Sandesha Rasaka

SR No.: 002918
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Abdul Rahman, Jinvijay, H C Bhayani
Publisher: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan
Publication Year: 1945
Total Pages: 282
Language: Sanskrit, English
Classification: Book_Devnagari & Literature
File Size: 17 MB

Page 73

24
SAMDESARASAKA
In the case of the 'regular' (§ 67) participles in, the fem. is regularly formed by a (-a); that is, the masc. and the fem. bases are identical in form. Those participles that represent the inherited stuff i. e. those that are er or 'irregular' (mostly the participles from Sk. af roots) take optionally in the fem., e. g., 4, 5, gf etc. besides, etc. But as suggested at the outset, one can legitimately look upon these bases in as counterparts to the enlarged masc. bases in (e. g. etc.). Further, on the analogy of the 'regular' pret. participles, some 'irregular' ones also have taken up the in the masc. (e. g. 186c, f 1646) and as a result they too have identical masc. and fem, bases.
iii. Adjectival compounds.
As regards the formation of the feminine from the adjectival compounds, it is to be observed that there prevails a free choice between, and . Bases in (more than a dozen) are fewer in number when compared with those in (about 3 dozen). Besides these there are about a dozen bases in . Simple adjectives also show a preference for 4. On the whole there appears in our text a strong tendency to reduce the other types of the fem. bases to one in °.
cf. TESSITORI's observations (§ 57 (2)) on the feminines in OwR,
§ 50. Gender. Hemacandra (Hc. IV 445 ) informs us that in Ap. gender-confusion prevails to a remarkable degree. This observation is supported by JACOBI in his account of the language of the San., wherein the nom./acc. neuter plur. ending is taken by the masculines also, while conversely, there are some nom./ acc. neu. plur. forms ending in . The change that has set in in the language of the San. has fully worked out itself by the time of the SR. Here, excepting three cases (see § 52, Remarks.), two of which are metrically conditioned, the nom./acc. plur. forms in are totally absent. And the second characteristic neuter form, viz., the nasalised nom./acc. sing. in also being quite unknown, almost all traces of the neuter have vanished from the morphology. There is not the slightest distinction between the masc. and the neu. declension. In this connection we have to note the fact that all the New Indo-Aryan vernaculars, except Gujarāti, Marāṭhi and Konkaṇī have lost the neuter.
Other cases of change in gender are aff. (f) 134c, 216d