154 Hoemle — Essays on the Gaurian Languages. [No. 2, 
Prakritic complexion ? The answer to this question, I believe, to he this : 
In Prakrit any nominal ^ase in vj may have two forms as regards the 
termination: 1., a general form which it has also in Sanskrit; and 2., a 
particular form, peculiarly Priikrit, made by the addition of the affix 
efr (gee Pr. Prak. IV. 25) ; e. g., bee is ( general form) or 
particular form) ; done is faff (general) or (part.) ; true is 
(gen.) or (part.), etc. The consonant qt is generally elided ; hence 
The nominative sing, of these cases would be respec- 
tively : MHTTorWT^T (for ; f%%orf%^% (for fqnr^r) ; W%T or 
(for wi, etc. Now Prakrit nouns may of course pass into the 
Gaurian in both or either of these forms. But according as they did so 
in their general or in, their particular form, their fate was different. If they 
passed into the Gaurian in their particular, peculiarly Prakrit form, they 
retained their Prd/critic complexion, and these nouns constitute the Prd- 
lcritic element of the Hindi-class Gaurian. On the other hand, if they 
passed into the Gaurian in the general form, they readily submitted to the 
action of the pure Gaurian phonetic and grammatical principles (that is, 
the law to change to and the law of not admitting an obliqtCe form), 
and thus these nouns constitute the proper Gaurian element of the Hindi- 
class Gaurian. This may bo illustrated again by the present participle ; 
“ being” in Prakrit is ^rwir or in both forms it passed into the 
Gaurian ; hut the form was contracted to (for %rwir ) and 
remained unchanged or modified to ^IrTf (in High Hindi) ; while the form 
was changed to (for %rwi). It is easy enough to understand that 
the Gaurian termination % (or ^IT) being a contraction of the Prakrit 
termination *fi)T could not he reduced to % while the simple termination 
% could be so reduced. The same fact, viz. that the Gaurian % is a 
contraction of the Prakrit may perhaps explain its curious Braj 
Bhasha form tiT ; for the diphthong ( = ^ + + ^) is more strictly an 
equivalent of ( i . e., or ^ + *3) than the simple ^T. Farther 
proofs of this theory I must defer for the present. I shall have occasion 
again to refer to it in the course of this essay.* 
» Another theory has been proposed lately by Mr. Beames (Indian Antiquary, 
Part V., 1872) which explains the phenomenon by the different accent of the words ; 
oxytones retaining the Prakrit termination ( or ^l) > an d barytones reducing 
it to -g- (or ^j) This theory is quite insufficient for the purpose. Mr. Beames him- 
self admits that “ it cannot bo said that every oxytono substantive in Sanskrit 
gives rise to a noun in 1 or o in modern languages. On the contrary the exemp- 
tions to the rule are as numerous as the illustrations of it." This admission, surely, 
is fatal to the theory. But though in the case of tioo different oxytone words 
it may be possible to show cause, why in the one instance the accent had its legiti- 
mate influence, hut not in the other, this is manifestly inadmissible, when it is one 
