feminine मातृ (मातर्) “mother,” which makes माआ. This latter is the form in use in Pali, as fat, at, T. In the oblique cases comes out a form in u, thus Nom. Plural भत्तुणो for Skr. भक्तारः. This rule is not extended by Vararuchi to nouns of relationship, though in Pali the u form occurs in the genitive sing. and plur. as पितुस्त, भातुस्म, ' pl. पितूनं, भातूनं, etc. There are then in the medieval or Prakrit stage three types of this class of nouns: first, that in âro, shortened in nouns of relationship to aro; second, that in â; third, that in u. No one of these forms runs through the whole series, or is found in every case of the noun, except perhaps the first. When discussing the phonetic changes of (Vol. I. p. 159), it was shown that though this vowel migrates into u but rarely, and principally in words which already have a labial consonant adjoining or preceding the vowel, yet, that in the modern, and probably to a great extent in the medieval languages also, it was often pronounced as ru, so that we might expect to find this formation in u somewhat common in the modern languages. The Pali forms pitu, bhâtu, etc., may thus be taken to have arisen from pitru, the vulgar pronunciation of pitṛi, though it is also possible to derive them from pitaru, shortened from pitaro. This latter derivation is, however, rendered less probable by the fact that Pali has this nominative in u for words which retain the older and fuller form âro, as kattu, for "doer;" satthu, for "ruler," where the elision of the long vowel would seem to be too violent a supposition. 1 Grammaire Palie de Kaccâyana, par. M. E. Senart, Journal Asiatique, sixth ser. vol. xvii. p. 220. It is Kaccâyana's second chap. on nouns, rule 39. * Ib. ii. 40. In the modern languages the termination u or û is common. Examples are: Skr. fuq “father," P. S. fq, and occasionally in Old-H. Skr. #lą “mother,” P. AIG, AIG, AIG, HIÊ, AT, S. AIB. Skr. भ्रातृ “ brother, ” P. भ्राउ, भाऊ, S. भाउ, M. भाऊ. नातू, H. नाती. Skr. "grandson," M., . . The other languages, however, have in some cases, as in H. भाई, नाती, etc. The word for a "barber" may be introduced here. In classical Skr. its form is fun, but this is said to be from an older form नापिता for स्नापिता (स्नापितृ), agent of causal of, in the sense of "to cleanse." It becomes in M., but in all the other languages, except B. and O., which retain the form fa. Marathi, Sindhi, and Panjabi are, it will be seen, the languages which mostly affect this form in u. Hindi generally exhibits that in i or â. It is followed in most in the word below. Skr. पूजयितृ “ worshipper,” H. पूजारी, and so in all, M. also पुजारा, and S. पुजारो. The latter is referred by Trumpp, erroneously as I think, to the suffix áru (see § 15). The Prakrit form would, we may suppose, be get or पूजआरो. This is again one of those cases where confusion arises from three or four different pratyayas, whose forms were quite distinct in Sanskrit, having by phonetic changes all come to have the same form in the modern languages. Thus a word ending in u or û may either come from the pratyaya u, as kâru, "a doer," or from uka, as kâtû, "cutter," or from úka, as jâjarû, “watchful," or from ri, as nâtû, “grandson." It is not possible in each case to decide which of these terminations is the true one; and in many cases it may be safely asserted, that 1 In all the ceremonies of the Hindu religion in the present day a preliminary shaving by the barber is a necessary part of the purification which must be undergone by the celebrant. u or û having come to be considered the usual termination for a large class of words of agency, the vulgar tacked it on to all sorts of words, as was seen a few pages back in the case of G. खरचु, , where it is added on to the foreign word, without any regard to the hybrid nature of the word thus produced. This habit is common to all languages, and may be paralleled by instances in our own, as "starvation," where a Latin termination has been unceremoniously tacked on to a Teutonic verb "starve" (M. H. G. sterben). It will not be necessary therefore to pursue this question any further. In the majority of instances the modern languages have formed words of this class from the Sanskrit nom. in â, and in these cases there is nothing remarkable to notice. Such words are for the most part Tatsamas, and do not therefore enter into the current speech of the people very largely. § 15. The dissyllabic suffixes in Skr. are athu, âlu, and ishņu. The first does not seem to have left any traces in primary stems, though under various modifications it appears as the foundation of secondary stems in several languages. In The second, âlu, is extremely common, both as a primary and secondary. An allied suffix is âru, and from the close connexion between the two, it comes to pass that a form with a cerebral ! is in general use in the dialects which possess that letter. stances of primary words, according to the view of the Indian grammarians, are the following; though they seem to make into primaries, by deriving them from almost imaginary verbs, many words which are strictly secondaries derived from nouns. As I said before, it is not worth while to stick very closely to this division. निद्रालु “ sleepy,” H. निद्रालु, S. निहारो, G. निद्राकु, M. निद्राळू, B. 0. निद्रालु (rare). दयालु “ merciful,” H. B. P. O. दयालु and दयाल, M. दयाळ, दयाळू, G. id., S. डयालु. This termination is of frequent occurrence, and is one of those which are attached to all sorts of words, without regard to origin. The common, and often noticed rule holds good here also, that when a people have once got to feel that a certain termination carries a certain meaning, they extend its use to all words in their language. Thus, from modern verbal roots come the following: Verbal root झगड “quarrel,” H. झगडालु “ quarrelsome,” M. G. झगडाळू. P. B. O. झगडालु Verbal root डर् “ fear, ” H. डालु “ fearful.” Sindhi, as usual, changes 7 to r: घोरारो घोरारू "pedlar," verb घोरणु “ to seek.” fq"cotton-carder,”„, पिञणु “ to card.” Marathi is particularly rich in words of this type, such as कन्हवाळू “pitiful,” verb कन्हणें “to moan.” खाजाळू “itching,” खाजणें “ to itch.” A long string of them will be found under secondary formations. The third suffix, ishņu, is of very rare occurrence even in Sanskrit, and I have not observed any words which can be referred to it in the modern languages. With regard to अन्, वन्, मन्, and इन्, there is also very little to be said. The first three are similar in treatment. Masculines of this stem form their nominative in â, neuters in a, the modern languages accept the nom. as their type. Thus “king, nom., which is the form in use in all the moderns. In stances are: Skr. A “name," nom. A, H. TA, and so in all. Skr. जन्मन् “birth,” nom. जन्म, H. जनम्, P. जनम्, जम्मण्. Skr. पर्व्वन् “festival,” nom. पर्व्व, H. परब्, P. B. O. id., M. G. पर्व, s. fay. Skr. दामन् “rope,” nom. दामा, H. दाम, दाव, and so in all. Nouns inform their nominative in, in which they are regularly followed by the moderns. As this suffix will be more fully discussed in several other places, I omit instances from this section. § 16. The stems, or themes, or bases, for all three terms are used by various authors, hitherto discussed, are all distinctly traceable to Sanskrit stems. But there are in the modern languages, with their rich and varied development, numerous classes of nouns whose terminations point to a common source, which yet cannot always be distinctly referred, in a manner admitting of no doubt, to either a Sanskrit or Prakrit original. Others again there are, which, though they can in some instances be brought back to Sanskrit, are only of partial application, being found in some languages, and not in others. It must be remembered that it is only in one language out of the group that any attempt has yet been made to classify or analyze these formations. In the rest the grammarians simply give rules for the declension of nouns, without troubling themselves to explain how the body of the word was formed. Only in Sindhi have the valuable labours of Dr. Trumpp put me in a position to understand the formation of the noun in this least known of all the group. Often from this exhaustive work light has shone into all the languages, and I cannot too often or too fully acknowledge my obligations to it. It follows, however, from what I have just said, that it is impossible at present for any one writer to carry out to the full the somewhat minute system of classification that has been observed in the foregoing easily recognized classes. The Indian languages in this respect fully establish a right to be considered the equals of their |