Many thanks to all who replied. I am grateful for the grammatical references. 
As others may be interested, i include here the link, kindly sent to me by Victor Davella, to an informative discussion about the issue between two of the warhorses of Raj-period Indology:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-the-royal-asiatic-society/article/abs/negative-a-with-finite-verbs-in-sanskrit/D0CCACADA75B64DAD5603ADDDFE6ADB1

Matthew 

Matthew T. Kapstein
Professor emeritus
Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, PSL Research University, Paris

Associate
The University of Chicago Divinity School

Member, American Academy of Arts and Sciences

https://ephe.academia.edu/MatthewKapstein

https://vajrabookshop.com/product/the-life-and-work-of-auleshi/

https://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/9781501716218/tibetan-manuscripts-and-early-printed-books-volume-i/#bookTabs=1

https://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/9781501771255/tibetan-manuscripts-and-early-printed-books-volume-ii/#bookTabs=1

https://brill.com/edcollbook/title/60949


Sent from Proton Mail for iOS.


-------- Original Message --------
On Saturday, 10/11/25 at 11:27 Matthew Kapstein <mattkapstein@proton.me> wrote:
Dear colleagues,

In the 2500-line Prajñapāramitā i find expressions such as:

nâtra kiMcid vidhyate nâvidhyate, “here nothing is penetrated nor unpenetrated”.

So far as I can determine, in avidhyate the initial a can only be taken as privative. 
Is this uniquely a peculiar Buddhist usage?

thank you for your thoughts,
Matthew 

Matthew T. Kapstein
Professor emeritus
Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, PSL Research University, Paris

Associate
The University of Chicago Divinity School

Member, American Academy of Arts and Sciences







Sent from Proton Mail for iOS.