Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Wilson Philological Lectures on Sanskrit and the Derived Languages c6: Lecture I. General Laws guiding the Development of Language; the different Stages in the Development of Sanskrit

Wilson Philological Lectures on Sanskrit and the Derived Languages c6

Language
English

Contents

Lecture I. General Laws guiding the Development of Language; the different Stages in the Development of Sanskrit

c6.2

THE occasion that brings us here together to-day is the first of its kind in the history of this University. Hitherto the University of Bombay has been merely an Examining Board. But this day witnesses the beginning of an attempt to discharge another and a more important function of such an institution. The main idea of a University is that it is a body of men devoted to learning, and engaged in acquiring knowledge and disseminating it. A country that has no such bodies of men occupies but a low position in the intellectual scale of the world, and contributes little to the general advancement of mankind in knowledge. But a devotion to learning implies sacrifice of worldly interests, and the poverty of learned men has become proverbial. To enable persons, therefore, to apply themselves to the pursuit of knowledge with undivided attention, there exist in connection with such institutions certain appointments tenable for life called professorships or fellowships, endowed by the enlightened liberality of private individuals or of the goverment of the country.

c6.3

India and the Bombay University are no exception to the general rule. In other times learning flourished in the country under the fostering care of its innumerable princes and chiefs, as well as rich merchants. Though in the words of the poet, Śrî and Sarasvatî are, in a sense, constantly hostile to each other, it is Śrî alone at all times and in all countries that can support Sarasvatî, and enable her to live and grow. Hence it is impossible that the Bombay University should rise to the dignity of a seat of learning without such a provision as is found necessary in more advanced countries. India cannot take her place among the intellectual nations of the West, and compete with them in the advancement of knowledge unless her Universities discharge their proper function, unless we have professorships in connection with them for the cultivation of science, philosophy, history and philology.

c6.4

But we may be told that an Indian does not care for knowledge for its own sake, and it is only as a means of worldly advancement that he enters the University at all, and, as soon as he takes his degree, flings away his books, and no more troubles himself with the several branches of knowledge to which he was introduced while within the walls of his college. The reproach is true, as well as untrue. It is true if it is meant that since the first school or college was opened by our Government we have had very few or none among us who have devoted themselves to the pursuit of knowledge. But if what it is intended to assert is that a love of knowledge or learning and an unselfish devotion to it are foreign to the nature of a Hindu, it is altogether untrue. Those ponderous tomes which adorn the library of the Sanskrit student and those innumerable *pustakas* in the Sarasvatî Bhâṇḍâras scattered throughout the country tell a different tale. But in this, as in other matters, the circumstances in which our virtues have grown up and are exercised are not the circumstances in which we are expected to display them, and fail to do so. Love of learning is ingrained in the very nature of the Hindu, but the legitimate object of this feeling is Sanskrit literature. A knowledge of English and of English literature and philosophy is, in the first instance, sought for only for its practical benefits. A Hindu would not send his son to an English School if he could help it. A very powerful motive for the pursuit of learning, the respect of the society in which one lives, is also wanting in the case of the so-called educated Indian. A Shâstrî or Pandit is esteemed and treated with respect and consideration by his countrymen; the English-knowing Indian may be feared if he holds some Government appointment, but if none, he enjoys no consideration. The very word *vidvân* or ‘learned’ is grudged him by the orthodox Hindu. In one branch of learning, however, *viz.* Sanskrit, an English-knowing Indian may meet with appreciation and esteem at the hands of the learned in Europe. That is a subject in which he may successfully compete with his European brother, and in which he has peculiar advantages which the latter does not possess. Among his own countrymen he will find sympathy only if he has studied Sanskrit exactly in the old way, but even in this case his heterodoxy, which is the result of his English education, would stand in the way. But there are indications that a more sympathising and appreciating body of men is growing about us, and the circle will go on widening as education advances. In this, as in other matters, there are hopes that our countrymen will, in the course of time, chiefly through the agency of Government education, adapt themselves to their altered circumstances; and the Hindu’s inherent love of learning will gradually extend and engraft itself on the branches of knowledge to which he has been newly introduced by the European.

c6.5

But encouragement and support are essentially needed; and, taught by our ancient tradition, we naturally look up for these, in the first instance, to our Government. Hitherto it has confined its endeavours to the education of its subjects, a thing which was never before done by any Indian prince, and for which it has the strongest claims on the gratitude of the Indians. But what Indian princes have all along done, viz., the extension of support and patronage to men of learning, and thus enabling them to prosecute their studies, has not yet attracted the attention of our Government, probably because they thought the time had not come for it. Next, it is the duty of those of our countrymen, who enjoy princely fortunes, to encourage the growth and advancement of learning among their countrymen. Now the best and most effectual way, in which learning can thus be encouraged and patronized by all who have the means, is by founding University professorships to be held for life. A beginning, however, has been made, and for it we are indebted to the friends of the late Rev. Dr. Wilson, and to the good old Doctor himself. For, when his friends raised up the sum and expressed to him their intention to present it to him, he declined to receive it unconditionally, and, contenting himself with only a life interest in it, proposed that they should hand it over to the University, and found a philological lectureship. It is in virtue of the advice he thus gave that we meet here to-day. I only regret that the Syndicate was not able to secure the services of an abler man, and that the duty of inaugurating the Wilson Lectureship, and, I may say, the new phase on which the University is entering, has devolved on me.

c6.6

The subject on which the lectures are to be delivered this year is the Sanskrit, and the Prâkrit languages derived from it. Sanskrit is the language of the religion, law, philosophy, and poetry of the Hindus; and all their ancient and most revered books on these subjects are written in that language. Even at the present day the language we use in our daily prayers and in the performance of our various religious rites is Sanskrit; learned men carry on their disputations in Sanskrit, and now and then we meet with new poems written in that language. Prâkrit is a general name given to certain dialects in which we find some old books written; and in ordinary Hindu usage the term is extended to the vernaculars we speak. Marâthî, Gujarâtî, and the various other idioms spoken in Northern India are Prâkrits. The wording of the subject as laid down in the calendar implies that Sanskrit is the more primitive of these, and that the Prâkrits are derived from it. Our business, therefore, is to trace the history of Sanskrit, to observe how from the very earliest form in which it is presented to us in the existing literature of the language, it gradually developed or was corrupted into the modern vernaculars. The Sanskrit which we know of as such is not now the spoken language of any part of India or of the world. It is simply preserved in books, and is used by the learned. But if the Marâthî, Gujarâtî, and the rest show unmistakable signs of having been derived from this language, it must have been at one time spoken generally by our ancestors; and in being handed down from generation to generation it has undergone various modifications and changes, until we have now come to speak it as we do. But of this more hereafter.

c6.7

India may justly claim to be the original home of scientific philology. In one of the most ancient Sanskrit books, the Saṃhitâ of the Black Yajurveda, there are distinct indications of the dawn of linguistic study.¹ The Brâhmaṇas of the Vedas, which rank next to the Saṃhitâs, and even the Taittirîya Saṃhitâ itself, the composition of which differs in no particular from its Brâhmaṇa, are full of etymological explanations of words, though often they are fanciful.² One Âchârya followed another, and they all carefully observed the facts of their language, and laid down the laws they could discover. They studied and compared the significations and forms of words, observed what was common to them, separated the constant element from that which was variable, noticed the several changes that words undergo in different circumstances, and by such a process of philological analysis completed a system of grammar and etymology. In the Nirukta, Yâska, whose exact date we do not know, but who must have flourished several centuries before Christ, lays down correct principles of the derivation of words. The last of the grammarian Âchâryas were Pâṇini, Kâtyâyana, and Patañjali. The Prâkṛit dialects which sprang from Sanskrit were next made the subject of observation and analysis. The laws of phonetic change or decay in accordance with which Sanskrit words become Prâkṛit were discovered and laid down. The Sanskrit and non-Sanskrit elements in those languages were distinguished from each other. This branch of philology also was worked up by a number of men, though the writings of one or two only have come down to us.

c6.8

¹ वाग्वै पराच्यव्याकृतादत्ते देवा इन्द्रमब्रुवन्निमां नो वाचं व्याकुर्विति सोऽब्रवीद्वरं वृणै मह्यं चैवैष वायवे च सह गृह्याता इति तस्मादैन्द्रवायवः सह गृह्यते तामिन्द्रो मध्यतोऽवक्रम्य व्याकरोत्तस्मादियं व्याकृता वागुद्यते. Speech was once inarticulate and undistinguished ( into its parts ). Then the gods said to Indra, ‘Distinguish our speech into parts.’ He said, ‘I will ask a gift of you, let Soma be poured into one cup for me and Vâyu together.’ Hence Soma is poured into one cup for Indra and Vâyu together. Then Indra going into its midst distinguished it. Hence distinct speech is now spoken. Tait. Samh., VI. 4, 7.

c6.9

² The Ait. Brâhm. gives the etymology of प्रेष (III. 9), of मातृष (III. 23), of जाया (VII. 13); the Tait. Samh., of रुद्र (I. 5. 1), of वृत्र (II. 4, 1, and II. 5, 2); the Tait. Brâhm., of अश्व (I. 1, 5), of नक्षत्र (II. 7, 18), &c., &c.

c6.10.1

In this condition Sanskrit philology passed into the hands of Europeans. The discovery of Sanskrit and the Indian grammatical system at the close of the last* century led to a total revolution in the philological ideas of Europeans. Before this time there was hardly a scientific treatment of linguistic facts, etymological analysis was scarcely known, and philological speculation had not emancipated itself from the trammels of religion. The Jews were the chosen people of God, and hence their language, the Hebrew, was the most original of all languages, and all others were derived from it. This was the belief of European scholars, as that of the orthodox Pandit at the present day is that Sanskrit is the primitive language, and all others are corruptions of it; though, however, the Pandit has an excuse in the fact that the languages he generally hears spoken about him have really sprung from Sanskrit. But several circumstances had about this time prepared Europe for independent thought in philology, and Sanskrit supplied the principles upon which it should be conducted and determined the current in which it should run. The languages of Europe, ancient and modern, were compared with Sanskrit and with each other.

c6.10.2

This led to comparative philology and the classification of languages, and a comparison of the words and forms in the different languages led scholars into the secrets of the growth of human speech, and the science of language was added to the list of existing branches of knowledge. The progress made within about fifty years is marvellous, and affords a striking instance of the intellectual activity of the Europeans. In the cultivation of philology and the elaboration of this new science the Germans, of all other nations, have been most prominent, and have done by far the greater portion of the work. The more limited field of Prâkṛit philology with which we are here concerned has not been left uncultivated. Pâli, the earliest of the Prâkṛit dialects, is almost as much studied in Europe as Sanskrit. We have editions of Pâli texts by Turnour, a Ceylon Civilian, and a Danish scholar, Fausböll; and of a Native Grammar by Kachchâyana, by M. Senart, a Frenchman; an original treatise on this subject by Clough, and a very useful Dictionary by the late lamented Professor Childers.³ The derivation of the language from Sanskrit forms the subject of an essay by the great French scholar, M. Burnouf, and the equally great German scholar, Professor Lassen. There are notices of the Prâkṛit dialects in one of Colebrooke’s essays and in the preface to Professor Wilson’s Hindu Theatre.

c6.10.3

Lassen also wrote a book entitled Institutiones Linguæ Pracraticæ, based upon the grammatical works of native writers, and upon the Prâkṛit passages occurring in the Sanskrit dramatic plays. Professor Weber, whose industry and comprehensive grasp are admirable, has published an elaborate analysis of the language and contents of a Jaina religious work in Prâkṛit entitled the Bhagavatī, and of the language of a collection of Prâkṛit songs by Hâla, together with an edition and translation of the work. Dr. Cowell has brought out a nice edition of the Prâkṛita-Prakâs’a by Vararuchi; and Dr. Muir, whose works are so valuable to the student, devotes a large portion of his second volume of the “Sanskrit Texts” to Prâkṛit philology, in which he gives his own views and a summary of those of other scholars. In Ceylon, Mr. D’Alwis has published a work on the Pâli, and in India an edition of the Prâkṛit Grammar of Kramadîs’vara has been published in the Bibliotheca Indica, and of that of Hemachandra in Bombay by a Jaina priest with the assistance of a Sâstrî⁴. The modern vernaculars have not yet succeeded in attracting the attention of the learned in Europe. Essays on some points of vernacular philology by Professor Hoernle, of Jayanarayan’s College, Benares, have appeared in the Journal of the Bengal Asiatic Society. But the most important work on this subject that has yet appeared is Mr. Beames’s Comparative Grammar of the Modern Aryan Languages.

c6.10.4

Two volumes have been published, and the third and last is expected.⁵ Mr. Beames has brought his subject down to the pronoun; and the forthcoming volume will treat of the verb. Dr. Trump in his valuable Grammar of the Sindhî language compares the grammatical forms existing in the several vernaculars, and recent grammarians of Gujarâtî and Marâthî have made attempts in some cases to trace the grammar of these languages from the Sanskrit through the Prâkrit. A Gujarâtî Sâstrî, named Vrajalâl, has written a useful little tract on the history of his vernacular.⁶ But upon the whole, it must be acknowledged that vernacular philology is still in a state of infancy, and a great deal of what has been written is unsatisfactory.

c6.11

∗ 18th.

c6.12

³ This lecture was written in 1877 and revised in 1878. It will be necessary for the reader to remember this in going over this short sketch. Many and valuable additions to Pâli publications have been made since then, especially by the Pâli Text Society.

c6.13

⁴ Since this was written Dr. Pischel’s edition of Hemachandra’s Prakrit Grammar and his elaborate contribution to the Grundriss der Arischen Philologie have been published, besides several other minor works.

c6.14

⁵ Since published.

c6.15

⁶ Hoernle's Comparative Grammar of the Gaudian Languages, Kellogg's Hindi Grammar, Grierson's Linguistic Survey of India have, among others, been published since then.

c6.16

Before I proceed to the subject in hand, it is necessary that I should trace some of the laws of the development and growth of language, as I shall have occasion to refer to them frequently in the course of these lectures. Suppose a person wishes to express the idea *in a village*, and the only means at his command are the roots and independent words in a language such as the Sanskrit. Now the word which expresses a village is ग्राम, and another which signifies the interior is मध्य. By joining the two together in such an expression as ग्राममध्य he conveys the idea the interior of, or in, a village. Now this word मध्य is pronounced मझ or मह by persons who have either not been taught to pronounce it properly or are not sufficiently careful to do so. This again is reduced to माझ or माथ and thence to माह or मह, and ultimately to मा or मे. In this manner ग्राममध्य becomes गाममा or गाममे, which, as you know, are the forms of the Gujarâtî, Sindhî, and Hindî locative. In this condition its origin is forgotten by the speakers, and becomes simply a termination signifying *in the interior*. Again, if a man wants to speak of one who makes a pot and has not got a word to express the idea, he naturally puts together the words कुम्भ pot and कार maker, and uses the compound कुम्भकार. After a time, by faulty pronunciation, the क् goes out and the word is reduced to कुम्हार. In the same way, as before, the persons who use the word कुम्हार have no consciousness that they are putting together two words, one of which means a pot and the other maker; but the syllable आर becomes with them a simple termination which signifies the doer of the thing expressed by the base. We thus see that these two very general terminations were originally independent words, and that in the course of time they lost that character. If you examine those forms which constitute the declensions and conjugations of any language you may happen to know you will find that these also have originated in the same way. When, our remote ancestors wished to say *I now do*, they put together क् do, न् now, and मि I, and said कृणमि, afterwards changed for the sake of euphony to कृणोमि. In the same way कृणोति means do now he कृणुतः do now he (and) thou, स being a corruption of स a pronoun signifying thou, and कृणोषि do now thou. Or they expressed present time by using a pronoun equivalent to here or this and said बोधति know here he, the अ being the same as that we find in the forms अनेन, अस्मै, अस्मात्, &c. and signifying something that is near. In this manner we are able to trace the original signification of a good many of these forms, but since after their invention, they are more or less corrupted, it becomes a difficult matter to do so in all cases. Still, we know enough to be able to lay it down as certain that this is the mode in which all our grammatical forms have originated. When a language is in that condition in which grammatical relation is expressed by such compounds consciously formed, and both parts of the compound can be used independently, it is said to be in the analytic stage. The change of मध्य to मा or मे, or of कार to आर, or of तसि to तस् or तः: is what is called phonetic decay. Though this is usually spoken of in censure as corruption, it is the means by which a language leaves the analytic stage and develops. The words forming the compound grow together, both being altered in the process, and the original sense of the latter is forgotten. It is this circumstance that renders phonetic change possible, for, if those who speak the language always used the two words in the compound with a conscious desire to express their joint sense, such a corruption would not take place. Phonetic decay reduces the latter portion to a mere termination, and thus a language arrives at what is called the synthetic stage. All the dead Aryan languages, and most of the living ones also, are in the synthetic condition, while the Chinese is said to be in the analytic stage.

c6.17.1

Phonetic decay or corruption is a process that is constantly going on in a living language. At some stages of its history it is very rapid and at others slow. It sometimes wholly transforms words. Its causes are deeply ingrained in human nature itself. Language is not the end and aim of human life; it is simply an instrument of communicating thought, and the matter of thought is always more important than the expression. The utterance of a word implies an effort. We have to force the breath through the windpipe, check or compress it at different points in its passage through the mouth, and then let it off. The glottis or the opening of the windpipe, and the tongue and the various parts of the mouth are our organs of speech, and an innumerable variety of sounds may be produced by their means. In pronouncing certain letters the glottis must be stretched or expanded, while in the case of others it is contracted, which is its more natural condition. The breath which comes out when it is expanded is called *s'vâsa* or simple unintonated breath by the old Indian Philologists, but when the glottis is contracted and the breath is intonated by the vibration of the vocal chords, it becomes what is called *nâda*, *i. e.*, tone or intonated breath. Simple breath is the material cause of the hard consonants, and the intonated breath of the soft, and of the vowels.

c6.17.2

When *nâda* is forced out and allowed to pass away without being obstructed we pronounce vowels, and when both *s'vâsa* and *nâda* are obstructed at different parts of the mouth, the sounds that are formed are consonantal. Hence a consonant cannot be pronounced by itself; it is only when the touching organs are separated and the air allowed to pass through any one of the vowel positions, that the sound is produced. When the intonated breath is let off through the rounded lips, it forms उ, and with the lower lip a little further off, ओ; while if the lips completely touch each other, and the breath is thus obstructed in its passage, we have प which, with a greater force of respiration becomes फ, and when it is partly sent into the nose, it assumes the form of म. If the *s'vâsa* is in the same condition as *nâda* when it forms प and फ we have प and फ. When these two kinds of breath are shut up by the tip of the tongue forming a complete contact with the root of the upper teeth, we have त, थ, द, ध, and न. When the contact is effected higher up and the forepart of the tongue is made into a curve, we have ट, ठ, ड, ढ, and ण. If the middle of the tongue is brought near the palate, *nâda* passing through the intervening space forms the vowel इ; and when the tongue is a little further off and the mouth more open, we have ए; while if there is complete contact, the two kinds of breath give us च, छ, ज, झ, and ञ as before.

c6.17.3

When the root of the tongue touches the lower skirt of the palate, we have similarly क, ख, ग, घ, and ङ. If the intonated breath is allowed to pass away when the mouth is in its natural position with the lips open we have the vowel अ, and with greater force of breath, the aspirate ह. The vowel portion of ऋ and ऌ differs from अ in the whole lower part of the mouth being brought closer to the upper in pronouncing it, while in pronouncing आ the two parts of the mouth are more widely apart; so that the vowel sound involved in ऋ is the closest, आ, the most open. The diphthongs ऐ and औ are अ+इ and अ+उ pronounced hastily. In pronouncing the semi-vowels the organs are brought very close to each other, but do not form a complete contact; so that the breath is compressed and not shut up. Still, like the mutes, they cannot be pronounced without separating the organs. We pronounce व when we bring the two lips and the ends of the upper teeth into close proximity, and it thus corresponds to the vowel उ; for य the position is the same as that for इ, the proximity only being greater; while ल is formed a little above the dental position by emitting the breath by the sides of the tip of the tongue, and र a little below the cerebral.

c6.17.4

The sibilants श, ष, and स are continuous sounds made by letting off the śvāsa or simple breath with the same force as in the case of the hard aspirates and through the space between the middle of the tongue and the palatal, cerebral, and dental or dento-palatal positions brought as near to each other as in pronouncing vowels.

c6.18

You will thus see how minute and laborious these operations are. The difficulty is increased when we have to pronounce two or more consonants together. We have first to put the organs of speech into one position, and immediately afterwards into another, without leaving the first. Accurate pronunciation therefore requires great effort, and since, according to an observation of Locke, labour for labour's sake is against nature, the tendency always exists of making as little effort as is consistent with the necessity of making oneself understood. Hence सुह is transformed to सुह i. e. only the quantity of breath necessary to pronounce व is let off, and the effort of forming a complete and close contact is saved; कदलकम् become कअलअम्, and thence केळं and केळें, where also you will see that the contact is avoided; अप् becomes अप्, in which case we find that the effort involved in the change from one position of the vocal organs to another is economized, though the pressure which the organs exert upon each other in the pronunciation of a conjunct continues the same, i. e. we have a conjunct as before, but the two members are assimilated. This is further changed to आप in which the pressure is avoided, but the shortening of the time which this would involve is obviated by lengthening the preceding vowel. This tendency to phonetic decay is so powerful that if not counteracted it would in the short space of a few generations render a language entirely unintelligible to its former speakers. Children, in their first essays at speech, often mispronounce words, and if they were left to themselves, the language of a country would undergo very great transformation in a short time. But at home and in schools they are taught to speak the language of their parents correctly, and this result is averted. Education, therefore, is an agency which arrests the progress of decay. Another check is afforded by the necessity of making oneself intelligible. If a man is careless about his language he will not be understood. He has therefore necessarily to endeavour to speak as other people do. The feeling of society is also arrayed against the corruption of a language. The speech which does not approach the received standard is branded as vulgar. The tendency to corruption is greatly diminished when a language comes to have a literature. Some races are very careful about their speech, and preserve it in a comparatively pure condition; there are others which corrupt it greatly. But even in the case of the former, accidents in its history may transform the idiom considerably. If one race comes in contact with another, and gives it its language, it is sure to be greatly corrupted. The alien race cannot catch the pronunciation properly, or its vocal organs may be naturally so constituted or its previous vocal habits may be of such a nature as to render the sounds of the language difficult or impossible to be imitated. If there were no schools and colleges for teaching English to us, we should corrupt the language of our rulers so greatly as to render ourselves perfectly unintelligible to them. The native sentry's challenge हुकुम डर for "who comes there" would be a puzzle to the scientific philologist.

c6.19

The grammatical terminations which are oftener used than any particular words suffer the most by this process of decay, and after a time they are confused with each other or dropped away. When a language is reduced to this condition, it has to fall back upon the expedient with which it started, and tack on certain words or particles to its nouns and verbs to express the relations which the old terminations denoted, and thus the analytic state returns. But the old process goes on again, and these words in their turn assume the character of terminations. Sometimes along with a case-form there exists in the language another expression conveying the same sense. When the former goes out of use the latter takes its place, or sometimes the latter drives out the former. The modern vernaculars have had to resort to this process of reconstruction in a great measure, and, as in the older languages, it has already become difficult in several cases to trace the origin of the forms. For instance, in Sanskrit the termination which expresses future time is स्य, and when it is applied to the root दा to give, we have दास्यति he will give. This स्य is very likely a compound of the root अस् to be and या to go, so that the contrivance the early Aryans had recourse to to express futurity, was to attach to a root two others expressive of going to be; दास्यति therefore originally meant he goes to be giving, i. e. he does not give, but will give since he goes to do it. Now this दास्यति in the derived dialects becomes first दास्सति, then दास्सदि, दास्सइ, दासइ, दाहइ, दाइ and दे in order. Phonetic corruption has thus reduced this form to दाइ or दे, and that for the present tense I give has also assumed the same appearance. There is thus no distinction between them; wherefore to express future time our languages have had recourse to a variety of expedients which I shall endeavour to explain in their proper place. The Hindî, however, has hit upon the same that was used by our early ancestors, and distinguished futurity by adding to this shrunken form the past participle of गम् to go, which is गआ, changed to गा by combining the vowels, and thus देगा the form of the future, signifies literally, gone that he (may) give.

c6.20

Another phenomenon constantly observable in the history of the growth of a language is the use of false analogies. Thus in Sanskrit the root श्रु to hear takes the augment श् in the Present and three other tenses or moods, and the Sanskrit of he hears is शृणोति. Now in the course of time people forgot that this termination was used in these tenses alone, and extended it to the Future, the past participle, and other derivatives, so that in the Pâli and the Prâkrits the root itself became सुण=शृण instead of श्रु. This root has descended to most of the modern dialects in this same form. In the same way क्री to buy became किण, ज्ञा to know, जाण, बुध् to know, बुज्झ and so on. All these exist in the vernaculars so augmented. In the same way, though कृ is conjugated in Sanskrit by adding उ to the base according to the rule of the eighth conjugation, and forms करोति, कुर्वन्ति &c., in Prâkrit it is conjugated according to the rule of the first or the tenth which are generalised, and has करइ or करेइ. This arises from the same sort of mistake that children commit, when, for instance, from the analogy of धरलेँ from धर, पडलेँ from पड &c., they use करलेँ from कर, though the correct Marâthî form is केलेँ and you may remember such expressions as "I knowed" and "you was" that Dickens puts into the mouth of his lower characters. The Pâli and the Prâkrits are full of such formations. This law may be called the law of false analogies or of the generalisation of grammatical forms, or formal generalisation, and the effect of it is to do away with anomalies and introduce simplicity in a language. It springs from the same causes as phonetic decay, viz. the economization of effort, and its operation is restricted also by the same causes as those which arrest the progress of phonetic corruption.

c6.21.1

Hitherto we have been considering the growth or decay of the grammar of a language. But the names of objects constitute a very important part of human speech. These are not arbitrary or simply conventional. The possibility of mere conventional names can exist only under a supposition of men meeting and agreeing that they should call such a thing by such a name. But this implies a condition of high social and political development, which in an early state of society does not exist, and, in the absence of language, cannot exist. The process is very artificial, and would hardly be worthy of the intellectual nature of man; and though even in a high state of civilisation a language grows, and new names spring up, this is not the way in which they do so. The names of objects are always expressive of some attribute possessed by those objects. पृथ्वी the earth is that which is broad, भानु the sun, that which shines, उदन्वत् the sea, that which has water, पितृ father, one who protects, दुहितृ daughter, one who milks cows. But you will see that these names are not logical definitions, for they have the defect of ativyâpti, i. e. are too wide. It is not the earth alone that is broad, nor the sun alone that shines, nor the sea alone that has water. But still these things possess these attributes pre-eminently, and hence the terms become restricted to them. What is general is thus rendered particular, and the sense of words is, so to say, specialized.

c6.21.2

This process goes on continually in a living language, not only in the invention of new names, but often it works in a manner to narrow the sense of existing words. Thus, वेदना etymologically signifies ‘a feeling,’ ‘a sensation,’ thence it is restricted in Sanskrit to a particular sensation, that of severe pain; but the pre-eminent pain is that experienced in child birth, hence वेणु the Prâkritised form of the word signifies in Marâthî that special pain. So, गर्भिणी in Sanskrit denotes ‘a female that is pregnant,’ but गाभण the Marâthî form of the word is restricted to lower animals; ताप in Sanskrit means ‘heat’ generally, but in Marâthî, and in Gujarâtî in the form of ताव, it signifies a particular kind of heat, viz. ‘fever’ though the word has not lost its general sense; हृदय denotes originally ‘the heart,’ in modern Marâthî in the form of हिय्या it signifies ‘courage,’ which is a quality of the heart, though in old Marâthi it preserves its original sense; पिण्ड in Sanskrit means ‘a ball’ generally, but in Panjâbî and Gujarâtî in the form of पिण्ड it is restricted to this ball of flesh and bones, ‘the body’; चेटक in Sanskrit signifies ‘an attendant’, but in the form of चेला it denotes in the Hindî ‘a pupil or disciple’, who, according to Indian custom, is his master’s close attendant, and in Bangâlî and the Goanese Marâthî, in the forms of चेले and चलो ‘a boy’ or son, who is constantly about his parents.

c6.21.3

Opposed to this is a process which may be called generalisation of the sense. Thus the root गवेष् originally signified ‘looking or searching for a cow’; it was then extended to any kind of ‘searching’, and lastly in the form of गवसणें it signifies in Marâthî ‘to find’; इन्द्र originally ‘the lord of the gods,’ is in Sanskrit used to signify ‘the lord’ of any class of beings, such expressions as मानवेन्द्र, गजेन्द्र &c. being every common; and a notable example of this process is afforded by the word राजा which in Sanskrit means ‘a king’, but, in the forms of राय or राव, is in the modern languages used as a title of distinction, and in Marâthî, any respectable gentleman not following the priestly occupation, and not a man of learning may be called a râv. Sometimes, when by means of phonetic corruption a word is reduced to two forms, each of the two acquires a distinct sense. Thus, Sanskrit वृद्ध is in the modern languages corrupted to बुड्ढा H., बुढो S., बुड्ढ B., and in this form it means ‘an old man.’ It is also corrupted to बड़ा H., वडो S., बड B., वडो G., and व्हड Goan. M. in which form it signifies ‘great,’ ‘large,’ or ‘more advanced in age’. In this last sense, the termination ल or र is appended to it (M. वडिल, S. वडेरो).

c6.21.4

The Sanskrit word क्षण becomes छण in the sense of ‘a festival,’ in Pâli and the Prâkṛits, but खण in the sense of ‘a moment.’ In Marâthî छण is further transformed to सण, and खण in the form of खिण also occurs in the old literature and in one of its dialects. The Sanskrit उज्ज्वल in the form of उजळ M., उजल H., उजलु S., उजळु G., उज्जल P. means bright, clear, pure, but in the form of उजाड M., H., G., P., S., B., it means desolate or waste. This sense it acquired by the first process explained above, since a desolate land is cleared, purified of its tenants or appurtenances. खुजा means in Marâthî a dwarf and कुबडा humpbacked. This last word exists in the other languages also, and both are derived from the Sanskrit कुब्ज.

c6.22

The last phenomenon in the growth of a language which I shall notice is the gradual disappearance of words. As men advance in knowledge and civilisation new ideas and modes of thinking arise, and the old ones fall into disuse. And since words are the representatives of ideas, new words always come in, and the old go out. The changes that the Marâthî language, for instance, has undergone in this respect since the time of Jñânes’vara, or the Hindî since the time of Chanda, render the older books unintelligible to modern readers. There are also various other causes. Sometimes, when another language rises into importance on account of political circumstances, or when it is admired and esteemed by a nation, as Sanskrit is by Hindus, a great many words are borrowed from it, and necessarily the older ones go out to make room for them, or disappear because they are regarded as vulgar. The opening of an intercourse with a foreign nation brings about the same result. These causes account in a great measure for the fact that so many words in our languages have become obsolete. Jñânes'vara's Prâkṛit पसाय had to make room for the Sanskrit प्रसाद, गहिर for गंभीर and नाह for नाथ; and the word जमीन has well-nigh supplanted the old भुई, as हुकुम has done आज्ञा which itself must once have driven out such a word as आणा or आयस, the Prâkṛit forms of आज्ञा and आदेश.

c6.23

The languages of the civilised nations of the world have been divided into three families, the Áryan or Indo-European, the Semitic, and the Turanian. The first comprises the Indian branch, consisting of Sanskrit, Pâli and the Prâkṛits, and the modern Vernaculars of Northern India and of Ceylon; the Iranic branch consisting of Zend, the sacred language of the Parsis, the Pehlevî and the other cognate dialects; the Hellenic or the Greek branch, comprising the languages of Ancient Greece and its modern representatives; the Italic branch, consisting of the Latin and the cognate ancient languages of Italy and the dialects derived from Latin, the Italian, the French and the old Provençal, the Spanish, the Portuguese, and the Wallachian; the Keltic or the language of those Kelts or Gauls that so often figure in Roman history, and distinguished into two varieties, the Kymric, now spoken in Wales and in the Province of Brittany in France, and the Gaelic, spoken in the Isle of Man, the Highlands of Scotland, and Ireland; the Lithuanian and Slavonic, comprising the languages of Lithuania, Russia, Bulgaria, and of the Slavonic races generally; and the Teutonic branch, consisting of the Scandinavian group, *i.e.* the languages of Sweden, Norway, Iceland, and Denmark, of the High German *i. e.* the old and the present lauguage of Germany, and of the Low German, which comprised the old Anglo-Saxon and the other languages spoken on the coasts of Germany, the modern representatives of which are the English, and the dialects spoken in Holland, Friesland, and the North of Germany. The second family comprises the Hebrew, the Arabic, the Chaldee, the Syriac, the Carthaginian, and the cognate and derived languages; and the third, the Turkish and the languages of the Mongolian tribes. To this last family the dialects spoken in Southern India are also to be referred. The Zend approaches Sanskrit the most, but the affinities of this latter with Greek and Latin are also very striking, and such as to convince even a determined sceptic. Sanskrit has preserved a greater number of ancient forms than any of these languages, hence it is indispensable for purposes of comparative philology.

c6.24

The literature of Sanskrit presents, as ordinarily considered, two varieties of the language; but a third may also, as I shall presently endeavour to show, be clearly distinguished. Of these the most ancient is that found in the hymns of the Rigveda Saṃhitâ. These were composed at different times and by different Rishis, and were transmitted from father to son in certain families. Thus the third of the ten collections, which make up the Saṃhitâ, bears the name of Vis'vâmitra, and the hymns contained in it were composed by the great patriarch and his descendants. The seventh is ascribed to Vasisṭhtha and his family. The composition of these hymns therefore, extended over a long period, the language is not the same throughout, and while some of them present a variety so close to the later Sanskrit that there is little difficulty in understanding them, the style of others is so antiquated that they defy all efforts at interpretation, and their sense was not understood even by the Rishis who flourished in the very next literary period, that of the Brâhmaṇas. Still for our purposes we may neglect these differences and consider the Vedic variety of Sanskrit as one.

c6.25

The chief characteristics of the Vedic language are these:—It contains a large number of words that have become obsolete or changed their sense in the later or classical Sanskrit. There is a greater variety of verbal derivatives, such as दर्शित in the sense of दर्शनीय ‘worthy to be seen, or handsome’, जीवम्, अवम् &c. abstract nouns from the roots जीव्, अव् &c., जतुस् ‘something that is produced’, पपि, बत्रि, जघ्नि &c., nouns of agency having a past sense (Pâṇ. III. 2,171), which govern an accusative, दृशीक signifying ‘handsome’ or मृळीक ‘favour,’ &c. The nominative plural termination of nouns ending in अ is असम् (Pâṇ. VII. 1, 50), as विश्वेदेवासः, as well as अस्, as यज्ञेन यज्ञमयजन्त देवाः; and the instrumental plural is देवेभिः or देवैः (Pâṇ. VII. 1, 10). The vowel cases of nouns in उ are often formed by joining the vowels by the usual Saṃdhi rules; as तन्वम् or तनुवम् accusative singular of तनु; मध्वः and वस्वः genitive singulars of मधु and वसु. The instrumental singular is made up by affixing आ, या, or इया, instead of ना, as मध्वा, उरुया, उर्विया, धृष्ण्या, &c. (Pâṇ. VII. 1, 39); sometimes of other nouns also, as स्वपया, नावया &c. The nominative and vocative dual of masculine and the plural of neuter nouns in अ often end in आ; as येनेमा विश्वा

c6.26

च्यवना कृतानि Rv. II. 12, 4, अश्विनो पुरुदंससा नरा Rv. I. 3, 2; and the instrumental singular of feminine nouns in ई is optionally formed by simply lengthening the vowel (Pāṇ. VII. 1, 39), as नविध्या मती Rv. I. 82, 2. The locative singular termination is often dropped, as in परमे व्योमन्; or its औ changed to आ, as in नाभा for नाभौ (Pāṇ. VII. 1, 39). The Parasmaipada first person plural termination of verbs is मसि (Pāṇ. VII. 1, 46), as नमो भरन्त एमसि Rv. I. 1, 7, and that of the third person plural is often रे or रते, as दुन्हे or दुन्हते. Other forms also admit of this र, as अदृश्रम्स्य. The त of the Ātmanepada terminations is often dropped (Pāṇ. VII. 1, 41), as वस्व ईशे Rv. I. 71, 9. There are eight different forms of mood called लेट् by Pāṇini, which has a conditional or subjunctive sense; सुपथा करत्। प्र ण आयूंषि तारिषत्, Rv. I. 25, 12, स देवानेह वक्षति Rv. I. 1, 2. This is lost in classical Sanskrit. The several conjugations or ways of forming the special tenses do exist, but the roots are not restricted to any particular way, being conjugated sometimes according to one mode and sometimes according to another; as श्रुधी हवम्. There are some instances in which some other than the special tenses also admit of the conjugational sign, as विश्रृण्विरे perfect. Sometimes guṇa is substituted before the त of the second person plural imperative, though it is a weak termination, as शृणोत.

c6.27

The infinitive is formed by adding to roots the terminations से, ध्यै, अध्यै, तवै and तवे (Pāṇ. III. 4, 9), as वक्षे, जीवसे, पिबध्यै, दातवै, हत्तवे. These are etymologically the forms of the dative singular of such nouns as वक्ष, जीवस्, पिबधि &c. A few other datives are similarly used, as दृशे, रोहिष्यै &c. (Pāṇ. III. 4, 10, 11). The accusatives of some nouns are also used as infinitives when governed by शक् (Pāṇ. III. 4, 12), as न ये शेकुर्यज्ञियां नावमारुहम् Rv. X. 44, 6; also in other places, चिकितुषो विपृच्छम् Rv. VII. 86, 3. The infinitive in classical Sanskrit ends in तुम्, as कर्तुम्, which is the accusative form of such a noun as कर्तृ, the dative of which, कर्तवे, is one of the forms of the Vedic infinitive. The potential participles are often formed by adding तवै, ए, एण्य and त्व (Pāṇ. III. 4, 14), as नैषा गव्युतिरपभर्तवा उ Rv. X. 14, 2, न तेन देव आदिशे Rv. VI. 56, 1, दिदृक्षेण्यः, कर्तव्यम्. The first two, however, ought properly to be considered as infinitives. The absolutive is sometimes formed by the addition of त्वाय; as गत्वाय. There is such a form as इष्टीनम् for इष्ट्वा; and such others as हत्वी and पीत्वी for हत्वा and पीत्वा occur often. These last, as also the usual or classical absolutives, are forms of the instrumental singular of the same nouns, the dative and accusative of which are used as infinitives; त्वाय appears also to be an instrumental. There are a great many other peculiarities which are noticed by Pāṇini, and which you will find collected in the Siddhānta-Kaumudī. One thing, however, should be borne in mind, that notwithstanding there is in these respects a very great difference between the Vedic and the classical Sanskrit, they are in the same phonetic stage, i. e. the vocal elements of words and letters remain the same. There are a few such instances, as सध for सह, and गृभ for गृह, in which the mute has disappeared, leaving only the aspirate element, and to these may be added the terminations मसि and असस् for मस् and अस्; but both the original and corrupt forms exist in the Vedas, and no general conclusion can be based on these few instances. You will hereafter see that the other dialects I shall speak of differ greatly from the classical Sanskrit in these respects. The following specimen will give you an idea of Vedic Sanskrit:—

c6.28

१. यच्छिद्धि ते विशो यथा प्र देव वरुण व्रतम् । मिनीमसि द्यविद्यवि ॥
२. मा नो वधाय हत्नवे जिहीळानस्य रिरधः । मा हृणानस्य मन्यवे ॥
५. कदा क्षत्रश्रियं नरमा वरुणं करामहे । मृळीकायोरुचक्षसम् ॥
७. वेदा यो वीनां पदमन्तरिक्षेण पतताम् । वेद नावः समुद्रियः ॥
१०. नि षसाद धृतव्रतो वरुणः पस्त्यास्वा । साम्राज्याय सुक्रतुः ॥
११. अतो विश्वान्यद्भुता चिकित्वाँ अभि पश्यति । कृतानि या च कर्त्वा ॥
१२. स नो विश्वाहा सुक्रतुरादित्यः सुपथा करत् । प्र ण आयूंषि तारिषत् ॥
१९. इमं मे वरुण श्रुधी हवमद्या च मृळय । त्वामवस्युरा चके ॥

c6.29

These eight verses contain 72 different padas or grammatical forms, not counting the prepositions as separate padas. Of these 19 have become altogether obsolete in classical Sanskrit, and 12 have changed their significations. This, however, is a specimen of one of the more intelligible hymns, but there are a great many which contain a much larger proportion of words that have gone out of use. It is these obsolete words that constitute the chief difficulty of understanding the Vedic hymns.

c6.30

1. The use of चित् after यत् is unknown to the later dialect that particle being found joined only to the pronoun किम्. The preposition प्र though connected with मिनीमसि is separated from it by three words. Though the root of this verb is given in the Dhātupāṭha or Pāṇini's list of roots, it has gone out of use. In modern Sanskrit we should use अतिक्रामामः instead. व्रत is not now used in the sense in which it occurs here; though it is connected with it. We should use शासन instead. द्यविद्यवि means here ‘day by day’; in classical Sanskrit the word द्यौ means ‘heaven’ only. The verse may be translated:— “Though we who are like subjects break thy law, day after day, O divine Varuṇa!” Varuṇa is spoken of frequently as a rájan, or king, and men are his subjects, with reference to that attribute of his.

c6.31

2. वध means ‘killing’, or ‘execution’, in classical Sanskrit, but, since हन्तु ‘killing’ qualifies it here, it must mean some such thing as a weapon or a blow.

c6.32

हन्तु is obsolete. जिहीळान is a participle of the Perfect of हेड् or हीड्. The form is obsolete; and a verbal form of the root is not ordinarily met with, though a word derived from it does occur. हूणान also is obsolete.

c6.33

“Do not subject us to the killing blow of the spiteful, nor to the wrath of the angry,” *i.e.*, do not kill us out of spite or wrath.

c6.34

5. क्षत्र signifies in later Sanskrit the order of the Kshatriyas or the warrior caste. Here it is used in the primitive sense of ‘valour’, ‘prowess’. नर does not mean ‘man’ here, but is used in its original sense of manly. आ and करामहे are separated by a word. मृळीक ‘favour’ is obsolete. चक्षम् ‘the reach of sight’, ‘visual power’, has also gone out of use.

c6.35

“When shall we call the brave, manly, and far-seeing Varuṇa hither to favour us?”

c6.36

7. समुद्रिय: This form of the derived adjective is unknown to later Sanskrit. The genitive singular is formed by changing ई to इय.

c6.37

“Who knows the path of the birds flying in the air and of the boat on the waters.”

c6.38

10. “Enforcing his laws, the powerful Varuṇa sits down in his abode to exercise universal sovereignty.”

c6.39

11. अद्भुत The termination of the accusative plural is here dropped; कत्वं is Vedic for कर्तव्य; here also नि is dropped.

c6.40

“From this place the knowing one sees all secret deeds done or to be done.”

c6.41

12. करत् and तारिषत् are forms of लेड् or the Vedic subjunctive.

c6.42

“May the powerful God make things easy for us all our days and prolong our lives.”

c6.43

19. श्रुधी. Conjugated as a root of the second class, with धि as the termination of the imperative singular, lengthened for phonetic purposes.

First 51 of 90 passages. Read on

Linked texts (17)