________________
210
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[JULY, 1873.
apparently in great haste t, and without sufficient Prakrit form like kinno or kunno, or even kanno acquaintanco with the present state of scientific (for old Hindt appears to recognise a verbal base research on several of the topics touched on or kana). That the base kuna is restricted to verse discussed in my Essay-still his review contains by Prakrit grammars is not opposed to my theory, some very valuable hints and communications, as my critic seems to imagine, but is in favour of especially from the Mahabhdshya, for which we are it; and that is the reason why I referred to it. It thankful to him and to Prof. Bhåndarkar, to whose is a well-known fact, of which Hindi affords exaid he several times states that he is indebted. amples in abundance, that the colloquial has many Berlin, 18th April 1873.
A. WEBER. forms which by the literary language are restricted
to poetry. That the past part. pass, of the base kuna Note.
is not met with in any Prakrit work (of which, by the Might not Sagada, the metropolis of the way, we know only very few as yet) is no proof, Adeisa throi, near the hills of Uxentus, be that it cannot be formed and did not exisi in the sagara, near the sources of the Dasarna spoken language. However, what I maintain is (Dosan), 200 miles E.N.E. of Ujjain Spruner that the Hindi genitive post-positions are derived places it about 50 miles W.N.W of Warangol.Ed. from a Prakrit equivalent of the Sanskrit past part.
krita ; as to the rest, I merely expressed an opinion, GENITIVE POST-POSITIONS.
and gave some reasons for it, that they are identical To the Editor, Indian Antiquary.
with the Hindi ones. This requires further proof: SIR.-In the April oumber of the Indian but my own further investigations have rather Antiquary (p. 121) appeared a letter from Dr. ! confirmed me in my view. My critic thinks that Pischel with criticisms on my theory of the "it is easy to prove that the Bangali and Oriya Gausian genitive post-positions. I now request genitive post-positions are not derived froni the the favour of your inserting the following reply. Prakrit keraka. But he has not produced his
As regards the remark regarding the Prakrit proof. For his statements as to the use of kerala of the plays being founded on the sutra of Va- in Prakrit, whether true or not, have no particular raruchi, I regret its somewhat careless expression, bearing on the question whether the Bangali or as it seems to have scandalized my critic so much. is * curtailment of keraka or not. The only Many Prakrit scholars, and all those wlio combine argument that I can discover among his criticismos n knowledge of the modern Indian vernaculars is that "the word keraka is far too modern to underwith that of Prakrit (e. g. Beames in his Comp. go so rast and rapid a change as to be curtailed Gram. passim), hold that the colloquini or vulgar to simple er." The fact is that keraka occurs Prikrit differed, and perhaps considerably, from in the sense of a genitive post-position so early as the literary Prak.it used in the plays, and gram- in the Mrichchhakatiki, which is generally supposed marized, so to speak, by Vararuchi and his suc- to have been written in the beginning of the cessors. These two Prakrits cannot have been Christian era; and of the oldest Bangali there without influence upon one another; hence in the is next to no literature; so that the argument has plays forms are found which are not noticed, no leg to stand upon.--I may take this oppor. especially in the earlier grammars, and which tunity, however, to state that since writing my probably were introduced from the vulgar Prakrit. third essay I have modified my view so far (for Still, generally speaking, the literary Prakrit re- in such a novel inquiry it is especially true tbat mainod stationary, while tho colloquial Prakrit dies diem docet) that I now consider the Bangalier changed and developed. Those who wrote Prakrit not to be a curtailment of the Prikrit keraka, but (in dramas and otherwise) must have learned the of kera; becauso otherwise the Bangali post-posi. literary Prikrit, and must have learned it from the tion would be pronounced era, and not er.-My Prikrit grammars. This is what was meant. The critic says that I maintain that the genitive of question is too large a one to be fully stated here. santánn was originally santana-leraka. I mainPerhaps Dr. Pischel takes a differert view of it; tain no such thing. If he had followed the drift but that is no reason why my view bhould be in- of my argument more attentively, he would have correct. What the colloquial Pråkrit must have seen that I merely wished to trace the probable been cannot be determined from the Prikrits of steps by which keraka in coninnetion the dramas and grammars only, but also, and final o of a noun becomes curtailed into e. For often moro truly, from the modern vernaculars. this purpose any noun with final quiescent & Now the old and, at present, poetical and vulgar would do. I took santina because it was ready Hindi past part. Kind (or kind) postulates somol to hand, being the paradigm in the excellent Ban.
+ The August part of the Indian Antiquary contained the conclusion of Mr. Boyd's translation, and Mr. Kainath read his paper ca the 2nd September.
