128 Hoernle — Essays on the Gaurian Languages. [No. 2, 
A contemporary of Tulsi Das was Sura Das (about 1650, A. D.). The 
following instances of the use by him of the same words (§x;T or §TT, §71, 
tT) are taken from his poems called the Sura Sagar — 
sir 7TTT f'Trrr ftpair §7T li «. C. 
High Hindi : §07 §o’ fwrg; f^^r, ^ ftnair «piw n 
Saravali 12. 
Or : *p:t%t xs %v.t ii i. e. 
High Hindi : xtttbt ii 
Saravali. 
Or : fHTTFTT xrr^rtff %tl il 
High Hindi : usm ^7 fa* §17 srm §T ^ §1 n 
Nitya Kirtan, 49. 
Considerably older than both Tulsi Das and Sura Das is Kabir. He 
lived about 1500, A. D. His Behlitahs offer many instances of the use of 
§ 7 T, §7l, § 7 , as signs of the genitive. A few of them are the following : 
^4i7 TiTU § N77 l 
«n Jin §t\ ftp^r ^77 " i. e. 
High Hindi : ^vjr §rv %r xixttt | 
5TT JT7 §1 f «P7T ^rrJir II 
Or : %7 vr ^ ^vrii 1*^77 ii i. e. 
High Hindi : xgwi % ^iTwr xi % ®i§ f§U7iT ^f7rJr n 
Still further back we come to Ohand Bardai, who lived about 1200, 
A. D. An instance of the same use of §7 occurs in the following verse 
taken from his great epic the Priihirdj r&yasa. 
^r7 j[5T ^ -TfsPnsr §7T ii 
Book XIX, 41 * 
If we now turn to the Prakrit, we find sometimes an adjective noun 
or §vqr, inserted between the genitive and the noun qualified by it. 
In such eases, the insertion appears to be perfectly 'pleonastic, that is, the 
sense is complete, even if the word J|rf7*ff, or §7^i, bo altogether omitted. 
Whenever § 7 ^f is thus inserted, it agrees with the qualified noun in case, 
number, and gender, i. e., is treated as an adjective ; e. g., 
* Unfortunately I have been unable to obtain a copy of Chand’s epic, and, there- 
fore, must content myself with giving this single example, which by a happy accident 
occurs in one of the notes appended by Mi*. Boames to his translation of the 19th 
Book, printed in the J ournal of tho Asiatic Society of Bengal, Part 1, No. Ill, of 1869. 
As I have not the contoxt, I cannot speak with certainty j but my suggestion as to the 
nature of §^f might perhaps be a solution of the difficulty which Mr. Beames felt in 
the meaning of tho verse. It might explain the verse, without taking ^yj as a verb and 
altering it into which is an objoctionable emendation ; for there is (as Mr. Beames 
himself admits) no verb in Hindi ; and the words “ to overthrow ” in such a con- 
nection aro an anglicism. 
