There are, in fact, four types of the future in the modern languages, having for their characteristics respectively the letters,,, and . The sa type has a variant ha. The ga, la, and ba types belong to the class of participial tenses, and will be discussed under that head. The sa type, with its variant ha, found in G. and Old-H., with dialectic variations in several of the modern rustic dialects of H., is the only one which is directly derived from the corresponding Sanskrit and Prakrit tense. It is the Sanskrit future in ishya, as in karishyámi, which, as already pointed out in § 4, becomes in Pali karissami, and retains that form in the higher Prakrits. The transition from this to the eastern Rajput seems to rest upon the confusion between the first persons of the singular and plural already noticed in H.; for Rajp. t, though now a plural, represents a better than does, which latter leads to Pr. plural करिस्सामु, just as does G. करिशुं . The G. 1 sing. has rejected all terminations, and lengthened the preceding vowel; this form is also, in the general confusion, due to the corruption of personal affixes, used for the 2 sing. The second and third persons of both numbers may be traced back to the corresponding persons of the Prakrit just as in the aorist, and the loss of the i in the second syllable is probably due to the neglect of vowels in G., where the first plural even is written in three ways, as करीशुं, करिशुं, or करशुं. The orthography of G. is, it will be remembered, still unfixed. In most of the Prakrits the future has undergone a further weakening, by which the of the higher types has been resolved into, so that we get such forms as fafafa side by side with fafa. It is from this weakened form that the Hindi type is derived. Thus 3 sing. f represents Pr. afte from aftefa; 3 pl. afte=affa, and so on. Here also come in the old Purbi forms करिहहि, करिअहि, which are transitional from Pr. to Old-H. In poems in the Braj dialect occur such forms as करेहौं, करेहै, where the ai has crept into VOL. III. 8 the second syllable, probably from the analogy of the ga type karai-gâ. The commonest form is that given above, with short i in the second syllable. This is Chand's ordinary future, as हम सावंत सब जुझिहें ॥ राज चंदेल न जाय ॥ "We nobles all will fight, (That) the kingdom of the Chandel may not perish.” के सिर तुमहि समप्पिहीं ॥ के सिर धरिहीं छत्र ॥ "Either I will yield my head to thee, -Pr. R. xxi. 94. Or I will put the umbrella on my head."—Pr. R. i. 279. कनवज लूटि रिधि सब हरिहौं ॥ “ Having plundered Kanauj, I will carry off all your riches, It is also the ordinary future throughout Tulsi Das's Ramayan, as सबहि भांति पिय सेवा करिहौं ॥ मारग जनित सकल अम हरिहौं ॥ "In every manner I will serve my beloved, Also universally in Kabir, as ना जानो कब मारिहै क्या घर क्या परदेस ॥ —Ay-k. 399. "Ye know not when he (i.e. death) will strike, whether at home or abroad."-Ram. xix. 5. बहुरि न ऐसौ पैहौ थाना ॥ "You will never find such a place again.—ib. xliii. 2. where पैहौ = पाइहौ 2 pl. fut. of पाना “ to find.” When the ga future, which is now the ordinary type in Hindi, arose, cannot be clearly defined. It is not in use in the mediæval poets, and, as has been shown above, it has not succeeded in expelling the old synthetical future from the rustic dialects. § 36. In M. and S. the terminations of the old present or aorist, and those of the imperative in S., seem at first sight to differ in the active from those in the neuter verb, and some remarks are necessary in explanation of this peculiarity. The neuter सुटणें “ to get loose,” and the active सोडणें “ to set free,” are thus conjugated in the present in M. छडण “to give up,” conjugate the present thus : On comparing these two sets of forms, it will be seen that the active differs from the neuter by insertion of in M., and of हू in S. This inserted vowel has, however, disappeared in some persons, as in M. first and second plural, and in S. third singular, and, optionally, also second singular and third plural. Some writers on Marathi seek to derive the forms of the neuter from those of the Skr. Âtmanepada, and the forms of the active from those of the Parasmaipada. There is, however, a fatal objection to this argument in the fact that the Skr. Atmanepada had died out of use so early as the Prakrits, and that the neuter forms of M. agree closely with the forms in use in the other languages, where there is nothing to lead us to look for an origin from the Âtmanepada, inasmuch as the known changes of the Parasmaipada afford a satisfactory explanation, and in those languages the type which in M. is restricted to neuter verbs is used for both neuter and active. A more probable supposition is that which would derive the forms of the active in M. and S. from the Skr. causal, the characteristic aya having been changed in Pr. to e, and still further shortened in S. to i, while in M. the personal terminations have been blended with the of aya into a long vowel; thus M. presupposes an earlier form सोड्यइ or सोडये, for it must be noted that the termination resulting from Skr. ufa, Pr. dropped in this word. So in the first sing. S. sents an older fa, and is thus earlier in type than M. सोडों for सोडिऐं, through सोडयाइं . The second singular in which the personal termination is retained also supports this view, for in it the characteristic holds the same place in the word as the characteristic aya of the Sanskrit causal, namely, between the stem and the termination: so it does in Sindhi in all the persons. The value of the comparative method is shown in cases like this where a student, who is guided by the facts of one language only, is liable to be misled, owing to want of the light supplied by the sister languages. , has been fi repre It is only in S. that the imperative differs in the active from that in the neuter. According to strict rule, the second singular of neuter verbs ends in u, as "to die," imperative H◄ "die thou;" while in active verbs it ends in, as “to cherish," imperative "cherish thou." Trumpp, however, gives a long list of active verbs whose imperative ends in u, while there are others which take both terminations. It is impossible, at present, satisfactorily to account for this irregularity, but it seems probable that active verbs in S. derived from actives in Sanskrit form the imperative in u, while those which are derived from S. causals form it in. Should this suggestion be confirmed by further research, the द्द would appear to be the representative of the Skr. aya of the causal. Thus while Skr. मर produces S. मरु, Skr. पालय produces S. पालि, shortened from पाले (Pr. पालेहि). The second plural of neuters ends in o, as "go ye!" while that of actives ends in io or yo, as छडिओ or छड्यो . The earlier form in iho (Pr. इहु) is also in use as छडिहो. In the following list there is no reason why the imperative should not end in u, notwithstanding the rule, for the words are derived from simple Sanskrit active verbs of the Bhû conjugation, or, if in Sanskrit of other conjugations, yet reduced to the Bhû type in Prakrit. . आख्या, imperative आख्याहि, from which comes regularly आखि, through a form af, but this verb may be also neuter, as in "tell! tell!" and would thus, by the masses, be formed like neuters, and have आखु धंवणु "to blow" (with bellows), makes धंवु and धंवि, it is from Skr. ध्मा, imp. धम, whence regularly ig. Here the form ifa, the ordinary form for actives, may have been introduced from forgetfulness of the special reasons for that ending in u. As a general result, it may be suggested that each of these peculiar verbs requires to be traced back to its origin, in which case there will generally be found some special reason for the divergence from the normal type. |