Proceedings of the Asiatic Society. [June, 



the locative thdre or re "in;" and has nothing at all resembling 

 it in the other tongues, unless we adduce the Bengali re of the 

 dative, which, however, is probably a relic of the Sanskrit genitive 

 asya, like the Marathi dative in as, and dates from the Prakrit 

 which habitually confuses the two cases. I think it probable that 

 in the Uriya ru, we have the Sanskrit ablative at, which becomes in 

 Prakrit ado, and ddu. It appears to have been cerebralized into 

 adu, whence ru. The locative re may be a corruption of the Prakrit 

 termination ^ff, where the s has been changed to r as in Bengali, 

 but this I do not feel sure about. 



The genitive ends in ar after a consonant, or r after a vowel, 

 and closely corresponds to the Bengali in this, its only truly infl.ee 

 tioiial case. 



• 



The plural is formed by the added syllable man, or mane, {i. e. 

 "number"), just as in Hindi log or in Bengali yaw. Here the 

 genitive comes out in greater clearness as mananglar, where the sylla- 

 ble ang {a with anuswara originally, though now written UTO^) is 

 the sign of the neuter of a Prakrit form ?n*f ; this shews us that 

 the sign of the genitive is properly liar. And this leads to a curious 

 and unsuspected connection. In an article on the Bhojpuri dialect 

 of Hindi,* I shewed that there was reason to believe that the ha of 

 the Hindi genitive was corrupted from a form WX, or perhaps 3ff, 

 that the loss of the ^ gave us the Hindi form, while on the other 

 hand, the rejection of the W gave us the Marwari TT, T, *ft, and the 

 Panjabi ^T, ^, ^t, both the k and the r are found in the Bhojpuri 

 pronominal genitive "^Kh as in Heard oleerd (iska, uska). Now here 

 again we have from the other side of India, a genitive plural in /car, 

 the /' of which is rejected in the singular, but retained in the plural. 

 Wo must thus again dissociate Uriya from its neighbour Bengali, 

 and tighten the links which connect it with its western congeners, 

 leaving Bengali, till further research shall have been made, as the 

 solitary instance of an inflectional genitive. 



There is thus on the whole very little in the declension of the 

 noun in common between the Uriya and its fellows. It may be in- 

 king to give hero in one view all tho soven declensions. It will 

 * Journal B. A. S. vol. Ill, p. 483. 



