The exact coincidence of these participles with the Sanskrit and Prakrit confirms the derivation of the verbal stems given in $ 19. There are many others equally instructive as retaining the Prakrit form; thus, for instance, we can explain the following :

S.

लिंब “ smear,” √ लिप्

गठो

घृष्ट

गिट्ठो, गट्ठो

छुप्त

कुत्तो

So also the origin of उघणु “ wipe out,” is obscure, till we look at the p.p.p. उघठो, which leads to Skr. उद्धृष्ट, and then we see that ughanu is for ugahanu=udgharshanam. The participles in tho similarly explain themselves, as

The next three words have old Tadbhava participles in

almost all the languages of this group:

डिअणु “give,” p.p.p. डिनो, Pr. दिलो.

Another class is composed of denominatives or neuter verbs with the causal type âm (§ 28). These are

There is, as already mentioned, considerable obscurity as to the derivation of these words: udâmanu is, however, certainly from Skr. ud-di, p.p.p. dina; ujhâmanu perhaps from Skr. ut-kshi, p.p.p. kshiņa; vikâmaņu from Skr. vikri, p.p.p., however, not krina, but krita. On the analogy of those verbs whose p. p. p. ended in na, may have been formed the modified p.p. in no for all verbs of the class, regardless of the fact that in the classical language the causal p.p. would end in âpita, e.g. sthâpita. In

Hindi, also, stems ending in â take this p.p. in no in the poets as फिरा, p. p. फिरानो, or apocopated n, as रिसा p. p. रिसान.

The above remarks explain nearly half the words in Trumpp's list, for the rest the uncertainty is too great to admit of satisfactory explanation. Trumpp, for instance, would derive द्राणु “to satisfy,” and ड्रापणु “ to be satisfied,” from Skr. V तृप, तर्पति, but the p.p.p. द्राओ can hardly represent तृप्त. Others again there are whose p.p. is intelligible, while the infinitive is not. जुतो “engaged” (in work) explains itself by Skr. युक्त, Pr. जुत्तो, clearly enough, but its infinitive should be jujanu or junjaņu (Pa. युंजति). Whence then comes it that the infinitive is jumbanu? So also rudho "busily employed" is clearly Skr. रुद्ध (रुध्), one form of the infinitive rujhanu is regularly derived from Skr. रुध्यते, but what are we to say to another form rumbhanu or rubhaņu?

Panjabi has several of the same early Tadbhava participles as Sindhi, and a few of its own. is much smaller than in Sindhi.

P.P.

कीता

गिश्र, गद्द आ

The total number, however, The commonest are

SKR.

कृत (dialectically also कीदा). गत (also जाया = Skr. यात). ज्ञात.

दृष्ट (also डिट्ठा more Sindhico).

दत्त.

करना “ do,”

जाणा “go,”

जाणना “know”

जाता

लभित, instead of classical लब्ध.

रहिणा “ remain,”

In the two last the

has leapt over into the preceding syllable, and kihâ, rihâ, are for kahiâ, rahiâ, respectively. The above list nearly, if not quite, exhausts the early Tadbhava participles of Panjabi, and Hindi influence is already at work in favour of the ordinary type.

§ 47. Gujarati has, like Panjabi, a smaller number of these participles than Sindhi.

In the instances of kidho, bihidho, khâdho, pidho, and didho, we have probably formations based on the analogy of lidho, for the exception of bihidho, which may owe its dh to a combination of the h and d of Pr. vihido, there is no older form which would yield dh. The origin of these forms will be more fully inquired into under Hindi, where they are well illustrated.

So far does the original meaning of these participles appear to have been obscured, that from them a participle ending in elo is also formed, and they say kidhelo, dithelo, and the like, where the participial element occurs twice. The ordinary verb having two forms of participle, one in yo, the other in elo, the verbs in the above list were bound to have them also, and instead of adding elo to the stem, and making karelo, lielo, it has been added to the already formed early Tadbhava participle.

There appears to be a slight difference in meaning between the two forms of the Gujarati past participle, that in elo being somewhat more emphatic than that in yo. Thus हं आव्यो कुं “I am come," but "I am come,"

(emp! atically).

Marathi has early Tadbhava participles, and it has others, which are accounted irregular by the grammarians from other causes. The former are not numerous, and are chiefly found in the same stems as in the other languages. Thus we have