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。