« PreviousContinue »
any class other than the Bhů, it still keeps the personal endings of Sanskrit for that conjugation ; thus from v UT“ go," we have
Pa. s. 1. यामि, 2. यासि, 3. याति; P. 1. याम, 2. याथ, 3. यांति.
which differs from Sanskrit only in omitting the visarga in P. 1.
The imperative follows the type of the present, and may be thus compared with Sanskrit Parasmaipada,
Skr. S. 1. पचानि, 2. पच. 3. पचतु; P. 1. पचाम, 2. पचत, 3. पचंतु.
Pa. S. 1. पचामि, 2. पचहि, 3. पचतु; P.1. पचाम, 2. पचथ, 3. पचंति. and with the Âtmanepada, thus
Skr. S. 1. पचे, 2. पचस्व, 3. पचतां; P.1. पचामहै, 2. पचध्वं, 3. पचंता. Pa. S. 1. पचे, 2. पचस्सु, 3. पचतं; P. 1. पचामसे, 2. पचहो, 3. पचंतं.
Here the S. 1 Parasmai seems to have arisen from some confusion with the present, as also P. 2. Noteworthy is S. 2, with its ending fe, which, though only found in classical Sanskrit in the second, third, seventh, and ninth conjugations, has crept into all in Pali, and has continued on into the mediæval period, thus Chand
तिन मु गहू अच्छी कहहि। “Say thou a good word of them."-Pr. R. i. 9. where कहहि = Skr. कथय (हि). In Vedic Skr. हि appears in all the conjugations. Of the Âtmane forms P. 1 seems to be derived from an older form, masai. P. 2 should perhaps be read hro, not vho, in which case it is a regular resultant from Sanskrit dho.
The potential is the Sanskrit optative (lin), thus
Skr. S. 1. पचेयं, 2. पचेस, 3. पचेत; P. 1. पचेम, 2. पचेत, 3. पचेयुस. Pa. S. 1. पचेव्यामि, 2. °य्यासि, 3. °य्य; P.1. °व्याम, 2. व्याथ, 3. व्युं.
ÂTMANE. Sk. S. 1. पचेय, 2. पचेथास, 3. पचेत; P.1. पचेमहि, 2. पचेवं, 3. पचेरन् . Pa. S. 1. पचेव्यं, 2. पचेथो, 3. पचेथ; P. 1. पचेय्याम्हे, 2. व्यहो, 3. पचेर.
In this tense the point specially to be noticed is the tendency to simplify not only the root-syllable, but the range of terminations also. Having got the syllables eyya as the type of the
. tense, Pali seeks to avoid all further distinctions, and to use as much as possible the personal endings of the present tense. It sometimes conjugates the potential according to the types of other classes, and in this respect follows the lead of the present less faithfully in this tense than in the imperative. Thus, though in the present and imperative of kar, it follows the Sanskrit, and has karoti, karotu, yet in the potential it treats kar as if it belonged to the Bhû class, and has kareyyâmi as though from a Sanskrit kareyam instead of the actual kuryâm. There are other peculiarities about this tense which are not here noticed, as having no bearing upon the subject of the modern languages.
The imperfect has been, to some extent, mixed up with the aorist (lun), and both, together with the perfect, lead us into considerations which are of interest only for Pali itself, not having survived or had any influence on modern developments. They may therefore be passed over as immaterial to our present inquiry.
The future, on the contrary, offers many interesting peculiarities, especially, as will be seen hereafter, in reference to Gujarati and some of the rustic dialects of Hindi. The future is a different tense in the modern languages, and every scrap of information which can help to elucidate it deserves special notice. It runs thus in Pali (V TA “go ”)Skr.S.1. गमिष्यामि, 2. •ष्यसि, 3. •ष्यति P.1. •ष्यामस, 2.ष्यथ,3. ष्यंति. Pa.s.1. गमिस्सामि,2. स्ससि, 3. स्सति; P.1. °स्साम,2. स्सथ, 3. स्संति.
Here the only noteworthy feature is the change of a into . The Âtmanepada follows the same rule throughout.
स्स Although the tendency to keep that form of the root which exists in the present leads to divergences from the Sanskrit future type, yet instances occur in which the Sanskrit type is preserved. These occur in reference to that very troublesome feature in the Sanskrit verb, the intermediate t, which is sometimes inserted between the root and the termination, and sometimes not. When it is not inserted, the euphonic laws of Sanskrit require that the final consonant of the root be changed to enable it to combine with the initial consonant of the termination. Thus / पच “cook," when it has to take
" the future termination ष्यति, becomes पक् and पक+ ष्यति= पक्ष्यति. Here Pali sticks to the form 977, because it is used in the present and makes its future ofera as though there had been (as there probably was in colloquial usage) a Sanskrit future पचिष्यति with the intermediate ( inserted.
In a certain number of verbs, however, it has two forms, one as above retaining the root-form of the present, and the other a phonetic equivalent of the Sanskrit.
Kuhn? gives the following examples, to which I add the Sanskrit for comparison. Skr. / लम् "get," future लप्स्यते. Pali लच्छति but also लभिस्सति.
Vवच “speak," ,
, धस्सति. .
भुंजिस्सति. V मुच् “ loose,"
मोच्यति. मोकवति मुंचिस्सति. Vशु “ hear," श्रोष्यति.
· Beiträge, p. 115.
The consonantal changes are in accordance with the treatment of the nexus as explained in Vol. I. p. 304. The striving after uniformity is seen, however, in the retention of the alternative forms having the same type as the present, and it is, moreover, worth observing that the forms which reproduce the type of the Sanskrit without the intermediate seem by degrees to have been misunderstood. The illiterate masses, and even those better instructed, seem to have missed the issati which so generally indicated to their minds the future tense, and regarded those forms which had not this familiar sound as present tenses. So they made double futures by adding the issa to them. Thus from EU "to see,” future refa, Pali made a form dakkhati, but the people by degrees took this for a present, and made what to them seemed a more correct future dakkhissati. I mention this here as I shall have occasion hereafter to discuss the much-debated question of the origin of the familiar modern stem dekh “see” (see § 17). Another instance is Skr. v “be able,” future refa. Pa. aforefa, whence vulgo
सखिस्सति. In one case Pali has a future which points back to a Vedic form : Skr. V 17"weep."
Vedic future Trefa. Pa. Tofa.
. Occasionally the स्स is softened to ह, as in काहति, काहिति from aftufa, Skr. aftofa. This is noteworthy with reference to Bhojpuri and the eastern Hindi dialects generally.
§ 5. It used to be held that Pali was a descendant of the Mâgadhi dialect of Prakrit, but this opinion is now, I believe, exploded. Though the question is not yet set at rest, it would seem to have been fairly established that Mahendra was a native of Ujjayin, and that the language which he carried to Ceylon was the ordinary vernacular of his own province." This dialect was not very different from that of Magadha, and Mahendra may have slightly altered the Mâgadhi sayings of the great master, by his Ujjayini pronunciation, while retaining the name Mâgadhi out of deference to the sacred associations which clustered round the birthplace of Buddha.
Be this as it may, the nearest Indian dialect to Pali seems undoubtedly to be the Prakrit of the Bhâgavatî, a sacred book of the semi-Buddhist sect of Jainas. If Hemachandra, himself a Jain and author of several works on Prakrit, were available for reference, our task would be easier; as yet, however, none of Hemachandra's writings have been printed or edited. Weber's articles on the Bhagavatî are at present our only source of information.2
In the Jaina Prakrit the ten conjugations of the Sanskrit verb are, with few exceptions, reduced to the Bhû type. In this respect it goes further than Pali, treating as verbs of the first conjugation many which in Pali retain the type of other conjugations. The fifth, seventh, and ninth conjugations, which in Sanskrit insert 7 with certain variations, are all reduced to one head by regarding the 7 as part of the root, as is also the case with the y of the fourth class. inserted between the root and termination of the Bhû class is used throughout, though occasionally weakened to i, or changed to e from some confusion between this and the e = aya, which is the type of the tenth class. The following examples will illustrate the above remarks.
i Kuhn, Beiträge, p. 7.
? Pischel's admirable edition of Hemachandra's Grammar (Orphanage Press, Halle, 1877) has reached me just as this work is going to press, and too late to be of use for this edition, except for a few hasty notes here and there. Mueller's Beiträge zur Grammatik des Jainaprakrit came into my hands about the same time. I find it enables me to add a few illustrations to this section, which, however, was written in the latter part of 1876.