1870.] Contributions towards Vernacular Lexicography. 135 



Sanscrit. And to these we must look for a clue to the inexplicable 

 forms of modern Bengali words. The Gatha language, however, is 

 found useful to explain such cases where the segregation of the 

 consonants of a compound and the interposition of an W after "^ 

 occur. Thus "STsi is *r?rsr m Gatha, Prakrita and Bengali, ¥W — ST<rsr, 

 ^^" — sp^ttt, *f^ — *T3"3T. "5T?"^r, ^^ and such forms are evidently 

 much older than ^"SST and '<fSr. of which I shall speak hereafter. 

 Properly speaking, they are the real Bengali forms of the Sanscrit 

 words and these contain in them a more permanent form than 3>"5sr 

 and *fSSr which are slang, provincialisms or effects of bad pronun- 

 ciation. To the Gatha* may be traced all the variations of the 

 verb to be, which the several derivative dialects of the Sanscrit have 

 given rise to. Sanscrit ^<rfs is in Gatha C^tfs, in Magadhi C^T1%, 

 in Kharikoli C^TC"?T, in Maharashtri ^Tre. in Hindi c^Tsi fc, and in 

 Bengali ^?. Can we trace to the Gatha the Bengali case ter- 

 minations ? 3*^1% in Gatha is #*(/», ?"W1 is 3"TRC3. The Hindi xfi® 

 and the Bengali ^f^C? are derived from the Gatha. VHW., is it 

 from the Gatha fsferTWl and Sanscrit gttcsfl ? 



The Pali and the Prakrita were in use as early as the second and 

 third centuries before Christ. They have their distinct grammar, 

 though in many instances the grammarian has failed to point out the 

 reasons for modifications in several words. They have derived all 

 their words from the Sanscrit, though many of them have lost the 

 original import, and it is difficult to explain how the later meanings 

 have arisen. 



Opinions differ as to the proper limits of the Bengali language. 

 "With some every Sanscrit word or compound without the case affix 

 is Bengali. Others again confine themselves to the more commonly 

 used terms. From the general tendency of modern Bengali writers, 

 it appears that the former opinion has the greater number of sup- 

 porters. With reference to the words imported or derived from 

 foreign languages, some writers eliminate them altogether. Thus 

 the word CSTT^sfl is rejected by the more orthodox writers, while 

 others of a more utilitarian tendency adopt it for the sake of its 

 common and frequent use. Indeed it involves a serious linguistic 

 question which has yet to be solved. Excepting the slang and the 

 • * J. A. S. vol. XXIII. p. 604. 



