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 476

452
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[Decen, 1903.
which walked. In the same way beygirda, be does, seems to be identical with seygiraren, one who doos, 3 doer. Compare willd and villanas, bowman. We shall have to return to this question below.
We are now in a position to better understand Gôndi forms such as kidzónd, I do.
Gôpgl has, to great extent, imitated the neighbouring Aryan languages in using a relative pronoun. The interrogative bør, feminine, and neuter bad, has been adopted for that purpose. Besides, however, we frequently also find relative clauses expressed in the usual Dravidian way by means of relative participles. Thus, I have noted kalle kiyé mánvdl, theft doing man, a man who usually commits theft, from Bhandars Gondi possesses at least three such relative participles, Thus, from kíánd, to do, we find a present participle krata, a past kitd, and an indefinite kié. Compare Telugu chestunna, doing ; chésina, who did, and chêsé, who usually does, who will do, &c. These participles are the bases of different tenses which are all inflected in exactly the same way. Thus, kidtônd, I do; kitönd, I did; kiend, I might do, I will do. In addition to Kitond, I did, we also find kisitônd, formed from the conjanctive participle kisi, having done. The personal terminations added in all these tenses are as follows: Sing. I ôná.
Plu. 1 ôr-am, éram. 2 ôní.
2 ór.i!, ér-it. 3 masc. 8r, &r.
8 masc. ork, érk. 3 fem. and n. d, vár.
3 fem. and n. lng, páng. It will be seen that the terminations of the third persons plural are simply formed from the corresponding third persons singular, by adding the usual plural suffixes. I am not, however, able to satisfactorily explain the snffix půr of the third person singular, feminine and neuter of the indefinite tense. The same termination is also used in the future.
The terminations of the first and second persons plural are clearly formed from the third person singular, masculine, by adding the suffixes am in the first, and it in the second person. Ám is identical with the suffix ôm added in other tenses, and it is the ordinary suffix í of the second person, with the addition of the plural suffix !. Compare kim-, do ye; kim, do ; immá, thon; tramát, you,
It might seem curious that the first and second persons plural should be formed from the third person singular. A comparison of kiátor-am, we do; kiér-am, we will do, with kiátor, he does; lefer, he will do, is, however, sufficient to show that this is in reality the case. The explanation is that such forms as ktátor, kiér, &c., are originally plorals, and they are still often used as such.
The demonstrative pronoun in Göndl is now or, plural ôr and Ork. The form or, however, corresponds to Tamil avar or 8r, they, which is very commonly used as an honorific singular. The old Gôndt singular must have been on, and the third person singular masculine of the present tense of kidnd must originally have been kitón, a doer, or, he does. The existence of such a form must necessarily be inferred from the first and second persons singular, kidt-on-d, I do; kidt-ôn-í, thou doest, which are regularly formed from kidtôn by adding the personal soffixes of the first and second persons singular, respectively.
The same personal suffixes are in Goņdt also added to the interrogative pronoun when it is used as the predicate. Thus we find immd bon-f (not bor) andi, who art thou ? ; amof bor-am andom, who are we?; &c.
It will thus be seen that the richly developed system of conjugational forms in Goņet is only apparent, and that the language in this respect well agrees with other Dravidian forms of speech, specially Telugu.