126.

On this account we may understand how the genitive is sometimes used instead of the ablative with a.) verbs of asking, wishing, taking, receiving etc., b.) of hearing, learning, c.) of being afraid of.

a.) The abl. is here the regular idiom; the gen. not frequent, as Râjat. 1, 131 rājñastasya…vṛajato vijayeśvaraṃ / yayāce kācid abalā bhojanam, R. 1, 28, 10 pratīccha mama (accept of me), M, 4, 87 rājñaḥ pratigṛhṇāti lubdhasyocchāstravartinaḥ ( — accepts of a king, who is avaricious and a transgressor of his royal duty), Panc. 225 aham asya brāhmaṇasya goyugamapahariṣyāmi. So already in the archaic dialect. Gaut. 17, 1 praśastānāṃ svakarmasu dvijātīnāṃ brāhmaṇo bhuñcīta pratigṛhṇoyāñca (a brahman is allowed to eat and to accept presents from twice-born men of good behaviour);

b.) R. 6, 31, 2 cārāṇāṃ rāvaṇaḥ śrutvā prāptaṃ rāmam (Râvana after having heard from his spies the arrival of Râma), ibid. 3, 3, 4 nibodha mama (be informed from me). So sometimes with śuśrūṣate (cp. 86 c), as R. 2, 100, 7 kañcic chuśrūṣase pituḥ.

c.) R. 2, 29, 4 tava sarve hi bibhyati (all are afraid of you), Panc. III, 195 yā mamodvijate nityam (she, who has always an aversion to me). R. 3, 46, 29-31 affords an instance of both constructions together: iha śākhāmṛgāḥ siṃhāḥ… kathaṃ tebhyo na bibhyase / … kuñcarāṇāṃ tarasvitāṃ kathaṃ… na bibheṣi.

Rem. Compare nirviṇṇa (disgusted with) with a gen. Panc. mūṣakamāṃsasya nirviṇṇāham (I am disgusted with the flesh of mice), cp. 97 , R.

Spreading of employment with modern writers.

Now and then this abl.-like genitive seems to have modern been extended beyond its limits by abuse, especially of modern writers (*1).

(*1)
But not exclusively. The older literature does not lack of instances, as R. 3, 51, 27 baddhas tvaṃ kālapāśena kva gatas tasya [instead of tasmād] mokṣyase; cp. 3, 66, 11. — A very striking example is Bhâg. Pur. 8, 6, 21 amṛtotpādane yatnaḥ kriyatām avilambitam / yasya pītasya vai jantur mṛtyugrasto, here the gen. is abusively employed instead of the abl. yasmāt pītāt. M. de Saussure, from whose valuable treatise de l’emploi du génitif absolu en Sanscrit I borrow this example (see his note on p. 10), proves the impossibility of accounting for that gen. in a satisfactory way, when starting from the absolute construction. Hereby it is however not said that the presence of the participle pīta has not moved the author of the Bhâgavata to employ the genitive instead of the ablative. Likewise I scarcely believe Kalhaṇa would have used a gen. with yāc (Râjat. 1, 131, see 126 a), if the noun were not attended by a participle. Similarly with śru the gen. is preferred, if it be wanted to express the hearing somebody say or utter something, as Mhbh. 1, 141, 18 śṛṇu vadato mama. In short, it is likely, that the relative frequency of genitives of participles in Sanskrit style, especially if compared to the rareness of similar ablatives, has favorized the spreading of the ablative-like genitive.
It may also be noticed, that in most of such cases pronouns are concerned.

126. 承前（abl.の代用としてのgen.）

このためgen.が、a.) 「尋ねる」「願う」「取る」「受け取る」等、b.) 「聞く」「学ぶ」、c.) 「…を恐れる」を表す動詞を伴うabl.の代わりに用いられていると解し得るときがある。

a.) abl.がここでの通常の語法で、gen.は頻繁ではない：
Râjat. 1, 131 rājñastasya…vṛajato vijayeśvaraṃ / yayāce kācid abalā bhojanam
R. 1, 28, 10 pratīccha mama (accept of me)
M, 4, 87 rājñaḥ pratigṛhṇāti lubdhasyocchāstravartinaḥ ( — accepts of a king, who is avaricious and a transgressor of his royal duty)
Panc. 225 aham asya brāhmaṇasya goyugamapahariṣyāmi

よってヴェーダ語では既にこのようになっている：
Gaut. 17, 1 praśastānāṃ svakarmasu dvijātīnāṃ brāhmaṇo bhuñcīta pratigṛhṇoyāñca (a brahman is allowed to eat and to accept presents from twice-born men of good behaviour)

b.)
R. 6, 31, 2 cārāṇāṃ rāvaṇaḥ śrutvā prāptaṃ rāmam (Râvana after having heard from his spies the arrival of Râma)
ibid. 3, 3, 4 nibodha mama (be informed from me)

śuśrūṣateを伴うことがある（86-cと比較せよ）
R. 2, 100, 7 kañcic chuśrūṣase pituḥ

c.)
R. 2, 29, 4 tava sarve hi bibhyati (all are afraid of you) Panc. III, 195 yā mamodvijate nityam (she, who has always an aversion to me)
R. 3, 46, 29-31 iha śākhāmṛgāḥ siṃhāḥ… kathaṃ tebhyo na bibhyase / … kuñcarāṇāṃ tarasvitāṃ kathaṃ… na bibheṣi（両方の構文が共に用いられている例）

【補足】
gen.を伴うnirviṇṇa（うんざりさせられる）と比較せよ。
Panc. mūṣakamāṃs asya nirviṇṇāham (I am disgusted with the flesh of mice)

近代の作家による用法の拡張

時々、このabl.的gen.は、特に現代の作家の乱用によって、その限界を超えて近代的に拡張されているように思われる（*1）。

（*1）
けれども、近代のみのことでもなく、古い文献の例には欠かない。
R. 3, 51, 27 baddhas tvaṃ kālapāśena kva gatas tasya [instead of tasmād] mokṣyase

R. 3, 66, 11と比較せよ。—ちょうど当てはまる例は以下の通り：
Bhâg. Pur. 8, 6, 21 amṛtotpādane yatnaḥ kriyatām avilambitam / yasya pītasya vai jantur mṛtyugrasto

ここでgen.は、abl.のyasmāt pītātの代わりとして雑に用いられている。de Saussureの価値ある論文de l’emploi du génitif absolu en Sanscritから、絶対構文にあってそのようなgen.を満足のいく仕方で説明することの不可能性を示す、この例を借用する（p. 10の注釈をみよ）。しかしこれにより、分詞pītaの存在が、Bhāgavata〔purāṇa〕の作者をして、abl.の代わりにgen.を用いるように動かさなかった、とは言われていない。同様に、名詞が分詞に伴われないとしても、Kalhaṇaがyācを伴うgen.を用いていた（Râjat. 1, 131。126-aをみよ）とはとても信じられない。 また、誰かの言うことを聴取したりすることを表したい場合、śruを伴うgen.が好まれる：
Mhbh. 1, 141, 18 śṛṇu vadato mama

端的に言うと、サンスクリットの文体における分詞のgen.の相対頻度は、特に同様のgen.の希少さと比較する場合には、abl.的gen.の拡大を殊に裏付けるようである。
そのような場合のほとんどで、代名詞が関係していることも認められる。