oblique form of the same as an instrumental and dative. These are confusions arising from the consciousness that the oblique was really an old genitive; so that, when they got a new genitive, they used it also as an oblique. Hindi also, colloquially, such expressions as due to the same sentiment. Marathi elides the final some cases; thus we have मजला and मला "to me,” मजसीं and

One hears in "from me,”

of in

"against me." In the locative, it, like G. and H., uses the oblique genitive T shortened to f, and with the i further recrudesced into, as a fulcrum for the case-affix, thus producing माझ्यति “ in me,” precisely parallel to G. मारा मां. Oriya and Bengali use their oblique form regularly throughout. O. has, however, one curious exception, making the objective a, or shortened (mõte), instead of , which would be the regular form. As nowhere occurs as a case-affix in O., the only way that I see of accounting for this form is to suppose that we have here a shortening of the affix ताई or तई, which in H. and others has the sense of an objective, so that मते = मो तद् = मी ताईं.

§ 64. In the plural, Oriya preserves the Prakrit form unchanged as regards spelling, but pronounces ambhe, the insertion of the b being due to the influence of the preceding labial. Bengali f appears to be merely a softening of अम्हे, which in Hindi has undergone transposition, the having been thrown back to the beginning of the word, just as the verb “is," for, by transposition from f, shortened from f. Nepali exhibits a form, as my informant writes it, which should probably be Tf; the long being almost universally written for short i in rural Hindi. This form is transitional to Bengali, and the short i must be regarded as a corruption of the final e of. Gujarati writes Я, but in a majority of instances the rural population use, which is not necessarily more correct than A, though the analogy of

Hindi would lead us to expect it. The Gipsy form amen, perhaps to be written, agrees closely with this, and suggests the possibility of the having been simply dropped from the Prakrit form. M., in its form, seems to have done for the plural the same as it does for the singular, namely, transferred the form of the instrumental to the nominative; for the instrumental in Apabhranśa is अम्हेहिं, and the objective अम्हई. From a confusion of these two would arise: this, with the nasal, is now used as the instrumental plural; and the two forms nom. and instr. stand to each other in exactly the same relation as the forms of the singular ✈ nom. and instr. It is difficult on any known phonetic principles to see in आम्ही a derivative from अम्हे.

P. and S. stand alone in having a nom. pl. t. Trumpp does not offer any satisfactory explanation of this. It is true that Pr.points back to Skr. ; but we cannot leap over Prakrit and take our form from Skr. direct; nor, if we did, would it help us with the long final & and anunâsika. A change of

into is a well-known feature of these two languages; but a reverse change of into is quite opposed to their habits. Kashmiri has a similar form, which in one vocabulary is written ऐस ais or अइस, in the other असि.

Kashmiri and that group of ancient Aryan dialects still spoken in Dardistan differ from the cognate languages of the plains of India in having a fondness for, which they often retain in places where the latter would modify it to; and it may be conjectured that P. and S. derive this form from some intervening dialect of hill Prakrit which has not come down to us: they also retain the ■ in the oblique cases of the plural. The other languages derive from the Apabhranśa genitive, with which Oriya is identical. In H. the has, as in the nominative, been thrown back to the beginning of the word. Although I have given the oblique form as, yet in practice this is hardly ever used, the case-affixes of the plural being added to

हम, as हम को, हम पर. There is also a crude oblique हमें used without affixes, which comes from the Apabh. accusative. G. affixes its case signs to a form or to, the former being the same as H. g, and, like it, seeming to postulate a genitive, formed on the same principle as the gen. pl. of nouns; the other form अम is clearly from अम्ह. M. आम्हा is formed by lengthening the vowels from the same, and so is B. In fact, all these forms are so closely similar to the Prakrit as to offer no difficulty in their analysis.

§ 65. The second person is an exact parallel to the first, and its forms are as follows:

There is a striking uniformity in the nom. sing., for even H. has in many dialects the form with anunâsika, though this is rejected in classical Hindi. All the early languages of the Indo-European family have as their base tu. The Skr. is exceptional, and, as Bopp shows (Comp. Gr. § 326), the m belongs to the case-ending, and the a is inserted between this ending and the base in all instances where the base does not already end in a, so that before this inserted a the u of an

original has been hardened to a. तु

Thus we may assume a

form for the type of this pronoun. The Prakrits exhibit a तु considerable number of forms; the commonest in scenic Prakrit is, side by side with which is ; and in Apabhranśa gë, where the is merely a stop-gap. By eliding and lengthening the labial vowel we get, the commonest form of the nom. in the modern languages. I take no count of the difference observable in the quantity of the vowel, though in some languages we find, and in others, because these languages for the most part, as has been frequently shown, ignore the difference between i and i, u and û. Hindi is like of the first person, the instrumental of Apabhr. brought over into the nom. It is a word of the rustic and vulgar side of the language, and is only used by the educated classes contemptuously when speaking to inferiors or domesticated animals. In P. it is still the instru mental, just as .

The oblique has two principal types, at and, corresponding to and of the first person. is used in Old and Middle-Hindi, and still in B. O. and S. and is derived from the genitive of Apabh. g, which S. preserves in its genitive under the form alone., which becomes in M. and G.

, is from another Apabh. form of the gen. . Nepali stands alone in having dropped the vowel altogether.

The nominative plural Pr. is accurately preserved in 0. तुम्हे (pronounced), slightly shortened in B. f; and M. here, as in the first person, takes over the instrumental

in

the form nom. and instr., which some ignorantly तुम्ही write. H. here also, as in the first person, writes and i, which latter is the Gipsy form also. Nepali fat has singularly changed the characteristic labial vowel to a palatal, just (§ 51, p. 235) it has सित for सुंतो.

as

Panjabi makes its pl. nom. f, which is as great a puzzle ast of the first person, and for which I can as yet assign no satisfactory derivation. In this case Sindhi parts company with

P., and exhibits a very great number of forms, which, however, are arrangeable under two types. Thus

ast, aft, agt, at.

ugť, vať, net, ait, di.

The first form in each of the above lines is evidently the real form from which the succeeding ones have arisen by shortening, elision, and other simplifying processes. a is, I think, like M.q, the Apabh. instrumental, where the u has been changed to av, and the m first weakened into anunâsika and then dropped altogether. It might also be accounted for by comparing it with Gujarati, which drops the labial vowel and uses. If Sindhi has done this, then the is a softening of म, as in H. गांव from ग्राम. The other series, of which अह्नीं is the fullest form, is quite unparalleled in the whole group. Trumpp's explanation is probably correct, that it comes from a form Pr., Skr., where the initial has been elided and u changed to av, as in t. Even if this be the correct explanation, we have a most unexampled retention of a very archaic form which has never found its way into literature.

In the oblique plural H. uses, as in the nom. The other languages mostly retain the form q, which is the base of the Prakrit pl. in all cases, and stands alone in the genitive. The modern languages generally add long á or ân, as M. तुम्हा, B. तोमा, S. तहां, the latter with its parallel series अह्नां, etc. G. follows Hindi, but substitutes a for u in ¤ and am̃, which latter agrees with H.. Panjabi ɩ seems at first sight to agree with the other languages; but the is here in reality merely the ordinary Panjabi substitute for the of तुसा.

§ 66. As in the noun, so also in the pronoun, the genitive is really an adjective agreeing with the governing noun in gender