A Comparative Grammar of the Modern Aryan Languages of India v3.c17.s2: III.—Future Participle Passive

A Comparative Grammar of the Modern Aryan Languages of India v3.c17.s2

Language: English

III.—Future Participle Passive

v3.c17.s2.1

Sanskrit बोधितव्यस् *m.*, °व्या *f.*, °व्यं *n.* Prakrit बोधिव्व, बोधिव्व.

v3.c17.s2.3

¹ See other dialectic forms in § 53.

v3.c17.s2.4

² Only the masculine is given from want of space.

v3.c17.s2.5

§ 57. The only participial tenses in the Gipsy verb are those formed from the past participle. This participle is sometimes regularly formed from the modern verbal root, and sometimes, as in the other languages, is an early Tadbhava, perpetuating the type of the Prakrit participle.

v3.c17.s2.6

There are, as in the other languages, three types of this participle ending in (1) to or do, (2) lo, (3) no. Examples of the first type are—

v3.c17.s2.7

v3.c17.s2.8

Of the second type—

v3.c17.s2.9

v3.c17.s2.10

Of the third type—

v3.c17.s2.11

v3.c17.s2.12

The Aorist is formed by adding the terminations of the old substantive verb, thus from *lino* “taken”—

v3.c17.s2.13

Sing. 1. linom, 2. linân, 3. linâs, Pl. 1. linân, 2. linân, 3. linâs “I took,” etc.

v3.c17.s2.14

So from *kerdo* “done,” comes Sing. 1. kerdom, 2. kerdân, 3. kerdâs, Pl. 1. kerdâm, 2. kerdân, 3. kerdâs “I did,” etc.

v3.c17.s2.15

And from *muklo* “abandoned” (Skr. mukta)— Sing. 1. muklom, 2. muklân, 3. muklâs, Pl. 1. muklâm, 2. muklân, 3. muklâs “I left,” etc.

v3.c17.s2.16

This proceeding is strictly analogous in principle to the method employed in Sindhi, to which, of all the Indian languages, that of the Gipsies bears the closest relation.

v3.c17.s2.17

The future is formed by prefixing to the present tense the word kâma, Skr. kâm “desire,” and thus means “I wish to do,” etc. Thus kerâva “I do,” kamakerâva “I will do,” *i.e.* “I wish to do.” The prefixed word does not vary for number or person. This method of forming the future is, as Paspati (p. 101) points out, borrowed from modern Greek, in which θέλω contracted to θὲ and θὰ, is used in this way, as θὰ ὑπάγω “I will go.” There is nothing strictly analogous to this method in our seven languages, though the futures of the *ga* and *la* types are formed on a not very dissimilar principle.

v3.c17.s2.18

CONTENTS.—§ 58. DEFINITION OF THE COMPOUND TENSES AND AUXILIARY VERBS.—§ 59. THE ROOT *AS*, PRESENT TENSE.—§ 60. IMPERFECT IN PANJARI AND GIPSY.—§ 61. *AS* WITH A NEGATIVE.—§ 62. COMPOUND TENSES FORMED WITH *AS*.—§ 63. THE ROOT *ACHH*; DISCUSSION AS TO ITS ORIGIN.—§ 64. TENSES DERIVED THEREFROM.—§ 65. COMPOUND TENSES FORMED THEREWITH.—§ 66. *BHÚ*;—THE SIMPLE TENSES.—§ 67. *id.*;—THE PARTICIPIAL TENSES.—§ 68. COMPOUND TENSES FORMED THEREWITH.—§ 69. *STHÁ*.—§ 70. *YÁ*.—§ 71. ANCILLARY VERBS DEFINED.—§ 72. EXAMPLES OF ANCILLARIES.

v3.c17.s2.19

§ 58. FURTHER removed from the old synthetical type than either of the preceding classes of tenses is that class which now comes under discussion. It is by means of this class that the seven modern languages, after having rejected the numerous and complicated formations of the Sanskrit verb, have secured for themselves the machinery necessary for the expression of very delicate shades of meaning. So numerous, indeed, are these shades of meaning, and so fine are the distinctions between them, that it is very difficult for a foreigner to catch them.

v3.c17.s2.20

The tenses in question are constructed by adding to the participles already mentioned various tenses of certain auxiliary verbs, and in a few instances by adding these auxiliaries to the simple present, or aorist. The auxiliaries themselves are modern formations capable of being used alone, and are traceable to well-known Sanskrit roots through processes partly Prakritic and partly post-Prakritic. Pali and the Prakrits carry the verbs in question through certain grades of change, and the modern languages either preserve the Prakrit form unchanged, or subject it to further changes of their own, such changes being often governed by laws unknown to the Prakrit stage of development.

v3.c17.s2.21

The roots so employed are √अस, √भू, √स्था, √या, and another, whose origin is somewhat obscure in Sanskrit, but which appears in Prakrit under the form अच्छ. It will be necessary first to examine each of these roots and draw out the modern forms to be affiliated to each, after which the tenses formed by them may be arranged in order.

v3.c17.s2.22

§ 59. AS. This root means "to be," and is the simple copula like Latin *esse* (see under *sthâ* in § 12). Only the present tense can be clearly traced in the modern languages, though there are some detached fragments here and there which may possibly represent other tenses. These will be noted further on. In Sanskrit the root belongs to the second or *ad* conjugation, in which the terminations are added direct to the root, thus giving rise to various euphonic changes in accordance with the laws of Sandhi. Pali and the scenic Prakrits, in contradiction to their usual practice of employing the *bhû* type for all roots, retain in this verb the *ad* type. Omitting the dual, the tense runs—

v3.c17.s2.23

| Skr. | Sing. | 1. asmi, | 2. asi, | 3. asti. |
| " | Pl. | 1. smaḥ, | 2. stha, | 3. santi. |
| Pa. and Pr. | { Sing. | 1. asmi, amhi. | 2. asi, | 3. atthi. |
| " | { Pl. | 1. asma, amha. | 2. attha, | 3. santi. |

v3.c17.s2.24

In Prakrit the initial vowel is often elided as 'mhi, 'mha. These forms, however, belong to the scenic Prakrit, which, as Pischel has shown, is really almost as artificial as a language as Sanskrit, and on comparing the corresponding tense in the modern languages, it seems difficult, if not impossible, to derive it from the scenic forms. We are not justified in assuming that the modern tense was derived, according to different phonetic laws, from those which have guided and effected the transformations of other words in these languages. On the contrary, in the absence of a continuous chain of documents exhibiting the gradual changes that have taken place, we have nothing to guide us but the general principles of phonetic evolution, which we have been able to formulate for ourselves from undoubted instances. We have numerous well-established cases in which the Prakrit, followed by the moderns, has conjugated a verb according to the *bhú* type, though in classical Sanskrit it follows some other conjugation; indeed, it may, I think, be considered as proved that the forms of the *bhú* conjugation have swallowed up all other conjugational types, just as much as those of the *as* stem in nouns have driven out all other declensional forms. In this view there would be strong reasons for postulating the existence of a present tense of √अस् conjugated after the *bhú* type, thus—

v3.c17.s2.25

Sing. 1. asâmi, 2. asasi, 3. asati. Pl. 1. asâmaḥ, 2. asatha, 3. asanti.

v3.c17.s2.26

It is only from such a form as this, the existence of which, though I am not aware of any text in which it is found, may fairly be inferred from analogy, that the modern forms can, in accordance with the ordinary laws of development, be derived.

v3.c17.s2.27

Beginning with Sindhi as the most archaic, or nearly so, this tense runs thus—

v3.c17.s2.28

Sing. 1. आंहियां, 2. आंहें, आंहों, 3. आहे. Pl. 1. आंहियूं, 2. आंहियो, 3. आंहिनि.

v3.c17.s2.29

Now, barring the troublesome superfluity of anunâsikas which the Sindhians have seen fit to bestow on this aorist, the forms are strikingly similar to those of the Sanskrit tense postulated above. The 3 sing. *âhe* is contracted from *ahaï*, which, again, is good Prakrit for *asati*, but it could hardly be deduced from *asti*, which, as we have seen, naturally results in Prakrit *atthi*. The terminations of the other persons agree with those of the aorist of the active verb given in § 33, and those are obviously and admittedly derived from the terminations of the *bhú* type. I am unable to account for the peculiarity of this tense using the forms of the active verb, where we should naturally have expected those of the neuter, आहे, etc. like हलां, etc. Trumpp does not notice this point, and as I am not in possession of any documents in mediæval Sindhi, I have no materials on which to form an opinion. It is to be hoped that the learned author, in the next edition of his very valuable grammar, will furnish some elucidation of this curious anomaly. This tense is all that remains to us in Sindhi of the Sanskrit substantive verb *as*.

v3.c17.s2.30

Only the aorist, also, has survived in Marathi, which has—

v3.c17.s2.31

v3.c17.s2.32

These are the regular terminations of the aorist in the neuter verb, only the 1 plural differs slightly, having आों instead of ऊं. In M., as in S., the initial vowel is lengthened, the reason for which is not obvious, as there has been no loss of consonants requiring compensatory lengthening. M., like S., has only this one tense from *as*. No traces of it are found in G. or O., except in a negative form, which will be treated of in the next section.

v3.c17.s2.33

Hindi and Panjabi agree very closely in the aorist. Classical Hindi represents, however, a modern development of this tense. In the mediæval writers, and in the present dialects of the eastern and central Hindi area, the older form is preserved thus—

v3.c17.s2.34

v3.c17.s2.35

v3.c17.s2.36

The 3 singular in the poets is sometimes written with, and sometimes without, the last *h*, as in Kabir कृतिया सुच लोक एक अहइ “There is one line of duty in the world” (Ram. lvi. 1), or written as a dissyllabic word, as राम नाम अहै निज सारू ॥ “The name of Ram is itself the true one” (*ib*. lxiv. 5), or with long *i*, metri gratia, धर्म कहै सब पानी अहइ ॥ “Religion, he saith, is all (one like) water” (*ib*. lxxiii. 5). The 1 singular occurs in रहहु संभारे राम विचारे कहत अहौं (for अहउं) जो पुकार हो ॥ “Pause and attend, ponder on Ram, thus *I am* calling aloud, oh!” (*ib*. Kah. 7). So also in Tulsi Das, तसि मति फिरी अहइ जसि भावी ॥ “Thus her mind is changed as fate decrees” (Ay-k. 117), राम चराचर नायक अहहौ ॥ “Ram is lord of things moveable and immoveable” (*ib*. 445), विधि करतब उलटे सब अहहीं “The laws of duty *are* all reversed” (*ib*. 617), सुगम सकल मग तुम्ह कहुं अहहौ “All roads are easy to thee” (*ib*. 574).

v3.c17.s2.37

By aphæresis of the initial *a* we get the ordinary classical Hindi tense—

v3.c17.s2.38

Sing. 1. हौं, हूं, 2. है, 3. है. Pl. 1. हैं, 2. हो, 3. हैं.

v3.c17.s2.39

The classical language uses हूं in the 1 sing., but हौं is used in the poets, in Braj, and in the rustic dialects. Between हौं, used as a singular, and हैं, used as a plural, there is the same confusion as in the same persons of the aorist in the ordinary verb (§ 33). The form हौं seems to belong more naturally to a Pr. *ahâmu*, and हैं to *ahâmi*, and we are led to suspect that an inversion of the two words has taken place. Avadhi 2 sing. *ahes* has, like M., a variant *ahas*, both of which lead back to an older *ahasi*, just as 3 sing. *ahai* does to *ahati*. It is obvious that had √*as* not been treated as a *bhû* verb, there would have arisen no such types as ahai and hai; for asti goes into atthi, which would have led to something very different.

v3.c17.s2.40

Panjabi closely follows H., having—

v3.c17.s2.41

Sing. 1. हां, 2. हैं, 3. है. Pl. 1. हां, 2. हो, 3. हन.

v3.c17.s2.42

It has also, as noticed in § 54, a form of this tense with the participial addition गा m., गी f., etc., as—

v3.c17.s2.43

Sing. 1. हांगा, 2. हैंगा, 3. हैगा, Pl. 1. हांगे, 2. होगे, 3. हनगे “I am,” etc.,

v3.c17.s2.44

where the type of the future is mixed up with that of the present. I have heard this form used mostly at the end of a sentence, where the speaker seems to hesitate, as if he felt the want of something more to say, and ultimately adds a gá. It is also used doubtingly, as when you suggest a possible explanation of some difficulty, and your companion answers “well, perhaps it is so”—हैगा.

v3.c17.s2.45

The same form occurs in the Kanauji dialect of Hindi.

v3.c17.s2.46

The present of this verb in the dialect of the Rumilian Gipsies (Paspati, p. 80) adheres more closely to the Sanskrit. It runs thus—

v3.c17.s2.47

Sing. 1. isóm, 2. isán, 3. isí. Pl. 1. isám, 2. isán, 3. isí.

v3.c17.s2.48

§ 60. Panjabi has also an imperfect in a great many forms which must apparently be affiliated to this root. First there is a purely participial form—

v3.c17.s2.49

Sing. 1, 2, 3, सा m., सी f. Pl. से m., सीआं f., “I, thou, he was,” etc.

v3.c17.s2.50

Then गा is added as in the present, giving सागा, सीगो, सेगे, सीगीआं. I do not remember ever to have heard this form, but it is given in the Ludhiana grammar. One often hears सी, which is properly feminine singular, used for the masculine singular, and plural also. Moreover, there is a defective form having only some of the persons, which looks somewhat inflectional. The singular 2 and 3, and plural 2, are supplied by parts of स्था.

v3.c17.s2.51

Sing. 1. सां. Pl. 1. सां. 3. सन, सैन.

v3.c17.s2.52

To this, also, is added गा, thus

v3.c17.s2.53

Sing. 1. सांगा m., सांगी f. Pl. 1. सांगे m., सांगीआं f. 3. सनगे m., सनगीआं f.

v3.c17.s2.54

Yet another and extremely common form in colloquial usage prefixes है to this type—

v3.c17.s2.55

Sing. 1. हैसां. 2, 3. हैसो. Pl. 1, 2. हैसे m., हैसीआं f. 3. हैसन.

v3.c17.s2.56

Most of these forms are dialectic, and, as such, in use only in certain parts of the country. The participial form given first is probably the original; seeing how much the past tenses of the Sanskrit verb had fallen out of use at an early period, we are, perhaps, hardly justified in looking for anything but a participial origin for a modern past tense, and in this view we might postulate a p.p.p. asita. On the other hand, however, it so happens that the imperfect of as is one of the few imperfects of Skr. verbs, which did live on into the Pali and Prakrit, and the inflectional form of this tense can be phonetically derived therefrom, thus—

v3.c17.s2.57

Skr. Sing. 1. आसं, 2. आसीः, 3. आसीत्. Pl. 1. आस्म, 2. आस्त, 3. आसन्. Pr. Sing. 1. सां, 2. सी, 3. सी. Pl. 1. सां, — 3. सन.

v3.c17.s2.58

If we take this view it would seem that the tense was originally inflectional, but that all other verbs in the language having a participial construction, this also was, by the common process of mistaken analogy, considered participial also, and *i* being the ordinary termination of the feminine, *सी* was erroneously taken for a feminine, and a masculine *सा* was invented to suit it, together with the plurals *से* and *सीआं*. This reasoning will account also for the fact that *सी* is often used for the masculine singular. Whether the origin of this multiform tense be participial or inflectional, it is abundantly clear that the present usage of the language presents a maze of confused forms, which, their origin having been forgotten, have become mixed together in great variety.

v3.c17.s2.59

Here, I would provisionally refer the imperfect in the Braj dialect of Hindi, which is participial in form, and does not vary for person. It is sing. *हो* *m.*, *ही* *f.*, pl. *हे* *m.*, *हीं* *f.* A variation of this form in Western Rajputana (Márwár) has sing. *हो*, pl. *हा*. I think we must see in this form a p.p.p. of *as*, with loss of the initial vowel, and change of *स* into *ह*.

v3.c17.s2.60

So, also, here would, on the same principle, come in two preterites or rather imperfects—

v3.c17.s2.61

v3.c17.s2.62

which appear to come from Pr. present participle *संतो* “being.” The change of meaning from a present to an imperfect has an analogy in the treatment of the corresponding tense of the verb *ho* (§ 67).

v3.c17.s2.63

The Gipsy language has retained an imperfect of this root, not directly derived from the Skr. imperfect, but formed by the addition of the syllable *as* to the present.¹

v3.c17.s2.64

¹ Paspati, p. 80. Miklosich, vol. ii. p. 15, has a long dissertation on the subject, which, however, is very confused and bewildering to read.

v3.c17.s2.65

Sing. 1. *isómas*, 2. *isánas*, 3. *isás* (*isí*+*as*). Pl. 1. *isámas*, 2. *isánas*, 3. *isás*.

v3.c17.s2.66

This language uniformly makes an imperfect from every root by adding *as* to the present, but the process is so foreign to our Indian languages as to have no interest for us in the present inquiry.

v3.c17.s2.67

§ 61. The derivatives of *as* in the present tense are in some languages curiously bound up with the negative into a tense which exists in those languages in which there is no trace of the positive form. Thus Oriya, which has no positive present *as*, has a complete negative present, “I am not, etc.”

v3.c17.s2.68

v3.c17.s2.69

Here the *u* in the first syllable of the singular is due to some confusion with the tense of *bhú*, to be noted hereafter; but though this form is common in writing, the peasantry often say simply नहे, “he is not.” The insertion of this *u* is accounted for by supposing it to have slipped over from the following syllable, thus, *nuhe* would be for *na hue*, and *nuhanti* for *na huanti*. *Nuanti*, and not *nâhânti*, is the older form, as in—

v3.c17.s2.70

करुणा हृदय नुहन्ति निरदय ।

v3.c17.s2.71

“Merciful-hearted *they are not*, but pitiless.”—Rasak. vi. 18.

v3.c17.s2.72

There being in O. no positive present from *as*, the survival of the negative present has naturally been accounted for by referring it to the only positive present remaining, namely, that from *bhú*; but this seems to be a false analogy, because, as will be shown later on, in many constructions the negative is used without the *u*, and is generally so used by the rustic classes.

v3.c17.s2.73

G. has नथी for all persons of both tenses, they say हूं नथी “I am not,” तुं नथी “thou art not,” ते नथी “he is not.” This is a case of forgetfulness of the origin of a word leading to its use being extended to cases where it has no right to be, for नथी is clearly derived from अस्ति, the Pr. form of अस्ति with न prefixed, and thus, strictly speaking, belongs only to the 3 sing.

v3.c17.s2.74

The negative of as is kept distinct from that of bhû in Marathi, the former runs thus—

v3.c17.s2.75

Sing. 1. नाहीं, 2. नाहींस, 3. नाहीं. Pl. 1, 2. नाहीं, 3. नाहींत.

v3.c17.s2.76

In Hindi नहि and नहीं are used to mean simply “not,” and if they ever had any verbal meaning, have now quite lost it. In Sindhi the negative prefixed merely coalesces with it, without in any way influencing it, or bringing about any change in its form; thus नाहि or नआहे “he is not.”

v3.c17.s2.77

§ 62. The present tense from as is added to the simple and participial tenses of the neuter, active, or causal stem, to form a class of compound tenses, having significations somewhat more definite than the participial tenses when used alone. In some cases, however, no additional strength of meaning seems to be gained. In the following examples it will suffice to quote the 3 singular in each tense, from which the reader can form the rest for himself.

v3.c17.s2.78

Hindi adds the present of as to the present and past participles of the ordinary verb, to form a definite present and definite preterite respectively, as—

v3.c17.s2.79

Def. Present देखता है “he is seeing.” Def. Preterite देखा है “he has seen.”

v3.c17.s2.80

Colloquially, also, one sometimes hears a tense formed from the aorist of the verb, and that of the auxiliary, as आवे है “he comes.” This usage prevails more in the Western Hindi area, where the language is transitional to Gujarati, and is not approved of in classical speech.¹

v3.c17.s2.81

¹ Kellogg, p. 206.

v3.c17.s2.82

Panjabi has the following:—

v3.c17.s2.83

Def. Present जांदा है “he is going.” Def. Imperfect जांदा सी “he was going.” Def. Preterite गिया है “he has gone.” Pluperfect गिया सी “he had gone.”

v3.c17.s2.84

Sindhi has, like Hindi, the two definite tenses:—

v3.c17.s2.85

Def. Present हलंदो आहे “he is going.” Def. Preterite हलियो आहे “he has gone.”

v3.c17.s2.86

Marathi has a wider range; it forms two separate tenses, one from the indeclinable, another from the declinable form of its present participle, a definite perfect from its past participle, and a sort of future with its noun of agency (§ 75). In the last-named instance, however, we have hardly a tense, but rather a participial construction—

v3.c17.s2.87

§ 63. *ACHH*. This root must be taken next, in order to preserve the natural sequence of tenses in the modern verbs. It has been customary hitherto to accept without inquiry the assumption that the auxiliaries of this form are derived from *as*; but there are considerable difficulties in the way of admitting this view, which appears, as far as I can trace it, to have arisen from Vararuchi, xii. 19 (*Śauraseni*), *asterachchha*. But the next sûtra gives *tipâtthi*, as far as we can see from the very corrupt state of the text, and the parallel passage from the Sankshipta Sâra (Lassen, App. p. 51) gives only *atthi*,

v3.c17.s2.88

Def. Present लिहीत आहे “he is writing.” ,, (Emphatic) लिहिंतो आहे “he is writing.” Def. Preterite लिहिला आहे “he has written.” Future लिहिणार आहे “he is about to write.”

v3.c17.s2.89

The other languages having no traces of this auxiliary, naturally have no tenses formed by it.

v3.c17.s2.90

though fragments of a present tense *achchhaï*, etc., are quoted by Lassen (p. 346) from the latter authority. By his reference to p. 266, the author would seem to favour a derivation from *asti* by inversion *atsi*, as *ts* we know (Vol. I. p. 317) migrates into च्छ, but this will not account for the other persons of the tense.

v3.c17.s2.91

It does not, however, follow that Vararuchi, in quoting *achchh* as an equivalent for *as*, ever meant that the former was phonetically evolved from the latter. He is merely giving us the popular equivalent of the classical word. Just in the same way he tells us (viii. 68) that *vuṭṭa* and *khuppa* are used for Skr. *masj*, but no one supposes that *vuṭṭa* can, by any known process of phonetic change, be derived from *masj*. It is simply a popular word used instead of a refined one. So, also, when he tells us that *achchh* is used instead of *as*, we are not bound to believe that he means to say that the former is derived from the latter, but simply that it is in use side by side with it. Hemachandra, in the same way, gives many popular equivalents of Skr. roots, which are not derivatives from those roots.

v3.c17.s2.92

Weber, Hala, p. 41, rejects, and with justice, the idea of any connection between the two words, and suggests that *acch* is a form of *gach* (√ *gam*), “to go.” This view is supported by citations from the Bhâgavati (i. 411, etc.), as e.g. *acchejja vâ ciṭṭhejja vâ nisîeyya vâ uyaṭṭejja*, “Let him go, or stand, or sit down, or rise up.” In the examples quoted from the Saptaśatakam, however, the word bears more often the opposite meaning of standing still; and often may be rendered by either one or the other; thus—

v3.c17.s2.93

tuppâṇaṇâ kino ac-
chasi tti ia pucchiâi vahuâi.—Sapt. 291.

v3.c17.s2.94

Here Weber translates, “Why goest thou with anointed face?” but the scholiast has *kiṃ tiṣṭhasi*, “why standest thou?” The general meaning of the passage is merely “why art thou” thus, *i.e.* “why have you got your face anointed?” So in 344, asamattamanorahaim acchanti mithunaim, it must be rendered, “They are (or stand) with their desires unfulfilled.” In another passage, 169, it has still more unmistakeably the meaning of stay:

v3.c17.s2.95

acchaü tâva maṇaharam
piyâi muhadaṃsaṇaṃ aïmahaggham
taggâmachettasîmâ
vi jhatti diṭṭha suhâvei,

v3.c17.s2.96

literally, “Let stand (or let be) the heart-entrancing, very precious sight of the face of my love, even the boundary of the fields of her village, when seen, straightway delights.” He means a sort of hyperbole, as we might say, “Her face delights, said I? not her face merely—(or, let alone her face)—why even the sight of the village where she lives delights.” Here acchaü is 3 singular imperative; the idiom is in common use in modern speech; thus in O. they would say tâku dekhibâ thâü, tâhâr grâm sîmâ madhya dekhibâ ânand aṭe, “Let the seeing of her stand aside, the seeing of her village boundary merely is delight.” It is like the use of the word alam in Sanskrit. Parallel to the use of O. thâ in this construction is that of thâk in B. Thus, Bhârat Chandra—

v3.c17.s2.97

उपोषे उपोषे लोक हैल मृत प्राय ॥
थाकुक अन्नेर कथा जल नाहि पाय ॥

v3.c17.s2.98

“From long fasting the folk were nearly dead, Let alone food, they could not (even) get water.”—Mânsingh, 446.

v3.c17.s2.99

Literally, “Let the matter of food stand (aside),” see § 69. In the Chingana or Gipsy also ach means “to remain,” “to stand.” Thus, opré pirende acháva, “I stand on my feet,” or simply, “I stand,” Paspati “se tenir debout;” achilo korkoro “he remained alone,” ate achilom “here I am,” literally “here I have remained;” achen devlésa “remain with God,” “good-bye” (i.e. “God be with ye”), Pasp. “Salutation très-commune parmi les Tchingianés.”

v3.c17.s2.100

Not to multiply examples, the use of this verb in a sense which, whatever its original meaning, has become almost equivalent to that of "being," is well established in the Jaina Prakrit and in Hâla. The aphæresis of an initial consonant is rare. In scenic Prakrit it is confined almost entirely to the root ज्ञा (jâna), as in ânâsi = jânâsi, ânabedi = ânâpayati, etc. Also in uṇo = punaḥ, and a few other words.

v3.c17.s2.101

But I would suggest that this word may after all be nothing more than a form of Skr. √अक्ष aksh, "to appear." This root seems to have borne in Skr. rather the meaning of "to reach, pervade" (see Williams's Dict. s.v.), but if we are to connect with it अक्षि "eye," as seems probable, the meaning of "to see," or "to appear," would be natural to it. It will be shown presently that the various languages have forms ending in क्, स्, and ख्, and all these three forms phonetically point to an earlier ज्ञ.¹

v3.c17.s2.102

¹ Hemachandra's evidence seems conclusive against any connection between ach and gam, for he has a sûtra to the effect that words of the class gam take the termination cha; the list consists of the four words gachai (gam), icchaï (ish), jacchaï (yam), and acchaï (?).—Pischel, Hem., iv. 215. If acchaï were only gachai, with loss of the initial consonant, it would hardly be given as a separate instance of the rule. In another passage occurs a use of this word exactly similar to that from Hala quoted above— jâmahiṃ visamî kajjagaï jîvahaṃ majjhe ei tâmahiṃ acchaü iaru jaṇu suaṇu vi antarudei, "As long as [your] circumstances in life go badly (literally 'as long as a difficult condition of affairs goes in life'), so long, let alone (acchaü) the base man, even the good man keeps aloof (literally 'gives an interval')," "Tempora si fuerint nubila, solus eris." Kajjagaï = kâryagati, iaru = itara.

v3.c17.s2.103

Leaving Prakrit scholars to decide whence comes this stem अच्छे or अच्छे (Weber writes it in both ways), we may, I think, start from the fact that there is such a stem in Prakrit, and we have the opinion of a high authority for disputing its connection with अस्. Indeed, as has already been shown, अस् so regularly passes into अह in the moderns, that it is difficult to conceive by what process it could ever have become अच्छे. I have preferred to treat it as a separate stem altogether, and I think this treatment will be found to be to a very great extent justified by the examples from the modern languages which I shall now adduce.

v3.c17.s2.104

§ 64. Classical Hindi, Panjabi, and Sindhi, do not retain any traces of this root. M. has, however, a complete verb अस्, which we should refer, I think, to this root, resting on the well-known peculiarity of M., by which it changes च्छ, especially when derived from an earlier त्, into स (Vol. I. p. 218). The Sanskrit √as having in M. become áhe, an affiliation concerning which there can be no doubt, we are driven to seek for a different origin for M. ase, and we find it appropriately and in full accordance with known phonetic processes in अच्छ. M. has the following tenses:—

v3.c17.s2.105

1. Aorist— Sing. 1. असें, 2. असस, 3. असे, Pl. 1. असूं, 2. असां, 3. असत, where the terminations exactly correspond with those of the aorist in the ordinary verb.

v3.c17.s2.106

2. Simple imperative— Sing. 1. असूं, 2. अस, ऐस, 3. असो. Pl. 1. असूं, 2. असा, 3. असोत.

v3.c17.s2.107

3. Simple future— Sing. 1. असेन, 2. अससील, 3. असेल. Pl. 1. असूं, 2. असाल, 3. असतील.

v3.c17.s2.108

4. Present formed with present participle and Sanskrit substantive verb— Masc. Sing. 1. असतों, 2. असतोस, 3. असतो. Pl. 1. असतों, 2. असतां, 3. असतात.

v3.c17.s2.109

5. Conditional similarly formed. Sing. 3 masc. असता, etc., as in the ordinary verb.

v3.c17.s2.110

6. Preterite formed with p.p.p. similar to conditional. Sing. 3 masc. असला, etc.

v3.c17.s2.111

7. Subjunctive formed with future p.p. Sing. 3 masc. असावा, etc.

v3.c17.s2.112

Oriya comes next, with an aorist of old simple present only, which is thus conjugated—

v3.c17.s2.113

| Sing. | 1. अछि, | 2. अकु, | 3. अछि. |
| Pl. | 1. अकुं, | 2. अक, | 3. अछिन्त. |

v3.c17.s2.114

There being no formation from √as in O., this tense does duty for the simple "I am, thou art," etc. With lengthening of the first vowel, in accordance with its usual practice, Bengali has a present, and an imperfect; but in modern times the initial long vowel of the latter has been entirely dropped, so that we now have—

v3.c17.s2.115

v3.c17.s2.116

Though used as an imperfect, this latter tense is in form a preterite, corresponding to dekhinu, etc., of the regular verb. The loss of the initial â is comparatively recent, for it is retained in so late a poet as Bhârat Chandra (A.D. 1711–1755). आछिल बिस्तर ठाट प्रथम बयेसे "She was (i.e. had been) very wanton in her youth" (Bidya-S. 246). It is common enough, also, in the other Bengali poets, जे ताल् बेताल सिद्घ आछिल तोमार "What vicissitudes were experienced by you" (Kasi-M. 284), and the poets of the present day freely permit themselves the use of this form as a poetic licence when their metre requires it.

v3.c17.s2.117

Passing westwards from Bengal, we come to the extreme eastern limits of Hindi, in the Maithila province (Tirhut, Purnia, etc.), where the rustic dialect has the following present:

v3.c17.s2.118

Sing. 1. हूं, 2. कु, 3. छे. Pl. 1. हूं, 2. हूं, 3. छे.

v3.c17.s2.119

It has also a feminine singular छी, plural छीं, uninflected for person.

v3.c17.s2.120

Close to the Bengali frontier, near the junction of the Mahanandâ and Kankai rivers, they speak a curious sort of mixture of Hindi and Bengali, and have a present—

v3.c17.s2.121

Sing. 1. छि, 2. छिस, 3. छइ. Pl. 1. छि, 2. छें, 3. छे.

v3.c17.s2.122

Further west, in the same district, one hears—

v3.c17.s2.123

Sing. 1. छी, 2. छं, 3. छइ. Pl. 1. छि, 2. छां, 3. छाइ.

v3.c17.s2.124

In Bhojpuri, for the present is often heard खे, which is unchanged throughout both persons. This widely-used form seems to confirm the supposition of the derivation from अत्, for च changes both to च्छ and to ख.

v3.c17.s2.125

From the Himalayan districts of Kumâon and Garhwâl, Kellogg (p. 201) gives a present of this verb, and it is in use in Eastern Rajputana. It is also the ordinary substantive verb in Gujarati—

v3.c17.s2.126

| | SINGULAR. | | |
| Kumâon. | 1. छौं, हूं | 2. छै | 3. छ. |
| Garhwâl. | 1. छौं | 2. छ, छै | 3. छ. |
| E. Rajputana. | 1. हूं | 2. छै | 3. छै. |
| Gujarati. | 1. છું | 2. છે | 3. છે. |

v3.c17.s2.127

| | PLURAL. | | |
| Kumâon. | 1. हूं, छों | 2. छा | 3. छन, छों. |
| Garhwâl. | 1. छौं, छवाऊं | 2. छन, छयाई | 3. छन. |
| E. Rajputana. | 1. छां | 2. छो | 3. छै. |
| Gujarati. | 1. છીએ | 2. છો | 3. છે. |

v3.c17.s2.128

The first and third of these have also a preterite participle in type like most of the preterites. Thus in Kumâon they say sing. छियो, pl. छिया or छियां, which seems to point to a Skr. p.p.p. स्थित = Pr. अच्छियो. In Eastern Rajputana there is sing. छो, pl. छा.

v3.c17.s2.129

Although modern classical Hindi does not use this root, yet it is found with the initial vowel in the shape of an indeclinable present participle in the old poets, as in Tulsi's Ramayan—

v3.c17.s2.130

आप अछत जुवराज पद रामहि देउ नरेस

v3.c17.s2.131

“Thyself remaining, give the heir-apprenticeship to Ram, O king!”
—Ay-k. 11.

v3.c17.s2.132

That is, “during thy lifetime,” literally “thou being.” The dictionary-writers erroneously give this as a Tadbhava from अछत, with which it has nothing to do.

v3.c17.s2.133

It is worthy of consideration whether the forms of the imperfect in P. given in § 60 should not be referred to this root rather than to as. The change of छ into स so characteristic of M. would thus find a parallel in Panjabi.

v3.c17.s2.134

Gujarati has also a present participle indeclinable छतां and छते “(in) being,” and declinable छंतो m., ती f., तुं n.; pl. छता m., ती f., तां n. “being.”

v3.c17.s2.135

§ 65. The compound tenses formed by the addition of this auxiliary are most numerous, as might be expected, in Marathi, that language having a larger range of tenses of the auxiliary itself than the sister-tongues. First, a present habitual is formed by adding the present of the auxiliary to the present participle of the verb, as राहत असतो “he is living,” i.e. “he habitually resides,” लिहीत असतों “I am (always employed in) writing.”

v3.c17.s2.136

Next, a past habitual, by adding the aorist of the auxiliary to the present tense, as बसत असे “he was in the habit of sitting.” It will be remembered that in M. the aorist has the sense of a past habitual in modern times. This compound tense seems to differ very little in meaning from the simple tense.

v3.c17.s2.137

There is also a compound present of the conditional, wherein the leading verb is in the present participle and the auxiliary in the conditional present. It is used with जर “if” prefixed, either expressed or understood, as जर काम करीत असता “If he *were doing* the work,” पाऊस पडत असता “(If) rain were to fall (as it is now falling).” The same tense of the auxiliary, when used with the past participle, serves as a conditional preterite, as पडला असता “he would have fallen (if, etc.).”

v3.c17.s2.138

With the preterite of the auxiliary and the present participle of the leading verb is constructed a present dubitative, as तो जात असला तर तें काम त्याला सांगा “If he *should be going*, then entrust this affair to him.” Similarly, with the same part of the auxiliary and the past participle of the leading verb is made a past dubitative or pluperfect, as तो आला असला तर “Should he have arrived, then, etc.”

v3.c17.s2.139

So, also, with the future participle and the past auxiliary, as जर तो जाणार असला तर मला सांग “Should he be about to go, then tell me.”

v3.c17.s2.140

The future of the auxiliary also forms three tenses with the present, past, and future participles of the leading verb respectively. It is difficult to give these tenses any definite name; the senses in which they are employed will be seen from the following examples:—

v3.c17.s2.141

1. Present participle of verb + future of auxiliary— तुझा बाप तुझी वाट पाहत असेल “Your father *will be waiting* for you” (i.e. is probably now expecting you; vâṭa pâhat = “looks at the road,” idiomatic for “expects”).

v3.c17.s2.142

2. Past participle of verb + future of auxiliary— तो आला असेल “He *will have come*” (i.e. “has probably arrived by this time”).

v3.c17.s2.143

3. Future participle of verb + future of auxiliary— मी लिहिणार असेन “I may be now going to write” (i.e. “I shall probably be writing presently”).

v3.c17.s2.144

The above is a fair illustration of the remark which I have frequently made before, that the modern verb, while throwing aside all the intricacies of the synthetical system of tenses, still manages to lose nothing of its power of expressing minute shades of meaning. On the contrary, by its almost unlimited power of forming compound tenses, it obtains a fullness and delicacy of expression, which even the synthetic verb cannot rival. Indeed, this fullness is at times somewhat embarrassing, for the subtle distinctions between one tense and another are very difficult to grasp, and, as might be expected, careless or uneducated speakers are unable to observe them accurately. The minute analysis of these various tenses belongs to the domain of syntax rather than to that of formlore, and a very long dissertation might be written upon the numerous shades of meaning involved in each one of them. The selection, for instance, of the different parts of the leading verb and auxiliary depends, to a great extent, upon the method of reasoning employed unconsciously by the speaker. These compound tenses are, in fact, rather phrases than tenses, and much depends upon whether the speaker regards the action as already past, or as actually being done with reference to the rest of the sentence. When we translate one of these phrases into English, or any other language, we do not really translate, but substitute our own way of expressing the idea for the native way. A literal word-for-word translation would be almost unintelligible. Thus, in the sentence above, Râm jât asalâ, tar tê kâm tyâlâ sângâ, the words are actually, “Ram going was, then that affair to him tell,” where the speaker, as it were, pictures to himself that his messenger, after receiving orders, goes to Ram and finds that he was just going, and therefore tells him the affair. Complicated and of course unconscious undercurrents of thought like this underlie much of the elaborate mechanism of the compound tenses in all our seven languages, and we often find natives of India who can speak English composing in our language elaborate sentences of this sort, to the entire disregard of our English idioms, because they think in Hindi or Marathi, and then translate the idea into English. This fact, which all observant Englishmen who have lived long in India must have noticed, lies at the root of much of the difficulty which our countrymen experience in making themselves understood by natives. They think in English, and render word for word into Hindi or Marathi; thus probably producing a sentence which means something widely different from what they intended. It is the same with all foreign languages; until a man learns to *think* in the foreign language, and utter his thoughts in the shape that they have in his mind, he can never hope to speak idiomatically. In seeking to explain the compound tenses of the modern Indian verb, therefore, it is necessary to analyze the connection and sequence of mental impressions to which they owe their origin, a task for the metaphysician, and not for the student of comparative philology.

v3.c17.s2.145

Gujarati has also a plethora of compound tenses, but they are less complicated than Marathi, perhaps because the language has been less cultivated. In the simpler languages delicate *nuances* of expression do not exist, and if one wishes to translate any such phrases into one of these simple languages, it must be done by a long string of sentences. Thus, in trying to exact from a wild forester of the Orissa hills an answer to the question, "Did you know that Ram had run away before you went home or afterwards?" one has to go to work in this way, "Ram fled?" Answer, *ho!* (Yes). "You knew that fact?" *ho!* "You went home?" *ho!* "When you reached home they told you 'Ram is fled,' thus?" answer *nâ! nâ!* (No! No!).

v3.c17.s2.146

“When you did not go home, before that, they told you?” *ho!* So to get out the meaning of the Marathi sentence quoted above, “If he should be going, then entrust this affair to him,” one would have to say, “Near him you having gone, he ‘I am now going’ having said, this word having heard this matter to him you will tell.” Perhaps in citing an Orissa wild man of the woods, I am taking an extreme case; but the remarks will hold good, more or less, for all the peasantry and lower classes all over India, and it must be remembered that the expression “lower classes” means in India eight-tenths of the whole population.

v3.c17.s2.147

The compound tenses formed with the auxiliary छे in G. are the following:—

v3.c17.s2.148

1. Definite present; aorist of verb + aorist of auxiliary, as करे छे “he does.”

v3.c17.s2.149

Sometimes both verb and auxiliary lose their final vowel, as कर छ for करे छे “thou dost,” करे छ “he does.” करो छ for छो “ye do,” etc.

v3.c17.s2.150

2. Definite preterite; p.p. of verb + aorist of auxiliary, as आप्यो छे “he has given,” active used in *karma* construction with instrumental of subject. तेणे काम बजावेलुं छे “he has performed the work;” neuter in *kartâ*, as हूं चड्यो कुं “I have ascended.”

v3.c17.s2.151

3. Another definite preterite with the second form of the p.p. in *elo*, as चडेलो कुं “I have ascended.” There seems to be no great difference of meaning between this and the last.

v3.c17.s2.152

4. Definite future; future participle of verb + aorist of auxiliary, as खानारो छे “he is about to eat.”

v3.c17.s2.153

5. Another tense with the second form of the fut. part. in *vâno*, as हूं करवानो कुं “I am going to do.” The uninflected form of the future participle in *âr* may also be used, as तुं शुं करनार छे “What art thou going to do?” These definite futures differ from the simple future in implying intention and definite purpose, much as in German *er will thun* differs from *er wird thun*.

v3.c17.s2.154

The auxiliary है is sometimes also used after another auxiliary derived from *bhū*, as छोडतो होय है “he is (now) loosing.” Of the tenses so formed more will be said further on.

v3.c17.s2.155

It seems from comparing the examples given of these tenses that there is not for each one of them a distinct special meaning, but that they are used somewhat vaguely, the auxiliary being added or omitted at pleasure. This is certainly the case in Hindi, as will be seen below; and in the poets, who are our only guides for the mediæval period, metrical necessities, rather than any desire to bring out a particular shade of meaning, appear to determine which form shall be used.

v3.c17.s2.156

Those dialects of Hindi which possess tenses from this root, use them also as auxiliaries.¹ Eastern Rajputana has the definite present formed by the two aorists, that of the verb and that of the auxiliary, मारूं हूं “I am beating,” also a preterite composed of the p.p. of the verb and aorist of auxiliary, as मारयो है “I have beaten.” There seems to be some anomaly in this latter, for in the preterite of the active verb है is added to all six persons, whereas, when used with the substantive verb हो “be,” the auxiliary is participial sing. छो, pl. छा. Perhaps we hardly know enough of these rustic forms as yet to be able to draw accurate distinctions.

v3.c17.s2.157

¹ Kellogg, Grammar, p. 240.

v3.c17.s2.158

Garhwali forms its definite present from the present participle and the aorist मारदो (or मारदू) छौं “I am beating;” and its preterite in the same way from the p.p. and aorist मारे छ “he has beaten,” मारा छन “they have beaten.” So does Kumaoni, present मारनु हूं, preterite मारो छ; but in these, also, there is still room for more accurate analysis, and a wider range of observations requires to be made in remote and little known parts of the country.

v3.c17.s2.159

Bengali has four well-defined tenses. The definite present and imperfect are formed respectively by incorporating the aorist and imperfect of the auxiliary into one word with the locative case of the present participle, thus—

v3.c17.s2.160

Def. Present দেখিতেছি “I am seeing” (dekhite + âchhi).

v3.c17.s2.161

Def. Imperfect দেখিতেছিলু “I was seeing” (dekhite + [â]chhilu).

v3.c17.s2.162

In the latter of these tenses the 1 pl. has in ordinary speech to a great extent usurped the place of the 1 sing., and we more frequently hear—

v3.c17.s2.163

দেখিতেছিলাম “I was seeing” (dekhite + [â]chhilâm).

v3.c17.s2.164

By incorporating the same tenses of the auxiliary into one word with the conjunctive participle (see § 73), it forms a definite preterite and a pluperfect, as

v3.c17.s2.165

Def. Preterite দেখিয়াছি “I have seen” (dekhiyâ + âchhi).

v3.c17.s2.166

Pluperfect দেখিয়াছিলু “I had seen” (dekhiyâ + âchhinu).

v3.c17.s2.167

Here, also, দেখিয়াছিলাম is common for 1 sing. Wonderful corruptions occur in pronunciation in these tenses: kh loses its aspirate and becomes ch, so that we hear for করিতেছি a word that sounds korche, and may be written করচে, for হইতেছে “is” vulgo hoche (হচে), for দেখিয়াছি dekhiche (দেখিচে), and for দেখিয়াছিলাম dekhichilêm, or dekh’chilêm (দেখিচলেম?). So also for চালিতেছে “goes” chaloche (চলচে). These forms are freely used in conversation by educated persons, and some recent authors of comic novels and plays introduce them into the mouths of their characters. The same remark applies to all tenses of the verb, and it is a curious subject for speculation, whether the growth of literature will arrest the development of these forms, or whether they will succeed in forcing their way into the written language, and displace the longer and fuller forms now in use. If the latter event takes place, we shall see enacted before our eyes the process of simplification.

v3.c17.s2.168

tion which has been so fertile a cause of the formation of the present types in the whole neo-Aryan group. I anticipate, however, that the purists, aided by the conservative influence of a literature already copious, will ultimately carry the day against the colloquial forms.

v3.c17.s2.169

Oriya has the four tenses corresponding to Bengali, but only two of them are formed with the auxiliary we are now discussing, the definite present and the definite preterite—

v3.c17.s2.170

Def. Present করু অচ্ছি "I am doing" (pres. part. karu "doing"). Def. Preterite করি অচ্ছি "I have done" (p.p. kari "done").

v3.c17.s2.171

Here, also, colloquially, the auxiliary is generally incorporated with the verb, and they say করুচ্ছি and করিচ্ছি respectively. In the south of the province, also, the older form of the present participle in উ prevails, and one hears করুছি "he is doing," and contractedুছি "he is."

v3.c17.s2.172

§ 66. BHÚ. This widely-used root took as early as the Pali and Prakrit period the form HO; and in that form it has come down to modern times. As the ordinary substantive verb "to be," it has a full range of tenses in all the languages, and it not only serves as an auxiliary, but takes to itself the tenses of the other auxiliaries like any other verb. In the latter capacity it need not here be discussed, as the remarks which have been made concerning the ordinary verbs will apply to this verb also.

v3.c17.s2.173

Although ho is the general form of this root in all the Indian languages, yet there are one or two exceptions in which the initial bh is retained. In Pali, both bhavati and hoti are found for 3 sing. pres., abhavâ and ahuvâ impf., bhavatu and hotu impt., and in Sauraseni Prakrit we find bhodu=bhavatu, bhavia =bhútvá, and the like. Distinct traces of the retention of the bh are still in existence in some rustic dialects of Hindi, and in the old poets. In the latter, a p.p. sing. भयौ m., भई f., pl. भए, is extremely common, used alone as a preterite, or with the verbal endings, as भयेउ, भयउ, etc. It is also contracted into भी; and in the modern form भया “was,” may be heard commonly in the mouths of the lower orders all over the Hindi area of the present time. This form presupposes a Pr. भविओ = a Skr. भवित, with elision of the व, and य called in to fill up the hiatus. I give from Kellogg the dialectic forms (Gr. p. 236)—

v3.c17.s2.174

v3.c17.s2.175

PLURAL.

v3.c17.s2.176

v3.c17.s2.177

¹ Kanauji may be taken to mean the speech of the country between the Ganges and Jumna, the heart of the Hindi land; Braj, that of the right bank of the Jumna; Old-Pûrbi, of the country north of the Ganges from the Gandak river eastwards; Avadhi, that of Oudh (Avadh); Riwâi, of the country south of the Ganges and between the Chambal and the Son rivers. Braj and Old-Pûrbi are the dialects in use in the mediæval poets generally.

v3.c17.s2.178

The verbal affixes are the same as those in the ordinary verb explained at § 33. Chand uses the same form as in Braj and Kanauji, thus भयौ कोटि तामस तांम ॥ “He became violently disturbed with anger” (Pr. R. i. 48), अनंगपाल भयौ राज ॥ “Anangapâl became King” (iii. 17), पुत्र कथा ज्यों भई । सनौ तुं कहाँ अपुब्रह ॥ “How the former matter happened, listen while I tell the wonderful tale” (iii. 15), पुत्र होत भई मृत्य ॥ “While the son was being (born), she became dead” (i. 170), भए आदि अंत कविता जिते । “As many poems as have been (written) first and last” (i. 10), भए विकल लोग घाइल उ ताप ॥ “The folk became distressed, (being) wounded and heated” (xxi. 5). Contracted मन भौ हास करून पुनि आइये ॥ “Daughter became (arose) in her mind, then after pity came” (iii. 10). The use of this tense is so common in Chand as to supersede the other form of the preterite हुआ to a great extent.

v3.c17.s2.179

A few examples may be added from Kabir: दुतिया नाम पारबति भयऊ । तप करता संकर को दयऊ ॥ “Her second name was Pârvati, the ascetic (i.e. Daksha) gave her to Śankara” (Ram. 26, 5), येके पुरुष येकहै नारी । तातें स्यनि षान भौ चारी ॥ “One male (energy), one female, from them were produced four kinds of living beings” (ib. 6), एक अंड ओंकार ते यह सब जग भयौ प्रसार “From one egg, the word Om, all this world has been created” (ib. 8). In these three quotations all three forms of the participle are used side by side.

v3.c17.s2.180

Tulsi Das does not confine himself to Old-Pûrbi forms, but uses, also, those classed above under Braj, as भयौ बहोरि भयौ तेहि खारा “It filled again and thus became salt (i.e. the sea)” (Lanka-k. 3), सेतुबंध भइ भोर अति । “The Setubandh became very crowded” (ib. 10). But the Pûrbi form is more common, as in माथ नाइ पूछत अस भयऊ “Bowing his head, thus he was asking” (Kis-k. 2), करि दंडवत कहत अस भयऊ “Making salutation, thus he was saying” (Ar-k. 259). The contracted form is also very common, as भे मन मुदित पाइ प्रिय साथू । “He became (or was) enraptured at meeting with the beloved” (Ay-k. 441).

First 180 of 369 passages. Read on