The infinitives in μεν may be corruptions of those in μεναι, unless we take μεν as an archaic accusative, which, though without analogy in Greek, would correspond to Latin accusatives like _tegmen_, and express the general object of certain acts or movements. In Sanskrit, at least in the Veda, infinitives in +mane+ occur, such as +dấ-mane+, to give, Greek δό-μεναι; +vid-máne+, to know, Greek ϝίδ-μεναι.[22] The question next arises, if this is a satisfactory explanation of the infinitives in μεναι, how are we to explain the infinitives in εναι? We find in Homer, not only ἴμεναι, to go, but also ἰέναι; not only ἔμμεναι, to be, but also εἶναι, _i.e._, ἔσ-εναι. Bopp simply says that the _m_ is lost, but he brings no evidence that in Greek an _m_ can thus be lost without any provocation. The real explanation, here, as elsewhere, is supplied by the _Beieinander_ (the collateral growth), not by the _Nacheinander_ (the successive growth) of language. Besides the suffix _man_, the Aryan languages possessed two other suffixes, _van_ and _an_, which were added to verbal bases just like _man_. By the side of +dâman+, the act of giving, we find in the Veda +dâ-van+, the act of giving, and a dative +dâ-váne+, with the accent on the suffix, meaning for the giving, _i.e._ to give. Now in Greek this _v_ would necessarily disappear, though its former presence might be indicated by the _digamma æolicum_. Thus, instead of Sanskrit +dâváne+, we should have in Greek δοϝέναι, δοέναι, and contracted δοῦναι, the regular form of the infinitive of the aorist, a form in which the diphthong ου would remain inexplicable, except for the former presence of the lost syllable ϝε. In the same manner εἶναι stands for ἐσ-ϝέναι, ἐσ-έναι, ἐέναι, εἶναι. Hence ἰέναι, stands for ἰϝέναι, and even the accent remains on the suffix _van_, just as it did in Sanskrit. As the infinitives in μεναι were traced back to the suffix _man_, and those in ϝεναι to a suffix _van_, the regular infinitives in εναι after consonants, and ναι after vowels, must be referred to the suffix _an_, dat. _ane_. Here, too, we find analogous forms in the Veda. From +dhûrv+, to hurt, we have +dhû́rv-aṇe+, for the purpose of hurting, in order to hurt; in Rv. IX. 61, 30, we find +vibhv-áne+, Rv. VI. 61, 13, in order to conquer, and by the same suffix the Greeks formed their infinitives of the perfect, λελοιπ-έναι, and the infinitives of the verbs in μι, τιθέ-ναι, διδο-ναι, ἱστα-ναι, etc.