The only doubtful line is the last. Von Roth's former translation of nam, to bend away from, to escape from (cf. φεύγω and bhug), seems to me still the right one. He now translates 'I directed my arrow on every enemy,' when the genitive, as ruled by ánamam, requires confirmation. As to sam ádhatta I certainly think von Roth's last interpretation better than his first. In the Dictionary he explained samdhâ in our passage by to implicate. Grassmann translated it by to leave or to desert, Ludwig by to employ. I took it formerly in the usual sense of joining, so that yát mâm ékam samádhatta should be the explanation of svadhâ, the old custom that you should join me when I am alone. But the construction is against this, and I have therefore altered my translation, so that the sense is, Where was that old custom you speak of, when you made me to be alone, i. e. when you left me alone, in the fight with Ahi? The udâtta of ánamam is not irregular, because it is preceded by hi.

Verse 7.

Von Roth:

'Gewaltiges hast du gethan im Bunde
  Mit uns, o Held, wir mit vereinter Stärke,
Gewaltiges vermögen wir, du mächtiger
  Indra, wenn es uns Ernst ist, ihr Gesellen.'

By this translation, the contrast between 'thou hast done great things with us,' and 'Now let us do great things once more,' is lost. Krinávâma expresses an exhortation, not a simple fact, and on this point Grassmann's metrical translation is decidedly preferable.

Verse 8.

Von Roth:

'Vritra schlug ich mit eigner Kraft, ihr Marut,
  Und meine Wuth war’s, die so kühn mich machte, p. xvii
Ich war's, der—in der Faust den Blitz—dem Menschen
  Den Zugang bahnte zu den blinkenden Gewässern.'

This is a very good translation, except that there are some syllables too much in the last line. What I miss is the accent on the I. Perhaps this might become stronger by translating:

'Ich schlug mit eigner Kraft den Vritra nieder,
 Ich, Maruts. stark durch meinen Zorn geworden;
 Ich war’s, der blitzbewaffnet für den Menschen
 Dem lichten Wasser freie Bahn geschaffen.'

Verse 9.

Von Roth:

'Gewiss, nichts ist was je dir widerstünde,
 Und so wie du gibts keinen zweiten Gott mehr,
 Nicht jetzt, noch künftig, der was du vermöchte:
 Thu’ denn begeistert was zu thun dich lüstet.'

Here I doubt about begeistert being a true rendering of pravriddha, grown strong. As to karishyâ´h instead of karishyâ´, the reading of the MSS., Roth is inclined to adopt my conjecture, as supported by the analogous passage in IV, 30, 23. The form which Ludwig quotes as analogous to karishyam, namely, pravatsyam, I cannot find, unless it is meant for Âpast. Srauta S. VI, 27, 2, namo voऽstu prâvâtsyam iti Bahvrikâh, where however prâvâtsyam is probably meant for prâvâtsam.