Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the Other Indo-Aryan Languages c8.s1.t4.17

c8.s1.t4.17

1. Certain phonetic tendencies, such as a confusion between voiced and unvoiced consonants (more pronounced than in Indian Gāndhārī), and particularly a tendency to deaspirate Indic aspirates, apparently reflecting the phonetic structure of the (unattested) local dialect (Burrow, *Language*, 5 and 9).
2. The loss of distinction between endings for the nominative and accusative endings. The ending is generally *-a*, in both the singular (<*-e* according to Burrow, “The Dialectal Position,” 421 and 424) and the plural (presumably for *-ā*).
3. The use of an ending *-tu* for the second person singular of all tenses of the verb; for example, *labhiśatu* ‘you will get’. According to Burrow (*Language*, 43), this is “probably taken from the 2nd person of the pronoun.”
4. The development of a periphrastic construction for the preterite active, consisting of the past participle plus the personal endings of the present, except for the third-person singular where the ending is omitted; for example, *triṭhemi* = *\*dṛṣṭaḥ* + *-mi* ‘I saw’; *taḍita* = *\*tāḍitaḥ* ‘he beat’ (*Language*, 50–3).
5. The frequent use of the infinitive in *-amnae* (also occasionally found in Indian Gāndhārī; Burrow, *Language*, 49); for example, *karamnae* ‘to do’.
6. The frequent use of postpositions not found in other MIA dialects, such as *prace* ‘concerning’ (<*\*pratyayam*) and *vamti* ‘to, with’ (<*upānte*; *Language*, 42).
7. The extensive use of loanwords from various non-Indic languages, especially from Iranian languages (*Language*, vii–viii), from the local “Krorainic” language which apparently was closely related to Tocharian (*Language*, viii–ix), and occasionally from Greek (e.g., *milima* = μέδιμνος; *Language*, 111).