Page:The Indian Antiquary Vol 1.pdf/15

 JANUARY 5, 1872.]

3

ON OLD HINDI.

interest and importance for the student of com parative philology will be apparent, when I say that the modern Aryan group of languages has been developed from the Sanskrit, or rather from that old Aryan ursprache, of which Sanskrit is our only surviving type, by precisely the same processes as those by which the Romance group in Europe has evolved itself from the Latin. We see in both groups exactly parallel develop ments, marvellously synchronous, and precisely similar in point of structure. So also with the German group; readers of Grimm might almost take his rules and the skeleton of his German

Grammar, and fill up the details with examples drawn from Hindi, Marathi, and other Indian languages. Inasmuch then, as what we want, more especially in philology at present, is an absolute parallelism of all developements in groups of languages of the same family, to enable us to give to our science that mathemati cal precision which it is at present reproached with lacking, there can be few more important lines of study for the enquirer to follow, than a thorough elucidation of the principles of deve lopment of the Aryan languages of India. The first requisite for this task is, that there should exist an accessible and trustworthy series of texts. As long as the Indian authors remain in manuscript, no real work can be done. We must have Chand in print, just as readily procurable as Otfried or Notker, so that he may be analyzed and commented upon, and the lessons which his rude style teaches, as fully understood as those

tribe of Rajputs, the last Hindu sovereign of Dehli. This is followed by a long string of writers of religious poetry, whose names are too well known to need repetition here, but whose works are, perhaps, not so familiar as their names.” In spite of occasional dialectic differences, and al though a gradual modernization of style and vocabulary is discernible in them, these poets are all of one type as regards grammatical con struction, and general characteristics. And this type is about the most enigmatical that can possibly be imagined. In the first place, as though peculiarities of grammar and syntax were not enough to be wilder the student, a mechanical stumbling-block of the gravest description meets him at the out set.

All the words in one line are written to

gether without any break; thus—

WITHREHrgāfīāR IIChand. fääääiſäIIRäää ll -

-

-

Kabir. .

which is much as if one should write in one

word, the line— Godlikeerectwithmativehonourclad. Milton.

This is the universal custom in Indian manu

scripts of all ages, but in Sanskrit the practice causes no difficulty, because the inflexional ter mination of the words themselves supply a guide to their proper division. In old Hindi, however, the inflexional termi– nations of nouns and verbs (a point to be noticed

presently more in detail) have almost entirely

of the old and middle-German writers.

It is generally supposed, that, to translate an old Hindi work, is as easy as it is to translate a modern German or French novel.

disappeared; so, that, we have frequently no clue at all to help us in dividing the words. Take for instance the following lines from Chand:—

This is a

very great mistake, and entails much undeserv ed neglect and some little contempt,upon scholars who undertake the task. I wish therefore, as one who has had occasion to spend many a weary hour over the dark and mystic pages of these knotty old poets, to say a few words with a view to putting the importance and difficulty of these studies in a truer light, and winning some sympathy and recognition for those who are engaged in, what seems to them at present, a task of almost disheartening difficulty. The earliest Hindi poem extant, as far as we know at present, is the great epic of CHAND BARDA1, [Baroth] called the Prithiraja Rásau,

ox
 * 1) 5THājīq-TTETāāfāºrfaſſàſfääT

HRTHÚigíasſis, RHTrúatagºit I The above lines are not consecutive, but are taken

at random, from different parts of the poem.

It

will be observed, that each one of them admits

of being divided in more than one way; as, for instance, the first from a hymn in praise of Saras wati. We may take it thus—


 * 1) 55 STT, Hºi TUT &c.

which was written about A.D. 1200, and records

“Whose is the umbrella, holder of the drum.” (Hºſt for ### a common change), or we may perhaps more correctly divide—

the life and exploits of Prithirāja of the Chauhān


 * 1) sſ ºf Tº TT RTH

-


 * See Garcin de Tassy's valuable Histoire de la Litteratuo Hindowie and Hindowstanic, vol. I, passim.