^{page 1124 note 2} Vergl. Synt., i, 397.Google ScholarSpeyer, , Vedische und Sanskrit Syntax, pp. 6, 7,Google Scholar ignores the usage. Cf., however, his Sanskrit Syntax, p. 196,Google Scholar n., and Böhtlingk, , Z.D.M.G., xli, 183, for bhavān with second person (a contamination).Google Scholar

^{page 1125 note 1} Of course, hāsīt from has is possible (cf. e.g. sākhaṣye, Atharvaveda, ii, 27, 5,Google Scholar with Whitney's note), but it is very unlikely. Conceivably, too, hāeīḥ might be regarded as a third person, just as Weber takes syāḥ in Atharvaveda, xviii, 1, 25,Google Scholar see Berl. Stiz., 1895, p. 830.Google Scholar

^{page 1125 note 2} Weber, , Ind. Stud., x, 134, conjectured hāsīḥGoogle Scholar

^{page 1126 note 1} Cf. Weber, , Ind. Stud., xviii, 11.Google Scholar

^{page 1126 note 2} Cf. also kṛta in Ṛgveda, vi, 58, 3,Google Scholar where the Saṁhita, Maitrāyaṇī, iv, 14, 16,Google Scholar and Brāhmaṇa, Taittirīya, ii, 5, 5, 5, have Kṛtáḥ.Google Scholar

^{page 1126 note 3} e.g. in Ṛgveda, i, 184, 3,Google Scholar if we accept Pischel's explanation (Ved. Stvd., i, 18).Google Scholar See also Atharvaveda, ii, 14, 5; vi, 1, 1; 67, 2; vii, 89, 3; xi, 6, 23; xviii, 4, 1. 6;Google Scholar perhaps xviii, 3, 63, with Whitney's notes.

^{page 1127 note 1} Haskell, , J.A.O.S., xi, 66.Google Scholar The construction has parallels in Greek: Monro, , Homeric Grammar², p. 155;Google ScholarDelbrück, , Synt. Forsch., iv, 28.Google Scholar