Dear Professor Houben
I am overjoyed to read your reply.You have presented a great deal of grammatical materials in order to derive "yaaji". Only Panini 3.3.110 resolves this problem which was not in my memory.Yaaji is in the sense of sacrifice and is also conducive to the popular usage.Acc. to Unadi rule "vasi vapi" quoted in the Siddhanta Kaumudi it conveys the sense of a karta( agent)which is not required in the said context.
व्युत्पत्तिमालोक्य पदस्य याजे र्मनः प्रसादं नितरां प्रयाति।
हे शब्दशास्त्रीयविवेकदक्ष मुहुर्मुहुस्त्वामभिनन्दयामि।।
Girish K.Jha
Retd University Professor
Dept of Sanskrit,  Patna University
Residence : Kolkata


On Sun, 12 Apr 2020, 04:42 Jan E.M. Houben, <jemhouben@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Prof. Jha, 
No Ṛṣi-status required: it is not that difficult to derive yāji as action noun from yaj ‘to venerate (ritually)’, ‘to sacrifice’ (hence having a meaning equivalent to another action noun derived from yaj: yajña '(ritualized) veneration', 'sacrifice'). 
See Pāṇini’s Aṣṭādhyāyī 3.3.110 vibhāṣākhyānapraśnayor iñ ca and the Kāśikā.
If I understood correctly, Vasiṣṭha is replying to a question of king Daśaratha, so the form could probably be justified in the context of the story ;)
In addition, there is Uṇādisūtra pāda 4, sūtra ca. 124-134 (depending on the edition): vasivapiyaji...vāribhya iñ
Commentaries give here examples of mostly feminine action nouns, but in the case of yāji some commentaries explain the meaning, exceptionally, as an agent noun : sacrificer. Śabdakalpadruma vol. 4 p. 31 gives yāji as a masculine noun and notes that it means sacrifice, but acc. to another authority: sacrificer. Wackernagel AiG Band 2, 2 p. 301 mentions an occurrence of yāji (also in Hauschild's Register p. 190) in the sense 'offering' ('das Opfern') in Manu 10.79, but this must be a mistake for yaji which I see in all editions available to me and which, unlike yāji, gives a correct metre.  
Best regards,
Jan Houben 

On Sat, 11 Apr 2020 at 05:14, Girish Jha <jhakgirish@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear colleagues
Whether अश्वयाजि is a ऋषि प्रयोग.If not,it is difficult to derive in my view.I have not seen this usage.Please clarify.
Girish K.Jha

On Fri, 10 Apr 2020, 21:29 Jan E.M. Houben via INDOLOGY, <indology@list.indology.info> wrote:
Or, to be preferred metrically:
रक्षिताः संवृताश्चैवेत्यश्वयाजेरसंभवः ॥  

On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 at 17:32, Jan E.M. Houben <jemhouben@gmail.com> wrote:
Alternatively for the second line: 
रक्षिताः संवृताश्चैवेत्यश्वक्रतोरसंभवः ॥

On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 at 16:43, Christian Ferstl via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info> wrote:
Thanks to

a private note sent by Prof. Eli Franco, I change the last pāda to:
vājimedho nv asaṃbhavaḥ, or even: hayamedhaṃ nu mā kṛthāḥ, which makes
Vasiṣṭha's words sound more archaic, doesn't it?


Christian

Am 10.04.2020 08:01, schrieb Christian Ferstl:
> And Vasiṣṭha pointed out another problem:
>
> कोरोनासमये राजन् राष्ट्रसीमाः समन्ततः ।
> रक्षिताः संवृताश्चैव वाजिमेधो न संभवः ॥
>
> “In times of Corona, o king, the borders of your reign are all guarded
> and closed. A horse sacrifice is not possible.”
>
>
> Am 09.04.2020 11:18, schrieb Christian Ferstl:
>> Lockdown in ancient Ayodhya:
>>