1873.] A. F. Rudolf Hoernle —Essays on the Oaurian Languages, 73 
in Essay III) ; e. g., instead of the Braj Bhasha ^r^fsr ^wr we have in 
Naipali vr»pFr ^trtt, in Sindhi In this respect Sindh! agrees with 
Bangali; in both languages the termination of the original affix has 
become worn off altogether. Sindhi infinitives, e. g., are to read , o!TJT«T 
to ivake, ^iX«T to do (see W. H. Watlien’s Sindhi Grammar, pp. 37, 38). But it 
is clear that in modem Bangali, in consequence of the affix havingbecome 
decayed to wsr and the real origin of the latter being forgotten, a great confu¬ 
sion has arisen. For in many cases, Sanskrit verbal nouns, really formed by 
the affix (not ^«ft*f), have been introduced into Bangalf to serve as 
infinitives, under the mistaken idea that the Bangalf infinitives in are 
really such verbal nouns. A notable instance of this kind is the so-called 
infinitive to do. This word is really the Skr. verbal noun 
This is shown by the presence of the lingual ^T. It is not a 
corruption of the Skr. ; for in that case it would be written 
(as it is in Sindhi), as Bangali, like Hindi, turns all lingual ^ which it has 
received through the Prakrit, into dental ®r. This is proved by the causal 
^prrsr (for Prakrit for Skr. which ends in the audible ^ 
(karano), and therefore has retained more of its original character. I 
believe, therefore, that the real infinitive of the (primary) verb to do is 
^TcT, and not which latter form is probably merely an emendation of 
Bangali purists, prompted by a mistaken etymology, (as if it were a 
SansJcritic word, and identical with the Skr. ^npjT^). Perhaps old Bangalf 
MSS. (of which I have no specimen) might bear out my view. As regards 
Gujarati, there also both forms of the Skr. and Prak. Part. Fut. Pass, occur. 
That in 7737 we have represented by the ordinary Gujarati infinitives in jf. 
The other in I think, we can trace in the Gujarati verbal nouns in 
as collection (see Edalji’s Grammar, p. 26, note 5). 
2. Another argument for the identity of the Gaurian infinitive and 
the Sanskrit and Prakrit Part. Put. Pass, in is this, that in Hindi 
and Panjabi the infinitives are often used as adjectives and admit of a 
differentiation of gender and number; e. g., in High Hindi and Panjabi 
^TcfT is masculine and neuter, and is feminine : in the Braj Bhasha 
it is masculine, effort feminine, and neuter. Thus, “ to make 
many excuses is not good,” is in Hindi ^fT WRIT (feminine plural) 
^^7 ; “ there will be gnashing ol teeth” is in Panjabi 
(ht. to take gnashings of teeth will be) ; see Etherington’s Hindi 
Grammar, §. 541, and Loodiana Gram, of Panjabi §. 156. Now the Sanskrit 
and Prakrit nouns in do not admit a change oi gender and number in 
relation to another noun, because they have no adjectival force, but are 
merely substantives ; whereas the Part. Put. Pass, in are adjectival 
and change in gender and number. It does not seem probable, nor even 
10 K 
