Collected Articles Of LA Schwarzschild On Indo Aryan 1953 1979

Author(s): Royce Wiles
Publisher: Australian National University

Page 84

A STUDY OF SOME FEATURES OF THE IMPERATIVE IN MIDDLE INDO-ARYAN
95
94 STUDY OF SOME FEATURES OF THE IMPERATIVE IN MIDDLE INDO-ARYAN
Apabhrama continues the tendencies shown by the later popular Prakrit texts, and the use of the pronoun subject of the imperative is rare. When the pronoun occurs it occupies an initial or final position in the sentence. At least in some cases it may have had a vocative function. Examples are: fuar appuu jäevi levi eki, "you yourself go and bring him in" (Karakandacarlu of Kanakamara 4.3); kari jayakaru tuhu,"shout hail" (Paimacariu of Svayambhudeva 12.10.9); ruh hohi deva khayaráhirdu, "o lord, be thou king of the Vidyadharas" (Harapapurana of Puspadanta 91.11.6), and bharu bharu Saccahame, saccan tuha, "oh Satyabhama, speak thou the truth" (ibid. 88.19.8). In the last two sentences the use of the pronoun subject is associated with the vocative. There are only very few instances in Apabhramsa where the pronoun subject of the imperative does occur in the middle of the sentence, but then it is always linked with the vocative, e.g. jam janahitam pahu tuli mi kare, o lord, do thou as thou knowest" (Palmacariu 6.16.8). and malu taniya pihimi tuu bhuile bhdya, "o brother, enjoy thou (sovereignty over) my country" (ibid. 4.12.6).
In Apabhrama even some of the singular endings used for the imperative were no longer distinguishable from the indicative, e.g. -ahl was used for both moods, and the distinction between the two moods must have been mainly prosodic. It is also possible that occasionally in Apabhrama texts we may glimpse an incipient tendency to differentiate between the two moods by the use of the pronoun subject, which was more usual in the indicative than in the imperative: for instance in one passage of the Palimacariu of Svayambhodeva (19.15) there are two indicatives with the pronoun subject of the second person and two imperatives without subject, hd purta, putta, kahim gayali ruhu, luhalu mul, nikkdrane povahi kain rulum? "o son, show your face, why have you gone? O son, dry your face, why do you weep without cause?" This tendency, which is barely noticeable, does not appear to have been further developed, and formal distinctions between the imperative and the indicative moods seem to have been gradually re-established, at least in the second person, as for instance in Hindi.
The general Apabhramsa conditions survive in modern Hindi, where the pronoun subject, when used with the imperative, tends to stay on the outside of the sentence, generally at the beginning, e.g. tu cori na kar, "thou shalt not steal," um to Yadavon ko maro, "do you then destroy the Yadavas," in both familiar and polite forms: (a) ja, "go (thou)," (tunt) do, "go (you)," and (dp) jaie, please go."
The pronoun subject of the imperative, which had occupied an unaccented position in the early forms of Middle Indo-Aryan, in conformity with the popular usage of other Indo-European languages, later moved into a more prominent position at the beginning and sometimes at the end of the sentence. In late popular Prakrit and in Apabhrama the pronoun subject was no longer just added for a little extra emphasis after the beginning of the sentence, but it fulfilled a special function, particularly when there was a need for contrast between persons, and it was also frequently joined with the vocative to bring home to the person addressed that the command was meant for him, and the command was
The vocative is often to be regarded as the psychological subject of the clause. See A. Sechehaye, Essai sur la strhne logique de la phrase (Paris, 1950), pp. 27-28.
IS. H. Kellog, Grammar of the Hindi Language, 3rd ed. (London, 1938), p. 460; and A. Sharma, Basie Grammar of Modern Hindi (Government of India, Ministry of Education and Scientific Research, 1958), p. 61
thereby made much more personal. Any incipient tendency for the use of the pronoun to fulfil a morphological function, and to distinguish between moods, did not develop further in Apabhramsa and in modern Hindi. Apabhramsa resembles Medieval French by the manner in which the pronoun subject of the imperative was used, but in modern French developments have been quite different and the presence or absence of the pronoun subject serves as a means to differentiate between the indicative and the imperative mood. Modern Hindi on the other hand has retained the flexibility of late Middle Indo-Aryan, where the use of the pronoun subject can provide a special nuance of meaning in rendering a command more personal.
Few problems in Middle Indo-Aryan have caused quite as much discussion as the derivation of the second person singular imperative ending -s. According to the first of the two major theories, Prakrit -54 and Pali - come from the atmanepada ending -
This theory was originated long ago by Lassen, and upheld by Weber and Jacobi, and more recently and convincingly by Edgerton, who argues that the Prakrit and Pali forms cannot be separated from one another and that the use of an atmanepada ending in the parasmaipada was due to the general decay of the armianepada in Middle Indo-Aryan An opposing theory was held by Pischel," and followed by more recent scholars.' Pischel believed that the ending -S4 was due to analogy, which brought the imperative endings -51, ()u exactly in line with the indicative endings -si, -OL. A very tempting compromise between these two theories has been suggested by J. Bloch, and it seems highly probable that Pali - and Prakrit -su were derived from the dtmanepada ending -a, and that the final vowel was adapted to that of the third person singular ending -()u. The single consonant in the Prakrit ending was the result of further remodelling. In the heat of the discussion over the origins of the ending su, problems surrounding the other forms taken by the second person singular of the imperative have often been overlooked. The distribution of these forms is of interest, and may help to throw light on the development of the imperative in general.
In the Ardhamagadhi of the Jain canon we find only rare survivals of the Vedic and Sanskrit use of the bare stem for the second person singular imperative in the thematic conjugation. The ending -su is hardly ever used, and then only in metrical portions of the canon: for instance in the Savagadanga there is a passage (1.4) which describes the joys" of married life and contains a long series of commands addressed by the lady to her husband, and yet the termination -su only appears once, in genhau "take". The use of the Second person singular termination -li on the other hand, which was confined to the athematic conjugation in Sanskrit has been greatly extended in Ardhamā gadhi. It is found in verbs ending in the vowel -o and especially in Verbs ending in -e. As is often the case, the analogical extension of the termination seems to have started from a few common Verbs: eli "go", dehl "give", dhehi "place". From there-hi seems to have become associated
1 Ch Lassen. Tr o nes Line Prakriege (Bonn, 1837), pp. 179, 338.
A Weber. Uber das Sapatarakam des Hala (Leipzig, 1870), p. 61. *H. Jacobi isewhle Erwagen in Maharashir (Leipzig, 1886), p. 54. • F. Edgerton, op. cit., p. 147.
R. Pischel, Grammatik der Prakril-Sprachen (Strassburg, 1900), p. 331. • G. V. Tasare, Historical Grammar of Apubhra (Poona, 1948), p. 298. "J. Bloch, L'Indo-Aryen (Paris, 1934), p. 249.
- 148 -
- 149 -