Wilson Philological Lectures on Sanskrit and the Derived Languages c7.56

c7.56

Inattention to this law of false analogies or generalization, and to the wide range of its operation in the formation of Pâli grammar has led some scholars to set down as Vedic certain forms which exist in this dialect but are not to be met with in classical Sanskrit. Such are इमस्स the genitive singular masculine of इदम्, फला the nominative plural of फल, अठ्ठी and मधू nominative and accusative plural of अस्थि and मधु, अम्हे the general plural base of the pronoun of the first person, and गोनं genitive plural of गो. I see no reason why इमस्स should be regarded as Vedic and not the other forms that have इम for their base, such as इमस्मा, इमिसं, &c., or why फला should be so and not फले the accusative plural; अम्हे and not तुम्हे, अठ्ठी and not अठ्ठिस्स, or गोनं and not अभिभूनं. If these latter forms and a host of others must be explained with reference to a thoroughly different principle, why should the former which are kindred to them and are as completely capable of that same explanation, be traced to a Vedic origin? The fact that they happen to resemble certain Vedic forms does not prove their derivation from them. The same process of generalization and the same natural tendency to construct the less known forms from the analogy of those that are more known brought them all into use. The forms फला and फले, and अठ्ठी and मधू are, as stated before, made up upon the analogy of the corresponding masculine, and herein we observe the beginning of a tendency to obliterate the distinction between the masculine and neuter, which went on progressing until now, in the Hindî, Sindhî, and other vernaculars of Northern India, the neuter gender has totally disappeared, while in the Marâṭhî the distinction remains in the case of pronouns and certain nouns, and in the Gujarâtî only in the latter.