________________
APRIL, 1876.]
CORRESPONDENCE AND MISCELLANEA.
119
रात्रौ निःशङ्कमनसा न संचरेदित्याह
| पौरुषे कारणं बीजमित्याह । न संचरणशीलः स्यान्निशि निःशङमानसः । ।
पौरुषे कारणं बीजं योनिरेव न कारणम् । विपला छिन्नपादासीखेलस्याजी यतो निशि ॥४०॥ अश्विभ्यां नासिकाजाभ्यां दोग्धीं कृता शयोहिंगौः।। ४३। (Rv. I, 116, 15.)
___ (Rv. I, 116, 22.)
मनस्विना लक्षणमाह हितकारी पितेत्याह
स्त्रीयपीडामपि घन्ति कृत्वा कार्य मनस्विनः। यो हितो ऽन्यः पिता ज्ञेयो अहितोऽपि* पितापिता ।
चक्रतुः सुभगां घोषां प्रविश्य भगमश्विनी ॥४४॥ ऋिवाश्वो उन्धःकृतःपिनानासत्याभ्यां सुलोचनः।।४।।
(Rv. I, 117, 7.) (Rv. I, 116, 16.)
कुलधर्मो न त्याज्य इत्याह सत्येन जयतीत्याह
कुलक्रमागतो धर्मो न त्याज्य :प्रभुभिः सह । प्रामुयादिजयं सत्यात्तस्मात्सत्यं समाचरेत् । कण्वो ऽश्विभ्यां भिषग्भ्यां हि सुत्वक सुश्रुत्कृतः नामध्यावश्विनी सूर्यो देवेभ्यो जिग्यतुः पुरा॥४२॥
सुदृक् ॥ ४५ ॥ (Rv. I, 116, 17.)
(Rv. 1, 117,8.)
CORRESPONDENCE AND MISCELLANEA. THE KATHEORY AND MR. BEAMES'S other that deserves consideration, and cannot be COMPARATIVE GRAMMAR.
disposed of merely by a sneer. To explain the SIR-Will you be so good as to allow me space
fact by 'caprice' and 'lawless license' is clearly in your valuable journal to make a few remarks
inadmissible. regarding one or two points raised by Mr. Beames
I will briefly state the principal reasons why it in the second volume of his excellent Comparative
appears to me the accent-theory fails satisfac. Grammar of the Modern Aryan Languages of India, torily to account for the facts of the case. Firstly, which I have read with much interest and profit. it is extremely doubtful whether the old Aryan The second volume fully sustains the high reputa- accent was at all any longer felt at auch a late tion of the able author as a comparative philologist period as the 10th or 11th century A.D., about which he gained for himself by the first volume of which time, I presume, we must place the comhis grammar. The arrangement and treatment mencement of the development of the modern of the subject are admirable. None but those who dialects. The only accent whose influence at the themselves pursue scientific inquiries in the isola- present time is felt, and may be observed to affect tion of an Indian station and under the pressure of the form of words, is the rhythmic accent; and I official work can fully appreciate the difficulties believe there is no reason to suppose that it was of such a work under such circumstances.
different at that earlier period when the modern On pp. 4-30 Mr. Beames discusses what he very dialects originated. But, however that may be, 1 happily calls the Ka-theory: namely, my theory do not think the evidence of the languages itself of explaining the fact that of the Gaurian nouns supports the accent-theory. If there are many which have a base in a, some end in & (resp. o or barytones which form nouns in ã, and many oxyau), others in a (resp. v), with the help of the tones that form nouns in d, there are as many (Prakrit) suffix ka; holding that those bases from which just the opposite conclusion might be which added ka form nouns in d, while those | drawn. Mr. Beames has collected a large number which did not add that suffix form nouns in a of examples bearing on this point, and he has mar. Mr. Beames himself, I am glad to see, in the main shalled them, with that great ability of arrangeagrees with this theory. But he thinks at the ment which forms one of the charms of his book, same time that that fact is capable of a different in such a way as to lend the greatest possible explanation, viz. by the theory that oxytone bases support to the accent-theory. But, even under form nouns in d, while barytone bases form nouns these favourable circumstances, it seems to me in o. This accent-thuory is certainly the only the theory fails to make good its ground. Let us * MS. om. Sपि. + Ms. ऋजाधेधः कृतपित्रा.
+MS. स्वयपी SMS. °क्रमगतो.
