134 
Hoernle — Essays on the Gaurian Languages. [No. 2, 
where the substitute of the Prakrit masculine nominative ending 38T. Adject- 
ive bases in ^ end in Sanskrit in the nominative singular masculine in ^i, 
feminine "3TT or K\ plural ^T*. These terminations change in the Prakrit in 
%T, ^6(T or x;, and ^T- In the Alwari dialect, as well as in the Sitidhi and 
Naip&li, these terminations are preserved unchanged. The genitive post- 
positions in Alwari and Naipali are, nominative singular masculine sfiT, nomi- 
native plural masculine ^TT, feminine ; in Sindhi resp. srr, oU, srl ; similarly, 
in all three languages, is a horse, rirei horses, mare, &c. The 
Brajbhasha changes generally the Prakrit v*T into »-T, and has therefore efiT, 
instead of ^T; similarly for Prakrit (Sanskrit e|frsirr:). The 
High Hindi finally changes the harsher diphthongs % or into the more 
agreeable vowel ^T, and hence has cfTT, for or or ^>^T- 
Prom (or T or «rt) the feminine 3 ft was formed, according to the univer- 
sal rule of the Hindi of forming the feminine in x;, instead of the Sanskrit 
or Prakrit ^T. The origin of the feminine 3 d and the inflected form % will be 
explained afterwards (see Essay I V). 
The form f%g; perhaps has even a better claim than the form to be 
considered the original of 3fT, ' 3 t, 3 f. It is true that so far as I have search- 
ed the Prakrit dialogues of Sanskrit dramas, I have not discovered an in- 
stance of either 3\ 3J or f3i <T being used in that pleonastic manner in which 
■^iXT^T is employed. While 3*T^T is frequently used in a determinative sense 
(as affix of the genitive), I have never found or f3f^T so used, but always 
in a predicative sense (as a proper participle past passive). But besides 
the direct proofs to be adduced hereafter (showing that 1%% is the original 
of ^t), the following reasons will show that not much importance can be 
attached to the circumstance. In the first place, that no instance of f%% 
or 3 <^t as genitive affix is found, is merely matter of accident. For alto- 
gether the use of a Prakrit form of the Sanskrit participle ®<T in this deter- 
minative sense, is confined to one play, the Mrichchhakati ; and even there it 
occurs only about fourteen times (in the form 3 ST 3 ;) . This use of was evi- 
dently slang. But while other plays also introduce low and vulgar people, they 
do it only on rare occasions and even then put a more or less refined language 
into their mouth ; on the other hand, the Mrichchhakati introduces low people 
very extensively, and allows them to express themselves freely in their native 
vulgar jargon. This explains also the occurrence, in the Mrichchhakati, of 
other grammatical forms besides 3 iT 3 f, which are found in no other play. We 
may safely conclude that since the use of a Prakrit form of tfirT to determine 
the genitive is confined to one play and even there, on account of its vul- 
garity, is only exceptionally introduced, the manner of its use there must not 
be taken as a measure of its use in general among the people. Among them, 
^T3T was employed, no doubt, much more frequently, and very probably 
other loans of sKrr (as &c.,) also, which were too vulgar to he admit- 
