________________
122
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[APRIL, 1876.
points out an objection to my theory of deriving Can we prove the existence of such a double form P them from verbal nouns in,anfya, viz. the existence Here, I think, lies the other difficulty. Mr. Bea mes of a weak form of infinitive in na in the mediaval says (p. 18), "in old Hindi the infinitive of this poets. I am glad that Mr. Beames has called at- class ends always (the italics are mine) in the tention to it. He is quite correct in saying that I short vowel." But is it so P Is it always so? had overlooked these mediæval forms; for, though If it is so, it would put us all, I fear, into very I was aware of their existence, I had overlooked great straits as to explaining the modern form their bearing on my theory. I also admit that the at all. The work, then, which lies before us is to objection seriously militates against my theory,- see whether evidences of the existence of such a unless I can meet it. I believe I shall be able to double form of the infinitive as I have indicated do so, though, where I am now, I have not the cannot be discovered in medieval literaturo. I necessary means at hand to examine the question. do not despair yet of our finding the necessary The difficulty, I think, lies here: Mr. Beames calls evidence; though, not having the needful means them intermediate forms; but are they strictly inter- with me here, I cannot just now contribute to the mediate ? If they are, it will be difficult to maintain search. But even seeing that all, or almost all, my theory; for it does seem very improbable, not extant medieval literature consists of poetry, to say impossible, that a form, e. g. karanigam which would naturally prefer the use of the weal ('to be done') should become in the first instance infinitival form, even if the unfortunate case should karan, and afterwards karand (or karane). But happen that no evidence of the existence of a it appears to me the fact, if it is one, would make double form is forthcoming, still I think we equally strongly against Mr. Beames's own theory should be driven, by the necessities of the caso, (that the modern final d or auṁ is owing to the to assume the existence, in the common speech original anusrodra in ani): for the medieval or so- of the people, of some such intermediate form called intermediate form never has the anuswdra or as could be phonetically the parent of the modern anundsika. Even if the original of the infinitive, infinitival form. In any case, whether or not e.g. of karand (or karanaun), is the Sanskrit verbal evidence of a double mediæval form be found, noun karanam, still at first this form (.e. kara. the theory which derives the infinitive from a vernami) becomes karan (or karana), but never bal noun in antye stands an equal chance with karanam; and there is no room for karan turning that which derives it from a verbal noun in ana, into karanan (or karand) by the force of any even barring all other considerations which make anuewdra. If, then, the intermediate form is in favour of my theory and against the alternative karan (or karana), whatever its Sanskrit original one. may have been (whether karaniyam as I believe, Only one word more. It might be said that, or karanam as Mr. Beames believes), I do not see supposing two forms did exist in mediæval times, how it could now have become karanaun. I be. and admitting that one of these forms was either lieve, therefore, that it will be found (or, in any karanań or karaniam, still it is easier to derive case, that we must assume) that such forms as karan phonetically the undoubtedly existing form karan are not intermediate; that is, not intermediate from a Sansksit or Praksit original karanars than as between the original form karantyam or (accord. from karantyam; and if so it is simpler to consiing to Mr. Beames) karanam and the modern der the verbal nouns in ana to have been the oriform karand (or karanaum): in other words, not ginals of all medieval and modern forms of the inintermediate phonetically, though of course they finitive. I admit the derivation would be easiermay be intermediate historically as being found in at least so far as regards forms like karan-and mediæral poets. Though even this latter fact I there would be no reason to look for any other, if do not believe to be quite correct; for the weak there were no other considerations which, on the forms in na of the infinitive are, at least in Hindi, whole, in my opinion, far outweigh that one conatill often used in the present day in poetry, and sideration. Into these I cannot enter now; they Bometimes in vulgar speech. For the present, are discussed in my 4th Essay (Jour. Beng. 48. therefore, we must assume that in the mediaval Soc.). They have reference chiefly to the difficulty of times there were two forms of the infinitive in the final syllable am becoming aum (or eni), to the use side by side (as indeed, it is the case even existence of simultaneous infinitive-forms in aum, now in Hindi, as I have remarked already): viz. baur, and to the various gerundival meanings of 1, one in nam (as I suppose Mr. Beames would say), the so-called Infinitive. But, further, there is or in nian (for Prakrit nlan) or perhaps naan not wanting direct evidence that the affix anfya (nayam) as I should say, being the parent of the may become curtailed into an in the moderr. lancommon modern infinitive in nauń or nem or nd; guages. For example, I suppose it will not be 2, the other in na, confined more or less to poetry. I denied that in such words as panpatr (drinking
