This language uniformly makes an imperfect from every root by adding as to the present, but the process is so foreign to our Indian languages as to have no interest for us in the present inquiry. § 61. The derivatives of as in the present tense are in some languages curiously bound up with the negative into a tense which exists in those languages in which there is no trace of the positive form. Thus Oriya, which has no positive present as, has a complete negative present, "I am not, etc." Sing. 1. नुहें, 2. नुह, 3. नुहे . 2. नाह, 3. नाहान्ति. Here the u in the first syllable of the singular is due to some confusion with the tense of bhû, to be noted hereafter; but though this form is common in writing, the peasantry often say simply, "he is not." The insertion of this u is accounted for by supposing it to have slipped over from the following syllable, thus, nuhe would be for na hue, and nuhanti for na huanti. Nuanti, and not nâhânti, is the older form, as in— करुणा हृदय नुहन्ति निरदय । "Merciful-hearted they are not, but pitiless."-Rasak. vi. 18. There being in O. no positive present from as, the survival of the negative present has naturally been accounted for by referring it to the only positive present remaining, namely, that from bhú; but this seems to be a false analogy, because, as will be shown later on, in many constructions the negative is used without the u, and is generally so used by the rustic classes. G. has for all persons of both tenses, they say t “I am not,” ₫ “thou art not," "he is not." This is a case of forgetfulness of the origin of a word leading to its use being extended to cases where it has no right to be, for नथी is clearly derived from अत्थि, the Pr. form of अस्ति with न prefixed, and thus, strictly speaking, belongs only to the 3 sing. The negative of as is kept distinct from that of bhû in Marathi, the former runs thus Sing. 1. नाहीं, 2. नाहींस, 3. नाहीं. Pl. 1, 2. नाहीं, 3. नाहींत. In Hindi af and are used to mean simply "not," and if they ever had any verbal meaning, have now quite lost it. In Sindhi the negative prefixed merely coalesces with it, without in any way influencing it, or bringing about any change in its form ; thus नाहे or नआहे “ he is not.” § 62. The present tense from as is added to the simple and participial tenses of the neuter, active, or causal stem, to form a class of compound tenses, having significations somewhat more definite than the participial tenses when used alone. In some cases, however, no additional strength of meaning seems to be gained. In the following examples it will suffice to quote the 3 singular in each tense, from which the reader can form the rest for himself. Hindi adds the present of as to the present and past participles of the ordinary verb, to form a definite present and definite preterite respectively, as Colloquially, also, one sometimes hears a tense formed from the aorist of the verb, and that of the auxiliary, as a "he comes." This usage prevails more in the Western Hindi area, where the language is transitional to Gujarati, and is not approved of in classical speech.1 1 1 Kellogg, p. 206. Sindhi has, like Hindi, the two definite tenses : Def. Present “he is going." Def. Preterite हलिओ आहे “ he has gone.” Marathi has a wider range; it forms two separate tenses, one from the indeclinable, another from the declinable form of its present participle, a definite perfect from its past participle, and a sort of future with its noun of agency (§ 75). In the last-named instance, however, we have hardly a tense, but rather a participial construction Def. Preterite Future लिहिला आहे “ he has written.” लिहिणार आहे " he is about to write.” The other languages having no traces of this auxiliary, naturally have no tenses formed by it. § 63. Асни. This root must be taken next, in order to preserve the natural sequence of tenses in the modern verbs. It has been customary hitherto to accept without inquiry the assumption that the auxiliaries of this form are derived from as; but there are considerable difficulties in the way of admitting this view, which appears, as far as I can trace it back, to have arisen from Vararuchi, xii. 19 (Śauraseni), asterachchha. But the next sûtra gives tipâtthi, as far as we can see from the very corrupt state of the text, and the parallel passage from the Sankshipta Sâra (Lassen, App. p. 51) gives only atthi, though fragments of a present tense achchhaï, etc., are quoted by Lassen (p. 346) from the latter authority. By his reference to p. 266, the author would seem to favour a derivation from asti by inversion atsi, as ts we know (Vol. I. p. 317) migrates into , but this will not account for the other persons of the tense. It does not, however, follow that Vararuchi, in quoting achchh as an equivalent for as, ever meant that the former was phonetically evolved from the latter. He is merely giving us the popular equivalent of the classical word. Just in the same way he tells us (viii. 68) that vuṭṭa and khuppa are used for Skr. masj, but no one supposes that vuṭṭa can, by any known process of phonetic change, be derived from masj. popular word used instead of a refined one. It is simply a So, also, when he are not bound to tells us that achchh is used instead of as, we believe that he means to say that the former is derived from the latter, but simply that it is in use side by side with it. Hemachandra, in the same way, gives many popular equivalents of Skr. roots, which are not derivatives from those roots. Weber, Hala, p. 41, rejects, and with justice, the idea of any connection between the two words, and suggests that acch is a form of gach (√ gam), "to go." This view is supported by citations from the Bhagavati (i. 411, etc.), as e.g. acchejja vâ citthejja vâ nisieyya va uyaṭṭejja, "Let him go, or stand, or sit down, or rise up." In the examples quoted from the Saptasatakam, however, the word bears more often the opposite meaning of standing still; and often may be rendered by either one or the other; thus tuppâṇanâ kino ac chasi tti ia pucchiâi vahuâi.—Sapt. 291. Here Weber translates, "Why goest thou with anointed face?" but the scholiast has kim tishthasi, "why standest thou?" The general meaning of the passage is merely "why art thou" thus, i.e. "why have you got your face anointed ?" So in 344, 66 asamattamanorahaim acchanti mithunaim, it must be rendered, They are (or stand) with their desires unfulfilled." In another passage, 169, it has still more unmistakeably the meaning of stay: acchau tâva maṇaharam piyâi muhadamsanam aïmahaggham vi jhatti dittha suhâvei, He literally, "Let stand (or let be) the heart-entrancing, very precious sight of the face of my love, even the boundary of the fields of her village, when seen, straightway delights.” means a sort of hyperbole, as we might say, "Her face delights, said I? not her face merely-(or, let alone her face)—why even the sight of the village where she lives delights." Here acchaü is 3 singular imperative; the idiom is in common use in modern speech; thus in O. they would say tâku dekhibâ thâü, tâhâr grâm sîmâ madhya dekhibâ ânand ațe, "Let the seeing of her stand aside, the seeing of her village boundary merely is delight." It is like the use of the word alam in Sanskrit. Parallel to the use of O. in this construction is that of in B. Thus, Bhârat Chandra— 66 उपोषे उपोषे लोक हेल मृत प्राय ॥ थाकुक अन्नेर कथा जल नाहि पाय ॥ From long fasting the folk were nearly dead, Let alone food, they could not (even) get water.”—Mânsingh, 446. Literally, "Let the matter of food stand (aside)," see § 69. In the Chingana or Gipsy also ach means "to remain," "to stand." Thus, opré pirende acháva, "I stand on my feet," or simply, "I stand," Paspati "se tenir debout;" achilo korkoro "he remained alone," ate achilom "here I am," literally "here I have remained;" achen devlésa "remain with God," "good-bye" (i.e. "God be with ye"), Pasp. "Salutation très-commune parmi les Tchingianés." |