A Comparative Grammar of the Modern Aryan Languages of India v3.c18: Chapter V

A Comparative Grammar of the Modern Aryan Languages of India v3.c18

Language: English

Chapter V

v3.c18.1

CONTENTS.—§ 73. THE CONJUNCTIVE PARTICIPLE.—§ 74. THE INFINITIVE. § 75. THE AGENT.—§ 76. SINDHI VERBS WITH PRONOMINAL SUFFIXES.—§ 77. CONJUGATION OF STEMS ENDING IN VOWELS IN HINDI, PANJABI, AND SINDHI.—§ 78. THE SAME IN MARATHI.—§ 79. THE SAME IN BANGALI AND ORIYA.

v3.c18.2

§ 73. THE participles of the present, past, and future, being used in the formation of tenses, it has been found necessary to depart from the natural order of the verb, and to discuss them in Chapter III. There remains, however, a very widely used and important participle, which is not employed to form a tense. From the fact that it is used to connect one clause with another, and thus helps the native speaker or writer to build up those interminable sentences of which he is so fond, it has been called, very appropriately, the Conjunctive Participle. It implies "having done," and the sense of the clause in which it is used remains incomplete until another clause containing a finite verb is added; thus, instead of saying, "Next morning he woke and arose, bathed, ate, dressed, collected his goods, loaded them on his camel, bade farewell to his friend, and started on his journey," the Indian languages would say, "Having woken, having risen, having bathed, having eaten, having dressed, having collected his goods, having loaded them on his camel, having bidden farewell to his friend, having started on his journey, he went."

v3.c18.3

Sanskrit has two forms of this participle, one in त्वा, as भूत्वा "having been," the other in य, as संभूय "having met." Each of these forms has left descendants in the modern languages, and although the form in *ya* is, in classical Sanskrit, restricted, for the most part, to compound verbs, yet this peculiarity has been overlooked in the spoken languages, and simple verbs, as well as compound ones, are treated as having this form also.

v3.c18.4

Thus in Prakrit we find सुणिअ = Skr. श्रुत्वा “having heard,” as well as णिक्कमित्र = निष्क्रम्य “having gone out.” So also दइअ = दत्वा “having given,” चोरिअ = चोरयित्वा “having stolen,” गदुअ = गत्वा “having gone,” सिंचिअ = सिक्त्वा “having sprinkled,” गेहअ = गृहीत्वा “having taken.”

v3.c18.5

In Old-Hindi this participle ends in *i*, as करि “having done,” चलि “having gone,” which is apparently the Prakrit form with loss of the final *a*, thus—

v3.c18.6

सुनि कग्गर नृपराज प्रभु ॥ भौ आनन्द सुभाइ ॥
“Having heard the paper, King Prithiraj was glad, being pleased.”
—Pr. R. xii. 52.

v3.c18.7

Chand, however, in his more archaic passages, uses a form in *ya*, and one in *aya*, as—

v3.c18.8

भुगति भूमि किय क्यार ॥
वेद सिंचिय जल पूरन ॥
बीय सबय लय मध्य ॥
ग्यान अंकूर सजूरन ॥

v3.c18.9

“Taking possession of the earth, like a garden plot,
Irrigating it with the fullness of the Veda, as with water,
Having placed good seed in its midst,
Up sprung the shoot of knowledge.”—Pr. R. i. 4.

v3.c18.10

Here किय “having made,” and भुगति किय = mod. भोग करके “having made (or taken) possession,” सिंचिय “having watered,” लय = लइय “having placed.”

v3.c18.11

Mediæval Hindi has regularly the form ending in *इ*, as राम बचन मृदु गूढ सुनि “*Having heard* the gentle mystic speech of Rama” (*Tulsi, Rám. Bálk.* 113), पंडित भूले पढि गुनवेदा। “*Sages having read* the Veda erred as to its qualities” (Kabir, Ram.

v3.c18.12

34, 1), भक्ति विमुख जो धर्म सु सब अधर्म करि गायो ॥ “The religion that is opposed to devotion (bhakti), all that having made (i.e. having declared), irreligion he sang” (Bhaktamál, Múl. 30).

v3.c18.13

From the habitual neglect of final short vowels, it results that this participle often appears in the form of the bare stem, as in the verbs with ancillaries given above, and this form, appearing to be not sufficiently distinct, a secondary form has arisen, which is now the ordinary one in modern Hindi. This consists of adding के, कर, करके, करकर, and even करकरके to the stem, namely, the conjunctive participle of करना “to do;” as देख कर “having seen,” जाकर “having gone.” The first of these forms के is softened from कै, which, again, is from करि, the older form of the conjunctive part. of करना, and is used in the mediæval poets and in Braj and the rustic dialects to this day. Thus Kabir बहु बिधि के चित्र बनाइकै हरि रच्यौ क्रीडा रास ॥ “Having made many kinds of appearances (máyá), Hari has arranged the sport and pastime (of the world;” Hindola, 16). It having thus become customary to add the participle of कर to all verbs, it has been added to कर itself, thus making करके and करकर, and this reduplicated form again is added to other verbs. In all the dialects we find such forms as मारिकै, मारकै, मार, मारि, and even apocopated as Garhwali मारिक and मारीक “having beaten.” Kumaoni has a curious compound form मारिबेर “having beaten,” which is probably the old form मारि with बेर “time” (Skr. वेला), literally, “at the time of beating.”

v3.c18.14

In the case of the common verb ho, the conjunctive participle, like the future, takes in Old-Hindi the forms होइ and हू, especially the latter, as गुरु भक्त एक न्यारो नही हू सके । “Guru-bhakta alone could not remain apart” (sak ancillary with conjunctive of ho = “could be;” Bhaktamál, 116, 1), रजनी अंध कूप हू जाए “The night becomes as dark as a well” (Kabir, Ram. 16, 4), मानुस बडे बडे हू आये “Very great men came” (lit. “having become very great;” ib. 17, 6).

v3.c18.15

P. is the same as H., and with the latter closely agrees O., which forms this participle by short *i*, as देखि “having seen.” This form also appearing too indefinite, in ordinary conversation they add करि, often pronounced किरि, as देखिकरि “having seen.” O. has also another, and in the classical speech the only admissible, form in *ile*, as मारिले “having beaten,” which is also used in B., and in both appears to be the old locative case of the past participle, and is thus literally “in having beaten.” The old form of the locative case having in O. fallen into disuse, the same has taken place in the participle; thus arise the forms देखिलारे “in having seen,” and देखिलारू “from having seen,” which are respectively the locative and ablative, formed after the modern fashion by adding ठारे and ठारू, the initial syllable of which is rejected (Vol. II. p. 274).

v3.c18.16

B. has, besides the form in *ile*, one in *iyâ*, which approaches closer to the Prakrit, as पडिया “having fallen,” बसिया “having sat,” धरिया “having seized.” This latter form is that which is used to string together long sentences, in preference to the form in *ile*, which is used more in short sentences. Thus Bhârat—

v3.c18.17

आन छले पुनः चाहे फिरिया फिरिया॥
पिंजरेर पाखि मत बेडाय घुरिया॥

v3.c18.18

“Another craftily looks, repeatedly turning round,
Like a bird in a cage walks round and round.”
—Bidyâ-S. 245.

v3.c18.19

literally, “having turned, having turned, looks,” and “having twisted round, walks.”

v3.c18.20

S. has four forms for this participle. Neuter verbs take the ending *i*, as वरी “having returned;” active and causal verbs have *e*, as मले “having rubbed,” both of which correspond to the Pr. ending *ia*. Less widely used is a form in *io* or *yo*, as मोट्यो “having returned,” धोयो “having washed,” which is identical with the p.p.p. Thirdly, the inserted *jja* of Prakrit reappears here, as from खणणु “to lift,” खणिजे “having lifted.”

v3.c18.21

Lastly, S. follows the example of H., and adds करे, the conjunctive of करणु “to do,” as वरी करे “having returned.”

v3.c18.22

G. resembles S., having its conjunctive in i, as होई “having become.” Ordinarily it puts this participle in the objective case, adding the postposition ने, often dropping the anuswâra, as करीनि or करीने “having done,” देईने “having given.” As G. makes no distinction between i and i, this is often written with short i, as देइने.

v3.c18.23

M. stands quite alone, having its conjunctive in ऊन, as जाऊन “having gone,” होऊन “having been.” This is sometimes written ओन, and in the poets takes an increment, and appears as ऊनियां, ओनियां, as तुम्हापाशीं अम्ही येऊनियां काय ॥ (Tuk. Abh. 1888) “What is the good of my going to you?” (literally, “I near you having come, what?”) देखोनियां वस्त्रं भूषणचिं जन ॥ तात्काल मरण येतें मज। “Having seen men in fine clothes and ornaments, I am ready to die at once” (ib.).

v3.c18.24

This form is the old Maharashtri Pr. form in ऊण, shortened from तूण, Skr. त्वां, accusative of त्वा (Lassen, p. 367), and has undergone singularly little change. I see in this a confirmation of the belief that modern Marathi is really the representative of the Maharashtri Prakrit, for it is only in Maharashtri that the conjunctive in ûṇa, tûṇa, is found. All the prose dialects without distinction take forms of the conjunctive derived from the Skr. -ya; this consideration seems to be fatal to the theory (Trumpp, p. 283; V. Taylor, p. 114, § 256) which would derive the G. conjunctive in ine from M. ûṇa. Setting aside the absence of any analogy for a change from û to î in such a connection, there is abundant evidence that G. is, by origin, a Rajput dialect belonging to that large group of dialects which we roughly class under the name of Hindi, and Śastri Vrajlâl (G. Bh. It. p. 3) points out the great gulf that exists between G. and M., as also the close connection of G. with the northern dialects. We have therefore strong reasons for not looking to M. for the origin of any G. form. The latter has, like the rest of the eastern Hindi group, Saurasenî for its parent, and the form in -ine, when compared with that in î in the same language, points clearly to the Saurasenî conjunctive in ia with a modern case-postposition ne or neṇ added.

v3.c18.25

§ 74. The Infinitive is, in all the languages, a verbal noun declined throughout all the cases of the noun. Its numerous forms may all be grouped under two general types, which may be called the Ba, and the Na types respectively.

v3.c18.26

The Ba type is found in the rustic dialects of Hindi, in Bangali, Oriya, and Gujarati, and is declined as a noun. It occurs in the oldest Hindi poems. Chand has it in—

v3.c18.27

जो बिलंब करि रहै। तो ताहि हनिबे को आवै ॥
“If any one makes delay, he comes to strike him.”—Pr. R. i. 198.

v3.c18.28

उठि लरिबे कों धायौ ॥
“Rising up, rushed to fight.”—ib. i. 254.

v3.c18.29

It takes the junction-vowel i, and these passages is in the accusative case. It may be rendered “to or for the purpose of fighting.” This form does not once occur in the Ramaini (रमैनी) of Kabir, and only rarely in his other works. I have noted तरिबे कौ “to cross over,” चलैबो (चलाइवा) “to urge on,” in the Rekhtas. It is more common in Braj, and in Tulsi Das’s Ramâyan, where, besides the form with junction-vowel i, as तोरिबे “to break,” occurs also a shorter form in ab, as फिरब “to return.” In the dialects (Kellogg, p. 241) occur the following (mâr “strike”) :—

v3.c18.30

Braj मारिबौ, East Rajput मारबो, West Rajp. id. Old-Pûrbi मारब, Avadhi, and Riwai id.

v3.c18.31

In Gujarati, this is the only form of the infinitive. It is declined as an adjective for all three genders, thus—

v3.c18.32

Sing. लाववो m., लाववी f., लाववुं n. Pl. लाववा m., ॰वी f., ॰वां n. “to bring” or “the act of bringing.”

v3.c18.33

and agrees with the object, as mentioned in § 52, where it is used to constitute a tense. In the neuter singular it performs the functions of a simple infinitive, as गावुं “to sing,” करवुं “to do.”

v3.c18.34

In Oriya it is the ordinary infinitive, as बसिबा “to sit,” and, though without gender, is declined for case, as—

v3.c18.35

| Gen. बसिबार “of sitting,” | } एहि बसिबार जागा “this is a place of sitting,” i.e. “a fit place to sit in.” |
| Loc. बसिबारे “in sitting,” | } बसिबारे किछि हेब नहीं “in sitting nothing will become,” i.e. “you will do no good by sitting still.” |
| Acc. बसिबाकु “to or for sitting,” | } बसिबाकु हेब “for sitting it will become,” i.e. “you will have to, or must, sit.” |
| | देखिबाकु आसिला “he came to see.” |
| Abl. बसिबारु “from sitting,” | } सेठ बसिबारु सरदी लागिब “from sitting there a chill will attack,” i.e. “if you sit there, you will catch cold.” |

v3.c18.36

Bengali does not use this form as its ordinary infinitive, having utilized for that purpose the locative of the present participle, as होइते “to be” (lit. “in being”), थाकिते “to remain,” जाइते “to go;” but it is used in the genitive case to form a sort of gerund or verbal noun, as बीज रुपिबार काल आछे “It is the time of sowing, or for sowing, seed.” More common still is its employment with জন্যে, कारण or निमित्ते “for the sake of,” as देखिबार জন্যে “for the sake of seeing,” करिबार निमित्ते “for the sake of doing.”

v3.c18.37

The infinitive of the Gipsies ends in *áva*, and probably belongs to this group. Paspati writes *keráva* “to do,” *láva* “to take,” *dáva* “to give,” *sováva* “to sleep,” *mangáva* “to ask,” *ruváva* “to weep,” which may be transliterated perhaps कराव, लाव, दाव, सोवाव, मंगाव, रुवाव respectively. These are words of the Chingana or Turkish Gipsies. Those in Bohemia apparently drop the final *a* and shorten the *â*, as *chorav* “to steal” (चोरव), *kerav* “to do” (करव), *chinnav* “to tear” (चिनव). Those in Wallachia appear to pronounce the termination as *ao* (अओ or आओ?), as *jao* “to go” (जाओ), *hao* “to eat” (हाओ), *peo* “to drink” (पेओ).¹

v3.c18.38

¹ Miklosich, Zigeuner Europa’s, part ii. p. 9.

v3.c18.39

In all these languages the idea of an infinitive glides off imperceptibly into that of a verbal noun, and the *Ba* form thus reveals its origin from the Sanskrit future passive participle in *tavya*, from which, as we have seen in Ch. III. § 51, many tenses are formed.

v3.c18.40

The *Na* type occurs in Hindi, as also in P. S. M. It has two forms in H., one archaic and poetical ending in *ana*, the other modern and classical in *nâ*. The first of these two forms I would derive from the Sanskrit verbal noun in *anam*, as *karaṇ* “doing,” *patan* “falling.” It is in frequent use, uninflected, throughout the poets, thus—

v3.c18.41

पुरुषातन तिन बंधन बिचारि ॥
“Having plotted to stop his virility.”—Pr. R. i. 178.

v3.c18.42

कियौ चलन कौ साज ॥
“He made preparation to go.”—*ib.* xx. 28.

v3.c18.43

जंग जुरन जालिम जुझार ॥
“To join battle a terrible warrior.”—*ib.* xx. 31.

v3.c18.44

सत्य कहौं मोहि जान दे माई ॥
“I speak truth, suffer me to go, mother.”—Tulsi-Ram. S.-k, 7.

v3.c18.45

राम सैल बन देखन जाहीं ॥
“They go to see the hill and forest of Râm.”—*ib.* Ay-k. 91.

v3.c18.46

It is unnecessary to give more instances of this very common form. It still survives in Kanauji, as *maran* “to strike.” The other form in *nâ* was anciently written *nâũ*, and is always so written in Braj, as *maranâũ* “to strike,” *âvanâũ* “to come.” This form I now agree with Hoernle in deriving from the Sanskrit future participle in *anīya*, so that from करणीय, through Pr. करणीयं and करयअं, would come Old-H. करनीं, M. करणी, and P. करना. I, however, would refer the S. करणु to the verbal noun in *anam*, because the final vowel is short, and, as in all similar nouns, reproduces the final *o = u* of the a-stem (see Hoernle's essay in J.A.S.B. vol. 42, p. 59, etc.). The two forms of the infinitive are thus analogous in respect of their derivation, and the fact of the existence side by side of two sets of forms with precisely similar meaning is explained by that of there being two participles of similar meaning in Sanskrit, both of which have left descendants.

v3.c18.47

Under these altered lights I must withdraw the opinion formerly held by me as to the origin of the infinitive in *ná*. That in *ana* is now obsolete, except in Kanauji, and the *ná* form is declined as a noun in *â*, making its oblique in *e*, as *karne kâ* "of doing," *karne meṇ* "in doing." In M. the infinitive is also declined as a noun of the sixth declension (Vol. II. p. 192), thus gen. *karaṇyâ châ* "of doing," dat. *karaṇyâ lâ* "to doing." In Sindhi, however, the infinitive vindicates its claim to be considered as a descendant of the verbal noun in *anam* by exhibiting the declension of masculines (*i.e.* neuters) in *u*; the oblique ends consequently in *a*, as *ginhaṇa jo* "of buying," *ginhaṇa meṇ* "in buying," etc. This would not be the case were the S. infinitive derived from the participle in *anīya*.

v3.c18.48

M. has an infinitive peculiar to itself ending in ऊं, as मरूं "to die," which is comparatively little used, and only with the present tense. I am unable to suggest any thoroughly satisfactory explanation of this form which does not appear to have any analogy in the cognate languages. It may be the only descendant of the Skr. infinitive in *tum*, with elision of the *t*, but this is somewhat doubtful. To this place must also be referred the B. infinitive or verbal noun in *â*, as करा "to do," or "the act of doing," which, after stems ending in a vowel, appears as या, the *y* of which is not pronounced; thus इचोया pronounced “hôwâ,” देओया “dewâ.” The origin of this form is not clear to me, but it is probably connected with the participle in तव्य.

v3.c18.49

§ 75. On the basis of the infinitive in *nâ* is formed the agent. This, in Hindi, is made by adding to the oblique of the infinitive the words वाला, हारा; as करनेवाला “a doer,” देखनेहारा “a seer.” Of these the former is apparently Skr. पालक “protector, keeper.” Thus Skr. गोपालक “cowherd,” becomes H. ग्वाला; as to the latter there is some difference of opinion, some would derive it from Skr. धारक “holder,” others from कारक “doer.” I myself incline to the latter view; the क would be elided when it ceased to be initial, and its place supplied by ह, which is often used to fill an hiatus. This is Trumpp’s opinion (Grammar, p. 75), who shows that in S. this form of the agent exists as *hâro* or *hâru* = respectively *kâraka* and *kâra*, as in—

v3.c18.50

सिरजणु “to create,” सिरजणहारो (क) “creator,” लिखणु “to write,” लिखणहारो (क) “writer,”

v3.c18.51

also in its original form of *kâro* or *kâru*, with nouns, as झेडो “quarrel,” झेडाकारु “quarreller.”

v3.c18.52

Kellogg (p. 245) refers to the phrase धारन धारयं in Chand’s first verse as confirming the derivation from धारक; but this identification rests on a translation of that verse very confidently put forward by a writer whose high estimate of himself as a translator of Hindi has not yet been confirmed by the opinion of scholars in general. The translation in this particular instance is extremely uncertain, and no argument can be based on it.

v3.c18.53

Hindi has also an agent in वैया, as करवैया “a doer,” रखवैया “a keeper,” which is shortened from वारिया, a dialectic form of वाला. It is confined almost to rustic speech, though the shorter form वारा is not uncommon in the poets. H. वाला may be added also to nouns, to imply the doer of an action, or the person who takes care of a thing, in which latter respect the original meaning of pâlaka is well preserved. Thus घोडेवाला “one who takes care of a horse.” So also in P. घरवाला “husband,” i.e. one who takes care of or maintains the house, and still more frequently घरवाली f. “wife.” Sindhi changes ल to र more suo, and has वारो, as घरवारो “householder,” from घर “house,” and डिअणवारो “giver,” from डिअणु “to give,” H. देनेवाला.

v3.c18.54

Chand uses the form in हार, shortened from हारा, to make a sort of future participle, in the verb हो “be.” Thus—

v3.c18.55

होइ होनहार सीता हरन ॥

v3.c18.56

“The rape of Sita, which was to be, takes place.”—Pr. R. iii. 27.

v3.c18.57

Also—

v3.c18.58

ते कछू होनहार पहचानिय ॥

v3.c18.59

“Thou knowing something of futurity.”—ib. xxi. 92.

v3.c18.60

होनहार एसी लषी। कही जु आल्ह उपाय ॥

v3.c18.61

“It is written thus as destined to be, the plan which Alha has spoken.” —ib. xxi. 94.

v3.c18.62

Probably, also, to this place belongs the affix वारी in words like पटवारी “a village accountant,” the व being an indication of a lost क, from कारी (कारिन) “doer.”

v3.c18.63

In M. and G. this form loses its initial consonant, and appears simply as âra. In G. it is incorporated into one word with the verbal noun in ana, of which, except in this conjunction, no traces remain. Thus from होवुं “to be,” comes होनार “one who is.” But, just as in the Old-H. होनहार, the sense of futurity has usurped the place of the original idea of agency, and honâr now means “he who, or that which, is to be,” as सत्ये होनार ते होय। शत वीना बोजुं नही कोय ॥ “That which in truth is (destined) to be, comes to pass, except truth there is nothing else” (Samaldas, Leckey, p. 64). It also takes the long o, as थनार or थनारो “that which is about to become,” from थवुं “to become,” शकनार “that which is able,” from शुकवुं “to be able;” and is in practice used simply as a remote future tense, less immediate in its action than the simple future of the *sa* type, but equally common. Thus એટલા માટેજ અમે તને મારનાર “For this very reason we are about to kill thee;” પોતાનો ધર્મને કદી છોડનાર નથી “He will never forsake his religion,” in other words, “he is not a forsaker (H. छोड़नेहारो) of, or one who is likely to forsake, his religion;” हूं बीजाने मारीने सुख भोगवनारो हतो “Having killed another, I was about to enjoy happiness,” literally, “I was becoming an enjoyer” (Leckey, p. 161).

v3.c18.64

It is probably owing to the absence of any derivative of the verbal noun in *ana* that the grammar-writers have failed to understand the true origin of this form, and have supposed it to be composed of the verbal stem and a suffix *nâr* or *nâro*, so that *chhoḍanâro* is by them divided *chhoḍa-nâro*, instead of *chhoḍan(a)-(h)âro*.

v3.c18.65

A similar misapprehension has occurred in M. In that language, also, *âr*, *ârâ*, are used, added to the infinitive in *ũ*, to make, not a noun of the agent, but a future participle, so far, at least, as the meaning goes. Thus from करũ come करणार “a doer,” and करणारा, obl. करणारे. But these are used in the sense of “one who is about to do,” as in G. So येणारे लोक is “the people who are coming,” *i.e.* “who are expected to come.” Godbole at p. 109 of his excellent Marathi Grammar, indicates rightly the origin of this tense, and illustrates it by such nouns as Skr. कुंभकार, Pr. कुंभआर, M. कुंभार. Other grammarians, however, still speak of “the participle in णार.”

v3.c18.66

This noun, used, as above explained, participially, is employed to form compound tenses, § 62. In H. and P. the noun in *wâlâ* (not *vâlâ*) is used in a future sense, as वह जानेवाला था “he was just about to go.” This is not perhaps a classical phrase, but it is one which one hears a dozen times a day from the mouths of people of all classes.

v3.c18.67

In O. one also hears a form in *wâlâ* added to the infinitive, as पाइबाओयाला “a receiver.” I suspect, however, that this is a recent introduction from the Hindi. There is no *w* in Oriya, and in trying to express the sound, they imitate the Bengalis, and put that form of य which it has as the last member of a nexus (the *ya-phala* as they call it), behind an ओ. They pronounce this extraordinary combination *wa*, and not *oya*, as it should be. The natural genius of the language has no form for the agent; instead of saying “the speaker,” they would say, “he who speaks,” or, if educated, would use the Sanskrit agent in तृ.

v3.c18.68

B. had, in its original state, apparently no noun of the agent. In modern times, recourse has been had to Sanskrit agents, which have been used whenever required, but colloquially it is easy to do without a *nomen agentis*, by slightly varying the arrangement of the sentence, and this is generally the course pursued. Such forms as कर्ता “doer,” दाता “giver,” used in literature, are, of course, Sanskrit pure and simple, and as such do not concern our present inquiry.

v3.c18.69

§ 76. The pronominal suffixes which are peculiar to Sindhi among the languages of the Indian group are also affixed to verbs, and, indeed, much more copiously used in that connection than with nouns. At Vol. II. p. 334, these suffixes, as applied to nouns, were briefly treated; they require more elaborate handling under verbs. It was mentioned, at the place cited above, that in this respect Sindhi allied itself with the neighbouring Aryan group of the Iranian languages, especially with Persian and Pashtu. I am not in a position to analyze the Persian and Pashtu analogies, and with respect to the latter language, though Trumpp has shown (Zeitschrift d. D. M. G. vol. xxiii. p. 1) that it is in many respects more closely allied to the Indian than to the Iranian group, yet it is so evidently a border language, transitional between the two, that to admit it to the present work would carry me beyond the limits of my

v3.c18.70

undertaking. It will suffice merely to notice, without attempting to discuss, the suffixes of that language as they occur in analogy with Sindhi.

v3.c18.71

These suffixes are used to bring the object of the verb's action into one word with it, and may be thus considered as datives, accusatives, or whatever case expresses the nature of the action of any particular verb. They are the same in form as those attached to nouns, and stand thus in comparison with Persian and Pashto:

v3.c18.72

| | SINGULAR. | | | PLURAL. | |
| Sindhi | 1. मि | 2. इ | 3. सि. | 1. ऊं, हूं | 2. व | 3. नि, न. |
| Persian | 1. ام | 2. ات | 3. اش | 1. ما | 2. شما | 3. شان |
| Pashto | 1. me | 2. de | 3. e. | 1. mu, um | 2. mu | 3. e. |

v3.c18.73

Taking the aorist of the active verb as the simplest tense, we find the suffix simply added without effecting any phonetic changes in the termination of the verb. Thus—

v3.c18.74

Sing. 1. आऊं छड़ियां “I let go,” with suff. of 2 sing. छड़ियांइ “I let thee go,” छड़ियांसि “I let him go,” with suff. of 2 pl. छड़ियांव “I let you go,” छड़ियांनि “I let them go.”

v3.c18.75

Sing. 2. तूं छड़िए “thou lettest go,” with suff. of 1 sing. छड़िएमि “thou lettest me go,” and so on.

v3.c18.76

Pl. 3. इ छड़िनि “they let go,” with suff. of 3 sing. छड़िनिसि “they let him go,” and so on.

v3.c18.77

The imperative is treated exactly in the same way. The respectful form takes इजां in the singular in this connection, not इजे, as छड़िजांमि “Please to let me go,” छड़िजांसि “Please to let him go.”

v3.c18.78

In the participial tenses a still greater variety of forms results from the change of the termination for gender in the third person singular and plural. The first person, however, also undergoes changes. Thus, in the present participle used as a future, हूंदुसि “I shall be,” *m.*, becomes हूंदोसां, and हिंदिसि “I shall be,” *f.*, becomes हिंदीसां. So that we get forms—

v3.c18.79

*m.* हूंदोसांइ “I shall be to thee,” हूंदोसांसि “I shall be to him.” *f.* हिंदीसांव “I shall be to you,” हिंदीसांनि “I shall be to them.”

v3.c18.80

So, also, the plurals हूंदासों *m.*, and हिंदिउंसों “we shall be,” become respectively हूंदासं and हिंदिउंसुं. The second person remains unchanged, merely affixing the personal suffixes. In the third person *m.* हूंदो is shortened to हूंदु, and *f.* हिंदी to हूंब or हूंद; *pl. m.* हूंदा becomes हूंद, except with the suffix of the first person plural, as हूंदासं “they shall be to us,” but हूंदव “they shall be to you;” *pl. f.* remains unchanged.

v3.c18.81

The past participle used as a perfect tense undergoes analogous changes. Thus—

v3.c18.82

1 Sing. *m.* होसि “I was,” becomes होसां, as होसांइ “I was to thee.” ,, *f.* इअसि ,, ,, ईईसां, ,, ईईसांसि “I was to him.” 1 Pl. *m.* इआसों “we were,” ,, इआसुं, ,, इआसूनि “we were to them.” ,, *f.* इयूंसीं ,, ,, इयूंसुं, ,, इयूंसुंव “we were to you.”

v3.c18.83

The second and third persons remain almost unchanged. In active verbs, however, where only the 3 sing. is used, owing to the objective construction, a somewhat different system prevails. The subject, which in other languages is put in the instrumental, may in S. be indicated by a suffix, and the object being also shown by a suffix, it arises that the verb may have two suffixes at the same time. Thus “I forook thee,” would be in H. मैं ने तुझ को छोडा, lit. “by me thee forsaken,” where the subject is in the instrumental, and the object in the accusative, case, the verb (*i.e.* participle) being left in the masc. singular, because there is no neuter in H. In M., which has a neuter, the Bhâva or impersonal construction is used, as म्यां तुला सोडिलें “by me to thee released,” as though it were *a me tibi relictum* (est). Sindhi expresses this sentence by one word छडिओमांइ, i.e. *chhaḍio-mân-i* = “forsaken-by me-thee.” Thus there arises a long string of forms for every possible combination of the agent and the object. A few may be given as examples; a full range will be found by those who desire to pursue the question further in Trumpp (p. 371):

v3.c18.84

छडिओमांंसि “I have forsaken him.” छडिओआंईंसि “he has forsaken him.” विहारिआंईंसि “he caused him to sit.” चिआंऊंंसि “they said to her.” चिआंईंनि “she said to them.”

v3.c18.85

The suffixes denoting the agent are इं sing. and ऊं pl., which Trumpp considers to be shortened from इन “by him,” instr. of हो “this,” and उन “by them,” instr. pl. of हू “that,” respectively.

v3.c18.86

A curious proof of the antiquity of these complicated forms with suffixes is afforded by the fact, that in connection with them the 3 sing. aorist of √अस् appears still in its old Pr. form of अथ (अत्य), § 59. This form exists only in combination with the pronominal suffixes, whereas the ordinary form आहे is used both with and without suffixes. Thus they say आहेमि and अथमि “there is to me,” as in the line—

v3.c18.87

गुझी अथमि गाल्हडी आउ ओहे तां ओरीआं ॥
“There is to me a secret matter, come near, then I will tell it.”
—Trumpp, p. 350.

v3.c18.88

It is used just as in Latin “est mihi,” in the sense of “I have,” as अथमि “I have,” अथी (for अथइ) “thou hast,” अथसि “he has,” अथूं (for अथऊं) “we have,” अथव “ye have,” अथनि “they have.” It is incorrect to say with Trumpp (*loc. cit.*)

v3.c18.89

that *atha* has in S. "been transferred to the plural." The verb remains in the 3 sing. throughout, and takes suffixes of both numbers and all three persons.

v3.c18.90

In the compound tenses the suffixes are attached to the auxiliaries, leaving the principal verb unchanged. Both single and double suffixes are used in this way, just as with the simple and participial tenses. Thus किओ होइ "thou hadst made," जंहिं खिदमतगार (خدمتگار) खे अग्रे सेवारिओ हांई (for झुआंईं) तंहिं डे निहाराईं "He looked towards that servant whom he had previously instructed," literally, "Which servant previously by him instructed, to that (one) by him looked" (Trumpp, p. 379).

v3.c18.91

It is tempting to look for the origin of this habit of using suffixes to the Semitic languages, which, from the early conquests of the Arabs in Persia and Sindh, may have had an influence upon the speech of those countries. On the other hand, however, the presence of a precisely similar habit in Italian and Spanish, seems to show that there exists a tendency to such constructions even in the Aryan family; for I suppose that even if we see in the Spanish forms a trace of Arab influence, no such motive power can be argued for any part of Italy, unless it be Sicily.

v3.c18.92

In Italian there are separate forms for the suffixed personal pronouns, and when used with a verb in the imperative or infinitive, these suffixed forms are incorporated into the verb; thus they say *rispondetemi* "answer me," *parlategli* "speak to him," *datele* "give her," *imaginarlo* "to imagine it," *offriteci* "offer us." Double suffixes are also used, as *assicuratemene* "assure me of it," *dateglielo* "give it to him," *mandateglielo* "send them to him."

v3.c18.93

So also in Spanish, *vino á verme* "he came to see me," *vengo á soccorrerte* "I come to help thee," *quiero castigaros* "I will punish you," *dejeme* "let me go," *pasandome* "as I was passing," *escribale* "write to him," *diles* "tell them." Here, also, double suffixes may be used, as *decirtelo* "to tell it thee," *mostradnosla* "show her to us."

v3.c18.94

It is noticeable, however, that this habit in Italian and Spanish is modern, and does not exist in Latin, any more than it does in Sanskrit. Is it, then, a result of the confusion of forms that sprung into existence simultaneously with the decay of the old synthetic system, or is it an adoption of a Semitic principle? Diez finds the origin of the suffixed pronouns in shortened forms of the dative and accusative of Latin, which were already in use in the classical period.¹ It remains, however, to be explained how this peculiarity arose in the Romance group, in one member of the Iranian, and two members of the Indian group, only, and nowhere else in all the wide range of the Indo-European family.

v3.c18.95

¹ Gram. d. Romanischen Sprachen, vol. ii. p.85, *et seqq.*

v3.c18.96

§ 77. Having now gone through all the forms of the modern Indian verb, the subject may be closed by some remarks on the way in which the terminations are added to those verbal stems which end in a vowel. So many of these terminations begin with vowels, that a hiatus necessarily ensues, and the modern languages, though they do not, as a rule, object to a hiatus, do in this particular make occasional efforts to avoid it.

v3.c18.97

Hindi stems end only in long vowels—*â*, *î*, *û*, *e*, *o*. Some grammarians call those stems which end in a long vowel *open* roots, and those which end in a consonant *close* roots. This terminology has nothing to recommend it, and there is no advantage in retaining it. The tenses whose terminations begin with vowels are the aorist, future, imperative, and past participle.

v3.c18.98

Before terminations beginning with *û* or *o*, no attempt is made to soften the hiatus, but before *â* and *e* there is sometimes inserted a *य* or *व*. As types may be taken the stems *जा* "go,"

v3.c18.99

पी “drink,” कू “touch,” दे “give,” and बो “sow.” The aorist of these five is as follows:—

v3.c18.100

v3.c18.101

v3.c18.102

The common stems de and le usually suffer contraction by the elision of their final vowel, and one more commonly hears do “give!” lo “take!” dûngâ “I will give,” lûngâ “I will take,” than the full forms.

v3.c18.103

The future and imperative follow the same rule as the aorist. In the past participle of stems ending in â, य is inserted before the â of the termination, as आ “come,” p.p.p. आ-य-आ (आया), पा “find,” पाया, खा “eat,” खाया. But in the poets, especially in Tulsi Das, instead of व we find य commonly inserted. Thus, एहि बिधि राम सबहि समुझावा “In this way Ram explained to all” (Ay-k. 457). आवा “came,” बनावा “made,” पावा “found,” गावा “sang,” for आया, बनाया, पाया, गाया respectively. Kabir uses both forms indifferently. Thus in Ram. 48, i. पढ़ाया “caused to read,” पाया “found,” but in the next, Ram. 49, पावा and आवा. In the fem. sing., however, and in the pl. m. and f., the junction-letter व is not used, thus आई “she came,” बनाई “she made,” fem. sing., आये, पाये masc. pl. As all causals end in â, these forms are of frequent occurrence, and sometimes even an इ is inserted, as बनाइया. In the old ha future, the â of the stem and the initial i of the termination frequently coalesce into ऐ, as—

v3.c18.104

कछूक दिवस जननी धरु धोरा ॥
कपिन्ह सहित ऐहें रघुबीरा ॥
निशिचर मारि तुमहिं लै जैहें ॥
तिहुं पूर नारदादि जश गैहें ॥

v3.c18.105

“For a few days, mother, sustain thy courage,
Raghubîr will come with the monkeys,
Slaying the demons, will carry thee off;
The three worlds, Nârada and all shall sing his praise.”
—Tulsi, Râm., S.-k. 36.

v3.c18.106

where ऐहें = आइहें, जैहें = जाइहें, and गैहें = गाइहें; so also we find पैहें “they will find,” for पाइहें, mod. पाविंगे (Tulsi, Ram., S.-k. 10). In other places, however, we find the junction-letter व, as पावहि, आवहि, etc.

v3.c18.107

In Panjabi the junction-letter for the aorist, imperative, and future is regularly व, as जावे “he goes,” जावेगा “he will go,” but before o it is omitted, as जाओ “go ye,” जाओगे “ye will go.” For the past participle it is इ, as होइआ “been,” masc. sing., and is omitted before e, as होए “been,” masc. pl. In the three first-named tenses the व is regularly inserted in pure P., but in speaking it is now sometimes, under the influence of Hindi, omitted, and देगा is heard instead of the more characteristic देवेगा.

v3.c18.108

In Sindhi all verbal stems end in a vowel, those stems, which in other languages end in a consonant, having in that language a short a or i. In this class of stems, before the neuter infinitive in अणु, a व is inserted, as प “fall,” infin. पवणु; नि “bow,” infin. निवणु. Before the active infinitive in इणु no junction-letter is employed, as म “measure,” infin. मइणु.

v3.c18.109

Stems, whether active or neuter, ending in *i* and *û*, and sometimes those ending in *o*, shorten those vowels in the infinitive, as—

v3.c18.110

पी “drink,” infin. पिअणु पू “string,” „ पुअणु धो “wash,” „ धुअणु रो “weep,” „ रुअणु हो “be,” „ हुअणु

v3.c18.111

but, on the other hand, ढो “carry,” has infin. ढोअणु; and stems in *â*, including causals, retain the long vowel, as—

v3.c18.112

गाल्ह्हा “speak,” infin. गाल्ह्हाइणु फेरा “cause to turn,” „ फेराइणु.

v3.c18.113

The aorist follows generally the type of the infinitive, retaining the short vowel. In the persons व is inserted as in P., except before *û* or *o*; thus पवां “I fall,” is declined—

v3.c18.114

Sing. 1. पवां 2. पवें 3. पवे. Pl. 1. पऊं 2. पओ 3. पवनि.

v3.c18.115

The व may be dropped before 2 and 3 sing., as चए “thou sayest,” or “he says.” The common verb डिअणु “to give,” undergoes contraction in this, as in all the other languages; thus 2 sing. डीं “thou givest,” not डिएं, 3 pl. डीनि, not डिअनि.

v3.c18.116

Verbs ending in *â* insert य before *â*, *û*, and *o*, as बुढायां “I grow old,” बुढायूं “we grow old,” बुढायां “ye grow old.”

v3.c18.117

The imperative and other tenses follow the general rule, which may, for Sindhi, and, to a great extent, for the other languages also, be thus stated; the junction-letters are व and य, व is omitted before vowels of its own organ, as *u* and *o*, and य is omitted before *i* and *e*; before *â* both are employed, but preferentially व after short vowels, and य after long ones.

v3.c18.118

Thus, in the present participle, which is used as a future, व is either inserted or omitted, as—

v3.c18.119

पवणु “to fall,” पवंदो “falling.” पिचणु “to drink,” पिचंदो “drinking.” धुचणु “to wash,” धुचंदो “washing.”

v3.c18.120

Contraction also occurs, as चवणु “to speak,” चूंंदो (चवंदो) झंणु “to be,” झंदो (झझंदो) डिचणु “to give,” डीडो (डिचंदो). The past participle regularly ends in इओ or यो, and the inserted व is naturally dropped before it, thus—

v3.c18.121

चवणु makes चयो, not चव्यो. नवणु ,, नयो ,, नव्यो (Old-H. नाया).

v3.c18.122

If the stem ends in a palatal vowel or consonant, the *i* of the termination is dropped, as—

v3.c18.123

थिचणु “to become,” थिच्रो, not थीओ = थि + इओ. कुकणु “to speak,” कुक्ो. सोजणु “to inquire,” सोजो.

v3.c18.124

Passives naturally drop the euphonic व of the active infinitive before their palatal junction-vowel, as—

v3.c18.125

चवणु “speak,” imperfect चउ, Passive चइजणु “to be spoken.” पवणु “fall,” ,, पउ, ,, पइजणु “to be fallen.”

v3.c18.126

The stems quoted above, as shortening their radical long vowel before the termination of the infinitive active, naturally retain the long vowel in the passive, as—

v3.c18.127

पी “drink,” पीजणु “to be drunk.” पू “string,” पूजणु “to be strung.” धो “wash,” धोइजणु “be washed.”

v3.c18.128

There is very little to notice, in this respect, about G. The orthography of that language is still in so unfixed a state, that it is impossible to seize upon any principles as to junction-letters. One writer will insert them, while another omits them, or the same writer will insert them on one page and omit them on the next. Thus we find होए, होये, होअ, होय written indifferently, also कह्ये and कहए. Until the natives of that province make up their minds as to how their language ought to be spelt, it is impossible for foreigners to evolve any laws or rules on the subject.

v3.c18.129

§ 78. Marathi is slightly more sensitive to hiatus, and has a greater fondness for the य-sound than the other languages. There exists, consequently, in some persons of certain tenses, a system of Sandhi for Tadbhava words and forms, which differs in its general principles from that prevailing in Sanskrit. The grammar-writers, unfortunately, either omit entirely or only casually note these important combinations. The following remarks are offered as a contribution to the subject.¹

v3.c18.130

¹ For the illustrations to this section I have to thank Captain G. A. Jacob, Inspector of Schools, Punâ, who kindly furnished me with details which are wanting from most of the grammars.

v3.c18.131

The tenses of the M. verb, whose terminations begin with a vowel, are the aorist, imperative, future, and subjunctive, also the participles present and past, the conjunctive and infinitive. These are for the neuter verb; in the active verb the इ, which is inserted between the stem and termination, causes a collision of two vowels in the other tenses also. Verbal stems ending in all the vowels except a have here to be considered (khâ “eat,” pî “drink,” ghe “take”).

v3.c18.132

Aorist, (in modern usage past habitual)—

v3.c18.133

| | SINGULAR. | | | PLURAL. | |
| 1. खाइं | 2. खाईस | 3. खाई. | 1. खाऊं | 2. खा | 3. खात. |
| 1. पीइं | 2. पीईस | 3. पीई. | 1. पीऊं | 2. प्या | 3. पीत. |
| 1. घेइं | 2. घेईस | 3. घेई. | 1. घेऊं | 2. घ्या | 3. घेत. |

v3.c18.134

But in the 3 sing. घे, पी are used, so also देस, घेस in 2 sing., and in the 3 pl. the final ई is elided. In 2 sing. both ई and उ are changed to the palatal semivowel before á, though not before û, so that we have प्या, घ्या side by side with पीऊं (not प्यूं), घेऊं (not घ्यूं).

v3.c18.135

In the future there is similarly in 2 pl. खाल, प्याल, घ्याल, and so also in the imperative 2 pl. घ्या, प्या; ये “come,” makes aorist 2 pl. या, future याल, and occasionally one hears ये aorist 3 sing. for the more regular येई.

v3.c18.136

In the subjunctive the semivowel occurs again, as प्यावा, घ्यावा, but यावा simply from ये. This last verb should, by analogy, form व्यावा, but the double *y* in such a position would be unpronounceable, and a single *y* is therefore exhibited. It must not be supposed that the *e* of ये has simply been dropped.

v3.c18.137

For the potential the termination of the present वतें might have been expected to be simply added to the verbal stem, as no hiatus would thus be caused. But the origin of this form from the Skr. part. in तव्य renders this course impossible. The त of तव्य having suffered elision, there naturally results an hiatus. Thus from खादितव्यं, Pr. खाइअब्बं gives खावव, the first व supplying the place of the lost द्, so that in the potential we get not खावतें, but खाववतें. Similarly पीववतें, घेववतें, येववतें, and even in stems ending in ह, as लिह “write,” लिहववतें.

v3.c18.138

Stems ending in *u* preserve the hiatus almost throughout, thus *dhu* “wash”—

v3.c18.139

Aor. धुईं, धुईस, धुई; धुऊं, धुत्रा (but धुत). Fut. धुईन, धुईल, धुऊं; धुत्राल, धुतील. Subj. धुत्रावा or धुवावा. Pot. धुववतें.

v3.c18.140

In the present participle only त is added, not ईत or अत, as खात, पीत, घेत, येत, धुत, and in the past participle the semivowel is generally used, as—

v3.c18.141

खा p.p. खाल्ला “eaten.” ले ,, व्याला “put on.” भी ,, भ्याला “feared.” वि ,, व्याला “brought forth.” पी ,, प्याला or पिल्ला “drunk.”

v3.c18.142

Some stems avoid the hiatus by insertion of त, as घेतला, धुतला (see § 47), which is also used in some stems ending with a consonant.

v3.c18.143

The conjunctive is खाऊन, पिऊन, घेऊन, येऊन. These are all the forms in which an initial vowel of a termination comes in contact with a final stem-vowel, and it will be observed that the change of the latter into a semivowel occurs generally before a or â, but not before i or û. When the stem-vowel is u or o, the semivowel is added, not substituted for, the vowel, as in धुवावा, not धावा. From this and other instances in word-building, and in the formation of the case of the noun, it would appear that the labial and palatal vowels are more permanent and less liable to change in Marathi than the guttural vowel.

v3.c18.144

It is somewhat difficult to follow the author of the Portuguese grammar of the Konkani dialect, in consequence of the peculiarity of the system of transliteration which he uses, and only half explains, but there would appear to be several forms peculiar to that dialect. Thus he tells us that ये makes its past part. yelo or ailo, which latter he calls “marattismo,” as if all Konkani were not Marathi. घे makes gheilo (perhaps घेइला), as well as ghetlo (घेतला). Qhatâ (खा) makes qhelo (खेला) “outros dizem qhailo” (खाइला), he adds, “ambos irregulares,” though the latter, from a Marathi point of view, would be more normal than the actually used खाइला. Perhaps the author would call it a “marattismo.” Generally speaking, it would appear from the specimens of Konkani given by Burnell,¹ that the termination of the p.p. consists of लो, ली, लें, etc., added to the stem without an intermediate vowel, as बसलो “sat” (M. बसला), पडलें “fell” (M. पडला), रावली “remained” (M. राहिली), and the like.

v3.c18.145

¹ Specimens of South Indian Dialects (Mangalore, 1872).

v3.c18.146

The differences between Konkani and Marathi do not, I think, entitle the former to be considered a distinct member of the Aryan group, but rather a dialect of the latter, which has been subjected very largely to Dravidian influences. Parallel to it, on the opposite coast of India, is the Oriya spoken in Ganjam and Vizagapatam, which, though radically Oriya, has, nevertheless, been much Dravidianized by the influence of the Telugu which surrounds it. Both Ganjam Oriya and Konkani Marathi show traces of this influence not only in pronunciation, but even in structure. There is much to be said on this subject, were this the proper place for it, and, from the known results in languages under our own eyes of Dravidian influences on Aryan speech, we might base considerations as to the probable extent and nature of those influences in former times. The subject would require a whole treatise to itself.

v3.c18.147

§ 79. In Bangali no attempt is made to avoid hiatus, the verbs ending in vowels simply add the terminations without any change. Thus या "go" (pronounced já), makes—

v3.c18.148

| | SINGULAR. | | PLURAL. | | |
| Aor. | 1. याइ | 2. याइस | 3. याय. | 1. याइ | 2. याओ | 3. यान. |

v3.c18.149

Present याइतेछि, subjunctive याइताम, and so on.

v3.c18.150

Contraction, however, takes place in the 3 pl. of the aorist, as in यान for याएन, हन (hŏnŏ) for होएन, and in the familiar verb दे "give," almost throughout; thus we have—

v3.c18.151

| | SINGULAR. | | PLURAL. | | |
| Aor. | 1. दि | 2. दिस | 3. देय. | 1. दि | 2. देओ | 3. देन |
| Pres. | 1. दितेछि, etc. | | | | |
| Pret. | 1. दिनु | 2. दिलिस | 3. दिल. | 1. दिलाम | 2. दिले | 3. दिलेन |
| Fut. | 1. दिब | 2. दिबि | 3. दिबे. | 1. दिब | 2. दिवाबे | 3. दिबेन, |

v3.c18.152

contracted from देइ, देइतेछि, देइनु, देइब, etc., respectively. As a rule, however, though in ordinary speech many of the forms of stems in vowels are very much contracted, yet in writing the full forms are always used. It is only in a few very familiar words that the contractions are admitted into the written style of the present day. The old poets, however, writing more freely and naturally, employ them frequently. Thus Bhârat Chandra, मजुन्दारि संगे निला घोडा चडाइया “He took Majumdâr along with him, having mounted him on a horse” (Mansingh, 417), where निला is for लइला, from लइते “to take.” So he constantly uses कय for कहे “says,” as कोटाल हासिया कय। कहिते लाज ना हय। “The Kotwal laughing, says, Are you not ashamed to say so?” (Bidyâ-S. 356), also कब for कहिब, as हाय हाय कि कब बिधिरे “Alas! alas! what shall I say to fate?” (ib. 360), and दिन for देन aorist 3 sing., as आगे दिया कतदुख मध्ये दिन कतसुख “First having given how much pain, they give in between how much pleasure” (ib. 359).

v3.c18.153

The contractions admitted in Oriya are similar to those in Bangali, but the language does not avoid the hiatus in any way; and in both O. and B. the terminations are almost universally preceded by short *i*, which does not combine with the preceding vowel, but in pronunciation often disappears altogether. Thus they say, O. खाबु “wilt thou eat?” for खाइबु. In a few words the vowel of the root has gone out, thus from जा “go,” we have जिबि “I will go,” for जाइबि; from था “remain,” infin. थिबा for थाइबा; पा “find,” however, retains its vowel, as पाइलि, पाइबि, पाइबा. Also जा and था retain their vowels everywhere except in the preterite, future, and infinitive.

Linked texts (5)

Aṣṭādhyāyī — Pāṇini, Sanskrit
Rāmacaritamānasa — Tulsīdās 1574, Hindi
Pṛthvīrāj Rāso — Cand Bardāī, Hindi
Bījak — Kabīr 1550, Hindi
Bhaktamāl — Nābhādās alias Nārāyaṇ Dās 1575, Hindi