A Comparative Grammar of the Modern Aryan Languages of India v1.c7.3

Language: English

v1.c7.3.1

contrivances, such as *sh'va*, for avoiding too great an accumulation of consonants, while in the Arabic, a group of a much later type, to use Renan's expression, "the consonants swim in a sea of vowels"; comparing Aramaic forms, such as *ktalt, ktaln, mektlan, khnun*, with the Hebrew *kĕtaltâ, kâtalnû, kâtêlenû, anakhnu*, and Arabic *katalatâ, katalnâ, inkiâlanâ, nakhnu*, the gradual increase of vowels is clearly seen. This instance is adduced merely as an illustration of what is meant by the power of articulation. To utter a series of consonants, each of which requires a separate contact, without allowing any vowel to intervene, is an effort of the organs of speech which can only be accomplished when those organs are vigorous and strong. Thus we find the Dravidians of the south of India unable to pronounce Sanskrit words containing a compound consonant without the insertion of one or more vowels. For instance, in Tamil, *istiri* = Skr. *strí*, *tânam* = Skr. *sthânam*, *kiruṭṭinan* = *kṛishṇa*, *appirayośana* = *aprayojana*, *tatuva* = *tatwa*. "The languages of the Indo-European class are fond of combining clashing consonants and welding them into one syllable by sheer force of enunciation; and it is certain that strength and directness of character and scorn of difficulties are characteristics, not only of the Indo-European languages, but of the races by which those languages are spoken.

v1.c7.3.2

On the other hand, the Dravidian family of languages prefers softening away difficulties to grappling with them; it aims at ease and softness of enunciation rather than impressiveness: multiplying vowels, separating consonants, assimilating differences of sound, and lengthening out its words by successive agglutinations; it illustrates the characteristics of the races by which it is spoken by the soft, sweet, garrulous effeminacy of its utterances."¹ Within the domain of the Indo-European family, however, there are many degrees of power in this respect. In the highest grade are to be placed the old Aryan, Latin, and old German. In the next Zend, which is a degree weaker than Sanskrit; Greek, which can bear less consonant-clashing than Latin; and Sclavonic, which interpolates vowels with greater frequency than its Teutonic neighbour. Weakest of all are the modern Romance languages, and the Indian Prakrits. And, considering the subject chronologically, each stage of every language is, as a rule, less capable of elaborate articulation than that which preceded it. And this brings us back to our immediate subject: just as the Prakrits effeminately soften or omit single consonants from Sanskrit words, so, in the case of compound consonants, they have recourse to several devices for avoiding the effort of uttering them.

v1.c7.3.3

Here again, however, the modern Indian languages are stronger than the Prakrits, in many cases exhibiting a greater power of consonantal articulation, though always weaker than the original Sanskrit. In modern Tadbhavas indeed, in which no trace of Prakrit influence is to be expected, the amount of softening or weakening is not very great, not more so than in modern English as compared with the English of a thousand years ago. Take for instance a passage from King Alfred's translation of Gregory's Pastoral:¹ "Ne sceal he noht unalyfedes dón, ac thæt thætte othre menn unalyfedes doth he sceal wepan swæ swæ his agne scylde, hiora untrymnesse he sceal throwian on his heortan, and thæs godes his nihstena he sceal fagenian swæ swæ his agnes." This would run in modern English thus: "Nor shall he nought unallowed (unlawful) do, and that that (that which) other men unallowed do, he shall weep so so (as) his own guilt (Germ. schuld, Dan. skyld, our guilt for sguilt), their untrimness (infirmity) he shall dree in his heart (sympathize with), and of the good of his next (neighbour) he shall fain (rejoice) so so (as) of his own." The words in parenthesis are the modern way of expressing the word which they follow, which is the etymological equivalent of the old English.

v1.c7.3.4

Now the modern Tadbhavas in the Indian languages differ very little more from Sanskrit, and sometimes not so much as ‘unallowed’ from ‘unalyfedes,’ ‘dree’ from ‘throwian,’ ‘next’ from ‘nihsta,’ or ‘fain’ from ‘fagenian.’ It must be remembered that the earliest of modern Tadbhavas, dating from the wane of Buddhism, are about contemporaneous with Alfred, while early Tadbhavas are of course far more ancient. It is necessary to bear this in mind, because some writers have asserted that the modern Indian languages have deviated far more widely from their primitive type than the European languages, and have argued from thence that the former are now more hopelessly corrupted and confused than the former. It may be replied that the rate at which development has proceeded seems to be the same in both cases, and that climatic influences, while they determine the direction of that development, do not accelerate it. When we find an Indian word much more extensively changed than we can produce a parallel for in European languages, the reason is generally to be found in the fact that the process has been going on for a much longer time in India than in Europe. Certain it is that some of the Prakrits exhibit at times extreme forms of corruption, but reasons have been given for doubting whether these Prakrits were ever spoken;

v1.c7.3.5

and from the example of the Bhâgavatî, we may conjecture that when more texts come to light, they will confirm what is now only a suspicion, that in the two leading points of hiatus and assimilation the real spoken languages of those times did not go so far as the literature would make us believe. The hiatus caused by the elision of single consonants is an attempt to reduce the labour of speaking, and quite parallel to it is the process of assimilation, which will now be explained, both processes being exemplifications of the fact that as a rule modern articulation is simpler and less harsh than ancient, and that especially in the case of consonants, whether compound or single, there is a tendency to reduce their number and simplify their enunciation.