Augment i and DhAtupAThas

[George Cardona]

>    Dear Sirs,  I'm working on a research about the union-vowel (or
>augment) "i" of the Sanskrit verb. For that reason I need to know which
>roots of  the words are, according to the Indian grammarians, seT, aniT or
>veT. I don't want to refer to the lists reported on the most  important
>Western grammars: I better wish to have first-hand datas from hindU
>grammarians, mainly from DhAtupAThas of the different grammar  schools. As
>for PAN, I don't have any problem because the  difference is clearly put
>in evidence by a particular anubandha. I wonder if also the other Dh.P's
>(the non-PANinlya-s  ones, mainly), have this information. Pasule's
>synopsis (1955) lacks that data,  reported in Hill & Harrison (1991)
>instead, in which I also read that  Jainendra-Dh.P. contains this
>information (Devanandin himself created a perfect  anubandha). What about
>the other Dh.P.'s? I would be grateful if  you could also suggest me some
>Western works on that subject. Thank you in advance   Emiliano Bianchi,
>Studente dell'Universita' degli Studi di  Milano

You might start with Paa.nini 7.2.10: ekaaca upade's'nudaattaat and
commentaries thereon.  Thus, the Mahaabhaa.sya (kielhorn III.285-6) lists
the bases that are anudaatta and the Kaa'sikaa and later commentaries
elaborate.  In addition, the Dhaatupaa.thas contain statements for separate
subsections, saying that such and such are se.t, ani.t or optionally
either.  There are good editions of these available.  Sincerely, George
Cardona