Page images
PDF
EPUB

common root which has been lost. Thus we have √दा, iii. ददाति " give,” √दा or दो, ii. दाति and iv. व्यति "divide,” √ दाय, i. दायते and दे i. दयते Some grammarians, misunderstanding a rule of Panini's about reduplication, have imagined av दद्, i. ददते, but this does not seem to be entitled to a separate existence. It is also to be observed that in some roots in â there are traces of a form in e or ai, which may perhaps be the older form, as गा and गे “ to sing, " ध्या and ध्ये “ to meditate,” “to languish," and "to wither," त्रा and त्रै “ to rescue, मा and मे “ to measure.' Also roots ending in â exhibit in the course of conjugation many forms in which the root-vowel is changed to i or e. It is not within our scope to do more than hint at all these points, as possibly accounting for the fact that at a very early stage the root

and

[ocr errors]

began to be superseded by, and that in the modern languages the universal form is DE. The principal tenses in Sanskrit, Pali and Prakrit are here shown together.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

P.p. p.
Gerund

[blocks in formation]

दत्त्वा

दत्वादाय, ददित्वा दाऊण, दच्चा, दद्दअ

1 Westergaard, Rad. Sanskr. p. 6, note.

Childers thinks the form deti has arisen either from Sanskrit dayate, or from confusion with the imperative detu. The form dajjati he, with great probability, considers as a future on the analogy of dekh (see § 4). In Çauraseni Prakrit the form is used throughout (Var. xii. 4), as also in the moderns. H., P. M. G. id., S. f, B. alone has, O., shortened in some tenses to f. Gipsy dava, Kash. dyun, Singh. denava. This is one of the few irregular verbs in the modern languages; being subjected to numerous contractions, and retaining several early Tadbhava forms.

दि.

Further examples are:

Skr. √ पा “drink,” i. पिवति [Vedic पाति, there is also / पी, iv. quâ], Pa. fqqfa and fqqo, Pr. fquc, H. qt, S. and B. fq, in all the rest . Gipsy piáva, Kash. chyun, perhaps through an old form pyun, Singh. bonava, p.p.p. bí.

Skr. √ नी “lead,” i. नयति, Pa. नयति, नेति, Pr. नेट्, णेद् (pres. part. णअंतो= Skr. नयन्, fut. इस्सं = Skr. नेष्यामि, Imp. ह = Skr. ). Used in the moderns only in composition, thus

(a) With आ = आनी “bring,” Pa. आनेति, Pr. आणेद्, H. आन

"bring," in all the rest. Kashm. anun, Gipsy anáva. (b) With परि = परिनी “ lead round the sacrificial fire during the marriage ceremony," hence, "to marry," Old-H. TCU, TEAT, P. परनाहु, S. पर्ण, G. M. परण.

=

Skr. √“fly,” with “fly up,” i. eguâ, iv. egìuâ, Pr. ÊT, H. CC (ur) “to fly,” and so in all. S. has f, probably a diminutive. Kashm. wudun, Gipsy uryáva.

The root "to go," was mentioned above; with the preposition forming T, it means "to come," and it is from this word that the following are apparently derived:

Skr. आया “come,” ii. आयाति, Pa. id., Pr. आआइ, आइ, H. आ "to come," P. id., G., M., Gipsy aváva, Kash. yun. The B.

आइस, 0. आस, S. अच seem to come from आगच्छति, but both in B. and O. one often hears, thus O. ásila or áilá, "he came," and S. makes the imperv. âu, so that there is some confusion between the two roots.

In the roots ending in long i the modern languages have words descended from compound verbs only, and in them the final vowel of the root has dropped out altogether, while in roots ending in long a there is a tendency to soften the final vowel into i or e.

§ 17. A few words must be given to a verb which has been somewhat hotly discussed of late. In all the modern languages except perhaps M., the idea of seeing is expressed by dekh. Kashmiri has deshun, Gipsy dikáva, and Singhalese dikanava. The root is in Sanskrit √, but the present is not in use; instead of it classical Sanskrit uses fa, from which M. derives its verb T. Marathi stands alone in using this stem, पाह. instead of dekh. From comes future

fa, and it is

from this future that Childers derives the Pali fa. He shows' that in the earlier Pali writings it is always used in a future sense, and only in later times becomes a present. As I hinted above (§ 4, p. 16), it is very probable that the vulgar, missing in this word the characteristic issa of their ordinary future, considered it a present, and made a double future dakkhissati. A similar process has been shown to have taken place in several verbs in Prakrit. Pischel draws attention to a fact pointed out in Vol. I. p. 162 of this work, that there is much similarity between dekh and the Prakrit pekkh from Sanskrit. He, however, goes so far as to assume that the word dekh was unknown to the authors of the dramas, that they used pekkh, which has been changed to dekkh by the copy

1 In Kuhn's Beiträge zur vergleichenden Sprachforschung, vol. vii. p. 450. Pischel's article is in the same work.

round them every day, Unfortunately for this

ists who heard this latter word used while they did not know of pekh. ingenious theory, it happens that the word pekh is extremely common in Hindi, Bangali, and Panjabi literature of the middle ages, and is still used in many rustic dialects of Hindi. The idea of a northern Indian scribe not knowing pekh is quite untenable. Weber (Prakrit Studien, p. 69) has a long article on this subject, controverting the views of Childers as supported by Pischel. The learned professor would derive dekkh from the desiderative of, which is fa, but I am unable to follow the arguments adduced, or to see how a word meaning should come to mean "to see.' "to wish to see Nor do there appear to be any actual facts in support of this theory, such as texts in which the word occurs in a transitional state of meaning or form. The few desideratives that have left any traces in modern times retain the desiderative meaning, as piyâsâ "thirsty," from pipâsu (see Vol. II. p. 81). However, I must say to the learned disputants—

[ocr errors]

"Non nostrum inter vos tantas componere lites."

For my own part the impression I derive from the controversy is that dekh is derived through dekkh from dakkh, which is Sanskrit future fa turned into a present by a vulgar error. The idea suggested by me (in Vol. I. p. 161 et seqq.) must be modified accordingly. It was not so entirely erroneous as Pischel thinks, for Sanskrit represents an older, which seems to be preserved in the future.

§ 18. The examples adduced in the preceding sections will have sufficiently illustrated the most salient peculiarities in the formation of the ordinary single verbs whether neuter or active, and I now pass on to the more difficult subject of the double verbs. As I mentioned before, there is a very large class of these; they appear in two forms, one of which is active and

occasionally even causal, the other is neuter or passive intransitive. It is after much consideration that I have come to the conclusion that this is the right way to regard them. It might be said that the forms which are here spoken of as neuters are really passives, and a rule might be laid down that these languages often form their passive by what the Germans call umlaut or substitution of weaker vowels. Childers in fact takes this view as regards Singhalese in the article already quoted (J. R. A. S. vol. viii. p. 148). I do not know how the matter may stand in Singhalese, but it is certainly open to much objection as regards the Aryan languages of the Indian continent. The neuters differ from the actives in two ways in the seven languages, either by a change in the final consonant of the stem or by a change in the vowel only. The latter is by far the more frequent. We must not be misled by the accident that many of these neuters can only be translated into English by a passive; that is the peculiarity of our own language, not of the Indian ones. In German or in the Romance languages they can be rendered by the reflexive verb. Thus H. is "to open," i.e. "to open of itself," "to come undone," "to be opened," while, the corresponding active, is "to open," i.e. "to break a thing open," "to undo." Thus "the door opens," is in German "die Thür द्वार खुलता öffnet sich," in French "la porte s'ouvre." While

खुलना

"he opens the door," is in German "er öffnet die Thür," in French "il ouvre la porte." So that fis" sich umkehren,” while its active is "umkehren (etwas)." In English we use verbs in a neuter as well as in an active sense, relying upon the context to make our meaning clear.

Moreover, all the languages have a passive, in some a regularly formed derivative from Prakrit, in others a periphrastic arrangement. It is true that, owing to the large number of neuter stems, this regular passive is not very much used; but it is there nevertheless, and would not have been invented had

« PreviousContinue »