78 



ON THE ORIGIN OF 



following comparative statement to shew that the Sanskrit, Pali, 

 and Sinhalese adverbs present no great diversity either in form, or 

 in their use. For further examples I may refer the reader to the 

 Sidatsangara, Appendix, p. 170 ct seq. 



Sanskrit. 

 Mama puratas 

 Adya gatah 

 Saha nidrayati 

 Att mahan 

 Diva yati 

 Paschdt tapah 



Pali. 



mama purato 

 ajja gato 

 saha niddayati 

 aiiva maha 

 diva yati 

 pacchu tapo 



Sinhalese. 

 ma perata 

 a da giye 

 ha nidai 

 itd mahat 

 daval yayi 

 pasu tevilla 



4 before me.' 

 ' gone to-day.' 

 " sleeps with. 1 

 ' very great.' 

 ' goes during-day.' 

 're pentence.' 



It would thus appear that, whilst the Sinhalese is admitted by 

 Dr. Stevenson himself to be an exception to two out of the ten 

 Grammatical peculiarities which he has cited* to sheW a relation 

 between the North-Indian and the Dravidian, there are, as already- 

 pointed out, five others [e. g., as regards (1) the inflexion of nouns, 

 (2) the interchange of the nominative and accusative cases, and the 

 formation (3) of the imperative, (4) the present tense, and (5) the 

 infinitive], which bear no analogy whatever to the Sinhalese; that 

 the remaining three are secondary forms, which exist along with a 

 primary Sanskrit form distinguishable from the Dravidian Gram- 

 matical system; and that nil are traceable to Sanskrit influences. 

 So much for the ' unequivocal proof of lexical and grammatical 

 analogies. 1 shall proceed to an examination in, 



SECTION FOURTH, 



Of Syntactical Arrangement. 

 I am not quite certain whether it is necessary to enter into the 

 Syntax of the languages under consideration, which I have al- 

 ready partially done in the abi ve submilt d details, though, per- 

 haps, not so methodically as I could have wished; but, since it 



* See Bombay As. Soc. Journal, vol, i. p, 106 s 



