1873.] A. F. Rudolf Hoernle —Essays on the Gaurian Languages. 
65 
or But of the former pair the form ’SpilT became the usual one 
while of the latter pair was the usual one. Accordingly we find 
in the Gaurian heat to he qRT, hut got to he ^f7 or ’ETfT. These examples 
might he multiplied indefinitely. 
Next, Sanskrit masculine nouns which have a base in ^ exhibit in the 
Gaurian a two-fold termination. They either end in % (^t, ^t) or in ^ 
(^3"). But a very analogous phenomenon may he observed in Sanskrit 
neuter nouns in with nom. sing, in They exhibit in the Gauriail a 
twofold termination ending either in ^ or in v, e. g., Skr. 
house = Gaur. ; hut Skr. clone == Gaur. (Mar.) or 
3pRT or (Br. Bh.) or (Alw.) ; and Skr. pearl Gaur. 
^Ttff (Mar.). Sometimes both forms occur in the same word as Skr. 
plantain = Gaur. or and Skr. cocoanut = Gaur. iTTW 
or (Mar.). But observe the difference. The nom. sing, of those 
masc. nouns ends in Skr. in ; this turns in Prakrit into ; and this 
again, in Gaurian, is either retained unchanged or reduced to ^(^r). 
All this is intelligible; from ( = ^*r) to to % there is a direct 
progress of phonetic corruption, consistent with the glottic laws regulating 
the development of younger languages from an older one. But now in the 
other case ; the nom. sing, of neuter - nouns in Skr. is ^ which 
remains in Prakrit ^ or becomes simply ^ ; in Gaurian the Prakrit v) or 
is either reduced to (resp. remains) ^ or is raised to Iff , Now this is 
contrary to all principles of glottic development. By whatever other means 
languages may increase and reconstruct themselves ; phonetically they 
disintegrate and decrease as they advance. The simple Prakrit termination 
^ or ^ can never by itself have been raised or increased to or or y or 
\ . This is utterly inconceivable, nor will any reference to the accent help 
us here out of the difficulty. The accent might explain the absence of 
phonetic disintegration, where its presence would be expected, as, e. g., 
that the Prakrit termination remains in the Gaurian, in some cases, 
%, instead of being reduced to W; (though even in this case, as I have 
shown in Essay III, the explanation by the help of the accent is cpiite 
inadequate) ; but it is quite unable to explain the presence of a phonetic 
increase which is contrary to glottic laws, according to which either phonetic 
disintegration or at least no change at all ought to have taken place. It 
# E. g. Skr. = Prak. or = Gaur. sjr. Bat Skr. = Br. 
or — Gaur, (Mar.) ; or Skr. cf, = Pr. f^T^j or = Gaur. (Br. B.) 
f%qf ; or Skr. ^ f %^=Prak. 7^^=Gaur (Mar.) • 0r m th° same word Skr. 
— Pr. effff or = Gaur. or (Mar.) or (It- Hindi) ; and Skr. 
Tnf = Pr. or cTlfr^^r, = Gaur. (Mar.) or In thii 
last case it is especially obvious that the same Skr. or Prak. form could not have 
been the immediate source of the two widely ditlerent Gaurian lorms. 
9 
1 
