Hello Yong Peng,

Sorry about that.

eva.m [indec/adv] thus

and

vimutto [vi+muc II/pp/nom/sg] freed

Though this seems tricky because the passive conjugation of "muc" is III
(muccati) form with active being II (mu~ncati) form, so I guess we should
stick with the II form in describing a past participle? I'm open to
suggestions.

Here is what the PED has to say:

"I. Forms. The 2 bases mu~nc° & mucc° are differentiated in such a way, that
mu~nc° is the active base, and mucc° the passive. There are however cases
where the active forms (muñc°) are used for the passive ones (mucc°), which
may be due simply to a misspelling, ~nc & cc being very similar"

Metta,

Alan

> 1. Is vimuccati of the first conjugation?
>
> 2. Do you meant eva.m to be indicative, or indeclinable?
>
>
>
>