its first persons, which we may form from the roots या yā go and नम् nam bow. Thus:
| s. | d. | p. | s. | d. | p. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | अयासिषम् áyāsiṣam |
अयासिष्व áyāsiṣva |
अयासिष्म áyāsiṣma |
अनंसिषम् ánaṁsiṣam |
अनंसिष्व ánaṁsiṣva |
अनंसिष्म ánaṁsiṣma |
| etc. | etc. | etc. | etc. | etc. | etc. |
912. The siṣ-aorist is properly only a sub-form of the iṣ-aorist, having the tense-sign and endings of the latter added to a form of root increased by an added s. It is of extreme rarity in the older language, being made in RV. only from the roots gā sing and yā go, and in AV. only from hā leave, and doubtless also from pyā fill up and van win (see below, 914 b); the remaining older texts add jñā know (B.), jyā overpower, dhyā think (ÇB. once: the edition reads -dhā-), and ram be content (SV.: a bad variant for RV. rāsīya); other Brāhmaṇa forms which might be also of the s-aorist are adrāsīt, avāsīt, and ahvāsīt; and bhukṣiṣīya (PB. S.) must be regarded as an anomalous formation from √bhuj, unless we prefer to admit a secondary root bhukṣ, like bhakṣ from bhaj. In the later language have been found quotable from other roots only glāsīs, adhmāsīt, anaṁsīt, apāsīt, mlāsīs, and amnāsiṣus.
a. The participle hā́samāna and causative hāsayanti (RV.) show that hās had assumed, even at a very early period, the value of a secondary root beside hā for other forms than the aorist.
913. The whole series of older indicative forms (omitting, as doubtful, the 2d and 3d sing.) is as follows: agāsiṣam, ajñāsiṣam, ayāsiṣam, adhyāsiṣam; ajyāsiṣṭām, ayāsiṣṭām; ajñāsiṣma; ajñāsiṣṭa, áyāsiṣṭa; agāsiṣus, ayāsiṣus (ākṣiṣus is from √akṣ attain).
a. Forms without augment are these: jñāsiṣam, raṁsiṣam, hāsiṣam; hāsiṣṭam; hāsiṣṭām; hāsiṣṭa; hāsiṣus, gāsiṣus, jñāsiṣus. The accent would doubtless be upon the root-syllable.
914. a. Of proper subjunctives are found two, gāsiṣat and yāsiṣat (both RV.).
b. Optatives are not less rare: namely, yāsisīṣṭhās and pyāsiṣīmahi (for which the AV. manuscripts read pyāçiṣīmahi, altered in the edition to pyāyiṣ-); and doubtless vaṅçiṣīya (AV., twice) is to be corrected to vaṅsiṣīya, and belongs here. As to bhukṣiṣīya, see above, 912.
c. The accent of yāsiṣṭám (like aviṣṭám, 908) shows it to be a true imperative form; and yāsīṣṭa (RV., once) is doubtless the same, with anomalous ī for i.
915. Middle forms of this aorist, it will be noticed, occur from the optative only; but, considering the great rarity of the whole formation, we are hardly justified in concluding that in the ancient language the middle persons in -siṣi, -siṣṭhās, etc., were not allowable, like those in -iṣi, -iṣṭhās, and the others of the iṣ-aorist.
