Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-c52kr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-08T18:41:48.842Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sanskrit Dehí ‘Give‘

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2026

P. Tedesco
P. Tedesco*
Affiliation:
Yale University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Skt. dehí is commonly regarded as the outcome of the pres. impv. dad-dhí > ∗dazdhí, from the present stem dad-. But ddh does not become ∗zdh in Sanskrit. Moreover, as main expression of the imperative ‘give’ we expect not the present form dad-dhí, but the aorist form ∗dā-hí from ∗dā-dhí = Gath. Av. dāidī. This form is lacking. Could dehí be a modification of the missing ∗dāhí? Since dehi is not only Sanskrit, but also Middle Indic, it is possible that Skt. dehí is a transformation of original ∗dāhí by MI dehi. But if Skt. dehí is not original, then we have to explain the Middle Indic stem de-, which is commonly derived from it. The problematic e-vocalism also appears in two non-present optative types, RV deyām and VS deṣma.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 44 , Issue 1 , March 1968 , pp. 1 - 24
Copyright
Copyright © 1968 by Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Arnold, Edward Vernon. 1905. Vedic metre in its historical development. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Bartholomae, Christian. 1895. Vorgeschichte der iranischen Sprachen. (Grundriss der iranischen Philologie, 1:1.) Strassburg, Trübner.Google Scholar
Bartholomae, Christian. 1904. Altiranisches Wörterbuch. Strassburg, Trübner.Google Scholar
Bloch, Jules. 1950. Les inscriptions d'Asoka. Paris, Société d'Éditions 'Les Belles Lettres'.Google Scholar
Bloomeield, Maurice, and Edgerton, Franklin. 1930. Vedic variants, vol. 1. Philadelphia, Linguistic Society of America.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brugmann, Karl. 1892. Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen. 1st ed. Vol. 2, part 2. Strassburg, Trübner.Google Scholar
Brugmann, Karl. 1916. Grundriss … 2nd ed. Vol. 2, part 3. Strassburg, Trübner.Google Scholar
Brugmann, Karl., and Thumb, Albert. 1913. Griechische Grammatik. 4th ed. München, Beck.Google Scholar
Buck, Carl D. 1933. Comparative grammar of Greek and Latin. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cowgill, Warren. 1963. Review of Laryngeals and the Indo-European verb, by Puhvel, J.. Lg. 39.248–270.Google Scholar
Davids, T. W. Rhys, and Stede, William (eds.) 1925. The Pali Text Society's Pali-English dictionary. Chipstead.Google Scholar
Delbrück, Berthold. 1888. Altindische Syntax. (Syntaktische Forschungen, 5.) Halle, Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses.Google Scholar
Edgerton, Franklin. 1953. Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit grammar and dictionary. 2 vols. New Haven, Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Emeneau, M. B. 1966. The dialects of Old Indo-Aryan. Ancient Indo-European dialects, ed. by Birnbaum, H. and Puhvel, J., pp. 123–138. Berkeley and Los Angeles, University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fick, A. 1885. Zur griechischen Lautlehre. Beiträge zur Kunde der Indogermanischen Sprachen 9.313–320.Google Scholar
Gehring, August. 1891. Index Homericus. Leipzig, Teubner.Google Scholar
Geiger, Wilhelm. 1916. Pali Literatur und Sprache. Strassburg, Trübner.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geldner, Karl Friedrich. 1951. Der Rig-Veda. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Griffith, Ralph T. H. 1899. The texts of the white Yajurveda. Benares, E. J. Lazarus.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Karl. 1952. Zur vedischen Verbalflexion. Münchener Studien zur Sprach-wissenschaft 2.121–137.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Karl. 1956. Notizen zu Wackernagel-Debrunner, Altindische Grammatik II,2. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 8.5–24.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Karl. 1967. Der vedische Prekativtyp yeṣam, jeṣma. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 20.25–37.Google Scholar
Horner, I. B. 1940. The book of the discipline (Vinaya-piṭaka), part 2. London, H. Milford.Google Scholar
Humbach, Helmut. 1957. Ahura Mazdā und die Daēvas. Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Süd- und Ostasiens 1.81–94.Google Scholar
Humbach, Helmut. 1959. Die Gathas des Zarathustra, vol. 1. Heidelberg, Winter.Google Scholar
Insler, Stanley. 1965. Studien zum Awesta, I. Indogermanische Forschungen 70.14–24.Google Scholar
Kent, Roland. 1950. Old Persian. New Haven, American Oriental Society.Google Scholar
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1935. Études indoeuropéennes. Kraków, Polska Akademia.Google Scholar
Leumann, Manu. 1928. Lateinische Grammatik. München, Beck.Google Scholar
Macdonell, Arthur. 1910. Vedic grammar. Strassburg, Trübner.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macdonell, Arthur. 1916. A Vedic grammar for students. Oxford, Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Marsh, Gordon H. 1941. The voiced sibilants in Sanskrit. JAOS 61.45–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Narten, Johanna. 1964. Die sigmatischen Aoriste im Veda. Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Pisani, Vittore. 1941. Intorno alle antiche iscrizioni persiane. Rivista degli Studi. Orientali 19.81–97.Google Scholar
Pischel, Richard. 1900. Grammatik der Prakrit-Sprachen. Strassburg, Trübner.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pokorny, Julius. 1959. Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Bern, Francke.Google Scholar
Puhvel, Jaan. 1960. Laryngeals and the Indo-European verb. (University of California publications in linguistics, 21.) Berkeley and Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Renou, Louis. 1940. Sur certaines anomalies de l'optatif Sanskrit. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique 41.5–17.Google Scholar
Renou, Louis. 1952. Grammaire de la langue védique. Lyon, IAC.Google Scholar
Scharpé, A. 1954. Kālidāsa-Lexicon, vol. 1. Brugge, De Tempel.Google Scholar
Schwyzer, Eduard. 1939. Griechische Grammatik, Band 1. München, Beck.Google Scholar
Shastri, Vishva-Bandhu. 1935. Vedic word-concordance, vol. 2, part 1. Lahore.Google Scholar
Shastri, Vishva-Bandhu. 1936. Vedic word-concordance, vol. 2, part 2. Lahore.Google Scholar
Shastri, Vishva-Bandhu. 1956. Vedic word-concordance, vol. 1, part 3. Hoshiarpur, V.V.R. Institute.Google Scholar
Simon, Richard. 1912. Kâṭhakam, die Saṃhitâ der Kaṭha-çâkhâ: Index verborum. Leipzig, Brockhaus.Google Scholar
Sommer, Ferdinand. 1914. Handbuch der lateinischen Laut- und Formenlehre. 2nd ed. Heidelberg, Winter.Google Scholar
Stolz, Friedrich, and Schmalz, J. H.. 1910. Lateinische Grammatik. 4th ed. München, Beck.Google Scholar
Tedesco, P. 1923. ‘Geben’ und ‘nehmen’ im Indischen. JAOS 43.358–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, Ralph L. 1962. Comparative dictionary of the Indo-Aryan languages. London, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wackernagel, Jakob. 1896. Altindische Grammatik, vol. 1. Göttingen, Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Walde, Alois, and Pokorny, Julius. 1927. Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der indoger-manischen Sprachen, vol. 2. Berlin, de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Whitney, William D. 1881. Index verborum to the published text of the Atharva veda. New Haven, American Oriental Society.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitney, William D. 1885. The roos, verb forms, and primary derivatives of the Sanskrit language. Leipzig, Breitkopf & Härtel.Google Scholar
Whitney, William D. 1889. Sanskrit grammar, 2nd ed. Boston, Ginn.Google Scholar
Whitney, William D. 1905. Atharva-veda saṁhitā (translation). Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University.Google Scholar