Vedic grammar, such as we may soon expect from Professor Benfey, will give us safe ground to stand on. DATIVES IN _ÂYAI_. Feminine bases in _â_ form their dative in +âyai+, and thus we find +carâyai+ used in the Veda, VII. 77, 1, as what we should call an infinitive, in the sense of to go. No other cases of +carâ+ have as yet been met with. A similar form is +jârâyai+, to praise, I. 38, 13. DATIVES IN _AYE_. We have next to consider bases in _i_, forming their dative in +áye+. Here, whenever we are acquainted with the word in other cases, we naturally take _aye_ as a simple dative of a noun. Thus in I. 31, 8, we should translate +sanáye dhánânâm+, for the acquisition of treasures, because we are accustomed to other cases, such as I. 100, 13, +sanáyas+, acquisitions, V. 27, 3, +saním+, wealth. But if we find, V. 80, 5, +dṛśáye naḥ asthât+, she stood to be seen by us, lit., for our seeing, then we prefer, though wrongly, to look upon such datives as infinitives, simply because we have not met with other cases of +dṛśi-s+. DATIVES IN _TAYE_. What applies to datives of nouns in _i_, applies with still greater force to datives of nouns in _ti_. There is no reason why in IX. 96, 4 we should call +áhataye+, to be without hurt, an infinitive, simply because no other case of +áhati-s+ occurs in the Rig-Veda; while +ájîtaye+, not to fail, in the same line, is called a dative of +ájîti-s+, because it occurs again in the accusative +ájîti-m+. DATIVES IN _TYAI_. In +ityái+, to go, I. 113, 6; 124, 1, we have a dative of +iti-s+, the act of going, of which the instrumental +ityâ+ occurs likewise, I. 167, 5. This +tyâ+, shortened to +tya+, became afterwards the regular termination of the gerund of compound verbs in +tya+ (Grammar § 446), while +ya+ (§ 445) points to an original +ya+ or +yai+. DATIVES IN _AS-E_. Next follow datives from bases in +as+, partly with accent on the first syllable, like neuter nouns in +as+, partly with the accent on +as+; partly with Guṇa, partly without. With regard to them it becomes still clearer how impossible it would be to distinguish between datives of abstract nouns, and other grammatical forms, to be called infinitives. Thus Rv. I. 7, 3 we read +dîrghâya cákshase+, Indra made the sun rise for long glancing, _i.e._, that it might glance far and wide. It is quite true that no other cases of +cákshas+, seeing, occur, on which ground modern grammarians would probably class it as an infinitive; but the qualifying dative +dîrghâya+, clearly shows that the poet felt +cákshase+ as the dative of a noun, and did not trouble himself, whether that noun was defective in other cases or not.