On 8 November 2016 at 14:50, Walter Slaje <slaje@kabelmail.de> wrote:
I am very sorry, but I don't quite understand under what entry of yaṣṭi Boehtlingk would indicate any such meanings as sacrifice or sacrificing?
He carefully distinguishes yaṣṭi (1) from yaṣṭi (2). He indicates meanings for yaṣṭi (1) (the flagstaff semantics), but circumspectively avoids to assign a meaning to yaṣṭi (2), as he considers the latter a mere (scribal or printing or transmissional) error for iṣṭi. As a wrong word formation / wrong reading, it is not supposed to connote a reliable meaning. Therefore he avoided to give one.


PW: f. nom. act. von 1. yaj P. 3,3,110, Sch. wohl fehlerhaft für iṣṭi. 
pw: f. nom. act. von 1. yaj. Richtig iṣṭi. 

Does f. nom. act. von 1. yaj (saying that a word is an abstract noun from a specific root) not indicate/suggest a meaning? If it did not hint at the meaning of sacrificing/sacrifice, how did the Monier-Williams dictionary entries, supposedly based on the above entries, end up as the following? Did M-W get the meaning from another source?

MW: sacrificing, (perhaps incorrect for 3. ishá¹­i.)
mw: sacrificing, Pāṇ. iii. 3, 110, Sch. (prob. w. r. for ishṭi)

Â