78 A. F. Rudolf Hoernle —Essays on the Gaurian Languages. [No. 1. 
\£/ 
said is in the Braj Bhasha . This is the nom. sing, neuter ; the masc. 
would he the feni. The corresponding form to qnpf is in Sanskrit 
and in Prakrit or Now the form could not yield 
the Hindi form qnpf, because the vowel \ of the Prakrit form is present 
in the semivowel of the Hindi form and the remaining terminal 4 cannot 
give ^jf, according to general glottic law. But if we add the favourite 
Prakrit affix ^ to qff44, everything is natural and easy. For qrf4rr4 would 
be in Prakrit ^f4^f4, and this in Hindi-Gaurian or qrfjf (just as 
^4 ego becomes %f). 
According to this theory, then, the original of the Gaurian neuter 
terminations 4, ^4 4f 4, is the Prakrit terminal dissyllable or ^4, 
which, according to Gaurian law, # becomes in old Gaurian ?;4 or ^Ef4 or ^f4. 
If this be really the case, it might not unreasonably by expected, that traces 
of those original terminal forms ^4, ^4, ^4 may be found in Gaurian. 
Such examples I am, indeed, able to produce; and they will be a further 
confirmation of the truth of my theory. Only this is to be observed. The 
Gaurian terminal forms ^4, ^4, ^4, are very slightly, if at all really, 
different from the Prakrit terminal form ^4 (for Skr. ^4), ^4 (for Skr. 
and ^4 (for Skr. w4). If, therefore, the Gaurian forms at all 
existed, they can only have existed in the earliest period of the Gaurian, 
when it was yet only a modified and decayed form of Prakrit. In Hindi 
we have no literature dating so far back. The earliest Hindi work known 
at present is the epic of Chand, which is already subsequent to that period ; 
how much subsequent, it is not easy to say ; but it is in Chand, that we 
find traces of those original Gaurian neuter terminations ; only, for the 
reason now explained, they must not be expected to be very common, -j* 
Such examples are the following : 
* This Gaurian law has been repeatedly referred to in these essays, though I 
have never distinctly stated it. It is this; Gaurian cannot tolerate the hiatus of 
vowels created by the Prakrit, through ejecting the medial single mute consonants 
of the Sanskrit; and in order to prevent such hiatus, Gaurian either makes Sandhi 
of the vowels or separates them by inserting the (euphonious) semivowels or 
It should be noted, in order to prevent misunderstanding, that Gaurian sometimes 
creates hiatus of its own ; these, of course, it retains. The law has only reference to 
hiatus, created by Prakrit, e. g., Skr. becomes in Prak. y • in Gaur. 
(Hindi); Skr. in Prak. in Gaur. ^ 77 ^; Skr. 
in Prak. or in Gaur. (Mar.) or (Hindi) ; 
Skr. 4nxfcf, Pr. 44^4, Gaur. Skr. 71 cp, Pr. tt4t, Gaur. jy^y • Skr ^y ;j 
Pr. Gaur. f^T^T, etc. 
f On account of Marathi being so much more conservative of its Prakritic character, 
I should expect old Marathi to afford many more examples of those Gaurian neuter 
terminations ; but unfortunately I have had no opportunity of examining any old 
MaratLfi work. 
