/tiGanta / तिङन्त

Whatever ends in a /tiG is called a /tiGanta (verb, /tiG-ender).

As the /tiG only appear by replacing a tense, via lasya, saying "/tiG-ender" is the same thing as saying "tense-ender".

We might also say —

A /tiGanta is anything made by joining (A) maybe one or more /upasarga (B) a root and (C) a tense.

The /tiGanta are all /pada, because suptiGantamp... sez so.

Examples —

hR हृ + /laT
→ hR हृ + /tip
→ **hara- हरॱ + /tip
→ **harati हरति "takes", "takes away"

is a /tiGanta because it ends in /tip, with is a /tiG. It is also a /pada.

Also the word —

/vi + /pari + vRt वृत् + /ta → !**viparivartate विपरिवर्तते "goes round and round"

is a /tiGanta because it ends in /ta, which is a /tiG. It is also a /pada, like all /tiGanta.

Why does it matter if it's a /pada or not?

Before a अ, being a /pada makes the e ए trigger eGaHpadAnt.... If it were not a /pada, an a अ would trigger ecoyavAyAvaH instead.

The sentence rAmeNa hato sarpaH रामेण हतो सर्पः means "rAma राम killed the snake". As the word hatas हतस् clearly means "killed", and killed is a verb in English, we should say that hatas हतस् is a verb, rite?

Rong. /pANini did not say "things are verbs when you translate them into English and the english dictionary says they are verbs". He said that hatas हतस् is not a /tiG-ender because it does not have a /tiG at the end.

However, hatas हतस् is a /sup-ender (noun) because it does have a /sup at the end —

han हन् + /kta + /su → **hata- हतॱ + /su → **hatas हतस् "he was killed"

I am still not persuaded. Are you trying to say that the word "killed" in the English sentence "rAma killed a snake" is a noun?

No, I was not trying to say that. I was actually saying that the word " **hatas हतस्" in "rAmeNa hato sarpaH रामेण हतो सर्पः" is a /subanta. It is not a /tiGanta.