Abstract
The Old Persian construction mana krtam had long been taken to be a passive construction. In 1952, Benveniste attempted to show that mana krtam is possessive rather than passive. This thesis, however, was challenged by G. Cardona, who maintained a return to the old passive interpretation. In the recent literature Cardona's opinion seems to be agreed among no less scholars. The present author attempts to show, on the examination of the Old Persian synchronic evidence, that Benveniste's explanation is much preferable to Cardona's.
