A History of Sanskrit Literature c7.s3.10

c7.s3.10

Very different was the effect on Classical poetry of the influence of the epics.² They show, with special frequency in the case of the *Mahābhārata*,³ the tendency of uncultivated speech to ignore fine distinctions and by analogical formations to simplify grammar. Thus rules of euphonic combination are not rarely ignored; in the noun the distinction of weak and strong case-forms is here and there forgotten; there is confusion of stems in *i* and *in*; by analogy *pūṣāṇam* replaces the older *pūṣaṇam*; there is confusion in the use of cases, especially in the pronoun; in the verb primary and secondary endings are sometimes confused; active and middle are often employed for metrical reasons in place of each other; even the passive is found with active terminations; the delicate rules affecting the use of the intermediate *i* are violated at every turn; the feminine of the present participle active is formed indifferently by *antī* or *atī*; the middle participle of causatives and denominatives is often formed by *āna*, partly doubtless on grounds of metrical convenience; the rule that the gerund is formed by *tvā* in simple, in *ya* in compound, verbs is constantly disregarded; minutiae such as the substitution of *dhāvati* for the present of *sṛ* are habitually neglected. The tendency to prefer *a* bases is seen in the verb and the noun alike, giving such forms as *diçā* and *duhitā*.