It is apparent, from these examples, which might be indefinitely increased, that the base of Gipsy verbal stems is the Prakrit, in its earlier as well as its more modern forms; that the phases of the Indian verb are also fairly represented; that the practice of using ancillaries is also not unknown; and that thus this wild and wandering race has carried with it, wherever it has gone on the face of the earth, the principles and sentiments of speech formation which it inherits from the land of its birth, the deserts of the Indus and the Chenab.

CHAPTER II.

THE SIMPLE TENSES.

CONTENTS.—§ 32. CLASSIFICATION OF TENSES.—§ 33. THE SIMPLE PRESENT

OR AORIST.-§ 34. THE IMPERATIVE.-§ 35. THE FUTURE IN OLD HINDI AND GUJARATI.-§ 36. TYPE OF THE ACTIVE VERB IN SINDHI AND MARATHI. § 37. SYNOPSIS OF THE SIMPLE TENSES IN ALL SEVEN LANGUAGES.—§ 38. SIMPLE TENSES IN THE GIPSY VERB.

$32. THE preceding Chapter has dealt only with the stem, or that part of the verb which remains unchanged throughout all moods and tenses; we have now to consider the processes used to express the various relations which the idea involved in the stem is capable of undergoing.

The tenses of the modern verb fall naturally into three classes or grades, and it is surprising that so patent a fact has not been noticed by any of the grammar-writers. It is impossible to give, as some writers do, a fixed number for the tenses in any of our languages, for the combinations are almost infinite; but a broad, general classification would, one might suppose, have suggested itself to the most mechanical compiler. The grammar-writers, however, including even authors so superior to the general run as Trumpp and Kellogg, have been, for the most part, led away by giving their attention, in the first place, if not exclusively, to the meanings of the various tenses. This practice has led them to lose sight of the primary idea as evolved out of the structure of each tense. Had the structure been first considered, it would have been easy to discover which of the many conventional senses of a given tense

was its primary and legitimate one, and by adhering to this process, a more simple and natural classification of tenses would have been arrived at.

Kellogg does, indeed, clearly grasp the principles of the structure of the Hindi verb, but he is too metaphysical in his considerations about the meaning of each tense, and has adopted a phraseology which cannot but prove bewildering to the student, and which scientific linguists are not likely to adopt.

In Sindhi Trumpp divides the verb into simple and compound tenses. The simple present is by him called the Potential, though he is well aware of the fact that it is really the old Sanskrit present indicative, and in his philological notes duly recognizes the fact. His classification is sufficient for Sindhi, though it would hardly cover all the tenses in the cognate languages. As usual, he is, in this respect, much in advance of all other grammar-writers on the modern languages. In the Grammars of Gujarati, Marathi, and Oriya, the same distinction between simple and compound tenses is preserved, though in many cases erroneously worked out.

It appears to me, however, that for purposes of comparison between all the languages of this group, a finer distinction still is required, and I would suggest a threefold division, which it will be my business in the following pages to substantiate and describe in detail.

First, there are the simple tenses,-exact modern equivalents of corresponding tenses in the Sanskrit and Prakrit verb, whose form is due to the ordinary processes of phonetic change and development, and in which the old synthetic structure, though very much abraded, is still distinctly traceable.

Secondly, the participial tenses, formed from participles of the Sanskrit verb, used either alone, or with fragments of the Sanskrit substantive verb, worked into and amalgamated with them so as to form in each case one word only. In the latter

case these tenses have a pseudo-synthetical appearance, though the principle on which they are formed is really analytical.

Thirdly, compound tenses, in which the base is a participle with an auxiliary verb added to it, but not incorporated into it, each person of each tense thus consisting of two words in juxtaposition.

A further development of the analytical system produces the large class of verbs with ancillaries, in which the master-stem, so to call it, remains unchanged, and the ancillary does all the work of conjugation. Each of these classes will now be considered in its turn. The present chapter is devoted to the first class, or simple tenses.

It must here also be noted that the seven languages have but one conjugation each, that is to say, that the terminations and methods of forming tenses in use in any one language are applied without variation to every verb in that language. A partial exception may, at first sight, seem to occur in Sindhi and Marathi, in both of which there is one method for conjugating neuter, and another for active verbs. It will be shown, however, that though at first sight the terminations of the neuter verb seem to differ from those of the active, as in M. "I set free," a, yet in reality the scheme of terminations is one and the same for both, and the difference is due to a process of preparing the root to receive terminations, and to the abrasion of those terminations, in some cases from euphonic causes, and not to the existence of a double system of conjugation.

"I escape," n, but

§ 33. First among the simple tenses comes, in all the languages, the old Sanskrit present indicative, which, in form, preserves clear traces of its origin, though, as in its abraded condition it now no longer indicates with sufficient clearness present time, it has wandered away into all sorts of meanings, and is given by grammarians under all sorts of titles. Con

sidering the very vague meanings which it now expresses, especially in regard to the note of time, it has seemed to me that the Greek term "aorist" more accurately describes this tense in its modern usage than any other. The fact that it is a present, no matter what additional indefinite meanings may be attached to it, is, however, necessary to be borne in mind, and I think that in modern grammars it should always head the list of tenses, as the simplest and most genuine, and legitimately first in order, of them all. In those languages of this group with which I am personally acquainted, I can assert, from my own experience, that it is far more frequently used in colloquial practice as a present, pure and simple, than our grammarwriters, basing their views too much on the literary aspects of the languages, would have us believe.

The terminations of the aorist in the classical form of each language in the present day are the following. (For the full forms, see the tables at the end of this chapter.)

The third person singular is the same in all the languages, ending universally in . In Oriya poetry it ends in, and this now somewhat antiquated form is still occasionally heard, as in करद्द “ he does,” अटर् “ it is.” The form in अर् is in use in the rustic dialects of Hindi and Gujarati, as is also the intermediate form. It seems certain that this universal ų has been formed from, the termination of this person in