S IV 163

Yes, I agree Lance. We can safely ignore the gender issue because the
passage appears to be a rehash of earlier canonical material, where
sa.n.nojana.m (n.) determined the use of the ya.m ... ta.m. They probably
forgot to adjust the grammar. It is interesting, though. I have rarely come
across such peculiar examples of lack of co-reference.

Ole


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]