HINDÜSTANÎ, or Urdü, is a dialect of the Hindi, one of the seven languages of Aryan stock spoken at the present day in North India, the others being the Panjabi, Sindhi, Gujarati, Marathi, Bangali, and Oriyä. The area over which it is spoken in North India may be said to be co-extensive with that of the Hindi, which is estimated at about 250,000 square miles, extending from the river Gandak in the east to the Sutlej in the west, and from the Himalaya in the north to the Vindhiyâ mountains in the south. It is also extensively used, though in a somewhat different phase, in a great part of the Deccan, and is moreover the lingua franca of most parts of India.
• As the Hindi language consists of many dialects, it is necessary to state that it is the Braj Bhäshä, or the dialect that is spoken in the districts of Agra and Mathura, and in the neighbourhood of Dehli, the ancient capital of the Mahometan empire, which is generally regarded as the parent of Hindustani. The grammatical structure and also a vast number of the commonest vocables of the Braj were incorporated in the new dialect, and to these were added a vast number of Persian, Arabic, and even Turkish words. “Such words, however, in no wise altered or influenced the language itself, which, as regards its inflexional or phonetic elements, remains still a pure Aryan dialect, just as pure in the pages of Wall or Saudä, as it is in those of Tulsi Dâs or Bihârï Läl.” Peculiarities of composition, such as reversing the positions of the governing and the governed word (e.g., häp mera for merä bap), or of the adjective and the substantive it qualifies, or such as the use of Persian phrases with the preposition ba instead of the Hindi postposition of the ablative case (e.g., ba-khushï instead of khushï se, or ba-hzιkm sarkär-ke, instead of sarkar ke hukm se), are no doubt to be met with in many writings, and these, perhaps, combined with the too free indulgence on the part of some authors in the use of high-flown and pedantic Persian and Arabic words in place of common and yet chaste Hindi words, and the general use of the Persian instead of the Nâgarï character, have induced some to regard Hindustani or Urdu as a language distinct from Hindi. But such a view betrays a radical misunderstanding of the whole question.
As regards the introduction of foreign words into the various dialects of Hindi, it seems highly probable that it had its origin at an early period, perhaps as early as the 8th or 9th century of our era. But there is good ground for the opinion that, although the Hindi area was overrun as early as the 12th century, the Hindustani was not formed till the 16th century. “For many generations after the victories of Kutbu’d-din Aibak, the first Musalmän sovereign of Dehli,the conquerors retained their own Persian, and the conquered their Hindi. The Musalmäns had long been accustomed to speak pure Hindi,and it was not they who introduced Persian words into the language, but the Hindüs themselves, who at the epoch above mentioned were compelled by Todar MaΓs new revenue system to learn Persian.” And we learn from Mir Amman of Dehli (whose brief account of the origin of Urdu in the preface to his well-known Bagh-o-Bahär bears on the face of it every convincing mark of probability, and, scanty as it is, is remarkable a«, perhaps, the only attempt at a critical disquisition in the whole range of Hindustani literature) that at the date of the composition of his work (1802) the Musalmän dynasties had endured for a thousand years, and that as intercourse increased the languages of the Hindus and Musalmäns became to a certain extent mixed. By the arrival and stay of the Amir Tïmür the camp or bäzär of the army was introduced into the city, whence the city bäzär was called Urdu, a Tartar word signi Tying “camp.” “When
Akbar ascended the throne, various races from all quarters, on hearing the kind patronage and bounty of that incomparable house, came and assembled in the royal presence, but the speech and dialect of each was different. From their being collected together, and owing to the trade, traffic, and intercourse which they carried on with one another, a single language, that of the Urdu (or Hindustani), was established.”
The epoch of Akbar, which first saw a regular revenue system established, with toleration and the free use of their religion granted to the Hindus, was, there can be little doubt, the period of the formation of the language. But its final consolidation did not take place till the reign of Shah Jahän. After the date of this monarch the changes are comparatively immaterial until we come to the time when European sources began to mingle with those of the East. Of the contributions from these sources there is little to say. Like the greater part of those from the Arabic and Persian, they are chiefly nouns, and may be regarded rather as excrescences which have sprung up casually and have attached themselves to the original trunk than ingredients duly incorporated in the body. In the case of the Persian and Arabic element, indeed, we do find not a few instances in which nouns have been furnished with a Hindi termination, e.g., kharldna, bαdαlηa, guzarnä, däghnä, bαkhshna, kamïnapan, &c. But the European element cannot be said to have at all woven itself into the grammar of the language. It consists, as has been observed, solely of nouns, principally substantive nouns, which on their admission into thelanguage are spelt phonetically, or according to the corrupt pronunciation they receive in the mouths of the natives, and are declined like the indigenous nouns by means of the usual postpositions or case-affixes. A few examples will suffice. The Portuguese, the first in order of seniority, contributes a few words, as kamαra or kαmra (camera), “a room;” martοl, “a hammer:” nilam, “auction” (often corrupted into lilam); peril, “a turkey,” &c. <kc. Of French and Dutch influence scarcely a trace exists. English has contributed a number of words, some of which have even found a place in the literature of the language; e.g., Kammishanar (commissioner); jaj (judge) ; istant (assistant); dakfαr (doctor) ; dαkfari, “the science of medicine,” or “the profession of physicians;” inspektar (inspector); sosayafl (society); aρll (appeal); aphl kamιa, “to appeal;” dikrι or digri (decree); digri (degree); inch (inch); fut (foot); and many more, are words now commonly used. How far the free use of Anglicisms will be adopted as the language progresses is a question upon which it would be hazardous to pronounce an opinion.
The grammatical structure of the Hindustani differs in no essential particular from that of the Hindi from which it is sprung. . It is therefore of the rise and formation of this language, and of the stage to which it had attained when the new phase of the Hindustani was developed from it, that we shall now speak.
Of the history and development of the Hindi or Hindùi language previous to the 11th century of our era little or nothing is known. It is accepted as a fact by most scholars that Sanskrit ceased to be a vernacιdar in the 6th century B.c., when the Buddhist religion was founded, which for ten centuries drove Brahmanism into obscurity. From that time the Aryan people of India spoke popular dialects called Prakrits, and it is from these that the modern Aryan tongues are mainly derived. These Prakrit dialects are generally grouped under five heads, viz., the Maharâshtrï, Sauraseni, Mägadhi, Paisachi, and Apabhransa. Of these the Sauraseni, or dialect of Saurasena, the modern tract of Mathura and the surrounding country, is taken to be the parent of the Hindi, or at any rate of that phase of it with which we have to do. These Prakrits were, like the Sanskrit, synthetical and inflexional in their structure, and certainly continued to be so up to the 1st century of our era, the lowest stage to which in point of development scholars have been able to reach. At what precise period the synthetical structure of the Prakrit began to break up and to give place to the analytical formations of the modern speech it is impossible to tell. The gap of nine centuries has yet to be filled up. And unless future discoveries of Buddhistic literature should shed light on the subject, it is to be feared that the history of this period will ever remain unknown.
The dawn of modern Hindi may be dated from the 11th century. The earliest known writer in the language was Chand Bardai (c.1200), whose epic is in a dialect rude and half-formed, but as decidedly analytical as the Hindi of the present day. Much of the old synthetical structure no doubt is still to be found in the work; the particles and the auxiliary verbs are in a very crude and unformed state (as, for example, the use of an obscure ka for the modern genitive affix ka, which ka does not vary with the governed noun, and is frequently left out altogether; the total absence of the ordinary substantive verb hai, &c.); but these crudities and remnants of old Prakrit forms do not affect the general structure. Indeed, they are to be found in writings of a much later period, in works belonging to the 14th and 15th centuries, e.q., in the Adi Grαnth, the language of which exhibits, according to Trumpp, “grammatical forms not firmly fixed, but rather in a state of transition.” And although the forms assume greater fixity, and marked progress is observable in the works of later writers in the Braj Bhâkhâ dialect, e.g., in those of Kabir, Sür Das, Nabhä Ji, Kesava Das, and Bihäri Läl (whose poems are, as a rule, composed in very pure and elegant Hindi), we still find certain crudities and traces of Prakrit forms and organic structure, and these continue even in the language of the present day.
To give a minute account of the grammatical formation, to indicate the various phonetic or glottic laws by the operation of which the vocables and grammatical forms of the Hindi are derived from those of the Prakrit or Sanskrit, is beyond the scope of the present article. We can but notice a few general laws, and exhibit results, so far as they have been ascertained. For closer acquaintance with the subject we must refer the reader to the Präkrit- Prakαsa of Vararûchi, edited by Professor E. B. Cowell; the Prakrit Grammar of Hemachandra, edited by Professor Pischel; the Comparative Grammar of the Modern Aryan Languages of India, by John Beames, B.C.S.; and Essays on the Gaurian Languages, by Professor Rudolf Hoernle.
Prakrit tolerates no compound consonant in the beginning and no dissimilar consonant in the middle of a word. Two dissimilar consonants in a Sanskrit word are changed in Prakrit to two similar consonants, and occasionally one of these is elided and the preceding vowel lengthened. In the modern dialects this elision of one consonant and compensatory lengthening of the preceding vowel is the rule. Prakrit either changes a medial surd mute consonant to the corresponding sonant one, or elides it altogether; and it generally changes an aspirate mute consonant to the simple aspirate h. In fact the modern Aryan tongues stand to the Prakrit and the Sanskrit in a relation very similar to that existing between the Italian, <fcc., and the Romance and Latin languages. Hindi “is not the daughter of Sanskrit, as we find it in the Vedas, or in the later literature of the Brahmans, it is a branch of the living speech of India, springing from the same stem from which Sanskrit sprang when it first assumed its literary independence.” Vocables.— The vocables may be classed under three heads :— 1. Words which are pure Sanskrit, as râjâ, “a king”; pita, “father”; kaνi, “ a poet”; nagari, “of or belonging to a city”; karma, kärya, “work”; krodha (vulg. krodh), “anger.” Nota few of this class of words have existed in the language for some centuries; some are to be found even in the oldest specimens of the literature; but by far the larger number have passed into the language during the present century, and the introduction is still progressing. The form in which they appear is that of the Sanskrit nominative singular.
2. Words which are derived from the Prakrit, and have been considerably changed in the process, though not so much as to obscure their origin, e.g., käm, “work,” Prk. kamma, S. karma; kän, “ear,” Prk. kanιιa, S. karna; ath, “eight,” Prk. attlιa, S. ashtha; hath, “hand,” Prk. haitha, S. hasta ; äp, “self,” Prk. appâ, S. âtmâ; bât, “word,” Prk. vattä, S. värttä ; âj, “today,” Prk. ajja, S. adya; âge, “before,” Prk. agge, S. agre; äg, “fire,” Prk. aggi, S. agni; dudh, “milk,” Prk. duddha, S. dugdha; phägun, “Feb.-March,” Prk. phaggun, S. ρhalgun; budclhä, “old,” Prk. vudclho, S. vriddhah; kalιa, “said,” (Braj kahyau), Prk. kahido, kahio, S. kathitah; rahä, “remained,” (Braj rahyauh, Prk. rahido, rahio, S. rahitah; thä, ‘ ‘ was,” Prk. thio, S. sthitah. This is by far the largest class of words in the Hindi. And, as in the case of the first class, they are adopted in the form of the nominative singular of the Prakrit. They are divisible into two classes, the first comprising such as have in their declension preserved traces of the old organic inflexion of the Prakrit declension, and the second those which have preserved no such traces. As regards these it may be observed that the terminations a, e, i, o, u, of the Prakrit are regularly reduced in the Hindi to their inherent simple vowels, viz., â to a, e and i to i, and o and u to u ; and these short vowels are, as a rule, made quiescent, so that a word ending in reality in a short vowel virtually terminates in a consonant; and, not being pronounced, the final short vowel is frequently suppressed in writing also.
3. Words which cannot apparently he traced to any Sanskrit original, and are therefore considered by some scholars as words of non-Aryan origin; e.g., pagri, ii turban”; gor, Prk. goram, “ leg.” Such words form but a small proportion; and it is probable that further research and a better acquaintance with the laws of development of the modern Aryan tongues will ultimately enable scholars to very much diminish their number.
Gender.— The three genders of the Prakrit and Sanskrit are, in Hindi and Hindüstäni, reduced to two, the neuters and masculines of the old tongues generally becoming masculines in the modern language. Instances, however, are not a few in which they are changed to feminines. A striking feature in the modern tongues is the preponderance of masculines ending in d, with the corresponding feminines in i. Now in the Sanskrit d is a typical feminine ending, and i is as often a masculine as a feminine termination. Many feminine words ending in ά are no doubt to be found in the Hindi, aschhimä, “patience,” = S. kshamâ ; and similarly many masculine words which in the Prakrit and Sanskrit terminate in i are also to be met with, as pdni, “water,”≈S. päniyam ; hâlhï, “elephant,” = S. hasti (hastin'). But â is typically a masculine and i a feminine termination in the Hindi and Hindüstäni, and this is probably due to the number of sources from which the termination springs; thus we have—(1) α=Prk. o, =S. as or ah, e.g., kaisd, “like what,” “what manner,” “how,” Prk. kériso, S. kidri&ah; (2) d=Prk. αδ, =S. akas or akah, e.g., ghord, “horse,” Prk. ghoraö, S. ghotakah ; (3) α = Prk. a(k)am, aam,≈S. am, e.g., keld, “ plantain,” Prk. kera(k)am, keradm, S. kadaram. Again, the masculine ending aka of the old languages has a corresponding feminine in ikd ; and as the Prakrit commonly employs the pleonastic increment k to raise bases to the form aka, so it employs the same affix to form the feminine ikd of these masculines; ikd becomes iyd, and more commonly i in the modern tongues. The form iyd is that which is generally used in feminine diminutives; e.g., dibiyd, “a tiny box”; but it is also used like i for a simple feminine; e.g., kuttd, “dog,” kutiyd, “bitch”; bûrhâ, “ old man,” burhiyd, “old woman.” If to the above class of feminines ending in i be added the large class which in Prakrit and Sanskrit form the feminine in i (i.e., the Prakrit masculines in o, = S. as), the preponderance of nouns ending in i seems sufficiently accounted for. It may be added thatα and i are so universally regarded as masculine and feminine terminations respectively that the natives employ them freely in forming feminines from masculinesand vice versa, e.g., badld, badli, from the Arabic badak There are a few other feminine terminations which are worthy of notice, not so much on account of their origin (which presents no difficulty), as on account of the free use which is made of them; these are—(1) ini, in, an, ni, ==S. ini (fem. of in, ι); (2) äni, äni, dln, = S. dnL These are not only found in words derived from the Prakrit, but are added to Persian and even Arabic words; e.g., hdthini, hdthin, hathni, “female elephant,” ( = S. hastini); sundrin, sundran, “a goldsmith’s wife,” (fem. of sonar, “goldsmith,” = S. suvarnakdra); sherni, “ tigress,” from the Persian sher, “ tiger ’; nasiban, a proper name, from the Arabic ?iasib; panclitdni, “the wife of a pandit”; chaudhrdin, “ the wife of a chaudhari or head-man”; méhtrdnï, “ the wife of a sweeper, a sweeper-woman,” from the Persian mêhtar, “a sweeper.”
Declension.— It is here that the most striking contrast between the old and the new languages is found. The synthetical method of the Prakrit and the Sanskrit is, as a whole, rejected, only certain half-effaced traces of declension being retained. The number of cases, as in the Sanskrit, is seven, the nominative, accusative, instrumental, dative, ablative, genitive, locative, and vocative; but the inflexions of the Prakrit have given place to case-affixes or postpositions. F or example, where the Sanskrit has sivdyai and sivasyai, the Hindi has siv-ko, and siv-kd.
The case-affixes or postpositions are as follow :— [table]
The genitive affix, it may be observed, varies its termination so as to agree with the governing noun. In other words, it is adjectival, and agrees with the governing noun just as an adjective would; e.g., sone·kigharl, “ a gold watch.”
The case-affixes or postpositions are all, there can be no doubt, remnants of Prakrit nouns which were probably in use at the period when the modern Aιyan languages began to be formed. The majority of these are fairly determined, and it seems probable that the remainder will also be fixed before long. The results of the investigation of scholars, as regards the postpositions noticed above (which are those commonly employed in the declension of Hindi and Hindüstäni nouns), we will here attempt to exhibit.
The case-affix ne of the instrumental (or case of the agent) is regarded by Trumpp and others as derived from ena, the instrumental case-ending of the Sanskrit. This opinion is, however, combated by Beames (Comp. Gram., vol. ii. p. 266 et seq.), who is of opinion that it is an affix of the dative, which was probably transferred to the instrumental as late as the time of Shäh Jahän, in whose reign, as has been shown above, Urdü or Hindüstäni λvas consolidated. Beames shows that the postposition is not used in the old Hindi, and is not to be found in most of the dialects, except as a dative ∙, but he does not, we believe, trace it to any particular original. It is clear, however, that whether this affix is derived from the instrumental case-ending of the Sanskrit or not, it bears a striking resemblance to the latter in its use and the construction it requires; e.g.. the Sanskrit tena uktam is marvellously like the Hindi us-na kahä, “by him it was said,” or freely “he said.”
The dative postposition ko is derived by Dr Trumpp from the Präkrit kito, kio,≈S. kritam. Dl∙ Hoernle, however, would seem to connect it with the Bangäli kächhe “ near,” and the S. sa-kdsa; and Beames (Comp. Gram., vol. ii. p. 257), accepting this as a right clue, traces the affix to the Präkrit kakkham, = S. kaksham, “ armpit,” “side," the locative of which, kakshe, he believes to be the source of the Bangäli kächhe.
The postposition se of the ablative is traced by Beames (Comp. Gram., vol. ii. p. 274) to the Sanskrit samam, “ with,” through an old form soil still used in the rustic dialects.
The genitive case-affix kd (fem. ki, oblique ke) is derived by Trumpp and others from the Sanskrit affix ka. But Hoernle shows conclusively (and his derivation is accepted by Beames) that the affixis derived from the Präkrit kariö ( = S. kritas), which becomes kero, kera(k)o, and then keraö ; kero is then shortened to kard, whence the modern form kd.
Of the locative case-affixes, meh, “in,” is derived by scholars from the Sanskrit madhye, the locative of madhya, “ the middle”; while par (pari, orpai) is obviously traceable to the Sanskrit upari, “upon.”
The declensions are two in number. In the one the nominative or base is inflected before the case-affixes are added; in the other no change takes place in the nominative form. The first consists solely of masculine nouns ending in α = Prk. o = S. as (e.g., ghord, “horse,”. = Prk. ghoraö, = S. ghotakas) ; the second comprises all other nouns, whether they end in vowels or consonants. The base of the first declension is inflected by changing final d to e; e.g., nom. ghord, inflect, base ghore, gen. ghoγe-kd, dat. ghore-ko. But in the second declension we find, nom. rdjd, “king,” gen. räjä-kä, “of a king,” &c. Dr Hoernle connects the e of the inflected base -with the yd of the oblique form in Maräthi, and so traces it to a Präkrit genitive in yassa = iassa=ikassa. The correctness of this derivation would seem to be established by the analogy of the oblique or inflected base of the plural of nouns, and especially by the inflected base of the pronouns, both these bases being indisputably traceable to the Präkrit genitive. Mr Beames, however, is of opinion that “it is not correct to derive the oblique form from any special case of the Sanskrit;” he thinks that “it rather results from a general fusion of all the cases” (Comp. Gram., vol ii. p. 210). This is the more remarkable as he accepts without demur the fact that the plural oblique base is a corruption of the Präkrit genitive plural.
The terminations of the nominative plural of nouns (where a plural form is used) are clearly traceable to the Präkrit. Nouns which fall under the first of the declensions noticed above terminate in e in the nom. plur. (e.g., ghord, “horse,” nom. plur. ghore, “horses,” which is identical in form with the inflected base of the sing.). The termination e= Prk. e, = S. ah. Feminines ending in a consonant (and also fem. Arabic words ending in d, as bald), form the nom. plur. by adding eh to the sing. nom. This ending, eh, = Prk. neuter di, din, = S. neut. äni. The plur. termination äh of the nom. of feminines ending in i (as beti, “daughter ”) is also to be refeιτed to the Präkrit din = S. äni. The oblique form of the plural of.all nouns ends in oh (e.g., ghoroh ; gen. ghoγoh-kd; räjä- oh, dat. räjä-oh-ko). The termination oh is derived from the Präkrit dnam (=S. ähäm), the termination of the genitive plural.
Pronouns.— The pronouns stand in marked contrast to the nouns in respect of the fidelity with which they have preserved the Präkrit forms. Those of the first and second persons nιn parallel to one another, and have four fundamental forms, namely, the nominatives and the obliques in both numbers. The genitive is a possessive pronoun, and, as in the noun, is adjectival in form. Main, “I, is derived by Trumpp from the Präkrit mam, the accusative of aham; but it seems more probable that it is, as Beames shows, the instrumental maim of the Präkrit, and =S. mayd. In the genitive me-rd, “my,” the affix rd added to the Prk. base me is, there can be little doubt, connected with the affix kd, used in forming the genitive of nouns; the form kard, by elision of k would naturally yield rd, which we may observe is the genitive affix of nouns also in the Marwäri dialect of Hindi. The oblique form mujh is derived from the Präkrit majjha, one of the forms of the genitive. The dative-acc. rnujhe of the modern Hindi is formed by adding e to mujh, this e being the usual sign of the oblique in nouns. Ham, “we,” = Prk. amhe by transposition of h. This is now commonly used as the oblique form of the plural (e.g., ham-ko, ham-par) ; but the oblique hamoh, = Prk. gen, plur. amhdnam, is also to be met with.
The genitive plural hamärä is probably from Prk. amha + karo, by elision of lc-.
The pronoun tü, ‘ ‘ thou,” = Prk. tumam, tuäm, = S. tvam. A form iaih, parallel to main, and similarly derived, is also in use. The oblique tujh is from the Prakrit tujjha, one of the forms of the genitive. The sources from and the processes by which the remaining forms are obtained are precisely parallel to those employed in the pronoun of the first person.
The pronouns of the third person are identical with the demonstrative pronouns yah or yih, “this,” and ιvah or wzιh, “that,” of which the older forms are ih and uh. The origin of these forms has not yet been discovered. All that can be gathered respecting them is that they are probably connected with one or other of the Prakrit forms aäm, iärn, inam, im,kc. = S. ayam, rn.,iyam, i.,idam, n.,&c., and are to be referred to primitive bases i and a or u. The oblique forms of these pronouns, however, point clearly to the Prakrit genitive, e.g., is =Prk. ossa, S. asya.
The relative pronoun jo, “he who” = Prk. jo, base ja = S. ya. The other form in use, jaun, = Prk. jo-zιna ( = S. punah). The singular oblique form jis = Prk. jissa (the fem. base ji being used in place of the masc. ja), = S. yasya. The oblique form of the plural, i.e., y⅛ = Prk. jänam (by weakening of the vowel), = S. yänam.
The correlative so =Prk. so = S. sah. Its remaining forms may be made on the model of jo by substituting t for/.
The interrogative pronoun has k for its typical letter, just as the relative has j, and is in all respects as uniform as the relative and correlative. Kaun, “who” =ko + τma ( = S. punah) ; the oblique form kis =Prk. gen. kassa (with change of base from masc. ka to fem. ki), = S. kasya.
The indefinite pronoun koi, “some one,” = Prk. kobi, = S ko + api., “The oblique form kisl shows the oblique of the interrogative with the I, whose origin has been forgotten, so that it is regarded as a mere emphatic particle” (see Beames, Comp. Gram.). Kuchh, “ something” = Prk. kimchi=S. kimchit.
The reflexive pronoun ap, “self” = Prk. apρa, äpä, = 8. ätrnä. Verbs and Tenses. —The verbal stems are, generally speaking, derived from the Prakrit present tense of Sanskrit neuter verbs, or from the Prakrit passive past participle. In the formation of the tenses, as in the declension of nouns, the synthetical or inflexional system of the Prakrit and the Sanskrit has given place to the analytical. Still wrecks of the old inflexions remain.
The tenses of the modern verb may be naturally classed under three heads—(1) the simple tenses, which are the exact modern equivalents of corresponding tenses in the Prakrit verb, and in which traces of the old synthetic method still linger; (2) tenses formed of a participle, either the imperfect or the perfect participle; (3) tenses formed of a participle and an auxiliary verb.
The tenses of the first class are two in*number,—the aorist (which corresponds to the present indicative of the old languages), and the imperative, which is derived from the Prakrit imperative.
The terminations of the aorist are :— [table]
The imperative closely resembles the aorist or old present. The second person sing, is the bare verbal stem, and the second person plur. is identical with that of tħe aorist.
From the aorist the Hindustani and the Hindi form the simple future by the addition of gâ ( = Prk. gaö, gado, = S. gatah, perf. part, of the root gam, “to go”), e.g., kahwh-gä, “I will tell,” &c. The termination gâ (which is masc. ) becomes gi for the feminine, and ge for the plural, after the analogy of nouns of the first declension.
Of the tenses of the second class little need be said. The participles (which like other vocables are derived from the Prakrit) are the imperfect and the perfect, or what are vulgarly termed the present and the past. An example of each will suffice to show the construction: wah boltâ, “he says”; main bolâ, “I said”; wah boll, “she said”; we bole, “they said.” Such is the construction in the case of neuter and intransitive verbs. But if the verb be active transitive, the tenses formed of the perfect passive participle are passively constructed; the place of the nominative is taken by the instrumental or case of the agent, and the participle inflects so as to agree with the object, if this be expressed, and appear in the form of the nominative; but if the object is not expressed, or if when expressed it assumes the dative form, the participle is constructed impersonally and appears in the masc. sing, form; e.g., 'maih-ne kahâ, “ by me it was said,” “I said”; us-ne chitthi likhi, “the letter was written by him,” “he wrote the letter”; räjä-ne shernï-ko mârâ, “the king killed the tigress”; lit. “as regards the tigress, it was killed by the king.” This construction, as we have already remarked, is commonly employed in the Sanskrit.
The tenses of the third class are formed by adding to the participles already mentioned the various tenses of certain auxiliary verbs, as honä, “tobe”; jânâ, “togo”; and the fragmentary forms huh (with its remaining persons) and thä ; e.g., main jâiâ huh, “I am going”; wah parhti hai, “she is reading ; wah bailhä thä, “he was seated,” “he was sitting”; we chale hoiige, “they will have started.”
Of these auxiliaries honâ (ha- = Prk. ho-, = S. bhu) and jänä (jâ = Prk. jâ, = S. yä) need not detain us. Both verbs are in use in all their tenses in the modem languages, and the preceding remarks on the verbal forms and tenses apply equally to them. Jänä is that which is employed to form the passive voice, e.g., wah märä jäegä, “ he will be killed.” It is also used for other purposes, such as intensifying a root to which it is attached, &c.
The auxiliaries huh (with its other persons) and thä stand on a different footing. The former is derived from the present indicative of the root as, a to be,” in the old languages :— [table]
The latter is derived from the Prakrit thzo, = Sanskrit sthιtah, the perfect participle of the root sfhä, “to stand.” Besides being used as auxiliaries, both are employed to express simple existence, as main hüh, “I am,” “it is I”; wah hai, “ he or it is”; ιvah thä, “he was”; wah thi, “she was.” (J. T. P. )
