391. Old infinitives.

The infinitive in -tum is the sole remnant of a great many similar forms, which existed in the ancient language, especially in the old dialect of the Vaidik mantras. Whitney, Sanskr. Gramm. § 970 gives a detailed account of them. All of them are oblique cases of nouns of action. We call them infinitives, because they share the construction of the verb, from which they are derived. Most of them were obsolete as early as the period of the brâhmaṇa-works, some indeed survived, but adopted the construction of the nouns. In such passages f. i. as Ṛgv. 9, 88, 2 sa īṃ ratho na bhūriṣāḍayoji mahaḥ purūṇi sātaye vasūni (like a much-bearing chariot he has been horsed, the mighty one, to bring us abundant boons), we are inclined to call sātaye an infinitive, for it has its object put in the accusative; likewise still Ait. Br. 2, 1, 1 yajñasya kiṃcideṣiṣyāmaḥ prajñātyai, since kiṃcit is the object of prajñātyai. But in such passages as Ait. Br. 2, 17, 8 svargasya lokasya samaṣṭyai (in order to gain heaven), the object is a genitive, and samaṣṭyai can no more be called infinitive. Now, the genitive with them is predominant in the brâhmaṇas and afterwards it is the sole idiom.

391. 古い不定詞

不定詞-tumは、古代、特にヴェーダのマントラの言葉にかつて存在したとても多くの類似形の中の、唯一の残滓である。Whitney §970はそれらの詳細な説明を与えている。それら全ては動作名詞の斜格（oblique case）である。派生元の動詞の構造を共有しているので、我々はこれらを不定詞＝動詞の語尾変化のない形（infinitive）と呼称する。そのほとんどはブラーフマナ文献の時代あたりの早期に廃れたが、ごく一部は生き残り、名詞の構造を取り入れた。
Ṛgv. 9, 88, 2 sa īṃ ratho na bhūriṣāḍayoji mahaḥ purūṇi sātaye vasūni (like a much-bearing chariot he has been horsed, the mighty one, to bring us abundant boons)

我々はsātayeを、その目的語がacc.に置かれていることから、ともすれば不定詞と呼ぶ；以下についても、kiṃcitがprajñātyaiの目的語であるから〔不定詞と呼びうるであろう〕：
Ait. Br. 2, 1, 1 yajñasya kiṃcideṣiṣyāmaḥ prajñātyai

しかしながら、以下の一節では、目的語はgen.であり、samaṣṭyaiはもはや不定詞とは呼び得ない：
Ait. Br. 2, 17, 8 svargasya lokasya samaṣṭyai (in order to gain heaven)