[22.] Benfey, Orient und Occident, vol. i. p. 606; vol. ii. pp. 97, 132.
[23.] Chips, vol. iii. p. 134.
[24.] Dr. Kielhorn in his grammar gives correctly tad as base, tat as nom. and acc. sing., because in the latter case phonetic rules either require or allow the change of d into t. Boehtlingk, Roth, and Benfey also give the right forms. Curtius, like Bopp, gives yat, Schleicher tat, which he supposes to have been changed at an early time into tad (§ 203).
[25.] Weich ist es (ṭ oder ḍ) wohl im abl. sing., gafnâṭ (gafnâdha). Justi, Handbuch der Zendsprache, p. 362.
[26.] Orient und Occident, vol. i. p. 298.
[27.] Entwickelung der Lateinischen Formenlehre, 1870, p. 20.
[28.] Grundriss der Lateinischen Declination, 1866, p. 9.
[29.] See Benfey, l.c. p. 298.
[30.] In the dictionary of Boehtlingk and Roth we read s.v. gnâ, “scarce in the singular; nom. sing. seems to be gnâs, according to the passage Rv. IV. 9, 4, and Naigh. I. 11, in one text, while the other text gives the form gnâ.” Against this, it should be remarked, that it would make no difference whether the MSS. of the Naighaṇṭuka give gnâ or gnâs. Gnâ would be the nom. sing., gnâs would be the form in which the word occurs most frequently in the Veda. It is easy to see that the collector of the Naighaṇṭuka allowed himself to quote words according to either principle.