Indian Antiquary Vol 60

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Charles E A W Oldham, S Krishnaswami Aiyangar, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarka
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 348

$ 50-51 )
ON THE MODERN INDO-ARYAN VERNACULARS
August, 1931
Indo-Aryan population of the Midland, which presents the ethnological type that might be expected to result from the incursion of a fair long-headed race that entered India by a routo which prevented women from accompanying them, into a land inhabited by dark-skinned Dravidians, whose women they took for them - relves. It is thus seen that Risley postulates two sets of invaders, one bringing their women and settling at first in the central and western Panjab, and the other coming without their women, and settling at first in the Midland. It is evidently immaterial to his argument which was the first and which the second, but be assumes that the first was that with women.
50. On purely Linguistic grounds, Hoernle considered that at some former period of its history, North India was divided between two great forms of speech which he calls the
Saurasēni tongue' (Western), and the Māgadhi tongue' (Eastern), respectively. He fur. ther suggested that at a still earlier period the limits of the Māgadhitongue included a much wider extent of country. He finds isolated traces of Mågadhi characteristics in the far West. These increase in number as we proceed East, till at last in the East itself they predominate Bo as to constitute the Māgadhi tongue. These circumstances, he maintains, seem to disclose the fact that at some time in the remote past the Magadhi tongue must have reached up to the extreme North-Western frontiers, and have been the only language of North India; but that in course of time it gradually receded more and more to the South and East before the advancing tide of the Saurasēni tongue, leaving, however, here and there in the deserted territories traces of its former presence. With this Māgadhi tongue Hoernle associated Pašto and Kāfiri, and concludes. It would appear from this that Māgadhi Prakrit and the Pašto and Kafiri were once in close connexion, perhaps one language, and that, at some time in the remote past, they became separated by the Saurasēni Prakrit tongue, like a wedge cleaving them asunder and gradually pushing the Magadhi further and further away towards the East.'
1 H). Gd. Gr., Xxx ff.
51. I have quoted at length this eminent scholar's theory, and now proceed to state my own opinion which is founded upon it. In the first place, it must be remarked that, since Hoernle wrote, it has been proved that Pašto is an Eranian language, and hence can hardly have been closely connected with the Indo-Aryan Māgadhi tongue. As regards Hoernle's Käfiri, by which he means Aškund, one of the Dardio languages, the case is some. what different. In some respects Dardic differs widely from NWIAV., i.e., Lahnda and Sindhi, while in other respecte it closely agree with them. Reference has already been made to this point (ante $$ 10, 24, 25), and I have stated my opinion that the points of agreement are due to the intermingling of the ancient speakers of the old form of Ps. Pr. with the IndoAryans of the North-West,-in other words, that they are due to very ancient borrowing by the latter. Otherwise, I am unable to account for the existence of Eranianisms in Dardio that are wanting in L. and S. On the other hand, it is evident that Kš., a Dardic language, either has borrowed freely from NWIAV., or else is a connecting link between the two groups. Possibly, when we know more about Dardio, it may be shown that I am wrong, and that Hoernle's instinct was justified in suggesting that the old Pr. of the North-West, i.e., Hoernle's old Magadhi tongue, and the ancestor of Dardic were once in close connexion or perhaps one common language.1 My mind is entirely open on the point.
Three interesting points are on Hl.'s side. One of them is the optional change of rto lin Calikäpaidacika. The same change was obligatory in Mg. Pr. Cf. Mahabhägya (Kielhorn, I, 2, 1..8) na layo, for AS arayah, in the speech of the Asuras, which is often said to be Mg. Pr., but can be better explained as CP. Pr. The second is the change of on to a (K. asi, we, etc.) See Hl. Gd. Gr., 280, note I. The third is the frequent use of A both in P6. Pr. and in Mg. Pr. (Hc., iv, 305, etc. Cf. Hl. Gd. Gr., 11).
30