« AnteriorContinuar »
common root which has been lost. Thus we have / दा, iii. ददाति "give," / दा or दो, ii. दाति and iv. यति “divide," / दाय, i. दायते and Ti. दयते. Some grammarians, misunderstanding a rule of Panini's about reduplication, have imagined a / दद, i. ददते, but this does not seem to be entitled to a
i separate existence. It is also to be observed that in some roots in å there are traces of a form in e or ai, which may perhaps be the older form, as गा and गै “ to sing,” ध्या and ध्यै “ to meditate," ग्ला and ग्लै “ to languish," म्ला and ने “to wither," चा and 2 “ to rescue, मा and मे “ to measure." Also roots ending in â exhibit in the course of conjugation many forms in which the root-vowel is changed to i or e. It is not within
i our scope to do more than hint at all these points, as possibly accounting for the fact that at a very early stage the root
began to be superseded by 2, and that in the modern languages the universal form is DE. The principal tenses in Sanskrit, Pali and Prakrit are here shown together.
S. 1. ददामि ददामि, देमि, दम्मि देमि
दाउं, देउं ददत् ददन्तो, देन्तो देंतो (दंती.) दत्त दिन्नो
दिसो दत्त्वा दखा, दाय, ददित्वा दाऊण, दच्चा, दर
S. 3. ददातु
1 Westergaard, Rad. Sanskr. p. 6, note.
Childers thinks the form deti has arisen either from Sanskrit dayate, or from confusion with the imperative detu. The form dajjati he, with great probability, considers as a future on the analogy of dekh (see $ 4). In Çauraseni Prakrit the forma is used throughout (Var. xii. 4), as also in the moderns. H. 2 P. M. G. id., S. fcu, B. alone has 1, 0.2, shortened in some tenses to fę. Gipsy dava, Kash. dyun, Singh. denava. This is one of the few irregular verbs in the modern languages; being subjected to numerous contractions, and retaining several early Tadbhava forms.
Further examples are:
Skr. V OT "drink,” i. foafa (Vedic urfa, there is also v at, iv. पीयते], Pa. पिवति and पिब, Pr. पिअह, H. पी, S. and B. पि, in all the rest of. Gipsy piúva, Kash. chyun, perhaps through an old form pyun, Singh. bonava, p.p.p. 61.
Skr. / नी "lead," i. नयति, Pa. नयति, नेति, Pr. नेह, णे (pres. part. णअंतो= Skr. नयन, fut. णसं = Skr. नेष्यामि, Impv.णेह = Skr.
). Used in the moderns only in composition, thus-
," in all the rest nu. Kashm. anun, Gipsy andva.
marriage ceremony,” hence, “to marry,” Old-H. ITU, TTT,
P. परनाहु, S. पर्ण, G. M. परण. Skr. / डी “ Hy,” with उद्= उड्डी “fly up," i. उड्डयते, iv. उड्डीयते, Pr. UŞ, H. 5€ (ur) “ to fly,” and so in all. S. has gfst, probably a diminutive. Kashm. wudun, Gipsy uryáva.
The root OT " to go," was mentioned above; with the preposition y forming at, it means “to come,” and it is from this word that the following are apparently derived:
Skr. UT "come,” ii. wienfa, Pa. id., Pr. TT, WIT, H. “ to come,” P. id., G. 19, M. , Gipsy aváva, Kash. yun. The B.
आइस, 0. आस, S. अच seem to come from आगच्छति, but both in B. and O. one often hears T, thus 0. åsilá or dild, “he came," and S. makes the imperv. âu, so that there is some confusion between the two roots.
In the roots ending in long i the modern languages have words descended from compound verbs only, and in them the final vowel of the root has dropped out altogether, while in roots ending in long a there is a tendency to soften the final vowel into i or e.
$ 17. A few words must be given to a verb which has been somewhat hotly discussed of late. In all the modern languages except perhaps M., the idea of seeing is expressed by dekh. Kashmiri has deshun, Gipsy dikáva, and Singhalese dikanava. The root is in Sanskrit van, but the present is not in use; instead of it classical Sanskrit uses trufa, from which M. derives its verb I. Marathi stands alone in using this stem, instead of dekh. From V U comes future zera, and it is from this future that Childers derives the Pali zefa. He shows' that in the earlier Pali writings it is always used in a future sense, and only in later times becomes a present. As I hinted above ($ 4, p. 16), it is very probable that the vulgar, missing in this word the characteristic issa of their ordinary future, considered it a present, and made a double future dakkhissati. A similar process has been shown to have taken place in several verbs in Prakrit. Pischel draws attention to a fact pointed out in Vol. I. p. 162 of this work, that there is much similarity between dekh and the Prakrit pekkh from Sanskrit ha. He, however, goes so far as to assume that the word dekh was unknown to the authors of the dramas, that they used pekkh, which has been changed to dekkh by the copy
1 In Kuhn's Beiträge zur vergleichenden Sprachforschung, vol. vii. p. 450. Pischel's article is in the same work.
" to see.
ists who heard this latter word used round them every day, while they did not know of pekh. Unfortunately for this ingenious theory, it happens that the word pekh is extremely common in Hindi, Bangali, and Panjabi literature of the middle ages, and is still used in many rustic dialects of Hindi.
, The idea of a northern Indian scribe not knowing pekh is quite untenable. Weber (Prakrit Studien, p. 69) has a long article on this subject, controverting the views of Childers as supported by Pischel. The learned professor would derive dekkh from the desiderative of , which is fuga, but I am unable to follow the arguments adduced, or to see how a word meaning “ to wish to see should come to mean
Nor do there appear to be any actual facts in support of this theory, such as texts in which the word occurs in a transitional state of meaning or form. The few desideratives that have left any traces in modern times retain the desiderative meaning, as piyâsâ“ thirsty,” from pipásu (see Vol. II. p. 81). However, I must say to the learned disputants
“Non nostrum inter vos tantas componere lites." For my own part the impression I derive from the controversy is that dekh is derived through dekkh from dakkh, which is Sanskrit future sayfa turned into a present by a vulgar error. The idea suggested by me (in Vol. I. p. 161 et seqq.) must be modified accordingly. It was not so entirely erroneous as Pischel thinks, for Sanskrit T represents an older a, which
क् seems to be preserved in the future.
$ 18. The examples adduced in the preceding sections will have sufficiently illustrated the most salient peculiarities in the formation of the ordinary single verbs whether neuter or active, and I now pass on to the more difficult subject of the double verbs. As I mentioned before, there is a very large class of these; they appear in two forms, one of which is active and
occasionally even causal, the other is neuter or passive intransitive. It is after much consideration that I have come to the conclusion that this is the right way to regard them. It might be said that the forms which are here spoken of as neuters are really passives, and a rule might be laid down that these languages often form their passive by what the Germans call umlaut or substitution of weaker vowels. Childers in fact takes this view as regards Singhalese in the article already quoted (J. R. A. S. vol. viii. p. 148). I do not know how the matter may stand in Singhalese, but it is certainly open to much objection as regards the Aryan languages of the Indian continent. The neuters differ from the actives in two ways in the seven languages, either by a change in the final consonant of the stem or by a change in the vowel only. The latter is by far the more frequent. We must not be misled by the accident that many of these neuters can only be translated into English by a passive; that is the peculiarity of our own language, not of the Indian ones. In German or in the Romance languages they can be rendered by the reflexive verb. Thus H.
खुलना is “to open,” i.e. “to open of itself," to come undone,” “to be opened,” while staat, the corresponding active, is “ to open,” i.e. “to break a thing open,” “to undo.” Thus TT gaat “the door opens," is in German “die Thür
द्वार खुलता öffnet sich,” in French “la porte s'ouvre.” While TT CSAT "he opens the door,” is in German “er öffnet die Thür,” in French “il ouvre la porte.” So that futat is “sich umkehren,” while its active ATEIT is “umkehren (etwas).” In English we use verbs in a neuter as well as in an active sense, relying upon the context to make our meaning clear.
Moreover, all the languages have a passive, in some a regularly formed derivative from Prakrit, in others a periphrastic arrangement. It is true that, owing to the large number of neuter stems, this regular passive is not very much used; but it is there nevertheless, and would not have been invented had