A Comparative Grammar of the Modern Aryan Languages of India v3.c18.46

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.