1873.] A. F. Rudolf Hoernle— Essays on the Gaurian Languages. 87 
Further in the first example we have it as a nominative ; in the second as a 
dative ; and in the fifth as a genitive. 2., These oblique forms belong to words 
which are equivalent to Hindi and Marathi infinitives or gerunds ; this can 
he seen clearly by comparing the Hindi and Naipali in the above examples ; 
compare also Naipali Hfyy with Hindi «^T ; and Naipali 
3ft with Marathi qff frcurr, etc. 3, These oblique forms 
are genitives. This may he seen from the fact that in the above examples 
fwr^T and gpWFSrajT the oblique forms and 
are equivalent to the Hindi genitive efyy, 3\T. Again in 
Naipali is = a hearer : the plural of it is lit. hearer's 
multitude = ^«T^T3rr^ qtl fly. Here in the plural word is clearly 
in the genitive case. A little consideration will show, that, in fact, these 
oblique forms cannot be anything else hut genitives. The words to which 
they belong are, as we have seen, infinitives, that is, verbal nouns expressing 
an act. On the other hand, the oblique forms themselves are, as we have 
also seen, adjective nouns of agency. Now the only way of turning a noun 
expressing an act, into a noun expressing an agent doing that act, is by 
putting it in the genitive case and supplying a common noun (as man) 
either expressed or understood. By doing this, the noun of act in the 
genitive case becomes equivalent to an adjective expressing the possession 
of the act by the supplied noun which is qualified by the adjective, e. g., 
is hearing ; and the genitive if ttstw man he supplied, (i. e., 
or Naipali ‘STTRyr), is a man of hearing , that is, a 
man who hears. Here efry or yp^y is equivalent to an adjective. The 
word ‘fFT'Sj need not he expressed, and the adjective may be used by itself 
as a substantive noun of agency. 
Now if these Naipali oblique forms in yfy must he genitives, they can 
only be Prakrit (organic) genitives, modified, of course, by Gaurian phonetic 
laws. It has been already shown that the Gaurian infinitives or gerunds 
are identical with the Sanskrit or Prakrit future participles passive. And 
it can be easily shown that, according to the phonetic process explained in 
the beginning of this essay, the Gen. Sing, of the Prakrit will assume the 
Naipali oblique form in Gaurian. E. g., to hear (the dhatu) is ^ ; the Skr. 
Part. Fut Pass, of it is in Prak. or^rfqj^ ; the Prak. Gen. 
is or ^yrfvr^y^ or The last form changes probably in 
late Prakrit to ypnfqT3}T or ^prBr^T, and finally is contracted in Gaurian 
(by Sandhi according to Gaurian law) to which is the present 
Naipali form of the word. 
This view of the Naipali nouns of agency in *jt, is confirmed by the 
Bangali, which possesses nouns of agency in ‘W^Tt^T and y3T, as or 
^■yfy^l doer (see Sama Churn Sircar’s Grammar pp. 149., and 153.)* To the 
* Tlio forms in sryy and •yij, as ^yyy and doer are probably, merely contrac¬ 
tions of those in ^•cyx and ^fiTSjT. 
