Your blustering attempts to foment doubt about this matter as well as expressing an inability to follow the general conversation...
i.e. "What are you talking about?" "really? — Oh!" "?!?!?" "Do whatever you want."
...lead to me suspect that this is entirely all too far over your head. I similarly wish you healthy happiness, but am not as happy to let doubt-mongering concerning basic elements of the buddhavacana slide. Perhaps you'll meet a more forgiving me in the future who cares less about twistings of the grammar and semantics of the Buddha's word.
In order to follow this thread, you'll need to throw out a lot of the assumptions that you clearly take to philology, such as your apparent belief that Pāli being predicated on Sanskrit roots means that you can take ancient Sanskrit roots and use them to re-define the particular language of the Pāli Buddhist texts, which date from far after the period these roots point to. Also, your distain of the academic establishment and the dictionaries which you disparage by sarcastically calling them "heavenly" is something you'll need to ditch if you actually want to learn real material and not just continue to invent your own internal fancies built around these similarly-"heavenly" roots.
Here are some copulae. I'm not good enough at Pāli to give you Pāli copulae paired with a past participle (that way, it would be identical to the earlier citation of the paper with the Ṛgvedic copulae that you shone doubt upon the relevancy of) so you'll have to deal just with standard copulae. Of course, this...
Now we are into "magnificent" dictionaries and "codish" — and "copula et cetera".
...tells me that you likely don't know what we're talking about right now, why I'm saying this that I'm saying, and likely don't understand why it is being brought up. I am not sure if you understand that
you are the one contesting this citation, and will likely accuse me of going off on a tangent because you don't understand this post.
kammuna vasalo hoti
"he is a pariah by reason of his work"
puttā me n'atthi
"I have no sons" (lit. "no sons are to me")
The copula + dative is very similar to how Classical Arabic forms possessives. Both of the above examples are from Charles Duroiselle.
None of this will help if you can't understand why this is being typed. The reason why the citation of Ṛgvedic copulae is not a re-defining of Pāli according to Vedic roots is because the Buddha,
in the actual Pāli texts, uses these copulae interchangeably, just as in the Vedic examples. He does
not use "hoti" as "to call" derived from "hve." He does
not use "uppajjati" with a sense of "'to come forth' in a debased way (fall)." These are examples of taking a Vedic root and having that Vedic root lead you
further away from the Prākrit meaning of a particular word rather than closer to it.
The etymology of the word "sanction" comes, ultimately, from words referring to making something "holy." Holy things were considered "apart" at one time, because they were too holy to be touched, seen, etc. Seeing them, touching them, etc., would "desecrate" them (another related word, etymologically). From the sense of "holy things apart" we get "forbidden." They are forbidden to be touched.
It would be daft to suggest that an English speaker, perhaps even an English-speaking Buddha, when he sanctioned the alcohol consumption of his assembly, that he made their alcohol holy. Yet, this is the very thing you do with these Vedic roots.