Wilson Philological Lectures on Sanskrit and the Derived Languages c7.55

c7.55

You will have seen how naturally the new formations we have noticed grew up. A language is well learnt by others or correctly transmitted to them only when they are in constant and close intercourse with those who know it, or when they are deliberately taught. When for some reason or other this is not the case, and the linguistic tradition is imperfect, men proceed from what is more in use and consequently better known to that which is less used and less known. Nouns in अ, for instance, constitute a very large portion of the ordinary Sanskrit names. Their case forms were most used, whence they were well known and those of other nouns not being so often used were less known. In these cases these less known forms had to conform to the model of the more known, and thus we see a tendency to bring nouns as close as possible to the अ declension, as you have seen in such nouns as आत्मन्, गुणवत्, गच्छत्, शास्त्र्, and even अग्नि. And it is also clear that the new अ base is generally taken from the nominative, which case is oftener used than others; as अत्त, गुणवन्त, इच्छन्त, and सत्तार i. e. शास्त्रार. In the same way we have observed a strong tendency to obliterate the distinction between the nominal and pronominal declensions, and fuse them into one, and this tendency has succeeded everywhere except in the genitive plural. Still at the time when the Pâli arose the traditions of the original Sanskrit were not entirely lost, wherefore we have often old forms used side by side with the new ones. The same process is observable in the conjugations of verbs, as I have already remarked. It will thus be seen how groundless is the opinion of those who maintain that these Prâkṛits or derived languages were simply literary languages, or were constructed by Pandits. But this point will be discussed at length hereafter.