And why are they indeclinable? For the simple reason that they are themselves case terminations. Whether Pâṇini was aware of this, we cannot tell with certainty. From some of his remarks it would seem to be so. When treating of the cases, Pâṇini (I. 4, 32) explains what we should call the dative by +Sampradâna+. +Sampradâna+ means giving (δοτική), but Pâṇini uses it here as a technical term, and assigns to it the definite meaning of “he whom one looks to by any act” (not only the act of giving, as the commentators imply). It is therefore what we should call “the remote object.” Ex. Brâhmaṇâya dhanam dadâti, he gives wealth to the Brâhman. This is afterwards extended by several rules explaining that the +Sampradâna+ comes in after verbs expressive of pleasure caused to somebody (I. 4, 33); after +ślâgh+, to applaud, +hnu+, to dissemble, to conceal, +sthâ+,[31] to reveal, +śap+, to curse (I. 4, 34); after +dhâray+, to owe (I. 4, 35); +spṛh+, to long for (I. 4, 36); after verbs expressive of anger, ill-will, envy, detraction (I. 4, 37); after +râdh+ and +îksh+, if they mean to consider concerning a person (I. 4, 39); after +pratiśru+ and +âśru+, in the sense of according (I. 4, 40); +anugṛ+ and +pratigṛ+, in the sense of acting in accordance with (I. 4, 41); after +parikrî+, to buy, to hire (I. 4, 44). Other cases of +Sampradâna+ are mentioned after such words as +namaḥ+, salutation to, +svasti+, hail, +svâhâ+, salutation to the gods, +svadhâ+, salutation to the manes, +alam+, sufficient for, +vashaṭ+, offered to, a sacrificial invocation, etc. (II. 3, 16); and in such expressions as na tvam triṇâya manye, I do not value thee a straw (II. 3, 17); grâmâya gacchati, he goes to the village (II. 2, 12): where, however, the accusative, too, is equally admissible. Some other cases of Sampradâna are mentioned in the Vârttikas; _e.g._, I. 4, 44, muktaye harim bhajati, for the sake of liberation he worships Hari; vâtâya kapilâ vidyut, a dark red lightning indicates wind. Very interesting, too, is the construction with the prohibitive +mâ+; _e.g._ mâ câpalâya, lit. not for unsteadiness, _i.e._, do not act unsteadily.[32] In all these cases we easily recognize the identity of +Sampradâna+ with the dative in Greek and Latin. If therefore we see that Pâṇini in some of his rules states that +Sampradâna+ takes the place of +tum+, the so called infinitive, we can hardly doubt that he had perceived the similarity in the functions of what we call dative and infinitive. Thus he says that instead of phalâny âhartum yâti, he goes to take the fruits, we may use the dative and say phalebhyo yâti, he goes for the fruits; instead of yashṭum yâti, he goes to sacrifice, yâgâya yâti, he goes to the act of sacrificing (II. 3, 14-15).