1880.] A. F. E. Hoerale — A Collection of Hindi Eoots. 



37 



Sanskrit participle pmt>j57;to "entered" (of the Skr. root pra-vis "enter") ; 

 haith " sit" and inth " beat", derived respectively from the Sanskrit 

 participles upavishta " sitting" and pishta " beaten" (of the Skr. roots 

 itpavis a,nd pish).* 



3. Compound roots consist of the Sanskrit root Jcri " do" or 

 " make," and some noun governed by it in the accusative case ; in fact, 

 they represent pJtrases in a contracted and much corrupted state. They 

 can easily be recognized by their terminal consonant k, which alone remains 

 of their original radical element 7cri. Thus cJm7c " cease" is derived from 

 cJii/at + Jcri, which is a compound of the Sanskrit noun cliyut " flowing 

 away" and kri " make ;" e. g., the Skr. 3rd pers. sing. pres. cliyut-hriyate, lit., 

 " he is made a flowing away," is Pr. chulcJeei, H. clmkai {oy cJmlce) "he 

 ceases." Similarly "stop" or "be hindered" comes from r^i^ + Jcri, 

 i.e., from the Sanskrit nom\ rudh "hindrance" and root Jcri "make;" 

 again Icasah " be pained" or " suffer pain" from kasham + Jcri, i. e., from 

 the Skr. noun JcasJia " pain" + Jcri " make." It is probable, I think, that 

 the Prakrit termination (3rd sing, pres.) Jcei, Hindi Jcai or Jce, is phoneti- 

 cally derived from the Sanskrit passive Jcriyate " he is made," Skr. not 

 Jcaroti would mean " he makes a hindrance" ; this phrase, being treated 

 as a compound word, would form the passive rutJcriyate,^ " he is made a 

 hindrance" or "he is hindered," whence would regularly arise the Prakrit 

 ruJcJcei, and the Hindi ruJeJcai or ruJcJce " he is hindered." Many of these 

 compound roots are intransitive, which would naturally agree with their 

 derivation from a Sanskrit passive root or base. Others which are tran- 

 sitive could, however, be no less easily derived in the same way, by the 

 aid of the fifth of the above-mentioned laws, the " change of voice." 



By far the largest number of Hindi roots can be brought under one 

 or the other of the above-mentioned classes. Still there remains a small 

 number of roots, the derivation of which, as yet, cannot be satisfactorily 

 explained ; e. g., dJio " carry," laut " return." Even these, further research 

 will probably show to belong to one of the two great classes. 



The root dcJcJi claims some special consideration on account of the 

 controversy regarding its origin to which it has given rise. Various 



* Beames in his Comp. Grammar, A"^ol. Ill, p. 37 (footnote) says about me that " he 

 discussed this as if it was his own discovery in Indian Antiquary, Vol. I, p. 357." The 

 ■word "if" is superfluous. The fact is, my article appeared in the December number 

 of that Journal in 1872, and was written some months previously. Beames' 1st Vol. ap- 

 peared towards the end of that year, and I did not receive it till after some time in 

 1873; so that when I wrote the article, it was impossible for me to know, that my 

 views had been anticipated by Beames ; though, indeed, it may be questioned, whose 

 the merit of tho first discovery is, if such a matter can be dignified by that name. 

 Moreover my tlieory has a much wider application than Beames', as it includes nouns 

 as well as participles. 



t A mongrel form, no doubt, but nothing unusual in colloquial speech. 



