178 Hoernle — On tlie term Gaurian. [Nov. 



sufficiently determinate ; for it would apply to the Piakritic dialects with 

 as much propriety as to what I call the Gaurian languages. We should 

 have to expand the phrase to " the Modern Sanskritic languages of North- 

 India," before we possessed a perfectly definite term. It is not difficult to 

 see how very inconvenient such a long-winded phrase is. It is far too 

 unwieldy to be of any practical use. 



The same objections he against the term Indo- Aryan. It is too 

 general ; for it includes the Prakrit and Sanskrit languages. By all 

 Em'opean comparative philologians it is used in this generic sense ; to them 

 the term would be misleading ; it would never suggest the North Indian 

 Vernaculars only. For this purpose it would be necessary to add the word 

 " modern" and speak of " modern ludo-Ar^^an languages," But this again 

 would be a term far too unwieldy to be practically useful. What is want- 

 ed is a name which should consist of one word only, which can be used by 

 itself both substantively or adjectively, and which at the same time should 

 be, on the one hand, sufficiently comprehensive to include all the North In- 

 dian Sanskritic Vernaculars, and on the other, sufficiently specific to exclude 

 all other languages than these. 



Now it appears to me that the term Gaurian answers these requirements 

 sufficiently /or all practical inirposes. It is one word only, and can be used 

 both substantively and adjectively. We may speak of a Gaurian Grammar 

 and a Gaurian rule, as we speak of Prakrit Grammar and Prakrit rule. We 

 may also use Gaurian as a substantive, and say that " Gaurian possesses such 

 and such a rule," as we speak of Prakrit possessing such and such a rule. 



Again, the term Gaurian is sufficiently specific. In North India two 

 altogether distinct classes of languages are spoken, the one Sanskritic, the 

 other non-Sanskritic. The latter are the languages of the Kols, Santals, 

 and other aboriginal tribes. But no one could possibly make the mistake 

 of imagining that the term Gaurian might signify these non-Sanskritic 

 languages. The term is too intensely Brahmanical and therefore Aryan, to 

 be connected in any one's thoughts with anj'thing which is not in some way 

 connected with the Sanskrit language. Gaurian, therefore, could only mean 

 the Sanskritic languages of North India. But here again no one could easi- 

 ly fall into the mistake of supposing tliat Gaurian might comp^hend the 

 ancient Sanskrit and Prakrit, as well as the modem Vernaculars; just as 

 no one is likely to imagine that the Komance languages include Latin. 

 The term Gaurian is too narrow and modern for that ; and there is already 

 ^the good term Indo-Arj^an to denote collectively Sanskrit and Prakrit and 

 their modern offshoots. It follows then that the terai Gaurian cannot 

 signify anything but the modern Sanskritic languages of North India. 



Another objection might still be thought to remain. It may be said 

 that although the term Gaurian cannot include more then the modern 



