reality an ablative, and contracted from. In fact, the locative may itself be called an ablative of place, the meaning "in" being expressed by the ablative in many Aryan languages.

§ 52. Another quasi-synthetical form is the dative in Marathi which ends in, and is derived from the Prakrit genitive in W, Skr., the dative having been early absorbed into the genitive in most Prakrit dialects. This form in Marathi cannot be classed with the locative and instrumental as a purely synthetic relic, because it has ceased to be restricted to those positions where it would occur in Sanskrit. In the parent speech, the genitive in asya belongs exclusively to the declension of the a-stem; in other stems, the genitive is formed by the addition of aḥ, and in some cases âh; the vowel is also rejected or amalgamated in some nouns of the i- and u-stems, and in some few classes the ending is uḥ; so that the singular genitive type may be generalized as simply visarga preceded by certain vowels, whose variations are determined by the form of the stem. But visarga is too weak a thing to last, it is almost entirely swept away by the Prakrits and their modern descendants, and recourse is had to the stronger form asya, or rather sya of the a-stem, with which also agrees the older pronominal declension. This is by the Maharashtri Prakrit applied to all masc. and neut. stems indifferently, thus

Pr. वच्छ “tree,” वच्छस्स Skr. वृक्षस्य.

अग्गि "fire," अग्गिस्स

For feminine stems, however, Prakrit does not use this form, and even for those given above it has an alternative form in

for the i- and u-stems; so that we may trace the ending sya thus in Skr. it is used only for the masc. and neuter genitive singular of the a-stem, in Maharashtri for all singular genitives, masc. and neuter, in modern Marathi for all datives of all three

genders, singular and plural. It has therefore, in the latter, come to be almost a case-particle; but, probably owing to its shortness, it is, as we learn from the grammarians, used in a somewhat restricted manner, especially in the Dakhin or central part of the Marathi area, in which a more correct form of the language prevails than in the Konkan or coast-line. The identification of this with the of the Skr. genitive would seem to be fatal to the theory which would derive the M. genitive in , etc., from. The same form can hardly be the origin of two separate cases. This, however, will be more fully discussed in its proper place.

It is in Marathi more especially that traces of these quasisynthetical forms are found, though even in the other languages faint indications may be seen. They are valuable as supplying a link in the chain of development, and as showing how, as the spirit of inflectional construction and expression died out of the popular mind, the old case-endings fell into inextricable confusion, one swallowed up another, four or five fused into one, an ending peculiar to one case was appropriated to another, the distinctions between different declensions were obliterated, and the languages, like new wine left to settle in the vats, deposited all their sediment, and were racked off clear and sparkling. It was all very well for a dreamy old Brahmin, who had nothing better to do with his time than to sit in the shade of a tree and doze over philosophical abstractions, to have a dozen different ways of declining his noun or conjugating his verb; and it was no difficult task for him to recollect each one of a vast growth of terminations and inflections: but life is too short now-a-days for such minutiæ, the business of existence is too varied, and time is too valuable. The modern languages are not objects of pity, as having degenerated from a higher level; they are rather to be congratulated on having known how to bring order and simplicity out of a rank chaotic overgrowth of forms and types, and having thus become fitted for use in these bustling modern days.

Among the particles that are now used as signs of case, there are several which may possibly be classed as quasi-synthetical; but they are not given here, because some doubt still hangs over their origin and real nature. They will be duly noted in subsequent sections.

§ 53. Adjectives partake of the nature of substantives in so far as their form and structure are identical with them, both being nouns, though the former are attributive, while the other are appellative. But as adjectives are generally coupled with substantives, and as these latter are the principal words in the sentence, indicating by themselves the object referred to, it is natural that they should do the bulk of the grammatical work, the adjective being merely appended to qualify the substantive, and not therefore requiring to be so accurately inflected or declined. In several languages the adjective, consequently, undergoes less change than the substantive with which it agrees. Here, again, we have the old common sense system of simplifying as much as may be. In Sanskrit, Latin, Gothic, and the older languages of the family, the adjective was made to agree with the substantive in gender and case, so that each adjective presents a triple declension, masculine, feminine, and neuter. Sanskrit sometimes shirked all this elaborate concord. Its array of declensional and conjugational forms was so formidable that Sanskrit writers themselves seem to have felt the burden of so vast an amount of wealth, and to have endeavoured by various tricks of composition to shake off the load. the necessity of inflecting the adjective to follow all the varying phases of the substantive is to a great extent evaded by compounding the two together by the method known as Karmadhâraya, by which, whether, as is more common, the adjective precede, or, as also occurs, the substantive precede, only one inflection is used. Thus, instead of saying "a blue lotus," they combine the two words into one, producing, and thus,

Thus

when they require to use the genitive for instance, it expresses the meaning quite as clearly as the longer नीलस्य उत्पलस्यLatin has not this power, and every one is familiar with the clumsiness that results when one has to string together a number of adjectives and substantives in the lengthy genitive plural forms -orum and -arum.

All that is really necessary in the inflection of adjectives has been retained in the modern Aryan languages, and much that is not necessary in some. So long as there exists some clear means of knowing which substantive in a sentence any given adjective qualifies, it is only needful to decline the substantive. Confusion can only arise in a few instances. Thus in English, when we say, "I have found an old man's cloak," we may mean the cloak of an old man, or an old cloak such as men wear, as distinguished from such a cloak as women wear; but even in this extreme case confusion can be obviated in our flexible language by a different arrangement of the sentence, and in nine cases out of ten the adjective would by its meaning indicate the substantive which it qualified. If we speak of a "blue sailor's jacket," the word blue can only refer to jacket, as such a thing as a blue sailor would be absurd, and we know that sailors habitually wear blue jackets. Such a language as ours is worthy of a civilized and enlightened race, because by its very absence of forms it assumes that those who use it are people of intelligence and do not require to have their minds guided to the meaning by the leading strings of synthetical forms. A Roman required this aid. To him "cærulea nautæ tunica" was a different thing from "cærulei nautæ tunica;" and had he been unprovided with the help supplied by the variation of the final letter of the adjective, he would have been at a loss what to understand. Thus we may say that synthetical languages are fitted for the childhood of the human race, analytical ones for their manhood.

Bengali and Oriya do not change the form of the adjective at

all, whether for gender or case; the adjective is placed just before the substantive, and one case-ending does for both. Hindi gives to those adjectives which end in â, a feminine in î, and an oblique singular in e, but does not make use of the oblique form of the plural. Thus one would say à dìî a "of a black horse," and not att "of black horses," but काले घोडों का. st. The reason of this is obvious. The adjective having been put into the oblique form, common sense shows that it must refer to the substantive in the oblique form, and there is no need for a closer method of indication. The speaker is supposed to be able to use his wits to this small extent. Panjabi, however, is conscious that its speakers' wits are not sharp enough to be trusted, and the adjective is therefore put through all four forms in each gender; as fat "of low castes" (f.), This gives a clumsy

fafzai atci z "of white horses" (m.). appearance to the language, and ought not to be necessary for clearness.

The Gujarati adjective has all three genders with the typical terminations, masc., fem., and neut. The feminine remains unchanged for number and case, except that it optionally adds to the plural the universal o. The masculine forms its oblique in â, like substantives of the o-stem, and like them has the locative and instrumental in e, which ending is here also allowed to pass over into the ablative; the plural oblique is the same as the singular, giving in consequence a type quite analogous to its parent Hindi. The neuter differs from the masc. only in adding anuswâra to the nom. plural. The range of forms may be thus drawn out:

The adjective is thus precisely similar to the substantive of

VOL. II.

16