Why is the form vihesesito vex in the second person indicative here, instead of the imperative vihesehi, given that itās following mÄ? Warder suggests (Ch.6) that mÄ requires either an aorist or an imperative.
Youāre right. I missed the fact that third singular aorist is the same as second singular present.
I think I had it in my brain that aorists start with a-, but verbs in -e donāt take a-, resulting in ambiguity between vihesesi as meaning you vexxed and you vex. Kind of tricky actually, since for these verbs the difference between present and past is lost.
Thank you for pointing that out, I will update my post!
Part of the difficulty stems from fact that, in the basic Pali (and Sanskrit) grammars, forms are sometimes classified as this or that simply for convenienceās sake. One could take a very deep philological dive here into the murky, Indo-Iranian waters of unaugmented past tenses where youāll meet the curious creature known as the injunctive that, so far, has proved stubbornly resistant to explanation.
BTW, I didnāt even know there was an active Pali reddit, so thatās something to learn. And, not really relevant, but it led me to a really useful and informative discussion of why Pali is discussed using Sanskrit roots.
Hello Bhante! I am happy to know that the Reddit is of interest. I am actually the one who started it ages ago, but it mostly lay dormant until fairly recently. I started this āSentence a dayā business yesterday, I hope I can keep it up (and that my mistakes donāt lead anyone too far from the path!). As you point out there have been some very helpful comments there.
No, I did not do the Pali Studies blog, though itās been a huge help to me. The author is rather anonymous (certainly a reasonable choice!), but golly, has he put a lot of work in Pali and Dhamma education, in case anyone here isnāt aware:
