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。