Page:A Comparative Grammar of the Modern Aryan Languages of India Vol 3.djvu/34

 chayati, suṇati, bhanjati, karati, grihṇati, and jánati, if all those verbs belonged to the first or Bhû conjugation.

It is not so easy to draw out a full verbal paradigma in this dialect as in Pali, because we have as yet no grammars, and are obliged to fall back on the words that occur in a single text. The range of tenses appears to consist of a present (corresponding to the Sanskrit laṭ), imperative (loṭ), potential (liṅ), imperfect and aorist jumbled together as in Pali, and future (lṛit). The perfect (liṭ) seems to be altogether wanting, as it is in the modern languages.

The present runs thus :— √ “bow.”

S. 1. नमामि,

नमेमि,

2. ,

,

3. ;





.

P. 1.

2.

3.

Those terminations which contain the vowel e have crept into the conjugation of all verbs from the tenth, to which that vowel, as shortened from ay a, must be held strictly to be- long, or to causals. Thus in Bhag. i. 60, we have pkdseti, puleti, sobheti, tireti, pureti, kitteti, anupdlei, arahei, for San- skrit T$nr*Tf(T, TrRrefa, ^^rfa, crnc*ifa> grrfa, ^H*ifa,

'^•nTT'^PTfa > WTTO"*lf?T - respectively. In the last word the causal form becomes the same as the active given above. Of the imperative we have only the S. 2 and P. 2, which are in fart the only persons which an imperative can properly have. The S. 2 takes the ending f^ as in Pali with junction vowels a and <■, the P. 2 ends in f, which, as Weber points out, is from the P. 2 of the present, in Sanskrit ^J. Thus—

Skr. v' ^^" shine," causal "^Y^"^> impv. 7[t^I> Jaina "^CtTjflr

TBTtrr'^licvc," „ ^lf|, •• ^fTf^ (pres.

V ^ « bind," impv. P. 2, wtel, „ ^Vf.