Hi, Dimitry,

> >> bodhima.n.dato
>
> DC> Is that ablative? If so, why bodhima.n.dato and not just
> DC> bodhima.n.daa?
>
> This is a common alternant of ablative, see Duroiselle's Grammar,

page

> 24 ff.

This ablative in -to doesn't seem to be mentioned in Geiger, at least
I can't find it, but it is mentioned in Warder. I usually turn to
Geiger first, but apparently -- unless I'm missing something -- there
are some points that are in Warder but not in Geiger.

Derek.