1S72.] Eajendralala Mitra — On tlie term Q-ciurian. 181 



terminology, and it is high time that a stop should be put to further misuse 

 of terms. Now Grauda is an Indian word with two fixed meanings, indicat- 

 ing, in one sense, a distinct province with a well-defined boundary, and 

 in another generically five provinces, ; and in the derivative form G-audiya 

 implies men, animals, languages, and things belonging to that province, 

 or those provinces. How on earth and on what principle of logic, 

 or analogy, we are to make it comprehend provinces and languages far away 

 from those places, I cannot understand. If Europeans have to use Indian 

 terms, they should use them in the sense in which we use them, and not 

 attach new meanings to old terms, and call them old. That would amount 

 to a sort of literary imposition which, as an Indian, I must confess, I cannot 

 tolerate. It may be that long-continued usage and general currency might 

 give a new meaning to an old term, but this cannot be said of Gaurian, for 

 it was used for the first time by Caldwell some twenty years ago, when it 

 fell* still-born from the press, and Mr. Hoernle's is the first attempt to 

 revive it. 



" As to its being good enough for all practical purposes, I look upon the 

 plea as an apology for idle impatience. The term is wanted for the 

 scientific treatment of certain dialects, and not for popular lectures ; and even 

 for popular purposes correct and fully expressive terms are preferable to 

 incorrect, or inexpressive, ones. That name which is radically and essentially 

 incapable of conveying the idea we wish to express, cannot be good either 

 for science, or for practical purposes, and I cannot but deprecate its use, 

 particularly as I believe there is no difficulty whatever in coining new and 

 fully expre'ssive names when they are needed. 



" In forming new terms, two things have to be borne in mind, whether 

 they are to be connotative, or non-connotative. For specific or absolute names 

 we care not whether the word radically indicates the object to which it is 

 applied or not. We talk of mango, and know well what fruit it is, but never 

 bother ourselves, whether it is formed of man and go, or any other combina- 

 tion of the letters of its name. Mr. Long may be the veriest representative 

 of General Tom Thumb, still he is Mr. Long, and Mr, White maybe a shade 

 darker than ebony, still he is White. The words, in such cases are, what the 

 grammari^s call, crude, or secondary crude, and as such, no notice is taken of 

 their radicals, or original meanings. But the case becomes different when 

 we have to coin terms which are to connote ideas, not by long associa- 

 tioi, or the fiat of the namer, but by the inherent power of their radicals, 

 or in other words to serve as nominal definitions ; and in such cases we 

 must be very careful that we do not use words which fail to convey our ideas 

 to the full extent, or convey more than we desire, or, as the Indian logicians 

 express it, are faulty on account of incomprehensiveness (avyapti) or super- 

 comprehensiveness (ativyapti). Dr. Hoernle admits that Gaudiya was never 



