のa)・b)・c)におけるIpv.は後述（348-352）。e)・f)におけるPres.は、従属文を扱うときに触れる（458 b, 468, 471）（*1）。kṛtyaについては357を、条件法については347をみよ。

○特に単純未来-syatiについて

しかしながら、ある種の仮定法を表すためにしばしば用いられるのは、単純未来-syatiである。未来の事実についての肯定的な言明と、勧奨・願望・疑惑・仮定などの間にある論理的な差異は、未来時制と仮定法の機能を完全に別なものとするほどには、実際には強力でない。時には同じ文法的形態が〔未来時制と仮定法の〕両方のはたらきをすることがある。サンスクリットに関する限りであれば、ほとんどの場合、両者の間に境界はないと言えるかもしれない。単純未来-syatiは、liṅの領域に属するほぼすべての下位分類で用いることができ、仮定法を保っているのである。

Fut.＝仮定法の例

a.) 奨励・勧告
R. 1, 61, 2 diśam anyāṃ prapatsyāmas tatra tapsyāmahe tapaḥ （let us go to another region, let us do penance there）
Kathâs 43, 86 tadgaccha pārśvaṃ tasyādya prabhāte drutameṣyasi (— you shall return quickly at daybreak)

b.) 願望
R. 2, 96, 21 api nau vaśam āgacchet kovidāradhvajo raṇe / api drakṣyāmi bharatam (o that I might see the banner —, that I might see Bharata)

c.) 可能性・疑惑
Panc. 282 dhūrtaś cintayām āsa / kim aham anayā… kariṣyāmi / kiṃ ca kadāpy asyāḥ pṛṣṭhataḥ ko’pi sameṣyati tanme mahānanarthaḥ syāt (the rogue reflected: What shall I do with her? And perhaps somebody will come after her; then I shall get into great inconvenience)

特に助動詞の未来形（bhaviṣyati）はしばしば、起こりそうなこと（probability）を表す。
Mhbh. 1, 76, 32 vyaktaṃ (I am sure, father, Kaca will have been injured or has died)
Panc. 176 the deer Citrânga tells how himself has escaped the hunters, but mama yūthaṃ tair lubdhakair vyāpāditaṃ bhaviṣyati (my flock is sure to have been killed by them)

【補足】
「…を非難する」、「…を信じない」、「…に耐えられない」、「…だろうか」（yadi）、「…と思う、推察する」、「…の時である」のようなフレーズが可能性の言明に付加されるとき、liṅはイディオム的であり（P. 3, 3, 147-150; 152-153; 168）、Fut.は〔用例こそ〕存在するものの、滅多に許されない。P. 3, 3, 146および151と諸注釈をみよ。しかし、動詞が暗示されるのみである場合、単純未来-syatiがOpt.と並んで用いられる（*2）。

f.) 目的
Pat. I, p. 7 the master of the house comes to the potter and asks him kuru ghaṭaṃ kāryam anena kariṣyāmīti (make me a pot, that I may make use of it)
R. 2, 54, 28 Bharadvâja says to Râma daśakrośa itastāta girir yasminnivatsyasi (at a distance of ten kroça from here there is a mountain where you may dwell, cp. Lat. mons in quo habites)

405-補足1、否定辞naを伴うFut.も参照のこと。

（*1）
関係文におけるPres.とOpt.の可換性はこのことによって明らかになるだろう。Panc. Iには、王にどのような人が随行するのが最適かを説明する10の連続するślokaがある。これらすべてのślokaは同じ構成で組み上げられており、3つのpādaは関係文から成り、一方で第4〔pāda〕は帰結文で、畳句である：sa bhaved rājavallabhaḥ。
ところで、10のうち5つのślokaだと前提文の動詞はOpt.であるが、3つのślokaはPres.で、1つは動詞がない。第10ではOpt.がPres.と一緒に用いられている：
Panc. I, 55 prabhuprasādajaṃ vittaṃ supātre yo niyojayet / vastrādyaṃ ca dadhāty aṅge bhaved rājavallabhaḥ

（*2）
P. 3, 3, 146は、注釈者にはかなり狭義にとられている。単純未来-syatiで「確からしさ」の概念を表すことは禁じられており、s. 147はその例外と見なされている。

344*.

Inversely a sanskrit optative may occasionally be rendered by a future. Mhbh. 1, 160, 1 Kuntî asks the brahman, at whose house she dwells, why he and his family are lamenting [duḥkhaṃ] viditvāpy apakarṣeyaṃ śakyaṃ cedapakarṣitum (I will remove your pain, if possible, fr. je chasserai votre douleur). So Panc. 282, which example is quoted above, optative and future alternate; likewise Panc. 65 evaṃ kṛte tava tāvat prāṇayātrā kleśaṃ vināpi bhaviṣyaty asmākaṃ ca punaḥ sarvocchedanaṃ na syāt.

344*. 未来時制で翻訳されうるOpt.

反対に、サンスクリットのOpt.は時に未来時制で翻訳されることがある。
Mhbh. 1, 160, 1 Kuntî asks the brahman, at whose house she dwells, why he and his family are lamenting [duḥkhaṃ] viditvāpy apakarṣeyaṃ śakyaṃ ced apakarṣitum (I will remove your pain, if possible, fr. je chasserai votre douleur)
Panc. 65 evaṃ kṛte tava tāvat prāṇayātrā kleśaṃ vināpi bhaviṣyaty asmākaṃ ca punaḥ sarvocchedanaṃ na syāt

上に引用したPanc. 282ではOpt.とFut.が交替している。

344**.

Even the future in -tā may sometimes express a subjunctive mood. As far as my information goes, this employment is limited to the dominion of the potential mood. Mhbh. 4, 12, 3 ayaṃ hayānīkṣati mām akāndṛḍham / ghruvaṃ hayajño bhavitā vicakṣaṇaḥ (he examines my horses, he is sure to be a connoisseur in horses), Pat. I, p. 250 tathā vidṛre ‘vyaktam ārūpaṃ dṛṣṭvā vaktāro bhavanti mahiṣī rūpam iva brāhmaṇī rūpam iva (likewise, if at a distance one sees a person of whom one can only discern the outline, one is likely to say: it looks like the wife of a prince, it looks like the wife of a brâhmaṇa).

344**. 仮定を表す複合未来

複合未来-tāも仮定を表すことがある。私の知見の限りでは、この用法は可能法（potential mood）の領域に限定されている。
Mhbh. 4, 12, 3 ayaṃ hayānīkṣati māmakāndṛḍham / ghruvaṃ hayajño bhavitā vicakṣaṇaḥ (he examines my horses, he is sure to be a connoisseur in horses)
Pat. I, p. 250 tathā vidṛre ‘vyaktam ārūpaṃ dṛṣṭvā vaktāro bhavanti mahiṣī rūpam iva brāhmaṇī rūpam iva (likewise, if at a distance one sees a person of whom one can only discern the outline, one is likely to say: it looks like the wife of a prince, it looks like the wife of a brâhmaṇa)

345. liṅ expressive of the past as well as the present.

Sanskrit makes no distinction between the different tenses of the subjunctive mood. The liṅ express the past as well as the present. kuryām may be occasionally = „I might, I would etc. have done.” Ch. Up. 4, 14, 2 when the teacher asks his disciple, who has taught you, my dear?” saumya ko nu tvānuśaśāsa, the other replies ko nu mānuśiṣyāt (who should have taught me?), Gaut. 12, 1 śūdro dvijātīnatisaṃdhāyābhihatya vāgdaṇḍapāruṣyābhyāmaṅaṃ mocyo yenopahanyāt (a çûdra, who has intentionally reviled twice-born men — shall lose the member, whereby he has offended), Mṛcch. III, p. 124 Cârudatta speaks cirayati maitreyaḥ / mā nāma vaiklavyādakāryaṃ kuryāt (Maitreya tarries; how, if, in his distress, be should have done some forbidden thing!). Yet an optative of the past may be made by adding syāt or bhavet to the participle of the past, f. i. Kathâs. 27, 32 kiṃ mayāpakṛtaṃ rājño bhavet (in what can I have offended the king?). (*1) Likewise, by putting them to the participle of the future one gets the subjunctive mood of the future.

For the rest, Sanskrit can hardly be said to possess something like tenses of the subjunctive mood. (*2) Only a kind of optative of the aorist has survived, but it is not what we should call a tense. It is rather a kind of mood, see the next paragraph.

(*1)
So already in the archaic dialect. Ait. Br. 1, 4. 1 yaḥ pūrvam anījānaḥ syāt tasmai (to such a one, as has not sacrificed formerly), ījāna is the partic. of the perf. âtm. of yaj.

(*2)
The Ṛgvedamantras, indeed, contain many optatives, belonging to the aorist, some also, which are made of the stem of the perfect. But they have early disappeared from the language. — In the archaic dialect the conditional may occasionally do duty of the past of the liṅ, see 347 R. and cp. P. 3, 3, 140.

345. 現在・過去を表すliṅ

サンスクリットは仮定法の時制を区別しない。liṅはPres.と同じようにして過去を表す。kuryāmは時に「…した」（I might, would… have done）を表しうる。
Ch. Up. 4, 14, 2 when the teacher asks his disciple, who has taught you, my dear?” saumya ko nu tvānuśaśāsa, the other replies ko nu mānuśiṣyāt (who should have taught me?)
Gaut. 12, 1 śūdro dvijātīnatisaṃdhāyābhihatya vāgdaṇḍapāruṣyābhyāmaṅaṃ mocyo yenopahanyāt (a çûdra, who has intentionally reviled twice-born men — shall lose the member, whereby he has offended)
Mṛcch. III, p. 124 Cârudatta speaks cirayati maitreyaḥ / mā nāma vaiklavyādakāryaṃ kuryāt (Maitreya tarries; how, if, in his distress, be should have done some forbidden thing!)

けれども、過去時制のOpt.は、過去分詞にsyātやbhavetを付加することで作られる（*1）。
Kathâs. 27, 32 kiṃ mayāpakṛtaṃ rājño bhavet (in what can I have offended the king?)

同様に、未来分詞にsyātやbhavetを付加すると、未来時制の仮定法になる。

その他、サンスクリットは、仮定法における時制にあたるものを持っているとはとても言えない（*2）。aor.のOpt.の類のみが残っているが、それは時制と呼ぶべきものではない。それはある種の法（mood）である。次の節をみよ。

（*1）
ヴェーダ語には既にあった。
Ait. Br. 1, 4. 1 yaḥ pūrvam anījānaḥ syāt tasmai (to such a one, as has not sacrificed formerly)

ījānaは√yajのA. Pf.の分詞形である。

（*2）
実際に、Ṛgvedaのマントラは、aor.に属する多くのOpt.を含んでおり、そのいくつかは完了語幹から作られている。しかしながら、これらは早くに言語から消えてしまった。—ヴェーダ語において、時に条件法はliṅの過去形の役割をすることがある。347-補足およびP. 3, 3, 140をみよ。

346. Precative.

The precative or benedictive (āśiṣi liṅ). {P. 3, 3, 173.} This mood is restricted to benedictions, and even there it has a concurrent idiom: the imperative. Mâlat. VII, p. 91 vidheyāsurdevāḥ paramaramaṇīyāṃ pariṇatiṃ / kṛtāryo bhūyāsam (may the gods make the issue as happy as possible, may I obtain my desire), Utt. I, p. 5 kim anyadāśāsmahe / vīraprasavā bhūyāḥ, Daç. 164 ācaṣṭa ca hṛṣṭaḥ kośadāsaḥ / bhūyāsamevaṃ yāvadāyur āyatākṣi tvatprasādasya pātram iti (*1).

(*1)
Nala. 17, 35 the precative brūyāsta does the duty of an hortative imperative.

346. 祈願法

祈願法（precative, benedictive; āśiṣi liṅ）（P. 3, 3, 173）。この法は祈願することに限定され、Ipv.の共起表現もある。
Mâlat. VII, p. 91 vidheyāsurdevāḥ paramaramaṇīyāṃ pariṇatiṃ / kṛtāryo bhūyāsam (may the gods make the issue as happy as possible, may I obtain my desire)
Utt. I, p. 5 kim anyadāśāsmahe / vīraprasavā bhūyāḥ
Daç. 164 ācaṣṭa ca hṛṣṭaḥ kośadāsaḥ / bhūyāsamevaṃ yāvadāyur āyatākṣi tvatprasādasya pātram iti （*1）

（*1）
Nala. 17, 35での祈願法のbrūyāstaは勧告的なIpv.のはたらきをしている。

347. Conditional.

The so called conditional (lṛṅ) is properly the past of the future in -syati. In classic Sanskrit its employment is limited to the expression of the so called modus irrealis, that is the mood significative of what would happen or have happened, if something else should have occurred, which really has not taken place. Then, mostly, both protasis and apodosis contain the conditional. (*1)

Ch. Up. 6, 1, 7 yaddhyetadavedipyan kathaṃ me nāvakṣyan (for if they had known it, why should they not have told me so?), Panc. 237 tad yadi tasya vacanam akariṣyann ete tato na svalpo ’py anartho ’bhaviṣyad eteṣām (for if they had done according to his words, then not the least misfortune would have befallen them), Daç. 111 tau ced rājaputrau nirupadravāvevāvardhiṣyetāmiyatā kālena tavemāṃ vayovasthāmasprakṣyetām (if those two princes should have grown up without accidents, they would have reached your age by this time), Kumâras. 6, 68 gāmadhāsyatkathaṃ nāgaḥ… ā rasātalamūlāt tvam avālambiṣyathā na cet (how would the serpent [Çesha] bear the earth, if you [Vishnu] had not lifted it up from the bottom of hell?), Ch. Up. 1, 101 4 na vā ajīviṣyamimānakhādan (forsooth, I should have died, if I had not eaten them). In the examples given, the conditional in the apodosis sometimes denotes a hypothetical past, sometimes a hypothetical present, but in the protasis it is always expressive of a past. I do not recollect having met with any instance of the conditional denoting the hypothetical present in both members; M. 7, 20 f. i. it is signified by the liṅ in the protasis and by the conditional in the apodosis yadi na praṇayed rājā daṇḍaṃ daṇḍyeṣvatandritaḥ / śūle matsyānivāpakṣyandurbalān balavattarāḥ (if the king were not prompt to inflict punishment on those, who deserve it, the stronger would roast the weaker like fish on the spit). For the rest, it is everywhere allowed to use the liṅ instead of the conditional, f. i. R. 2, 64, 22 yadyetadaśubhaṃ karma na sma me kathayeḥ svayam / phalenmūrdhā sma te rājansadyaḥ śatasahasradhā (if you had not told me yourself this evil deed, your head would have fallen off in a thousand pieces), kathayeḥ and phalet = akathayiṣyaḥ and aphaliṣyat.

Rem. In the archaic dialect the conditional had a larger sphere of employment. Though rarely used in its original meaning of a future’s past (f. i. Ṛgv. 2, 30, 2 yo vṛtrāya sinamatrābhariṣyat »who was about to take away the provision of Vrtra”), it occurs there occasionally as the past of the liṅ, even in not-hypothetical sentences. Maitr. S. 1, 8, 1 sa tad eva nāvindat prajāpatir yad ahoṣyat (Praj. did not get what he could sacrifice) (*2), Çat. Br. 14, 4, 2, 3 ktata evāsya bhayaṃ vīyāya kasmād dhyabheṣyat (from that moment his fear vanished, for of whom could he have been afraid?) (*3).

(*1)
P. 3, 3, 139 liṅnimitte lṛṅ kriyātipattau.
P. 3, 3, 140 bhūte ca. — Kâç. bhūte ca kāle liṅnimitte kriyātipattau satyāṃ lṛṅpratyayo bhavati.

(*2)
Even here and in similar instances the conditional shows its origin. The sentence quoted from the Maitr. S. treats of an action put into the past, if it were a present one, the sentence would assume this shape na vindati yaddhoṣyati or juhuyāt. In other terms, ahoṣyat may here be considered as the past of hoṣyat.

(*3)
In a well-known passage of the Chândogya-upanishad (6, 1, 3) the conditional is hidden under a false reading uta tam ādeśam aprākṣyo yenāśrutaṃ śrutaṃ bhavati etc. Çankara explains aprākṣyaḥ by pṛṣṭavān asi, the Petr. Dict. accepts it as an aorist, though it is then a barbarism, for if aor., it would have been aprākṣīḥ. Replace aprakṣyaḥ, and all is right »had you but asked the instruction, by which etc.” Cp. P. 3, 3, 141.

347. 条件法

いわゆる条件法（lṛṅ）は、正確には単純未来-syatiの過去時制である。古典サンスクリットにおいては、その用法はいわゆる不確定法（modus irrealis）、すなわち、未だ生起していない何事かが生じ来たであろう場合に、何が〈起こる/起こった〉のかを表す法である。したがって、ほとんどの場合、前提文（protasis）と帰結文（apodosis）の両方は条件法を内包する（*1）。

Ch. Up. 6, 1, 7 yaddhyetadavedipyan kathaṃ me nāvakṣyan (for if they had known it, why should they not have told me so?)
Panc. 237 tad yadi tasya vacanam akariṣyann ete tato na svalpo ’py anartho ’bhaviṣyad eteṣām (for if they had done according to his words, then not the least misfortune would have befallen them)
Daç. 111 tau ced rājaputrau nirupadravāvevāvardhiṣyetāmiyatā kālena tavemāṃ vayovasthāmasprakṣyetām (if those two princes should have grown up without accidents, they would have reached your age by this time)
Kumâras. 6, 68 gāmadhāsyatkathaṃ nāgaḥ… ā rasātalamūlāt tvam avālambiṣyathā na cet (how would the serpent [Çesha] bear the earth, if you [Vishnu] had not lifted it up from the bottom of hell?)
Ch. Up. 1, 101 4 na vā ajīviṣyamimānakhādan (forsooth, I should have died, if I had not eaten them)

提示された例の中、帰結文の条件法は時に仮定の過去（hypothetical past）を、時に仮定の現在を表すことがあるのだが、前提文の場合は常に過去時制を表している。その両者がともに仮定の現在を表す条件法であるような用例について、私は見た覚えがない；
M. 7, 20 f. i. it is signified by the liṅ in the protasis and by the conditional in the apodosis yadi na praṇayed rājā daṇḍaṃ daṇḍyeṣvatandritaḥ / śūle matsyānivāpakṣyandurbalān balavattarāḥ (if the king were not prompt to inflict punishment on those, who deserve it, the stronger would roast the weaker like fish on the spit)

その他、条件法の代わりにliṅを用いることはどこでも許される；
R. 2, 64, 22 yady etad aśubhaṃ karma na sma me kathayeḥ svayam / phalen mūrdhā sma te rājansadyaḥ śatasahasradhā (if you had not told me yourself this evil deed, your head would have fallen off in a thousand pieces)

kathayeḥとphaletはそれぞれakathayiṣyaḥ・aphaliṣyatに相当する。

【補足】
ヴェーダ語においては、条件法は広い使用領域を持っている。その本来の意味である未来の過去（future’s past）で用いられることは稀であるが（Ṛgv. 2, 30, 2 yo vṛtrāya sinamatrābhariṣyat »who was about to take away the provision of Vṛtra”）、仮定文でない文であっても、過去を表すliṅが用いられることがある。
Maitr. S. 1, 8, 1 sa tad eva nāvindat prajāpatir yad ahoṣyat (Praj. did not get what he could sacrifice) （*2）
Çat. Br. 14, 4, 2, 3 ktata evāsya bhayaṃ vīyāya kasmād dhyabheṣyat (from that moment his fear vanished, for of whom could he have been afraid?) （*3）

（*1）
P. 3, 3, 139 liṅnimitte lṛṅ kriyātipattau. P. 3, 3, 140 bhūte ca. — Kâç. bhūte ca kāle liṅnimitte kriyātipattau satyāṃ lṛṅpratyayo bhavati.

（*2）
これや同様の用例でも、条件法はその起源を見せている。Māitrāyaṇī Saṃhitāから引用された一節は過去に行われた行為を扱っており、もしそれが現在のものであったならば、文はna vindati yaddhoṣyati、あるいはjuhuyāt、という形をとったであろう。言い換えると、ahoṣyatはここではhoṣyatの過去形と見なされているのである。

（*3）
Chāndogya-upaniṣadの有名な一節（6, 1, 3）では、条件法は、間違った読みの下に隠れている：uta tam ādeśam aprākṣyo yenāśrutaṃ śrutaṃ bhavatiなど。Śaṅkaraはaprākṣyaḥを“pṛṣṭavān asi”によって説明し、Sanskrit Wörterbuchはこれをaor.とする。それならそれで文法を外れた語法となるけれども、もしaor.ならaprākṣīḥであっただろう。aprakṣyaḥを置き換えればすべて意味が通る：»had you but asked the instruction, by which etc.’’。P. 3, 3, 141をみよ。

348. Imperative.

Sanskrit imperative (loṭ) comprises more than is conveyed by its European name. It is not only the equivalent of what we are wont to understand by this mood, but it is also expressive of wishes, possibility and doubt.

We will treat severally of its different employment:

I. The mood of precept and exhortation.

I. The imperative, like ours, signifies an order or injunction, permission, precept, exhortation, admonition.

Examples: 2d person. Kathâs. 81, 56 asmat svāminīkṛtaṃ / bhajasvātithyamuttiṣṭha snāhi bhuṅkṣva tataḥ param (enjoy the hospitality of our mistress, get up, take a bath, thereafter take food), Çâk. IV vatsau bhaginyāḥ panthānamādeśayatam (my children, show your sister the way), Prab. V, p. 103 hā putrakāḥ kva gatāḥ stha datta me prativacanam; — 3d person. Daç. 132 apasaratu dviradakīṭa eṣa (let this wicked elephant withdraw), Nala. 17, 32 prayatantu tava preṣyāḥ puṇyaślokasya mārgaṇe (your attendants must try to find out Nala), Mâlav. V, p. 137 tau pṛthagvaradākūle śiṣṭām uttaradakṣiṇe (they may rule over —); — 1st person. Çâk. III yady anumanyase tad aham enāṃ viśadāṃ karavāṇi (if you permit, I will make —), Mhbh. 1, 146, 29 carāma vasudhām imām (let us wander over this country), Nala. 7, 7 nalaṃ vīraṃ puṣkaraḥ paravīrahā dīvyāvety abravīt bhrātā.

Rem. In exhortations, some particles are often added to the 2d person, as api, aṅga, nanu etc. See 418.

348. 命令法

サンスクリットの命令法（imperative; loṭ）は、そのヨーロッパでの名称〔＝imperative〕で伝達される以上のものから成る。この法でふつう理解されるものと等しいだけでなく、願望・可能性・疑惑なども表される。

その用法の違いは個別に扱うこととする：

I. 勧告・奨励

Ipv.は、西洋の諸言語と同様に、指令・命令・許可・勧告・奨励・訓戒を表す。

・1st.の例
Çâk. III yady anumanyase tad aham enāṃ viśadāṃ karavāṇi (if you permit, I will make —)
Mhbh. 1, 146, 29 carāma vasudhām imām (let us wander over this country)
Nala. 7, 7 nalaṃ vīraṃ puṣkaraḥ paravīrahā dīvyāvety abravīt bhrātā

・2nd.の例
Kathâs. 81, 56 asmat svāminīkṛtaṃ / bhajasvātithyamuttiṣṭha snāhi bhuṅkṣva tataḥ param (enjoy the hospitality of our mistress, get up, take a bath, thereafter take food)
Çâk. IV vatsau bhaginyāḥ panthānamādeśayatam (my children, show your sister the way)
Prab. V, p. 103 hā putrakāḥ kva gatāḥ stha datta me prativacanam

・3rd.の例
Daç. 132 apasaratu dviradakīṭa eṣa (let this wicked elephant withdraw)
Nala. 17, 32 prayatantu tava preṣyāḥ puṇyaślokasya mārgaṇe (your attendants must try to find out Nala)
Mâlav. V, p. 137 tau pṛthagvaradākūle śiṣṭām uttaradakṣiṇe (they may rule over —)

【補足】
奨励においては、しばしばapi・aṅga・nanuなどのいくつかの不変化辞が2nd.に付加される。418をみよ。

349. Courteous injunction.

In courteous injunctions and requests it is very common to use the imperative of the passive instead of the 2d person of the active. Then the agent is commonly not expressed (10). Ratnâv. IV, p. 100 king to messenger kathaya kathāmativistarataḥ, messenger to king deva śrūyatām (listen, Sire), Panc. 48 the barber enjoins his wife bhadre śīghram ānīyatāṃ kṣurabhāṇḍam (please, my dear, fetch me my razorbox). Vikram. I, p. 4 the apsarasas are bewailing their companion Urvaçî, carried off by the Dânavas, Purûravas intervenes and says alamākranditena / purūravasaṃ māmetya kathyatāṃ kuto bhavatyaḥ paritrātavyā iti. — For the rest, bhavān is of course here likewise available (Mâlav. I, p. 4 tvaratāṃ bhavān) and when showing respect and reverence, one uses the title of the person addressed instead of it (260). So Panc. 86 tad adya māṃ bhakṣayitvā prāṇāndhārayatu svāmī is a more respectful more of inviting, than svāmin prāṇāndhāraya, cp. ibid. 48 śṛṇvantu bhavantaḥ sabhāsadaḥ (v. a. I request the judges to listen).

349. 丁寧な命令

丁寧な命令や要請では、能動態の2nd.の代わりに受動態のIpv.が用いられるのが常である。その場合、ふつう行為主体は表現されない（10）。
Ratnâv. IV, p. 100 king to messenger kathaya kathāmativistarataḥ, messenger to king deva śrūyatām (listen, Sire)
Panc. 48 the barber enjoins his wife bhadre śīghramānīyatāṃ kṣurabhāṇḍam (please, my dear, fetch me m y razorbox)
Vikram. I, p. 4 the apsarasas are bewailing their companion Urvaçî, carried off by the Dânavas, Purûravas intervenes and says alamākranditena / purūravasaṃ māmetya kathyatāṃ kuto bhavatyaḥ paritrātavyā iti

その他、bhavānはもちろん〔通常の敬意表現として〕同様に使用可能であり（Mâlav. I, p. 4 tvaratāṃ bhavān）、敬意や崇敬を見せる場合には、代わりに話しかけられる人物の称号を用いる（260）。
Panc. 86 tadadya māṃ bhakṣayitvā prāṇāndhārayatu svāmī is a more respectful more of inviting, than svāmin prāṇāndhāraya
ibid. 48 śṛṇvantu bhavantaḥ sabhāsadaḥ (v. a. I request the judges to listen)

350. arhati when periphrasing the imperative.

Another manner of expressing polite request, equally frequent, is using the verb arhati. One says śrotum arhasi = śrūyatām, cp. our „deign to listen.” Nala. 3, 7 Nala says to the gods māṃ na preṣayitum arhatha (please, send not me), Çâk. V the doorkeeper to the king kaścid eṣām upādhyāyasaṃdeśastaṃ devaḥ śrotum arhati.

Rem. The liṅ and the future in -syati are concurrent idioms with the imperative, the former especially in exhortations and precepts (343, a), the latter, when giving instructions (344, a). The future does, however, not cease to be a future; in other terms, it is not used in orders or permissions to be acted up to immediately, but if two or more injunctions are given, then often the one prior in time is put in the imperative, the latter expressed by the future. Mâlav. III, p. 79 bhadre yāsyasi / mama tāvad utpannāvasaram arthitvaṃ (you may go, but first hear —). Hit. 108 the old jackal instructs the others, how to get rid of the blue jackal, their insolent kinsman. When giving the general precept, he uses the imperative kuruta, but the future kariṣyatha, when giving the special injunction, to be acted up at a fixed point of time in the future (*1).

(*1)
In this very meaning a few passages of the Mahâbhârata afford a 2d pers. plur. of the medial future in -dhvam, instead of -dhve, in other terms a formal difference, which stamps these forms as imperatives of the future. Bopp, Vergl. Gr. § 729 quotes three instances: Mhbh. 1, 17, 13; 3, 228, 8; 6, 27, 10, see Holtzmann, Grammatisches aus dem Mhbhta p. 33. To them I can add a fourth, Mhbh. 1, 133, 13: Drona being seized by a shark, calls upon his disciples for rescue grāhaṃ hatvā tu mokṣyadhvaṃ mām.

350. Ipv.を迂言する際の√arh

同じくらい頻繁な、丁寧な要請を表す別の仕方は、動詞√arhを用いることである。śrūyatāmはśrotum arhasiとなる。英語では“deign to listen”（聞き給え）が相当する。
Nala. 3, 7 Nala says to the gods māṃ na preṣayitum arhatha (please, send not me)
Çâk. V the doorkeeper to the king kaścid eṣām upādhyāyasaṃdeśastaṃ devaḥ śrotum arhati

【補足】
liṅと単純未来-syatiは、前者は特に奨励・勧告で（343-a）、後者は指示を与える場合に（344-a）、Ipv.を伴って用いられる語法である。しかしながら、未来時制が未来時制でなくなる、ということはない；言い換えると、それは直ちに遂行される命令・許可では用いられないが、2つ以上の命令が与えられる場合には、しばしば、時間的に前のものがIpv.、後のものがFut.で表される。
Mâlav. III, p. 79 bhadre yāsyasi / mama tāvad utpannāvasaram arthitvaṃ (you may go, but first hear —)

またHit. 108では、老いたジャッカルが他の者に、横柄な同族である青いジャッカルを追放する方法を教える。一般的な勧告を与えるとき、彼はIpv.のkurutaを用いるが、未来の決まった時点で遂行されるべき特別な命令を与える場合には、Fut.のkariṣyathaを用いる（*1）。

（*1）
まさにこの意味合いで、Mahābhārataのいくつかの節はA. Fut.pl.2nd.を、-dhveの代わりに-dhvamで、言い換えると、未来時制のIpv.としての形態を銘記したことに因る形式上の差異で、与えている。Bopp 1833, §729は3つの例を引用している：Mhbh. 1, 17, 13; 3, 228, 8; 6, 27, 10。〔文法事項の参考資料としては〕Holtzmann 1884, p. 33をみよ。これらには4つ目を加えられよう：
Mhbh. 1, 133, 13: Drona being seized by a shark, calls upon his disciples for rescue grāhaṃ hatvā tu mokṣyadhvaṃ mām

351. II. Imperative expressive of wishes.

II. The imperative is expressive of wishes and benedictions.

Examples: Such phrases as ciraṃ jīva, Hit. 118 gaccha vijayī bhava, Nâgân. IV, p. 61 vijayetāṃ kumārau (may the princes be victorious), Panc. 16 śivāste panthānaḥ santu (v. a. God speed you on your way), Mudr. VII, p. 231 ciram avatu mahīṃ pārthivaś candraguptaḥ. — Here the precative (346) and the liṅ are concurrent idioms.

Rem. It is to benedictions that the imperative in -tāt is limited in the classic language. {P. 7, 1, 35.} Daç. enam āyuṣmantaṃ pitṛrūpo bhavān abhirakṣatāt. (*1) In the ancient dialect it had a wider employment, only see the series of precepts quoted Ait. Br. 2, 6, 13-16. (*2)

(*1)
Another instance is pointed out by prof. Kern as occurring in a Sanskrit inscription on a stone, originating from Java, which stone is now in the Museum of Antiquities at Calcutta. Vs. 4 of this metrical inscription has this close: sa jayatād erlaṅganāmā nṛpaḥ (king Erlanga may be victolious). See Kern’s paper in the Bijdragen van het Instituut voor de Taal- Land- en Volkenkunde van Nederlandsch Indië, 1885 (X, p. 1-21).

(*2)
Delbrück, Altindische Wortfolge, p. 2-6 has endeavoured to prove that the imper. in -tāt, did duty of an imperative or the future in the dialect of the brâhmaṇa-works.

351. II. 願望を表すIpv.

2. Ipv.は願望（wish）や祈願（benediction）を表しうる。

例：
ciraṃ jīva
Hit. 118 gaccha vijayī bhava
Nâgân. IV, p. 61 vijayetāṃ kumārau (may the princes be victorious)
Panc. 16 śivāste panthānaḥ santu (v. a. God speed you on your way)
Mudr. VII, p. 231 ciram avatu mahīṃ pārthivaś candraguptaḥ

ここにおいて、祈願法（346）とliṅは同じ働きをする。

【補足】
古典サンスクリットにおいて-tātで終わるIpv.が制限されているのは、祈願に対してである（P. 7, 1, 35）。
Daç. enam āyuṣmantaṃ pitṛrūpo bhavān abhirakṣatāt （*1）

ヴェーダ語ではより広い用法があった。Ait. Br. 2, 6, 13-16をみよ（*2）。

（*1）
別の用例として、Kern博士は、ジャワ島に由来する石に刻まれたサンスクリットの碑文に〔-tātで終わるIpv.が〕あると指摘しているが、その石は現在、カルカッタの古代博物館（State Archaeological Museum?）にある。この韻文の碑文の第4詩節はこれに近い：sa jayatād erlaṅganāmā nṛpaḥ (king Erlanga may be victolious)。Bijdragen van het Instituut voor de Taal- Land- en Volkenkunde van Nederlandsch Indië, 1885 (X, p. 1-21)のKernの論文をみよ。

（*2）
Delbrück Altindische Wortfolge, p. 2-6は、-tātのIpv.が、ブラーフマナ文献のサンスクリットにおいてIpv.やFut.のはたらきをすることを証明しようと努めている。

352. III. Imperative expressive of possibility and doubt.

III. The imperative is a kind of potential mood, expressive of possibility and doubt (cp. 344). It is especially used in interrogations.

Examples are frequent of the 1st and 3d person. — Panc. I, 225 it says, a serpent even a not-poisonous one, is to be dreaded viṣaṃ bhavatu mā bhūyāt phaṭāṭopo bhayaṃkaraḥ (it may have poison or not, the swelling of a serpent’s crest is dreadful), Mhbh. 1, 37, 8 api mantrayamāṇā hi hetuṃ paśyāma mocane (perhaps by deliberation we may find some means for rescue), Mâlav. IV, p. 117 āḥ / kathaṃ nu khalv asmāt saṃkaṭān mocyāvahai (how may we be rescued from this danger?), Utt. I, p. 21 pratyetu kastaddhuvi (who on earth will believe it?), Vikram. V, p. 184 bho rājan kiṃ te bhūyaḥ priyaṃ karotu pākaśāsanaḥ (say, king, what may Indra moreover do for you?), Hit. 118 katham ayaṃ ślāghyatāṃ mahāsattvaḥ (how may this great-hearted man be praised [as he deserves] ?).

352. III. 可能性や疑惑を表すIpv.

3. Ipv.は一種の可能法であり、可能性や疑惑を表す（344）。特に疑問文で用いられる。

用例は1st.と3rd.が頻繁である：
Panc. I, 225 it says, a serpent even a not-poisonous one, is to be dreaded viṣaṃ bhavatu mā bhūyāt phaṭāṭopo bhayaṃkaraḥ (it may have poison or not, the swelling of a serpent’s crest is dreadful)
Mhbh. 1, 37, 8 api mantrayamāṇā hi hetuṃ paśyāma mocane (perhaps by deliberation we may find some means for rescue)
Mâlav. IV, p. 117 āḥ / kathaṃ nu khalv asmāt saṃkaṭān mocyāvahai (how may we be rescued from this danger?)
Utt. I, p. 21 pratyetu kastaddhuvi (who on earth will believe it?)
Vikram. V, p. 184 bho rājan kiṃ te bhūyaḥ priyaṃ karotu pākaśāsanaḥ (say, king, what may Indra moreover do for you?)
Hit. 118 katham ayaṃ ślāghyatāṃ mahāsattvaḥ (how may this great-hearted man be praised [as he deserves] ?)

353. IV. Imperative with mā and other constructions, expressive of prohibition.

IV. The imperative with mā or māsma serves to express prohibition. Yet this idiom is comparatively little used, but instead of it either alam or kṛtam with the instrumental of a verbal noun, or the aorist without augment, preceded by mā or māsma. {P. 3, 3, 175.} „Do not fear” f. i. = alaṃ bhayena, kṛtaṃ bhayena or mā bhaiṣīḥ.

Examples : 1. of imper. with mā and māsma. — Panc. 294 mā tvaṃ vairāgyaṃ gaccha, Kathâs. 39, 233 yāta māsmeha tiṣṭhati (go on, do not stay here); — 2. of alam and kṛtam with instrumental. Mudr. I, p. 46 alam āśaṅkayā (no hesitation more), ibid. p. 53 vatsālaṃ viṣādena (be not sorry, my dear), Panc. 64 alaṃ saṃbhrameṇa, Çâk. I kṛtaṃ saṃdehena; —

Aorist with mā

3. of aor. with mā. Daç. 143 māsma bhavatyo bhaiṣuḥ (do not fear, ladies), Mhbh. 1, 153, 34 mā ciraṃ kṛthāḥ (do not tarry), R. 2, 42, 6 kaikeyi mām akāṅgāni mā sprākṣīḥ pāpaniścaye (do not touch my body, you evil-minded woman).

Rem. 1. alam is also construed with a gerund or an infin. Mudr. III, p. 124 alam upālabhya (do not censure me any longer), Mṛcch. III, p. 106 alaṃ suptajanaṃ prabodhayitum (do not awake the sleeping people).

Rem. 2. In the epic dialect the augment is not always dropped in the aorist with mā. So in the famous imprecation R. 1, 2, 15 mā niṣāda pratiṣṭhāṃ tvamagamaḥ śāśvatīḥ samāḥ. Cp. Mhbh. 1, 37, 7 mā naḥ kālo ‘tyagādayam.

Rem. 3. With māsma not only the aorist is allowed, but also the imperfect tense, of course without augment. {P. 3, 3, 176.} R. 2, 9, 23 mā smainaṃ pratyudīkṣethā mā cainamabhibhāṣathāḥ, Daç. 160 māsma nātha matkṛte’dhyavasyaḥ sāhasam.

Rem. 4. mā with optative is of course a concurrent idiom. In the prâkṛts also mā with future in -syati. Likewise in the epic dialect. Mbbh. 1, 30, 15 the three idioms are used side by side putra mā sāhasāṃ kārṣīrmā sadyo lapsyase vyathām / mā tvāṃ daheyuḥ saṃkruddhā vālakhilyā marīcipāḥ.

353. IV. māを伴うIpv.とその他の構文：禁止

4. māやmāsmaを伴うIpv.は禁止を表す。けれども、この語法は比較的あまり使われないのであるが、その代わりに、動名詞のinst.を伴うalamやkṛtamか、あるいは、māやmāsmaが先行するオーグメント無しのaor.か、が用いられる（P. 3, 3, 175）。例えば、「恐れるな」はalaṃ bhayena、kṛtaṃ bhayena、mā bhaiṣīḥとなる。

1. mā・māsmaを伴うIpv.

Panc. 294 mā tvaṃ vairāgyaṃ gaccha
Kathâs. 39, 233 yāta māsmeha tiṣṭhati (go on, do not stay here)

2. 動名詞のinst.を伴うalam・kṛtam

Mudr. I, p. 46 alam āśaṅkayā (no hesitation more)
ibid. p. 53 vatsālaṃ viṣādena (be not sorry, my dear)
Panc. 64 alaṃ saṃbhrameṇa
Çâk. I kṛtaṃ saṃdehena

3. mā・māsmaが先行するオーグメント無しのaor.

Daç. 143 māsma bhavatyo bhaiṣuḥ (do not fear, ladies)
Mhbh. 1, 153, 34 mā ciraṃ kṛthāḥ (do not tarry)
R. 2, 42, 6 kaikeyi mām akāṅgāni mā sprākṣīḥ pāpaniścaye (do not touch my body, you evil-minded woman)

【補足1】
alamは動名詞（gerund）や不定詞（infinitive）とも文法的に結びつく。
Mudr. III, p. 124 alam upālabhya (do not censure me any longer)
Mṛcch. III, p. 106 alaṃ suptajanaṃ prabodhayitum (do not awake the sleeping people)

【補足2】
叙事詩のサンスクリットでは、māを伴うaor.のオーグメントは常に脱落しない。
R. 1, 2, 15 mā niṣāda pratiṣṭhāṃ tvamagamaḥ śāśvatīḥ samāḥ
Mhbh. 1, 37, 7 mā naḥ kālo ‘tyagādayam

【補足3】
māsmaを伴う場合、aor.だけでなくImpf.も、もちろんオーグメント無しのaor.も許される（P. 3, 3, 176）。
R. 2, 9, 23 mā smainaṃ pratyudīkṣethā mā cainamabhibhāṣathāḥ
Daç. 160 māsma nātha matkṛte ’dhyavasyaḥ sāhasam

【補足4】
Opt.を伴うmāはもちろん同じはたらきをする。プラークリットでの単純未来-syatiを伴うmāも同じ。叙事詩サンスクリットも同様。
Mbbh. 1, 30, 15 3つのイディオムが並んで用いられている：putra mā sāhasāṃ kārṣīrmā sadyo lapsyase vyathām / mā tvāṃ daheyuḥ saṃkruddhā vālakhilyā marīcipāḥ

354.

The aorist with mā is not restricted to prohibition. It does occasionally duty as an optative with negation. Mṛcch. VIII, p. 280 vasantasene / anyasyām api jātau mā veśyā bhūs tvaṃ hi sundari / cāritryaguṇasaṃpanne jāyethā vimale kule, R. 2, 30, 19 mā vaśaṃ dviṣatāṃ gamam. It may even express a doubt (352): Kathâs. 42, 114 sahasā hi kṛtaṃ pāpaṃ kathaṃ mā bhūddipattaye (how can a crime, recklessly perpetrated, fail to cause mishap?). Or anxiety: Pat. I, p. 418 maivaṃ vijñāyi (lest one should decide thus).

354. māを伴うaor.：その他の用法

māを伴うaor.は禁止の意味に限定されない。時には否定を帯びたOpt.としてはたらくことがある。
Mṛcch. VIII, p. 280 vasantasene / anyasyām api jātau mā veśyā bhūs tvaṃ hi sundari / cāritryaguṇasaṃpanne jāyethā vimale kule
R. 2, 30, 19 mā vaśaṃ dviṣatāṃ gamam

疑惑をも表しうる（352）：
Kathâs. 42, 114 sahasā hi kṛtaṃ pāpaṃ kathaṃ mā bhūddipattaye (how can a crime, recklessly perpetrated, fail to cause mishap?)

あるいは懸念（anxiety）も：
Pat. I, p. 418 maivaṃ vijñāyi (lest one should decide thus)

355. Archaic conjunctive (leṭ).

In classic Sanskrit the 1st person of the imperative is less used than the other two (cp. 356).

the 1st persons of the imperative belong to the leṭ.

In fact, these 1st persons belong to another set of forms, viz. the so-called conjunctive (leṭ). In both dialects of vaidik compositions, in mantras as well as in brâhmaṇa-works, this conjunctive is still to be met with. But Pâṇini already qualifies it as archaic. In epic and classic Sanskrit, indeed, its 2d and 3d persons exist no more, whereas its 1st persons are the very forms considered to make part of the imperative (loṭ).

This vaidik conjunctive shows a great relationship both in form and employment to Greek conjunctive, especially that of the Homeric dialect. It may express both, the hortative mood and the optative, and is much used in subordinate sentences, conveying a doubt or a purpose or having general bearing. Here are some instances of its use. Ait. Br. 2, 2, 5 yadi ca tiṣṭhāsi yadi ca śayāsai draviṇamevāsmāsu dhattāt (whether you are standing or lying down, give us wealth), Rgv. 10, 85, 36 the marriage-mantra gṛbhṇāmi te saubhagatvāya hastaṃ mayā panyā jaradiṣṭhir yathāsaḥ, ibid. 39 dīrghāyurasyā yaḥ patirjīvāti śaradaḥ śatam (may her husband have a long life, may he reach a hundred autumns), TS. 6, 5, 6, 2 yo ’tā jāyātā asmākaṃ sa eko’sat (who shall be born of her, must be one of us). (*1).

Rem. 1. Like na with optative in the epic dialect (451 R. 1), so net with conjunctive in the vaidik works may be = »lest.” Nir. 1, 11 nej jihmā yantyo narakaṃ patāma (lest by going astray we shall go to hell), Ait. Br. 2, 12, 2 nen ma ime’nabhiprītā devān gacchān (lest they should go to the devas unsatisfied).

Rem. 2. Some few conjunctives, occurring in the archaic texts, belong to the system of the aorist, as karāma in Rgv. 10, 15, 6 mā hiṃsiṣṭa pitaraḥ kena cinno yadva āgaḥ puruṣatā karāma (do us no injury, fathers, on account of any offence, which we, after the manner of men, may have committed against you).

(*1)
Instances from Rgv., AV., Çat. Br., Ait. Br. are brought together by Delbrück in his treatise Der Gebrauch des Conjunctivs und Optativs im Sanskrit und Griechischen Halle 1871, especially p. 107-190. — It may be observed, that the Chândogya-upanishad has not a single instance of the leṭ in the 2d or 3d person.

355. 接続法（leṭ）

古典サンスクリットでは、Ipv.の1st.は他の2つの人称ほどには用いられない（356）。

○leṭに属するIpv.1st.

事実、これらの1st.は別の語形変化、すなわちいわゆる接続法（leṭ）に属する。ヴェーダのマントラとブラーフマナ文献では、この接続法はまだ見られる。けれども、Pāṇiniはすでにそれを古いものと見なしている。じっさい、叙事詩サンスクリットと古典サンスクリットでは、leṭの2nd.と3rd.はもはや存在せず、一方で1st.はIpv.（loṭ）の一部と見なされているところのまさにその形態である。

このヴェーダ語の接続法は、古代ギリシャ語、特にホメーロス言語（Homeric dialect）の接続法と、形態と用法において多大な関係性を呈している。ヴェーダ語の接続法は勧奨法（hortative mood）とOpt.の両方を表し、また、従属文で多く用いられ、〔その場合〕疑惑や意志、あるいはふるまいを伝達する。
Ait. Br. 2, 2, 5 yadi ca tiṣṭhāsi yadi ca śayāsai draviṇamevāsmāsu dhattāt (whether you are standing or lying down, give us wealth)
Rgv. 10, 85, 36 the marriage-mantra gṛbhṇāmi te saubhagatvāya hastaṃ mayā panyā jaradiṣṭhiryathāsaḥ
ibid. 39 dīrghāyur asyā yaḥ patir jīvāti śaradaḥ śatam (may her husband have a long life, may he reach a hundred autumns)
TS. 6, 5, 6, 2 yo ’tā jāyātā asmākaṃ sa eko ’sat (who shall be born of her, must be one of us) （*1）

【補足1】
叙事詩サンスクリットにおけるOpt.を伴う否定辞naと同様に（451-補足1）、ヴェーダ文献での接続法を伴うnetは「…しないように、…しはすまいか」を表す。
Nir. 1, 11 nej jihmā yantyo narakaṃ patāma (lest by going astray we shall go to hell)
Ait. Br. 2, 12, 2 nen ma ime ’nabhiprītā devān gacchān (lest they should go to the devas unsatisfied)

【補足2】
古いテキストで用いられる少数の接続法は、以下の例文にあるkarāmaのようにaor.組織に属する。
Rgv. 10, 15, 6 mā hiṃsiṣṭa pitaraḥ kena cinno yadva āgaḥ puruṣatā karāma (do us no injury, fathers, on account of any offence, which we, after the manner of men, may have committed against you)

（*1）
Ṛg-veda、Atharva-veda、Śatapatha-Brāhmaṇa、Aitareya-Brāhmaṇaからの用例が、Delbrückによって彼の論考Der Gebrauch des Conjunctivs und Optativs im Sanskrit und Griechischen, Halle 1871、特にp.107-190に引用されている。—Chāndogya-upaniṣadには一例たりとも、2nd.や3rd.のleṭの用例は無いようである。

356. 1st person of the present (laṭ) employed as an imperative.

Instead of the 1st persons of the imperative, classic Sanskrit often uses the present (laṭ), sometimes when having the nature of a hortative, as gacchāmaḥ when = „let us go,” but especially in dubitative interrogations: kiṃ karomi kva gacchāmi (what shall I do, where shall I go?)

a.) present with hortative meaning. R. 2, 96, 20 athavehaiva tiṣṭhāvaḥ saṃnaddhāvudyatāyudhau (let us stand still here —), Panc. 86 tasyāt ma śarīradānaṃ kurmaḥ (let us present him with our body), Prabodh. II p. 29 bhavatu / asminn āsane samupaviśāmi [= -viśāni], R. 3, 61, 18 vanaṃ sarve vicinuvaḥ (let us search through the whole forest). (*1) — The idiom is regular with tāvat. Çâk. I bhavatu / pādapāntarita eva viśvastāṃ tāvadenāṃ paśyāmi (well, I will look on her —), Mudr. IV, p. 138 Malayaketu to Bhâgurâyaṇa tannopasarpāvaḥ śṛṇuvas tāvat (therefore, let us not approach, let us rather listen), Panc. 261 atraiva durge sthitastāvad vedya ko’yaṃ bhaviṣyati. Cp. yāvat with present 478 al. 2.

b) present in dubitative interrogations: Panc. 40 kiṃ… śastreṇa mārayāmi kiṃ vā viṣaṃ prayacchāmi kiṃ vā paśudharmeṇa vyāpādayāmi (shall I kill him with a weapon, or give him poison or put him to death as one kills a beast?), Hit. 95 kva yāmaḥ kiṃ vā kurmaḥ, Mhbh. 1, 155, 42 kiṃ karomy aham āryāṇāṃ niḥśaṅkaṃ vadatānaghāḥ (friends, tell me frankly, what shall I do for you = kiṃ karavāṇi-). An instance of this idiom in the passive voice may be Panc. 37 tatkiṃ kriyate [sc. āvābhyām] »what shall be done by us?”

(*1)
If these instances occurred only in verbs of the 1st conjugation, where the formal difference between the endings of the present and those of the imperative is a slight one, one could account for them in a satisfactory way by supposing errors of the copyists. But, in reality, instances being likewise found among the verbs of the 2d conjugation, it must be recognized, as we do, that the present instead of the imperative is idiomatic for the 1st person. Such phrases as kurmaḥ, śṛṇuvaḥ = kṛṇavāma and śṛṇavāva should have moved Cappeller in his edition of the Ratnâvalî in Boethlingk’s Chrestomathy to leave intact the presents of the kind, be has changed into imperatives.

356. Ipv.として用いられるPres.1st.（laṭ）

古典サンスクリットは、Ipv.1st.の代わりとしてしばしば現在時制（laṭ）を用い、時にgacchāmaḥ（私達を行かせてくれ）のように勧奨法的性質をもつ場合がある。特に疑いを表す疑問文では以下のようになる：kiṃ karomi kva gacchāmi (what shall I do, where shall I go?)

a.) 勧奨の意味を帯びるPres.
R. 2, 96, 20 athavehaiva tiṣṭhāvaḥ saṃnaddhāvudyatāyudhau (let us stand still here —)
Panc. 86 tasyāt ma śarīradānaṃ kurmaḥ (let us present him with our body)
Prabodh. II p. 29 bhavatu / asminn āsane samupaviśāmi [= -viśāni]
R. 3, 61, 18 vanaṃ sarve vicinuvaḥ (let us search through the whole forest) （*1）

この語法はふつうtāvatを伴う。
Çâk. I bhavatu / pādapāntarita eva viśvastāṃ tāvadenāṃ paśyāmi (well, I will look on her —)
Mudr. IV, p. 138 Malayaketu to Bhâgurâyaṇa tannopasarpāvaḥ śṛṇuvas tāvat (therefore, let us not approach, let us rather listen)
Panc. 261 atraiva durge sthitastāvad vedya ko’yaṃ bhaviṣyati

Pres.を伴うyāvatの用法を確認せよ（478 al. 2）。

b.) 疑いを表す疑問文でのPres.
Panc. 40 kiṃ… śastreṇa mārayāmi kiṃ vā viṣaṃ prayacchāmi kiṃ vā paśudharmeṇa vyāpādayāmi (shall I kill him with a weapon, or give him poison or put him to death as one kills a beast?)
Hit. 95 kva yāmaḥ kiṃ vā kurmaḥ
Mhbh. 1, 155, 42 kiṃ karomy aham āryāṇāṃ niḥśaṅkaṃ vadatānaghāḥ (friends, tell me frankly, what shall I do for you = kiṃ karavāṇi-)

この語法の受動態における用例は以下の通り：
Panc. 37 tatkiṃ kriyate [sc. āvābhyām] »what shall be done by us?’’

（*1）
もしこれらの用例が第1類の動詞でのみ起こるのであれば、Pres.の語尾とIpv.の語尾との形式的な違いがわずかである場合、それが筆写した人のミスであると想定すると、満足のいく方法で説明することができる。けれども、実際には、第2活用の動詞にも同様の例が見られるので、1st.の場合にはPres.がIpv.に代わる、ということがイディオム的であることを認めねばならない。kurmaḥ、śṛṇuvaḥ＝kṛṇavāma、śṛṇavāvaのような語句は、BöhtlingkのSanskrit-Chrestomathie所収Cappeller校訂版Ratnāvalīにおいて、その種のPres.をそのままにしておくべきであったところをIpv.に訂正されてしまっている。

357. Kṛtyas.

The kṛtyas, as far as they do duty for finite verbs, may rank with the tenses, which are expressive of the subjunctive mood. They have the nature of Latin gerundivum, and, like this, they belong to the passive voice. But their sphere of employment is wider. They signify not only that, which one is obliged to do or what is prescribed to be done, but also what must happen by necessity or that which is fit, expected, likely to happen. {P. 3, 3, 163; 171; 172.}

The many sidedness of their employment.

Examples: 1. duty, precept. Yâjñ. I, 117 vṛddha-bhāri-nṛpa-snātastrī-rogi-vara-cakriṇām panthā deyaḥ (one must make room for an old man, one charged with a burden, for a king, a snâtaka, a woman, a sick man, a bridegroom and one in a carriage), Nala. 1, 19 hantavyo ’smi na te rājan (do not kill me), Çâk, I āśramamṛgo ’yaṃ na hantavyaḥ (— may not be killed), Panc. 269 śṛgāla āha / adyāpyekavāraṃ tavāntike tamāneṣyāmi paraṃ tvayā sajjokṛtakrameṇa sthātavyam. When substituting for these kṛtyas the active voice, one would get in the first example panthānaṃ dadyāt, in the second mā vadhīḥ, in the third na kaścid dhantum arhati, in the fourth tiṣṭha.

2. necessity. Panc. 167 mayāvaśyaṃ deśāntaraṃ gantavyam (I must needs go abroad), ibid. I, 450 mūrkhaṇāṃ paṇḍitā dveṣyā nirdhanānāṃ mahādhanāḥ (blockheads are the natural enemies of the learned, the poor of the wealthy).

3. probability, conjecture, expectation, etc. Çâk. III asmin latāmaṇḍape saṃnihitayā tayā bhavitavyam (she is sure to be in the neighbourhood of the bower), Panc. 240 siṃhaś cintayām āsa / guhāyāṃ rātrau kenāpi sattvenāgantavyam (the lion reflected: surely some animal will come into this hole to-night), Prabodh. V, p. 106 kvacid upakṛtiḥ kāryāmībhiḥ kṛtā kriyate ‘thavā (are they likely to confer any benefit or have they done so before or are they doing so now?). The last example plainly shows, that the kṛtya borders upon the sphere of a participle of the future, kārya being here almost = kariṣyamāṇa. Thus bhavitavya or bhāvya may be even = »future,” bhavitavyatā »the future.”

4. Even desert and ability find their expression by them, Kâç. on P. 3, 3, 169 gives this example bhavatā khalu kanyā voḍhavyā = bhavān khalu kanyāṃ vahet = bhavān etad arhed iti, and on sûtra 172 bhavatā khalu bhāro voḍhavyaḥ = bhavān hi śaktaḥ. — The kṛtyas may be also expressive of indignation at some fact, not expected. Mudr. VII, p. 220 Râxasa, when hearing the glory of his foe Çâṇakya proclaimed in the very streets of Pâtaliputra, exclaims etad api nāma rākṣasena śrotavyam (and even this Râxasa must hear!); Daç. 78 the wretched Jaina monk deplores his misfortune and the necessity, he has been put to, to break with the faith of his fathers mama tu mandabhāgyasya… aphalaṃ viprambhaprāyam īdṛśam idam adharmavartma dharmavatsamācaraṇīyam āsīt (thus, on such a road of disbelief, as this, which gives no fruit, but rather deception, I must walk, as if it were the true faith).

Rem. Some kṛtyas are restricted to »necessity,” viz. those in -āvya, cp. P. 3, 1, 125. — Other irregularities of meaning are caused by the improper employment of the passive voice, as dānīya, when denoting »the person who deserves a gift,” saṃdheya »one fit to make an alliance with” (Panc. III, 8), udvejanīya »to be dreaded” (ibid. III, 142). {P. 3, 3, 113.} Some may have even an active meaning, see P. 3, 4, 68.

357. kṛtya

kṛtyaは、定動詞のはたらきをする限りで、仮定法を表す時制に置かれる。これらはラテン語のgerundivum（gerundive；動形容詞、未来受動分詞）の性格をもち、gerundivumと同様に受動態に属する。けれども、その使用領域はより広い。これらは、行うよう義務付けられ（obliged）たり規定され（prescribed）たりしていることだけでなく、必然性（necessity）から起こったことや、起こるにふさわしいこと、起こると予期されたこと、起こりそうなことを表す（P. 3, 3, 163; 171; 172）。

○その多彩な用法

1. 義務・勧奨
Yâjñ. I, 117 vṛddha-bhāri-nṛpa-snātastrī-rogi-vara-cakriṇām panthā deyaḥ (one must make room for an old man, one charged with a burden, for a king, a snâtaka, a woman, a sick man, a bridegroom and one in a carriage)
Nala. 1, 19 hantavyo ’smi na te rājan (do not kill me)
Çâk, I āśramamṛgo ’yaṃ na hantavyaḥ (— may not be killed)
Panc. 269 śṛgāla āha / adyāpy ekavāraṃ tavāntike tamāneṣyāmi paraṃ tvayā sajjokṛtakrameṇa sthātavyam

これらkṛtyaを能動態に置き換える場合、最初の例文ではpanthānaṃ dadyāt、2番目ではmā vadhīḥ、3番目ではna kaściddhantum arhati、4番目ではtiṣṭhaとなる。

2. 必然性
Panc. 167 mayāvaśyaṃ deśāntaraṃ gantavyam (I must needs go abroad)
ibid. I, 450 mūrkhaṇāṃ paṇḍitā dveṣyā nirdhanānāṃ mahādhanāḥ (blockheads are the natural enemies of the learned, the poor of the wealthy)

3. 可能性・推量・予期など
Çâk. III asmin latāmaṇḍape saṃnihitayā tayā bhavitavyam (she is sure to be in the neighbourhood of the bower)
Panc. 240 siṃhaś cintayām āsa / guhāyāṃ rātrau kenāpi sattvenāgantavyam (the lion reflected: surely some animal will come into this hole to-night)
Prabodh. V, p. 106 kvacid upakṛtiḥ kāryāmībhiḥ kṛtā kriyate ‘thavā (are they likely to confer any benefit or have they done so before or are they doing so now?)

最後の例文は、ここでのkāryaがほとんどkariṣyamāṇaであるように、未来分詞の領域にkṛtyaが隣接していることを明らかに示している。しかしてbhavitavyaやbhāvyaは「未来」（future）、bhavitavyatāは〔より強固な、避け得ない〕「未来、運命」（the future）ともなる。

4. 果報（desert）や能力をも表しうる。Kâç. on P. 3, 3, 169がその例を提示している：
Kâç. on P. 3, 3, 169 bhavatā khalu kanyā voḍhavyā = bhavān khalu kanyāṃ vahet = bhavān etad arhed iti
ibid. on P. 3, 3, 172 bhavatā khalu bhāro voḍhavyaḥ = bhavān hi śaktaḥ

kṛtyaは予期されなかった何らかの事実に対する憤慨（indignation）をも表しうる。
Mudr. VII, p. 220 Râxasa, when hearing the glory of his foe Çâṇakya proclaimed in the very streets of Pâtaliputra, exclaims etad api nāma rākṣasena śrotavyam (and even this Râxasa must hear!)
Daç. 78 the wretched Jaina monk deplores his misfortune and the necessity, he has been put to, to break with the faith of his fathers mama tu mandabhāgyasya… aphalaṃ viprambhaprāyam īdṛśam idam adharmavartma dharmavatsamācaraṇīyam āsīt (thus, on such a road of disbelief, as this, which gives no fruit, but rather deception, I must walk, as if it were the true faith)