> I need a lesson on the middle voice.
Continuing to oblige, I quote the following from Whitney's Sanskrit grammar:
".. the antithesis of .. meaning is in no small measure blurred, or even
altogether effaced. ... In the epics there is much effacement of the
distinction between active and middle, the choice of voice being very often
determined by metrical considerations alone."
And from Michael Coulson's book:
"The [middle voice] corresponds to the middle voice of Greek, and its
underlying implication is that the action or state expressed by the verb
affects the subject. Thus yajati 'sacrifices' [active] is used of the
officiating priest, while yajate 'sacrifices' [middle] is used of the one
for whose benefit the sacrifice is being made. But except in a few
instances like this, the underlying implication is so blurred that it is not
worth pursuing. It must rather be taken as a fact of the language that some
verbs are found in the [middle] and some show both sets of forms with little
evident distinction of meaning."
So the situation is not as clear as in Greek.
Outside the present system, the middle in Sanskrit is also used as a
passive.
Peter