496 On the origin of the Hindvi Language. [No. 5 



and Panjabi have also made up for the dative case by postpositions, 

 borrowed from the Sanskrit, without the slightest reference to the 

 Dravidian languages, and we may therefore reasonably expect the 

 same fact for the remaining Arian dialects. It would certainly be 

 wonderful if those Arian dialects which border immediately on the 

 Dravidian idioms, should have warded off any Dravidian influence 

 and that those more to the north should have been tinged " deeply" 

 with Scythian characteristics. Fortunately we are able to shew that 

 such an assumption is not only gratuitous, but irreconcilable with the 

 origin of the above-mentioned dative affixes. We derive the Sindhi 

 ir and the Bengali % from the Sanskrit locative U^T, £ for the sake 

 of,' c on account of/ l as regards,' being thus altogether identical in 

 signification with the Marathi ^FT, Bengali re, etc. This will at 

 once account for the aspiration of m in the Sindhi %, for this is not 

 done by mere chance, but according to a fixed rule. [See my System 

 of Sindhi Sounds, 1, and note.] In Bengali there is no such influence 

 of r on the aspiration of a preceding or following consonant, and 

 therefore we have simply #. The Sanskrit form u^ becomes in Pra- 

 krit first f%ir, then (by the regular elision of <t) fapc, and contracted 

 to 3t, and in Sindhi by the influence of (elided r) *§. 



" The Hindvi and Hindustani form of this affix %T (dialectically pro- 

 nounced kd in the Deccan), which has apparently invited its compari- 

 son with the Tamil Jcu, etc., we derive in the same way from the 

 Sanskrit accusative neuter I5«f, which is used adverbially with the 

 same signification as the locative iffi. In Prakrit already, and still 

 more so in the inferior dialects, the neuter is confounded with the 

 masculine, (and in the modern dialects which have no neuter, the 

 neuter has been altogether identified with the masculine) ; we have 

 therefore first in Prakrit, f^TWT, then again (by regular elision of 

 cf ) fiff %t, and contracted ^T. We can thus satisfactorily account for 

 all these three forms, % ? and %T, and ^T ; how Dr. Caldwell will now 

 identify them with the Dravidian leu, etc., I cannot see. That this 

 derivation of ^, ^, and %T rests not on a mere fancy of mine, is farther 

 proved by the Sindhi particle T without, which is derived in the 

 way described, from the Sanskrit locative form ^T, c with the excep- 

 tion of,' ' excepted,' ' without ;' Prakrit first fcw, then fr^, and con- 

 tracted "t"* 



* Journal El. As. Soc. XIX, p. 392. The re turns up in the Bengali dative 

 in the same way. 



