Indian Antiquary Vol 32

SR No.: 032524
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Richard Carnac Temple
Publisher: Swati Publications
Publication Year: 1984
Total Pages: 550
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 20 MB

Page 198

192
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
(APRIL, 1903.
conclude that the 6-form of the habitual past and the fatare is derived from the old present, the f-form from the old fature. I may add that dialectically the l-suffix is dropped in the Marathi future. Thus, Karhadi márói, thou wilt strike, a form which seems directly to correspond to Maharashtu márissasi or márihisi, when it is borne in mind that a short i in the penultimate is regalarly dropped in that dialect.
Marashi infinitives, such as marā, to strike; wha, to arise, etc., neem to be directly derived from MAbarashtri marimi, withium. The participle of necessity ending in avva in Mâhârâshtri (Sanskrit tavya) is used in the same sense in modern Marathi, while in other dialects it has become a future. Thus Marathi mya karáol, Mâbârâshtri maé kariarvaan, it should be done by me, I should do.
The conjunctive participle ende in una in Maharashtri and often also in Ardhamågadbl, bat asually in ia in Saurasent and Magadhi. Jaina Mâhârâshtrf also nees the form ending in ; thus, kahiun, having told. To such forms corresponds the Marathi conjunctive participle ending in un from older 1-nid, i. e., i-nid, which contains the old mit (compare old forms such as nirdali, having destroyed) and a second soffix nid which must be compared with Gujarati ne. Thus karún, old Maritht karunid, having done. The common 7 in such forms (compare karonyia and karwnyia, having done) is due to the same reasons as Apabhra mía lahat, to take, etc. It is of importance to note that the different formation of this participle is very marked in the old Prûkrits, Marathi as usual agrees with Maharashtri.
We may add correspondence in the syntax, such as the use of the Denter in adjectives qualifying words of different genders; the use of adjectives instead of adverbs; the use of the present participle as a conditional; the frequency with which an l-Baflix, corresponding to an old illa, occurs; and, lastly, the use of the emphatic particle Maharastri chéa, chia, chcha, Marathi chi, ts. The particle chea, etc., is only used in Maharashtri and Ardbamigadhi, the corresponding word in Sauraseni being jéry. Both forms have survived, the former in Marathi 18, chi, Cbbattisgarhi éch, the latter in Gujarati j.
Such instances of agreement would not prope much if they were isolated. Taken together, however, and considered in connection with the general reasons adduced in the preceding pages, they cannot fail to add strength to the conclusion that the Indian tradition is right in referring Marathi and Maharashtri to the same locality.
One immediate consequence of this result is that Khandési can do more be considered as a dialect of Marathi, It would take us too far to enter apon this question in the present place. Safice it to state that Khandest will in the Linguistic Surrey be shown to be a dialect based on Gujarati and not on Marathi.
It will be borne in mind that MAhariabtrt, though decidedly showing a leaning towards the east, is a rather independent language, oocapying a somewhat, intermediary position. The same is the case with Marathi. And the conservative tendencies of that language bare, to a great extent, prevented it from being influenced by its neig labours. Nowhere do we find it dropping gradually into a neighbouring form of speech. The frontier line between Marathi on one side and Rajasthani and Gajaráti on the other is a very marked one. Only in the West we see that Maruthi has largely influenced Khandesi and some Bhil dialects which might be considered as links between Marathi and Gujarati. They are not, however, in reality intermediate languages, but mixed forms of speech which have borrowed from Mankthi. The state of affairs in the east is similar. There is no link between Marathi and Chhattlagashi or Marktbi and Oriya. The Halbi dialect, which has sometimes been described as a dialect of Chhattisgarhi and sometimes of Marathi, is in reality none of both. It is a mongrel form of speech adopted by a tribe of non-Aryan descent. The inner form of the dialect is Chhattisgarhi and Origa, Marathi having contributed several suffixes which are added to the simple base and not to a form corresponding to the oblique base in Marathi.