Dear Professor Scharf,

 

 I checked the Sanskrit Grammarian Query page under “Declension” (https://sanskrit.inria.fr/DICO/grammar.fr.html), which under the header “The Sanskrit Grammarian: Declension” yielded the nominatives singular, dual and plural as adasāḥ - adasau - adasaḥ for adas (m.), to give only one example.

Meanwhile it was explained to me off-line by Professor Huet that the Sanskrit Grammarian Query page - despite its name - is not the proper site to check declensional and conjugational forms of Sanskrit grammar.

So I searched the “Dictionnaire Héritage du Sanscrit“ page in the proper way as recommended and as you will have done. There, and only there, the correct declension of adas (as asau – amū – amī) is displayed.

Searching this presumably correct Heritage site for some additional stems and roots on a random basis, I chanced upon a number of further, quite obvious inaccuracies. Here are some of them, since I have been asked for samples:

ubhaya: A set of obviously mechanically generated dual declension for ubhaya, which word however has no dual in the classic language.

dos (n.): wrong forms dot (sg.) - dosi (pl.); dodbhyām (Du.); dodbhiḥ, etc.

asthan (n.): wrong alternative dual form asthī .

Root ās2: wrong 2^nd plural forms āsdhve / āsddhve / āsdhvam / āsddhvam.

Root tṛh is missing.

Root dā3: wrong Ātmane° s-Aorist forms 2nd and 3rd singular adiṣṭhāḥ, adiṣṭa.

Root dhā3: wrong Ātmane° 3^rd singular adhāyi.

Root śās: wrong 3^rd plural imperfect ending aśiṣan.

Root sū3: Imperative Ā. 1^st and 2^nd  sūyai – sūyasva.

 

As I had earlier pointed out to Professor Huet in private, and I am repeating it now publicly, my criticism was not intended to expose or run down other scholars, nor to belittle the great and truly laudable efforts he has indeed made. It was meant as a warning that the tool in its present shape is not yet absolutely reliable. Sanskrit grammar is too serious a matter for a discipline like ours. An unchecked grammar tool released on this list cannot be left uncommented. In the hand of the uninitiated beginner it will cause damage until it has seen a careful revision by its editors, which was exactly my humble suggestion: to call for a revision before it is activated for the public.

 

Regards,

WS