^{page 529 note 1} Perhaps of IE. origin (< ∂): cf. Greek futures in –ω of roots ending in a sonant, e.g. . The same vowel appears in the desiderative suffix –∂-so- (beside –so-) of roots ending in –r in Sanskrit, e.g. múmūrṣati < *m-m r-∂-so- (see Meillet, Introduction, p. 192).

^{page 529 note 2} On the other hand, if ásyati was from the outset an aniṭ root, asiṣyát may be the first example of the tendency to create a new general future suffix –iṣya-, the addition of which to a consonant-ending root avoided any change of the final consonant: *atsyáti ‘ will throw ’ (< *as-syáti) collides with atsyáti ‘ will eat’, and is replaced by as-iṣyáti.

^{page 529 note 3} -iyi- < –ayi-, see p. 532.

^{page 530 note 1} The reading is very doubtful. Hultzsch prefers hevaṁti. Woolner (Aśoka Text, p. xxxv) supports hesati with Pa. hessati. The development avi > e at this early period is peculiar to another class of words, which like the verb ‘to be’ show other special phonetic developments: thus sthávira- as a word of address > Aś thaira-, Pa. thera-: similarly at a much later period the words of address svāmin-, svāmin012B;- became Mar. sāī with unexpected loss of –ũ-, and Kash. sāwĕënü with unexpected w –m- (see Turner, Nep. Diet., p. 621 b 50). Among the numerals (notably a class of words in which special phonetic developments are found) *trayedaśa > traidasa, treḍaśa, tedasa with unexpected ai or e < aye.

^{page 530 note 2} The long ī of –pajīsali does not indicate compensatory lengthening of i before s < ss, but rather a confusion of both long and short i (cf. paṭī-, kachatī) which was characteristic of Eastern dialects. The tendency was persistent; and centuries later ī and ū due to compensatory lengthening were again shortened in Nepali. Assamese, Bengali, and Oriya. In the spelling of the inscription the scribe perhaps noted the fact that final –i was shorter than interior –i-.

^{page 530 note 3} Hultzsch (Inscrr. of Aś., p. ex) wrongly takes this as an active future. There would be no starting-point for an active future with stem-form yujiṣya-, since the present active stem is yunj- (Sk. 3rd pl. yunjánti, Pa. yunjati). On the other hand, Sk. yujyáte ‘ is fit, ought’ is attested also in Pa. yujjati, Pk. jujjaï.

^{page 532 note 1} Perhaps due to contamination with Sk. cakṣ-. Woolner, Aśoka Glossary, p. 85, suggests Hindi etc. cāhnā ‘ to desire’, which is probably ultimately related with cakṣ- (Turner, Nep. Diet., p. 173 b 10).

^{page 533 note 1} Gir. also has kasaṁti in one passage, vii, 2, te sarvaṁ va kāsaṁti ekadesaṁ va kasaṁti. The reading appears to be quite certain. There are three possible explanations. Either it ia a mistake of the engraver or a ‘ Magadhism ’ or it represents an actual shorter pronunciation of the repeated verb. That it is the older kassa- (< *karṣyati, see below) not yet wholly displaced by kāssa, is unlikely.

^{page 536 note 1} In the Glossary (p. 77), however, he suggests a form *kartsyati, for which there appears to be no justification. Johansson's explanation (Shāhb., § 7, b, quoted by Hultzsch, Inscrr. of Aś., p. Ixxxiii), that kacchati < *kajjati < *karyati, has nothing to recommend it. Moreover, the AMg. passive kajjaī, with which comparison is made, is not from *karyati, but either from kijjaï affected by the vowel of the active karedi, or from the passive causative kāryate.

^{page 537 note 1} In both the OGuj. (which I owe to Mr. T. N. Dave) and the Kash. forms the nasalization is probably secondarily derived from the initial nasal.