Page images
PDF
EPUB

Brooke Cunliffe, also resident at Cuddalore, now a Fellow of this Society, he examined in 1841 a neighbouring district, which is remarkable from containing fossil wood in great abundance, and where they collected a considerable number of other organic remains. They afterwards obtained many specimens of fossils from a limestone in the neighbourhood of Pondicherry and Trichinopoly. Mr. Kaye came to England on leave of absence in the spring of 1842, bringing the collection with him which he presented in his own name and that of Mr. Cunliffe to this Society. He drew up a short memoir, describing generally the structure of the country from which he had obtained the fossils, which was read on the 29th June 1842; and that memoir, together with two reports, the one by Sir Philip Egerton "On the Remains of Fishes," the other by Professor E. Forbes" On the Fossil Invertebrata of the Collection," have, as you are aware, been recently published, forming the third part of the seventh volume of our 'Transactions.' Professor Forbes tells us that the collection is in every point of view of the highest interest, and that the fossils are as beautiful as they are interesting. The total number of species of Invertebrata is 178, of which 165 are Mollusca, 2 Articulata, 8 Echinodermata, and 3 Zoophytes, the greater proportion being from Pondicherry, or, more properly speaking, from South Arcot, being more within the English than the French territory. The evidence afforded by these fossils as to the age of the beds in which they are contained, makes it clear that they are cretaceous; that in two of the localities in which they were found the beds are equivalent to the Upper Greensand and Gault, and in the other to the lowest division of the cretaceous system in Europe. We are thus indebted to Mr. Kaye for some additional precise and valuable information respecting fossiliferous deposits in Southern India, the great importance of which in a geological point of view must be allowed, when we consider the comparatively limited extent of our knowledge respecting the distribution of animal life in the seas of the tropics during the secondary period. We know little more than what we have learned from the valuable memoir of Captain Grant on the district of Cutch, published in the fifth volume of our Transactions,' and from these researches of Mr. Kaye. Although unpracticed in geological investigations, he undertook to follow out the hints afforded by Captain Newbold, and overcame all difficulties, through his sagacity and ardent love of science. His collections in our Museum are a monument of his zeal. During his stay in England he neglected no opportunity of getting together whatever information was likely to aid him in the prosecution of his researches. He returned to India in October 1845, prepared to investigate the interesting district upon the structure of which he had already thrown so much light; but he was shortly afterwards attacked by a disease which terminated his existence in July last, in the 34th year of his age.

Mr. Kaye seems to have committed very little to paper, beyond what has appeared in the Transactions of the Geological Society. Before his death, however, he was engaged in investigating the subject of Indian palæontology in general, and a few of his rough notes on this subject have been placed at our disposal. These we hope on a future occasion to turn to account, although they have been left in a very imperfect state.

Z. Za

ART. III.—A Dictionary in Hindi and English: compiled from approved Authorities. By J. T. Thompson, Delhi. Calcutta, Printed for the compiler, &c. 1846.

AMONG the subjects of inquiry connected with India, not the least curious or instructive is that of the changes in the languages of its people. One of the most noticeable of these changes is manifested in the Hindí,* and is especially interesting as being partly proceeding under our own eyes. Dim however are all the traces we can find of its earliest characteristics, and beyond a short distance we become enveloped in perfect darkness. The opinion that the Hindi is but an offshoot from Sanskrit is supported by such authorities as Colebrooke, Wilson, the Editor of the Bengal Asiatic Journal, and many others. For two reasons we would, with due humility, express our dissent from this. One is founded on the nature of the Sanskrit, which we think, in its present state, to be a manufactured language; and, so far as it is such, of more recent origin than Hindí. This is not the place to state the grounds of this conclusion, and we pass on to our second reason of dissent. This we found on the Hindi language. Of the members (Hindí being one) of the India-proper Family of dialects, Dr. Wilson says, "they are, as far as we are familiar with them, recognized as Sanskrit. They have undergone great changes; have simplified their grammatical structure; have suffered, in a greater or lesser degree, admixture and adulteration from foreign words. They probably also comprehend a small portion of a primitive, unpolished, and scanty speech, the relics of a period prior to civilization but in names of things of the most ordinary observation......... they are almost wholly dependent upon Sanskrit."t The Editor of the Asiatic Journal, in a note appended to a communication of Mr. Hodgson, says, we are by no means of opinion that the Hindí, Sindhí, or Pálí had an independent origin prior to the Sanskrit. The more the first of these, which is the most modern form and the furthest removed from the classical languages, is examined and analyzed, the more evidently is its modification and corruption from the ancient stock found to follow systematic rules, and to evince rather provincial dialectism (if I may use the word) than the mere engraftment of foreign words upon a pre-existent and written language."‡

[ocr errors]

* Formerly it was called Hindooee (Hindui). This has fallen greatly into disrepute; and very properly, as the rules of Sandhi are against it.

+ Preface to Sanskrit Grammar, p. p. IX. and X.

Hodgson's Illustrations of Buddhism, p. 188.

If one language is to be recognized as another, because many of the words are from the latter, then English is to be recognized as Latin. But we can hardly conceive this to be the ground which is taken. History throws a satisfactory light on such cases. When one tribe overcomes another having a different language and settles among them, as the Brahmans did, the conquerors gradually adopt the same mode of looking at objects as the more numerous body of men amongst whom they dwell, but retain very many of the names they formerly gave to these objects. England, France, Persia afford instances of this. We are sure that India is another, and thus account for the large proportion of Sanskrit terms in Hindi.*

[ocr errors]

Moreover, we think, that one language must be considered independent of, though not, on this ground, unrelated to another, when the grammatical forms of each are different-just as Persian is regarded as another tongue than Turkish, though having many of the same words. It is not enough to say, that the original stock has been modified or corrupted. We know that a newly formed language retains that of the grammatical structure of the language from which it is drawn. Yet there is very little similarity between the Hindí forms and the Sanskrit, except by direct derivation. If, however, this difference has been caused by following systematic rules,' then the Greek would have much more right to be placed among tongues not having an independent origin prior to the Sanskrit.' The two languages are remarkably alike in some of their nominal and verbal inflexions; and, besides, have numbers of roots corresponding in sound and in meaning. Any one may see the resemblance between the Greek roots do (do,) eo (es,) eσr (est) epv (ephu,) λaid (leiph,) λaμß (lamb,) &c., and the Sanskrit da, as, ast, abhu, lip, labh, &c., having the same sense. Would the Editor say that the Greek is posterior to and dependent on the Sanskrit? The relation of case is expressed in Hindí by particles placed after the noun: in Sanskrit by certain forms affixed to the verb. The refined and lengthy system, averse to all auxiliaries, for the conjugation of the verb in Sanskrit, is strikingly contrasted with the simple forms of the Hindi and its frequent use of auxiliaries. There are verbs in Sanskrit which act as auxiliaries, but they are joined to adverbs, or nouns converted into adverbs,' and are very different from the auxiliaries used in Hindí-their object being to accomplish modifications of meaning as the same verbal root. Besides in Sanskrit,

[ocr errors]

It is by no means a trifling argument in favour of our view, that the principal relics of the primitive speech' are verbs, and not nouns.

[ocr errors]

the most common form of verb is that compounded with prepositions. We have not one instance of this in Hindi. "We get compound roots to which the Hindí inflexions are appended; but then these are drawn from the Sanskrit direct, and are not characteristic of the Hindí. The speakers of a language would not be inclined to renounce this mode of conveying thought; but would be more likely to adopt it—if they had it not. And the fact of the Hindí not having it except through Sanskrit, is a strong argument for its distinctness from that language. These considerations appear to us decisive and prevent us from regarding Sanskrit as the original stock' of the Hindí. We can account for a number of the words being the same; but each language fails to stand the test of sameness with the other. They are of the same great family; but we require a different light to what we have, ere we can say which was the founder. We believe, indeed, that it will be long before any one shall be singled out to fill that place.

Like all other extensively spoken languages, the Hindí has various dialects, in some of which marked peculiarities exist. Among these the most noted is the Brij-bhasha, which has almost established itself as the mould into which Hindi poetry shall be run. In addition to this, Mr. Elliot, in a map contained in his 'glossary,' distinguishes eight other local dialects. The Brij is a dialect rather from its sounds, the others from their words. These are characterised very much like the dialects of other languages, and all have the same grammatical basis. The grammar is very simple, and in its use of auxiliary verbs presents a close affinity to European languages.* With some unimportant changes, a few apparently for euphony, the Urdú has taken this grammar. The distinction, between the two languages, is frequently said to lie in the Hindí drawing on an indigenous or Sanskrit source, and the Urdú on a Persian or Arabic. It may be well, for the sake of defining, to make this representation, but we must not forget that in usage many exceptions would be found. The early writers of Hindí, as Biharî Lál and Tulsidas, are not without words which would be called Urdu. The staple of their words is Sanskrit, and their style is above the comprehension of the body of the people, for whom some interpreter of their works is needed. And although they wrote apart from the suggestion or superintendence of foreigners, yet we believe the Premságar would be said to be purer Hindi. No one hesitates, however, to place the Satsay and

* The scholar will recognise, in the plural termination an, a form to which he has been accustomed-en of the Teutonic. The difference of the vowels a and e will occasion no difficulty.

Ramayan among pure Bháshá* works. But what are we to make of the usual written and spoken language of the present time? The epistles written in Kaithi, (the written character of the Nágarí) or Nágarí; the literary scraps, generally poetical; and the native newspapers published at Benares in the Nagarí, are all characterised by a greater amount of Urdú words than the writings of an earlier period. But among the Hindus, and we might add Mahommedans too, there is little or no idea of what belongs, or is foreign, to either tongue. The opinion expressed by some young Pundits, we dare say, would be found that of most natives. When spoken to on the necessity of cultivating the bháshá, they, in substance, replied, we do not know what you mean by Bháshá; the only distinction we make between words is Sanskrit or not Sanskrit.' We often hear from the people, inhabitants of a city especially, a combination of Urdú and Hindi which no test of the kind stated above could resolve. Extract the terms used on religious subjects-the remainder shall mar our ideas of linguistic symmetry, and be opposed to our standard of purity. There is, however, an absence of Arabic and Persian genitives, &c., such as are found in Urdú works. But these works themselves do not agree to the rule. For example take the Bágh-o-Bahár. We have opened the edition of that work, published by Dr. Forbes with vocabulary, at two different places. The first passage contained twenty-eight words of all sorts, and of these twenty-four were neither Persian nor Arabic. The second had thirty-eight words. Omitting auxiliary verbs, and the particles, which are all Hindí with the exception of a note of exclamation marked both S. and P. (Sanskrit and Persian) and a P. conjunction, there were left nine Urdú and twelve Hindi words. This result may surprise some who speak of Urdú as if it were, grammar excepted, quite distinct from Hindí. And if these sentences be a fair specimen of the style of the book, and, as they were taken quite at random and were not among its pure Hindi parts, we have no reason to doubt they are, they go to show that Urdú has something else, to a larger extent even, than Persian or Arabic terms. Something like the rule certainly holds; but not in the broad manner usually laid down. We must, therefore, on all accounts, look on Hindí as the most important of the elements forming the speech by which we communicate with the natives of Hindustan.

It is not easy accurately to define the limits within which

* The term used by Hindus to express their vernacular, and that it is not Sanskrit.

+ There were fourteen Hindi,-but it happened that two were each twice written.

« PreviousContinue »