Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Sanskrit passive having been worked into the stem, and the terminations of the active being added to it. The Âtmanepada and the dual are of course rejected.

Of tenses these dialects have a still more restricted range than the Jaina Prakrits. They have the present, imperative and future, with traces of the potential. The past tense is chiefly formed by the p.p.p. with auxiliary verbs. Thus from ✓"shine,"

[blocks in formation]

Here are observable those first indications of a confusion of forms, and uncertainty in their use, which are always characteristic of that period in languages when the synthetical structure is breaking down into the analytical. In these dialects, as in Jaina Prakrit, the practice exists of inserting as a junction vowel; thus we have such forms as कलेमि " I do, ” Skr. करोमि, instead off, which would be the regular result of treating कर् as a Bhû verb, गच्छेम्ह for गच्छाम, “ let us go ” The presence of the in S. 1 and P. 1 is accounted for by its being confused with that construction in which the present of is used with a past participle; thus we find af "I was made"= Sanskrit कृतोऽस्मि, and पेसिदम्हि “ I have been sent " = Skr. प्रेषितोऽस्मि. The imperative has the following forms

[blocks in formation]

The S. 2 has also forms रोचस्स, रोचस्सु, pointing to a Sanskrit

Âtmane form

[blocks in formation]

though neither are used in a middle sense, but are equivalents as regards meaning of the Sanskrit active.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

The future most usually exhibits the form of the Sanskrit

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

This form is used indifferently with roots of all classes as in Pali, but here also there still subsist some traces of a future formed without the intermediate द्दू. Vararuchi (vii. 16, 17 ) gives the following :—

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]

These forms are, however, justly regarded as exceptions; for the rule in scenic, as in other, Prakrits is to retain throughout the root-form of the present. The regular type of the future is that in issa-, and the above words have also a future formed in the regular way, सुणिस्सद्, वचिस्सद्, गमिस्सद्, etc. This स्स

1 Some of these are Mâgadhi Prakrit, but for my present purpose it is not necessary to draw a distinction between Mâgadhi and Çauraseni.

is softened to, and the following vowel is weakened to, producing as characteristic the syllables ihi. Thus———

✔ “laugh," S. 1. fafqfn. 2. fafgfa, 3. efafer, etc.

By a forgetfulness of the origin of such forms as, the ordinary future terminations may be added to them too, just like dakkhissati in Pali (§ 4), so that we find fœfa, and

सोच्छिहिति.

The various tenses which in Sanskrit indicate past time have already in Pali and the earlier Prakrits been fused down into one. In scenic Prakrit a further step is taken, and the syllables ia, erroneously written la in some MSS., are added to the root for all persons of the past tense (Var. vii. 23, 24. Lassen, Inst. Pr., 353). This is probably the neuter of the p.p.p. in Sanskrit, and its use is due to the frequency of the construction with the instrumental. Instead of saying "I saw, I went, I heard," the people said, "by me seen, gone, heard." This point is one of great importance in modern Hindi and Gujarati.

§ 8. While the Maharashtri and Çauraseni dialects are considered the principal ones in the dramas, there are yet others of great importance, such as the Mâgadhi, with its sub-dialects. Among these, however, it is necessary only to notice that called Apabhrança. I do not wish here to touch upon the question whether the dialect called by this name in the dramas really represents the speech of any particular Indian province or not. I assume, for the sake of convenience, that Apabhrança is really a vulgar speech further removed from the classical idiom than Maharashtri or Çauraseni. There may have been half a dozen Apabhranças, probably there were. In this section I am merely seeking to put together examples of verbal forms in a dialect one step nearer to modern times than the principal scenic Prakrits, and having done so, shall go on to my own special subject.

All that we can expect in the way of tenses after what has been said in the preceding sections, is a present, an imperative, and a future. The rest of the verbal work is done by participles.

√ प्रछ् “ask,” Present S. 1. पुच्छामि,

पुच्छमि,

2. असि, 3. ० अद्·

एइ.

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

√ a “ do,” Imperative S. 2. करहि, P. 1. कर, P. 2. करह.

[blocks in formation]

/

In the future, although the form with the characteristic issa is found as सुमरिस्सदि = स्मरिष्यति, Skr. √ स्मृ, yet more commonly we find the form in which has been softened to; thus

S. 1. करिहिमि, 2. करिहिसि, 3. करिहिद्द, etc.

The grammarians also give a

P. 1.in हुं as कासाई - करिष्याम.

=

The participles resemble in most respects those in other Prakrit dialects, but that in तव्यं becomes दूव्वं, as करद्द्द्वं and करिव्वं = करितव्य ( कर्त्तव्य ). The gerund ends in प्पि, प्पिस, and a softened form बि; the ordinary Cauraseni form अ, which will be found in several modern languages, is here also used. To the gerund rather than to the infinitive, as the grammarians would have it, seems to belong the form in एबहुं, as लहेबहु, the exact genesis of which is doubtful, though, as to the final हुं, there is an analogy in the true infinitive लहणहुं, which very closely approaches to Chand's forms, as बरणहं, बरणवुं.

In addition to the above forms which are found in scenic Apabhrança, others and those more genuine fragments of popular speech are to be picked out from scraps that have

been preserved by bards. It is much to be wished that we had more of Hemachandra's works accessible, as in them we should doubtless find a rich mine of such words. Thus for all past tenses there is the participial form in for all three persons, as जाणिउं = जानितं (ज्ञातं).

कहिउं = कथितं.

अप्पिउं= अर्पितं

It has a plural in आ or या, as :

आया = आगताः

anfcen=anfcat:

efgen=afaar:

Sometimes also the u of the singular is rejected and a substituted, as भणिअं = भणितं. There are other forms to be found in these poems which will be referred to hereafter when the modern forms which they illustrate are under discussion.

As a general result from the preceding brief sketches it may be asserted that Sanskrit, Pali, and the Prakrits taken collectively as the languages of the earlier stage have a common structure, though in different grades. Sanskrit, with its full range of synthetical tenses, yet admits here and there analytical constructions. Pali does the same, though its synthetical tenses are fewer and simpler. The Prakrits reduce the tenses still further, and make greater use of participial constructions. The treatment of the root-syllable also shows a gradually increasing tendency to simplification, for whereas in Sanskrit it is changed in form repeatedly in the various tenses, a practice begins in Pali and grows more common as we go down the stream, of using in all parts of the verb that form of the root which is found in the Sanskrit present.

From the review of these languages given above the passive and causal have been purposely omitted, because the parts which they play in the development of the modern verb are peculiar,

« AnteriorContinuar »