A Comparative Grammar of the Modern Aryan Languages of India v3.c19.33

v3.c19.33

But the affixes mat and vat imply possession, and thus naturally pass over into the idea of manner. It seems that we have in the modern group this affix added to the ordinary range of pronominal types, and thus a formation of a later kind, rather than a direct derivation from the Skr. Kellogg’s suggestion of a derivation from a Skr. series in tha, of which only ittham and katham are extant in the classical writings, fails to account for the Old-Purbi and G. forms, as well as for those in B. and O. Also the S. form इँअ seems to be more naturally referred to an earlier emana, through eṇan, than to ittham, unless, indeed, we regard the anuswâra as inserted to fill the hiatus left by elision of tth. S. does, undoubtedly, insert anuswâra to fill a hiatus; but as the cognate languages have a म just where the anuswâra in S. occurs, it is more natural to regard the one as a weakening of the other, and the final anuswâra in H. and P. as the same, pushed one syllable forwards, so that H. ज्यों would be for an older form जिंअ. As the change, whatever it was, was completed before our earliest writer Chand's days, there is no actual proof forthcoming.