112 
Hoernle — Essays on the Gaurian Languages. [No. 2, 
forms eftsn and sft^rr which certainly do exist. From an original Prakrit 
fw then, through the intermediate modification ^t*TT, I think the Gujarati 
genitive post-positions «ir, &c., may be derived. 
Having thus explained the derivation of the various Gaurian post-posi- 
tions of the genitive, I now proceed to state another important evidence in 
support of my theory. I have shown that the word was used in two 
different ways in Prakrit to express the genitive, viz., 1st, as a mere affix, in 
which case it was compounded with the word which was to he put into the 
genitive ease ; 2nd, as a pleonastic insertion, in which case the word which 
was to he put into the genitive case, retained its organic genitive inflexion. 
Now I have tried to prove that the Bangali post-positions VX and and the 
Oriya post-position K are derived from the Prakrit employed in the for- 
mer manner. On the other hand the Hindi post-position ^ s:t (%<fb ) are 
derived from the same Prakrit employed in the second manner and the 
Hindi post position qrr (qft, %) as well as the post-positions of all Gaurian 
languages of the Hindi class (i. e. Naipali, Marathi, Gujarati, Sindhi, Panjabi, 
hut exclusive of Bangali and Oriya) are derived from the Prakrit form 
(fcffVT respectively), also employed in the second manner. This accounts why 
the initial was lost iu Bangali and Oriya, while it was retained in Hindi, 
Naipali and Mari. (hi. It is true was dropped (if my derivation be true) 
in the Panjabi, Sindhi and Gujarati ; but this is accounted for by the cir- 
cumstance that though the wordsfV^l and f^mr remained independent words, 
yet being only pleonastic, they became enclitic, and hence liable to phonetic 
corruption in the initial letters by contact with the principle word, on which 
they leant. However the main point to which I wished to call attention is 
this, that if my theory of explanation of the genitive post-positions of the 
Hindi class of the Gaurian languages is true, it may be expected that traces of 
their being •& pleonastic insertion, and of the existence of an organic genitive 
of the inflected word will have remained. A few such traces, I think, I can 
prove to exist, and considering the extent to which phonetic decay has gone 
in the modern languages of India, I think they are sufficiently distinct and 
remarkable. 
In Hindi poetry, such combinations as wf? srtt, ^t, rrtfl? (all 
= or or sftVj (— ssr) &c., are not uncommon ; e. g., 
stw -vjjl serif HTMT II i. e. 
High Hindi: % fa* % ^iir WtWT 'u*?! aiMt n 
Sura Das, Stirs agar, Ragvilasa. 
Or : «irhf ?rrr? #t ii i. e. 
High Hindi : « % <sif n 
Ibidem, 162. 
