38 



A. F. R. Hoernle — A Collection of Sindt Boots. 



[No. 3, 



theories have been put forward,* among which that of Childers is now 

 probably more generally accepted than any other. Stated briefly, his theory, 

 as first applied to the Pali root-form daJclcli, is that this root is derived 

 from the Sanskrit future base dralcsliya (Skr, dralcshyati = Pali dalchliati), 

 its original future meaning having been forgotten in later timesf. The 

 theory, if true, must, of course, equally apply to the root in its Prakrit 

 and Gaudian form delch. In this form, however, it can hardly be directly 

 connected with the future base. But there is, both in Prakrit and 

 Gaudian, another very common root pelch, also meaning " see". It 

 appears to me most probable that the original form dalch was in course 

 of time changed to delch, in order to assimilate it to pelcli.X The forma- 

 tion of such, more or less unintentional, assimilations is quite in keeping 

 with the genius of vernacular languages. There are some veiy striking 

 instances in Plindi. For example there is in E. Hindi the pair of roots 

 de "give", and le "take", representing the Sanskrit roots dd and lahJi. 

 The 3rd singular present are dey, ley, Pr. del, lei ; here ley and lei " he 

 takes" are formed in assimilation to, or after the analogy of dey and de'i 

 " he gives". Prakrit has also the regular form lalia'i " he takes", from 

 Skr. lahliate. Again the E. Hindi has the past participles dilial " given", 

 hJial "taken"; here diked is formed after the analogy of liJial, from 

 Prakrit laliida. From the transitive pair of roots jielcli and dekli, ano- 

 ther, similarly assimilated, ^dhx fihli and dihh is derived with, generally,§ 

 an intransitive meaning " be seen", " appear". A more serious objection 

 to Childers' theory, in my mind, was the fact, that the origin assigned to 



* The -whole subject of this controversy will be found briefly, but lucidly reviewed 

 in Beames' Comp. Grammar, Vol. Ill, pp. 45, 46. He does not mention, however, 

 the ingenioTis theory of the two Goldschmidts (Paul and Siegfried), who explain 

 clelclch as a denominative root derived from the past participle driskfa, by assuming 

 the well-known modern pronunciation of \ sh as ^ kh to have already existed in 

 Prakrit ; (see S. Goldschmidt's Pracrtica, pp. 6 — 8, and P. Goldschmidt's Essay in Got- 

 tinger Nachrichten, 1874, p]3. 518 — 520). But there is no evidence, really, of the existence 

 of that usage in Prakrit ; moreover in the modern vernaculars, '^^ would not be pro- 

 nounced ^3 , when it stood first in a conjunct, but only when it stood singly or second 

 in a conjunct; thus one might hear (^■^^) or harhhd (^'^T), but not jeJchth 



('SJ'B', always 



t In Ivuhn's Beitrage zur vergleichenden Sprachforschung, Vol. VII, p. 450 ; 

 also in a private letter to myself. 



t Beames also was of this opinion in his Comp. Gr. Vol. I, p. 162, where he 

 remarks : " it is perhaps worth notice that in scenic Prakrit a very frequent word for 

 ' seeing' is pelckh, and that possibly the existence of this verb may have had some in- 

 fluence on the creation of the somewhat anomalous form dekli. The idea is based on 

 the well-known fondness of the Indians for jingling words of similar sound." He 

 now appears to have abandoned it, in Vol. Ill, p. 46. But it cannot be dispensed 

 with ; so far at least, as the relation of the later dchlch to the earlier dciMch is concerned. 



§ In the old Hindi of Chand's Prithii'aja Easau, dihh and pilch are commonly used 

 in a transitive sense (see, e. g.^ the verse on p. 39) ; also in modern Hindi occasionally. 



