Bopp endeavors to defend the transition of an original _t_ into Latin _d_ by the termination of the old ablatives, such as _gnaivod_, etc. But here again it is certain that the original termination was _d_, and not _t_. It is so in Latin, it may be so in Zend, where, as Justi points out, the _d_ of the ablative is probably a media.[25] In Sanskrit it is certainly a media in such forms as +mad+, +tvad+, +asmad+, which Bopp considers as old ablatives, and which in +madîya+, etc., show the original media. In other cases it is impossible in Sanskrit to test the nature of the final dental in the ablative, because _d_ is always determined by its position in a sentence. But under no circumstances could we appeal to Latin _gnaivod_ in order to prove a transition of an original _t_ into _d_; while on the contrary all the evidence at present is in favor of a media, as the final letter both of the ablative and of the neuter bases of pronouns, such as +tad+ and +yad+. These may seem _minutiæ_, but the whole of Comparative Grammar is made up of _minutiæ_, which, nevertheless, if carefully joined together and cemented, lead to conclusions of unexpected magnitude. NOTE B. DID FEMININE BASES IN _â_ TAKE _s_ IN THE NOMINATIVE SINGULAR? I add one other instance to show how a more accurate knowledge of Sanskrit would have guarded comparative philologists against rash conclusions. With regard to the nominative singular of feminine bases ending in derivative _â_, the question arose, whether words like _bona_ in Latin, ἀγαθά in Greek, +sivâ+ in Sanskrit, had originally an _s_ as the sign of the nom. sing., which was afterwards lost, or whether they never took that termination. Bopp (§ 136), Schleicher (§ 246), and others seem to believe in the loss of the _s_, chiefly, it would seem, because the _s_ is added to feminine bases ending in _î_ and _û_. Benfey[26] takes the opposite view, viz. that feminines in _â_ never took the _s_ of the nom. sing. But he adds one exception, the Vedic +gnâ-s+. This remark has caused much mischief. Without verifying Benfey’s statements, Schleicher (l.c.) quotes the same exception, though cautiously referring to the Sanskrit dictionary of Boehtlingk and Roth as his authority. Later writers, for instance Merguet,[27] leave out all restrictions, simply appealing to this Vedic form +gnâ-s+ in support of the theory that feminine bases in _â_ too took originally _s_ as sign of the nom. sing. and afterwards dropped it. Even so careful a scholar as Büchler[28] speaks of the _s_ as lost. There is, first of all, no reason whatever why the _s_ should have been added[29]; secondly, there is none why it should have been lost. But, whatever opinion we may hold in this respect, the appeal to the Vedic +gnâ-s+ cannot certainly be sustained, and the word should at all events be obelized till there is better evidence for it than we possess at present.[30]