Wilson Philological Lectures on Sanskrit and the Derived Languages c8.51

Language: English

c8.51.1

Another phenomenon characteristic of the Prâkrits is the dropping away of single uninitial consonants. Thus क् is dropped, as in सअद, कुम्भआर, for शकट, कुम्भकार, &c.; ग् as in नअ, नअर, साअर for नग, नगर, सागर, &c.; च् as in वअण, सूई, for वचन, सूचि, &c.; ज् as in रअअ, राआ, गअ, for रजत, राजा, गज &c.; त् as in विआण, पआवाई, गअ, for वितान, प्रजापति, गत, &c.; द् as in मअण, पाअ, कअल, for मदन, पाद, कदल, &c.; प् followed by any vowel except अ, as in रिऊ, कई, विउल, for रिपु, कपि, विपुल, &c.; यू as in वाउणा, णअण, for वायुना, नयन, &c.; व् as in जीअ, दिअह, for जीव, दिवस, &c. The vowel अ or आ that remains after the elision is when preceded by अ or आ pronounced like a light य. We find it written in Mss. also, as in सयढ, तित्थयरो, नयर, &c. In the same way, the mute element of the aspirates is dropped, except in the case of the palatals and of फ्, the हू or the heavy nâda or vocal sound being alone preserved. Thus we have मुह, लिह, सही, for मुख, लिख, सखी, &c., मेह, माह पाहुण, for मेघ, माघ, प्राघुण, &c.; नाह, मिहुण, कहा, for नाथ, मिथुन, कथा, &c.; बहिर, वहू, साहु, for बधिर, वधू, साधु, &c.; लाह, सोहग्ग, सोहा, for लाभ, सौभाग्य, शोभा, &c. The range of the operation of these processes is very wide; and the number of words transformed in accordance with them is very large. Now, the principle which is at the bottom of this elision of consonants is the same as that which brings about softening, viz., economy of exertion.

c8.51.2

But in a growing language which knows of no accidents in the course of its history, there is another principle which counteracts this, viz., the necessity of pronouncing words in a manner to be understood by others. Hence a wholesale elision is impossible; and the natural course is to soften sounds away, until finally they are elided. This of course must be a very slow process. But in the Prâkrit, and especially the Mahârâshtrî, we do not find it to be slow. Elision seems to be a distinguishing characteristic which strikes one very forcibly on reading a Prâkrit passage. It is too regular, systematic, and far-reaching, to have been the product of a long course of softening. In fact, because it is so systematic and general, some writers have doubted whether the Prâkrits were genuine dialects, and have expressed their belief that they are the creation of Pandits. But we shall find that the modern vernaculars retain the words shorn of their elements by the Prâkrits in this way; and that these latter dialects were the immediate parents of those we now speak in Northern India. If this general mutilation of words was brought about by a natural decay, we must suppose the process to have gone on for a great many centuries. The Prâkṛit vocables that have descended to the modern vernaculars have not, since the period when the Prâkṛits arose about fourteen centuries ago, suffered at all so much as Sanskrit words in passing into the Prâkṛits.

c8.51.3

We have not dropped away any of the elements of Prâkṛit vocables, though we may have re-arranged them in some cases. If, then, fourteen centuries have not been sufficient to make words lose any of their elements by the action of natural causes, the process by which Sanskrit words were mutilated and became Prâkṛit must, if it was natural and ordinary, have been in operation for a considerably longer period, a supposition which appears extremely improbable. And it is questionable whether a language which has not been exposed to accidents in the course of its history suffers so much, even after the lapse of any conceivable time. The Teutonic languages, though they have been going through an independent course of development since the period when the ancestors of the modern English and Germans separated from the ancestors of the Hindus in pre-historic ages, have preserved the elements of old Aryan vocables which the Prâkṛits lost. They may have transformed the words, but have not mutilated them to any extent. The English words *father*, *mother*, *brother*, *foot*, and others, have all the elements of the old पितृ, मातृ, भ्रातृ, पद् (पाद), and others; while the Prâkṛit पीआ or पीउ, माआ, माइ or माउ, भाआ or भाउ, and पाअ, and the modern vernacular पिउ, माउ, मा, मा, भाई, भाउ, and पा or पाय, have lost all except the first consonantal sound.

c8.51.4

The elision of consonants on a large scale in the Prâkṛits is therefore to be accounted for in another way than by attributing it to a natural process of decay. The Prâkṛit words must be taken to represent the pronunciation of the corresponding Sanskrit words by an alien race. The vocal organs of the people of that race were unused to the utterance of Sanskrit sounds, and in this respect they were in the condition of children making their first attempts at articulate speech, and elided uninitial consonantal sounds and assimilated conjunct consonants as these do. When a child or a barbarous foreigner listens to an elderly or more civilized person, he has not the patience to attend to all the sounds composing a word and to reproduce them carefully, or has not acquired the habit of doing so. The first letter only makes a strong impression on his ear, and this he faithfully reproduces; and as to the rest, he realizes their quantity by pronouncing the vowels, but his tongue being untrained, the peculiar movements necessary for uttering the consonantal sounds he cannot go through, and avoids. In going over the Pâli we had to attribute the assimilation of conjuncts and other peculiarities observable in that dialect to such a cause; and now the elision in the Prâkrits that we have been considering must, I believe, be accounted for in the same way.