________________
APRIL, 1876.]
CORRESPONDENCE AND MISCELLANEA.
121
be admitted that whether or not the Ka-theory language either in one class or the other, used by be true, it at least easily and naturally explains the common people sometimes with one terminaall the phenomena of the case; i.e. that if we as. tion, sometimes with the other. There is nothing sume that, for some reason or other-whatever strange in this view of the case. Exactly parallel it may have been the suffix ka (though it might cases have happened again and again in the history have been added to any noun, yet as a matter of of language. I will only mention one, a well estabfact) was only added to one class of nouns and not lished case-that of the Infinitive. The so-called added to another class, then the former would na. Infinitive, it is now well known (see Max Müller, turally end in d, and the latter in ă; if, I say, this chap. IV. p. 30 ), is really the Dative (rarely the is so, why should the Ka-theory be questioned Locativa) case of a verbal noun. From the Vedas merely because it may be impossible to ascertain it may be seen that in ancient Aryan times the the reason why in one case ka was added, but dative of any kind of verbal noun might be, and in another omitted ? But in truth the question was, used as an infinitive. But when we come after this reason is one of historical import rather down to Latin, we see that here one class of than of linguistic. Take an illustration. In the verbal nouns was so used as those in as, like vivere, Saptaś taka the addition of ka to stems in a, i, u, Sanskrit jtvase), while in Greek other classes were is extremely common. Many words are found 80 employed ; nay, in Greek itself we find one clase with stems ending in aa, ia, ua, and as many of verbs using verbal nouns in man (as douevas, ending in a, i, u; the former are explained by Sanskrit damane) for their infinitive, another class the so-called Ka-theory (see Weber, pp. 69, 52). verbal nouns in van (as civat = oFéval, asudne), a But it may be asked, if ka can be added to any third class verbal nouns in an (as TÉPTEL Tépment, base in a, i, u, why did the author of the Sap- Sansksit tdrpane), whilo another class still uses tatataka add it in some words and omit it in several of them simultaneously (as in Homer both others? What can I answer? He must have iuevas mane, with man, and lévat aivane, with had some reason for his practice; but it is not ! va). It might be said, if any verbal noun could likely that we shall discover it. But we do not be, and was, originally used as the infinitive of make that a reason for doubting the claim of the any verb, why have not all verbs in Greek the Ka-theory to explain the difference between the same kind of infinitive ? No doubt there was a words in aa, ia, ua, and those in a, i, u. Now reason for the difference; and if we know all the what is true in regard to the language of tho circumstances under which the Greek language author of the Saptasataka, is equally true, on a was evolved, perhaps we might be able to recog. larger scale, with regard to the language of the nize the reason. But though we do not now peoples of North India at the time when tho know the reasons which guided the popular selecmodern vernaculars were formed. There must tion of infinitives for the different classes of have been some reason for their using some words verbs, we do not consider that want of knowledge with ka, others without it; but what reason or a reason for rejecting the dative-theory of the reasons may have guided this popular selection,' infinitive. Analogously, our present want of possibly we may not be able to ascertain. My knowledge of the reasons which guided the popubelief is that towards the end of the Pråkpit lar selection of the ka-form for one class of nouns, period, in the popular speech of the masses, the and the simple form for another class, does not suffix la could be, and was, sometimes added, appear to me to justify our rejecting the Ka-theory sometimes not added, to any noun (in a, i, u) of the terminations of nouns. It might be sugwhatever; and that gradually (during the time the gested that the accent-theory, though it cannot modern vernaculars were being slowly evolved), in account for the difference of termination, might the struggle for existence between the words, by explain the principle of choice in adding or omit& sort of popular selection, the conditions of which ting ka. I will not undertake to say absolutely I do not pretend to know, some nouns became that it does not do so; but, at least, it seems to established in their ka-form, others in their simple me very doubtful. For, the same reasons which form, while others again became fixed in both militate against the accent-theory as explaining forms simultaneously. It should be remembered the difference of termination are equally strong that this result is a fully established one really against its claim to explain the choice of ka for only in the present literary languages. In the one class of nouns in preference to another class. colloquial dialects (e. g. the eastern Low Hindi or This explanation has run to a much greater Gamwari) even at the present day the limits of length than I had expected. But I hope I may be those three classes are not strictly defined. There allowed to add a few remarks with regard to anyou may hear, still now, the same noun (especially other difficulty, viz. the proper derivation of the adjectives), which has become fixed in the literary Infinitives in nd (no-ko). On p. 19 Mr. Beames
