Page:Sanskrit Grammar by Whitney p1.djvu/246

 steal away our life; (MBh.) be comforted; do not grieve;  or  (MBh. R.) do not be afraid;  (R.) let not a change of time take place. Examples with the imperfect are:  (RV.) do not fear; thou wilt not die;  (AV.) do not make friends of them;  (MBh.) do not sorrow for thy son. The relation of the imperfect to the aorist construction, in point of frequency, is in RV. about as one to five, in AV. still less, or about one to six; and though instances of the imperfect are quotable from all the older texts, they are exceptional and infrequent; while in the epics and later they become extremely rare.

b. A single optative,, is used prohibitively with in RV.; the older language presents no other example, and the construction is very rare also later. In an example or two, also, the precative (, R. Pañc.) follows.

c. The RV. has once apparently with an imperative; but the passage is probably corrupt. No other such case is met with in the older language (unless . TA. i. 14; doubtless a bad reading for ); but in the epics and later the construction begins to appear, and becomes an ordinary form of prohibition: thus, (H.) do not bestow wealth on a lord;  (Vet.) friend, do not speak thus.

d. The ÇB. (xi. 5. 1 1) appears to offer a single example of a true subjunctive with ; there is perhaps something wrong about the reading.

e. In the epics and later, an aorist form not deprived of augment is occasionally met with after : thus, (MBh.) let not the time pass thee;  (R.) do not follow Vāli's road. But the same anomaly occurs also two or three times in the older language: thus,  (ÇB.),  (TA.),  (KS.).

580. But the use also of the optative with not in a prohibitive sense appears in the Veda, and becomes later a familiar construction: thus,  (RV.) may we suffer no harm at any time;  (AV.) and if he do not grant permission, let him not sacrifice;  (ÇB.) but he must not do that so;  (ÇGS.) let him not sleep by day;  (MBh.) let not people know thee. This in the later language is the correlative of the prescriptive optative, and both are extremely common; so that in a text of prescriptive character the optative forms may come to outnumber the indicative and imperative together (as is the case, for example, in Manu).

581. In all dependent constructions, it is still harder even in the oldest language to establish a definite distinction between subjunctive and optative; a method of use of either is scarcely to be found to which the other does not furnish a practical equivalent —