________________
Amrita
in spite of the singular pronoun etat and a singular meaning from the context. It is true that neuter plurals are often thought of as collective in meaning, and, as in Greek, RV. also shows a singular verb with a subject in neuter plural 16. But here we have no trace of a collective sense and we have no single case of a plural noun with a single demonstrative. Here there is no necessity of either accepting an irregular Sandhi or a breach of the usual congruence. In agreement with the Padapātha and Sāyana, the most natural course is to accept durgahā as an alternative form of durgaham. The same is the case with ĶV. J. 162. 10, Sukrtā tac chamitāraḥ krnvantu / "Let the samit priests make it well done." Here also the Padapātha has Sukrta and Sāyana equates it with sukstam. Obviously the explanation of a peculiar Sandhi is not possible here and no incongruence between tat and suksta need be accepted. We can take the word as an alternative form of sukrtam and not as neuter plural. All the three cases fully justify the Padapātha and the explanation of Sāyana to the extent that they are neuter singular forms.
Two more cases in later Vedic literature now get explained. In Taittiriya Samhitā 1. 4. 44. 2. we have the form savanedam, explained so far as savanam idam against the Padapātha savanā idam; and in K. S. 1. 4. 12. sadanedam astu. The different variants noted on the second passage!? are best explained on the supposition that sadana was either taken as Nom. Plu. Neu. (sadanāni santu) or as Acc. plu. Neu. (sadanā akarma) or even changing sadanā straightway into sadanam.
We are thus led to the conclusion that in all these cases, RV. and occasionally some later Vedic works know of an alternative form in -ī to the Neuter sing. form in -am, in conformity with a well known Prākrit tendency, probably a result of the spoken dialect influencing the Vedic language.
Annotations :
1. Wackernagel, Altindische Grammatik. I, XVII-XXI and the sections referred to
there. 2. Bloomfield. Edgerton, Emeneau, Vedic Variants, I-III. Introductory Summaries. B.
Ghosh. Indian Linguistics. VII, 54-57; IX. 30-37. S. M. Katre. Präkrit Languages,
pp. 65-73 mainly based on Wackernagel and Vedic Variants. 3. Sanskrit Grammar, 213, h. 4. K. Beitr. 4, 208. 5. Goett. Abhand. 19. 159.