1872.] Hoernle — On the term Gaurian. 179 



Sanskritic languages of Xortli India, it does not necessarily include all ot 

 them ; that in short, it is not sufficiently comprehensive. For the word 

 Gaurian or Gauda, as used by Sanskrit writers, does not include the Mara- 

 thas and Gujaratls who are classed as Dra vidians, but whose languages be- 

 long to the North Indian Sanskritic Vernaculars. My answer is again, 

 that the term Gaurian was chosen purely for a practical purpose ; and if I 

 can show, that it is sufficiently comprehensive for a present practical purpose, 

 an objection taken from the manner of its use by Sanskrit writers is iri-ele- 

 vant. Now whether the use of the term Dra vidian to denote the non- 

 Sanskritic languages of South India be correct or not, (and I agree with 

 Babu Eajendralala Mitra, that it is open to objections), it is certainly 

 now established as the technical term to denote those languages. The 

 introduction of a new term even when more accurate to supersede a less 

 accurate but established one, is always of doubtful expediency. The older 

 and favourite term is rarely displaced, and generally the only result is, the use 

 of two terms instead of one accompanied by endless confusion and requiring 

 constant explanation. Since then, Dravidian is the established name for the 

 non-Sanskritic languages of South India, and it would be unwise to make 

 a change, due weight should be given to the fact in choosing a collective name 

 for the Sanskritic languages of North India ; it should be a name which has 

 some reference to the other name, Dravidian, of the non-Sanskritic languages 

 of South India. Here Gaurian most naturally suggests itself. For it ex- 

 presses the exact contrary to Dravidian. In Sanskrit literature, these terais 

 express an opposite relation. Hence as Dravidian is the established name 

 for the non-Sanskritic languages of South India the term Gaurian as its 

 opposite, will suggest to scholars Sanskritic languages of North India. 

 And as all scholars know that MarAthi and Gujarati are, equally with 

 Hindi, and Bengali, Sanskritic languages of North India, the term Gaurian will 

 natui'ally comprehend in their mind all those languages. This, it seems to 

 me, will be practically the certain result ; and as I said before, that is all 

 that we need consider in the present case. I do not think there is any fear, 

 that in this case, scholars will be likely to take the term Gaurian in that 

 limited sense, in which it is used in Sanskrit literature ; for they will naturally 

 associate i% with its opposite Dravidian, and the term Dravidian, as is well 

 known, is not in the connexion (viz., as a name of a group of languages) 

 understood in the limited sense in which it is used by Sanskrit writers. 



I venture to think, therefore, that the term Gaurian will not be, as 

 Babu Rajendralala Mitra says, either unmeaning or misleading, but, on 

 the contrary, will be exactly significant of that which I wish to express by it. 

 I do not claim, however, to be the author of this particular application of the 

 term, nor do I put so much store by it, as to be mi willing to abandon it in 

 favour of another, and better, if really a better one ; that is, if it be not only 



