But whether Pâṇini recognized this fact or not, certain it is that we have only to look at the forms which in the Veda take the place of +tum+, in order to convince ourselves that most of them are datives of verbal nouns. As far as Sanskrit grammar is concerned, we may safely cancel the name of infinitive altogether, and speak instead boldly of datives and other cases of verbal nouns. Whether these verbal nouns admit of the dative case only, and whether some of those datival terminations have become obsolete, are questions which do not concern the grammarian, and nothing would be more unphilosophical than to make such points the specific characteristic of a new grammatical category, the infinitive. The very idea that every noun must possess a complete set of cases, is contrary to all the lessons of the history of language; and though the fact that some of these forms belong to an antiquated phase of language has undoubtedly contributed towards their being used more readily for certain syntactical purposes, the fact remains that in their origin and their original intention they were datives and nothing else. Neither could the fact that these datives of verbal nouns may govern the same case which is governed by the verb, be used as a specific mark, because it is well known that, in Sanskrit more particularly, many nouns retain the power of governing the accusative. We shall now examine some of these so-called infinitives in Sanskrit. DATIVES IN _E_. The simplest dative is that in _e_, after verbal bases ending in consonants or _â_, e.g., +dṛśé+, for the sake of seeing, to see; +vid-é+, to know, +paribhveê+,[33] to overcome; +śraddhé kám+, to believe. DATIVES IN _AI_. After some verbs ending in _â_, the dative is irregularly (Grammar, §§ 239, 240) formed in _ai_; Rv. VII. 19, 7, +parâdái+, to surrender. III. 60, 4, +pratimái+, to compare, and the important form +vayodhái+, of which more by and by. ACCUSATIVES IN _AM_. GENITIVES AND ABLATIVES IN _AS_. LOCATIVES IN _I_. By the side of these datives we have analogous accusatives in _am_, genitives and ablatives in _as_, locatives in _i_. Accusative: I. 73, 10, śakéma yámam, May we be able to get. I. 94, 3, śakéma tvâ samídhan, May we be able to light thee. This may be the Oscan and Umbrian infinitive in _um_, _om_ (_u_, _o_), if we take +yama+ as a base in _a_, and _m_ as the sign of the accusative. In Sanskrit it is impossible to determine this question, for that bases in _a_ also are used for similar purposes is clearly seen in datives like +dábhâya+; _e.g._, Rv. V. 44, 2, ná dábhâya, not to conquer; VIII. 96, 1, nṛ́bhyâḥ tárâya síndhavaḥ su-pârấḥ, the rivers easy to cross for men. Whether the Vedic imperatives in +âya+ (+śâyac+) admit of a similar explanation is doubtful on account of the accent. Genitive: +vilikhaḥ+, in îśvaro vilikhaḥ, cognizant of drawing; and possibly X. 108, 2, atiskádaḥ bhiyásâ, from fear of crossing. Ablative: Rv. VIII. 1, 12, purâ âtṛ́daḥ, before striking.