Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-j4x9h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-07T05:17:50.188Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some irregular Vedic imperatives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2026

Stanley Insler
Stanley Insler*
Affiliation:
Yale University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper discusses and explains some irregular Vedic imperatives in -dhi built with full-grade stem formants. Some archaic features of the aorist system are described in §§3–4.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 48 , Issue 3 , September 1972 , pp. 551 - 565
Copyright
Copyright © 1972 by Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Geldner, K. F. 1951. Der Rig-Veda… übersetzt. 3 vols. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Grassmann, H. 1873. Wörterbuch zum Rig-Veda. Leipzig: Brockhaus.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, K. 1957. Zur vedischen Verbalflexion. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft, vol. 2 (revised ed.), 121–137.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, K. 1967. Der Injunktiv im Veda. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, K. 1968. Zum Optativ des indogermanischen Wurzelaorists. Pratidānam (Festschrift F. B. J. Kuiper), 3–8. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Insler, S. 1966. Vedic tvāy. Indogermanische Forschungen 71.221–235.Google Scholar
Insler, S. 1967. Studies about the Sanskrit root ar/ṛ. Indogermanische Forschungen 72.250–258.Google Scholar
Insler, S. 1968. The origin of the Sanskrit passive aorist. Indogermanische Forschungen 73.312–346.Google Scholar
Macdonell, A. A. 1910. Vedic grammar. Strassburg: Trübner.10.1515/9783111577081CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Narten, J. 1964. Die Sigmatischen Aoriste im Veda. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Narten, J. 1968. Zum ‘proterodynamischen’ Wurzelpräsens. Pratidānam (Festschrift F. B. J. Kuiper), 9–19. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Oldenberg, H. 1909–12. Ṛgveda: Textkritische und exegetische Noten. 2 vols. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung.Google Scholar
Renou, L. 1964. Études védiques et pāṇinéennes, XIII. Paris: Boccard.Google Scholar
Szemerényi, O. 1964. Syncope in Greek and Indo-European and the nature of Indo-European accent. Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli.Google Scholar
Tedesco, P. 1968. Sanskrit dehí ‘give’. Lg. 44.1–24.Google Scholar
Wackernagel, J. 1896. Altindische Grammatik, I: Lautlehre. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Wackernagel, J. 1907. Indisches und Italisches. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung 41.305–319.Google Scholar
Wackernagel, J. 1926. Kleine Beiträge zur indischen Wortkunde. Festgabe H. Jacobi, 1–17. Bonn: F. Klopp.Google Scholar
Wackernagel, J. 1953. Kleine Schriften, I–II. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Whitney, W. D. 1889. A Sanskrit grammar. 2nd ed. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar