Page:The Indian Antiquary Vol 2.djvu/234

 210 THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY. [July, 1873. apparently in great haste f, and without sufficient acquaintance with the present state of scientific research on several of the topics touched on or discussed in my Essay—still his review contains some very valuable hints and communications! especially from the Mahdbhdshya, for which we are thankful to him and to Prof. Bhdnddrkar, to whose aid he several times states that he is indebted. Berlin, 18th April 1873. A. Wiber. Note. Might not Sag ad a, the metropolis of the Adeisathroi, near the hills of Uxentus,be S & g a r a, near the sources of the D a £ d r n a (Dosan), 200 miles E.N. E. of U j j a i n F Spruner places it about 50 miles W.N.W of Warangol.—Ed. GENITIVE POST-POSITION8. To tho Editor, Indian Antiquary. Sra,—In the April number of tho Indian Antiquary (p. 121) appeared a letter from Dr. Pischel with criticisms on my theory of the Gaurian genitivo post-positions. I now request tho favour of your inserting tho following reply. As regards the remark regarding tho Prdkrit of the plays being founded on tho sutra of Ya* raruclii, I regret its somewhat careless expression, as it seems to havo scandalized my critic so much. Many Prdkrit scholars, and all those who combine a knowledge of the modern Indian vernaculars with that of Prakrit (e. g. Beames in his Comp. Oram, passim), hold that the colloquial or vulgar Prdkrit differed, and perhaps considerably, from the literary Prakrit used in the plays, and gram* marized, so to speak, by Vararuchi and his suc¬ cessors. These two Prakrits cannot havo been without influence upon one another; hence in the plays forms arc found which are not noticed, especially in the earlier grammars, and which probably were introduced from the vulgar Prdkrit. Still, generally speaking, the literary Prakrit re¬ mained stationary, while the colloquial Prdkrit changed and developed. Thoso who wrote Prdkrit (in dramas and otherwise) must havo learned the literary Prakrit, and must have learned it from the Prdkrit grammars. This is what was meant. The question is too largo a one to bo fully stated hero. Perhaps Dr. Pischel takes a different view of it; but that is no reason why my view should be in¬ correct. What the colloquial Prakrit must havo been, cannot bo determined from tho Prdkrits of the dramas and grammars only, but also, and often more truly, from tho modern vernaculars. Now tho old and, at present, poetical and vulgar Hindi past part, hind (or hind) postulates some Prdkrit form like kinno or kunno, or even kanno (for old Hindi appears to recognise a verbal base kana). That the base kuna is restricted to verse by Prdkrit grammars is not opposed to my theory, as my critic seems to imagine, but is in favour of it; and that is the reason why I referred to it. It is a well-known fact, of which Hindi affords ex¬ amples in abundance, that the colloquial has many forms which by the literary language are restricted to poetry. That the past part. pass, of the base kuna is not met with in any Prdkrit work (of which, by the way, we know only very few as yet) is no proof, that it cannot bo formed and did not exist in the spoken language. However, what I maintain is that the Hindi genitive post-positions are derived from a Prdkrit equivalent of the Sanskrit past part. krita; as to the rest, I merely expressed an opinion, and gave some reasons for it, that they are identical with the Hindi ones. This requires further proof: but my own further investigations have rather confirmed me in my view. My critic thinks that “ it is easy to prove” that tho Bangdli and Opiyd genitivo post-positions are not derived from the Prdkrit keraka. But he ha9 not produced his proof. For his statements as to the use of keraka in Prdkrit, whether true or not, have no particular bearing on the question whether the Bangdli er is a curtailment of keraka or not. The only argument that I can discover among his criticisms is that “ the word keraka is far too modern to under¬ go so vast and rapid a change as to be curtailed to simple er.” Tho fact is that keraka occurs in the sense of a genitivo post-position so early as in tho Mrichchhakatikd, which is generally supposed to have been writton in the beginning of the Christian era; and of the oldest Bangdli there is next to no literature; so that tho argument has no leg to stand upon.—I may take this oppor¬ tunity, however, to state that since writing my third essay I havo modified my view so far (for in such a novel inquiry it is especially true that dies diem docct) that I now consider the Bangdli er not to be a curtailment of tho Prdkrit keraka, but of kera; because otherwise the Bangdli post-posi¬ tion would be pronounced era, and not er.—My critic says that I maintain that the genitive of santdna was originally aantdna-kcraka. I main¬ tain no such thing. If he had followed the drift of my argument moro attentively, he would have seen that I merely wished to trace the probable steps by which keraka in conjunction with the final a of a noun becomes curtailed into er. For this purpose any noun with a final quiescent & would do. I took santdna because it was ready to hand, being the paradigm in the excellent Ban- t The August part of the Indian Antiquary contained the conclusion of Mr. Boyd’s translation, and Mr. KAsinfith read his paper on the 2nd September.