Lastly, S. follows the example of H., and adds, the conjunctive of करणु “ to do,” as वरी करे “ having returned.” G. resembles S., having its conjunctive in 2, as "having become." Ordinarily it puts this participle in the objective case, adding the postposition, often dropping the anuswâra, as करीनें or करीने “having done,” देईने “having given.” As G. makes no distinction between i and i, this is often written with short i, as देने. M. stands quite alone, having its conjunctive in, as “having gone," "having been." This is some times written, and in the poets takes an increment, and appears as faut, difaat, as gegrutat vegt ânfaat aa | ऊनियां, तुम्हापाशीं अम्ही काय ॥ (Tuk. Abh. 1888) "What is the good of my going to you?" (literally, "I near you having come, भूषणांचं जन ॥ तात्काल मरण येतें मज । clothes and ornaments, I am ready to what?") Having seen men in fine die at once" (ib.). This form is the old Maharashtri Pr. form in , shortened from a, Skr., accusative of 1 (Lassen, p. 367), and has तूण, undergone singularly little change. I see in this a confirmation of the belief that modern Marathi is really the representative of the Maharashtri Prakrit, for it is only in Maharashtri that the conjunctive in ûna, tûņa, is found. All the prose dialects without distinction take forms of the conjunctive derived from the Skr. -ya; this consideration seems to be fatal to the theory (Trumpp, p. 283; V. Taylor, p. 114, § 256) which would derive the G. conjunctive in ine from M. una. Setting aside the absence of any analogy for a change from û to in such a connection, there is abundant evidence that G. is, by origin, a Rajput dialect belonging to that large group of dialects which we roughly class under the name of Hindi, and Sastri Vrajlâl (G. Bh. It. p. 3) points out the great gulf that exists between G. and M., as also the close connection of G. with the northern dialects. We have therefore strong reasons for not looking to M. for the origin of any G. form. The latter has, like the rest of the eastern Hindi group, Saurasenî for its parent, and the form in -ine, when compared with that in in the same language, points clearly to the Saurasenî conjunctive in ia with a modern case-postposition ne or nen added. § 74. The Infinitive is, in all the languages, a verbal noun declined throughout all the cases of the noun. Its numerous forms may all be grouped under two general types, which may be called the Ba, and the Na types respectively. The Ba type is found in the rustic dialects of Hindi, in Bangali, Oriya, and Gujarati, and is declined as a noun. It occurs in the oldest Hindi poems. Chand has it in जो बिलंब करि रहे । तो ताहि हनिबे को आवे ॥ "If any one makes delay, he comes to strike him."-Pr. R. i. 198. efs aftâ at neit 11 "Rising up, rushed to fight."-ib. i. 254. It takes the junction-vowel i, and in these passages is in the accusative case. It may be rendered "to or for the purpose of fighting." This form does not once occur in the Ramaini (T) of Kabir, and only rarely in his other works. I have noted तरिबे को “ to cross over,” चलैबो (चलाबा) “ to urge on,” in the Rekhtas. It is more common in Braj, and in Tulsi Das's Ramâyan, where, besides the form with junction-vowel i, as तोरिबे “ to break,” occurs also a shorter form in ab, as फिरब "to return." In the dialects (Kellogg, p. 241) occur the following (már "strike”) :— Braj मारिबौं, East Rajput मारबो, West Rajp. id. Old - Parbi मारब, Avadhi, and Riwai id. In Gujarati, this is the only form of the infinitive. It is declined as an adjective for all three genders, thus Sing. लाववो ”., लाववी., लाववुं ”. Pl. araat m., •at ƒ., °as n. “to bring" or "the act of bringing.” and agrees with the object, as mentioned in § 52, where it is used to constitute a tense. In the neuter singular it performs the functions of a simple infinitive, as "to sing," "to do." In Oriya it is the ordinary infinitive, as af “to sit,” and, though without gender, is declined for case, as— Gen. af "of sitting," Loc. बसिबारे “in sitting,” Acc. बसिबाकु “ to or for ) sitting," Abl. af "from sit ting," एहि बसिबार जागा “ this is a place of sitting," i.e. "a fit place to sit in.” बसिबारे किछि हेब नहीं “in sitting nothing will become," i.e. "you will do no good by sitting still." बसिबाकु हेब “ for sitting it will become,” i.e."you will have to, or must, sit." देखिबाकु आसिला “he came to see.” सेठि बसिबार सरदी लागिब “ from sitting there a chill will attack,” i.e. “if you sit there, you will catch cold.” Bengali does not use this form as its ordinary infinitive, having utilized for that purpose the locative of the present participle, as "to be" (lit. "in being"), nfaa "to remain," "to go;" but it is used in the genitive case to form a sort of gerund or verbal noun, as बीज रुपिबार काल आछे "It is the time of sowing, or for sowing, seed." More common still is its employment with जन्ये, कारण or निमित्ते “ for the sake of,” as देखिबार जन्ये “ for the sake of seeing,” करिबार निमित्ते "for the sake of doing." The infinitive of the Gipsies ends in âva, and probably belongs to this group. Paspati writes kerâva "to do," lâva "to take," dâva "to give," sováva "to sleep," mangâva "to ask," ruvâva “to weep," which may be transliterated perhaps, लाव, दाव, सोवाव, मंगाव, रुवाव respectively. These are words of the Chingana or Turkish Gipsies. Those in Bohemia ap parently drop the final a and shorten the â, as chorav "to steal" (a), kerav "to do" (a), chinnav "to tear" (faa). (चिनव). Those in Wallachia appear to pronounce the termination as ao ( or ?), as jao "to go" (), hao "to eat" (हाओ), peo “ to drink” (पेओ).' In all these languages the idea of an infinitive glides off imperceptibly into that of a verbal noun, and the Ba form thus reveals its origin from the Sanskrit future passive participle in , from which, as we have seen in Ch. III. § 51, many tenses are formed. The Na type occurs in Hindi, as also in P. S. M. It has two forms in H., one archaic and poetical ending in ana, the other modern and classical in nâ. The first of these two forms I would derive from the Sanskrit verbal noun in anam, as ar “doing," "falling." It is in frequent use, uninflected, throughout the poets, thus— पुरुषातन तिन बंधन बिचारि ॥ "Having plotted to stop his virility."-Pr. R. i. 178. "He made preparation to go."-ib. xx. 28. "To join battle a terrible warrior."-ib. xx. 31. "I speak truth, suffer me to go, mother."-Tulsi-Ram. S.-k. 7. राम सैल बन देखन जाहीं ॥ "They go to see the hill and forest of Râm."-ib. Ay-k. 91. It is unnecessary to give more instances of this very common form. It still survives in Kanauji, as “to strike." The other form in was anciently written, and is always so written in Braj, as “to strike," "to come." This form I now agree with Hoernle in deriving from the Sanskrit 1 Miklosich, Zigeuner Europa's, part ii. p. 9. future participle in aniya, so that from, through Pr. करणी and करणअं, would come Old H. करनों, M. करणें, and P.. I, however, would refer the S. to the verbal करणु noun in anam, because the final vowel is short, and, as in all similar nouns, reproduces the final ou of the a-stem (see Hoernle's essay in J.A.S.B. vol. 42, p. 59, etc.). The two forms of the infinitive are thus analogous in respect of their derivation, and the fact of the existence side by side of two sets of forms with precisely similar meaning is explained by that of there being two participles of similar meaning in Sanskrit, both of which have left descendants. Under these altered lights I must withdraw the opinion formerly held by me as to the origin of the infinitive in nâ. That in ana is now obsolete, except in Kanauji, and the nâ form is declined as a noun in â, making its oblique in e, as karne ka "of doing," karne men "in doing." In M. the infinitive is also declined as a noun of the sixth declension (Vol. II. p. 192), thus gen. karanyà châ "of doing," dat. karanyâ lâ "to doing." In Sindhi, however, the infinitive vindicates its claim to be considered as a descendant of the verbal noun in anam by exhibiting the declension of masculines (i.e. neuters) in u; the oblique ends consequently in a, as ginhana jo "of buying," ginhana men "in buying," etc. This would not be the case were the S. infinitive derived from the participle in aniya. M. has an infinitive peculiar to itself ending in, as "to die," which is comparatively little used, and only with the present tense. I am unable to suggest any thoroughly satisfactory explanation of this form which does not appear to have any analogy in the cognate languages. It may be the only descendant of the Skr. infinitive in tum, with elision of the t, but this is somewhat doubtful. To this place must also be referred the B. infinitive or verbal noun in â, as “to do," or "the act of doing," which, after stems ending in a vowel, appears as, the y of which is not pronounced; thus |