89 
1873.] A. F. Rudolf Hoernle— Llssays on the Gaurian Languages. 
We must return now to the examination of the Marathi neuter nouns 
in ^ and Hindi neuter nouns in ^jf, %f, gf. The oblique form of the 
Marathi neuter nouns in ends in *?t ; that of Hindi neuters in , 
€ ends in E. g., done in Marathi is oblique form ; in old Hindi it 
is or oblique form or ;— high is in Marathi vfii] oblique 
form ^JT; in (High) Hindi WEfr (Braj Bliasha old Hindi #^f), obi. 
form 4%;— doing is in Marathi obi. form SfiT^r, in Hindi (Braj Bh.) 
3vC^T, obi. form ejr^, etc., etc. Here we see that the Hindi terminal ^ 
always stands in the place of a Marathi terminal Now if we put 
together this fact with the other fact, already stated, that in Gaurian the 
syllable (or etc.) is often contracted into the diphthong ^ ; and 
also with the fact noticed before, that the Naipali oblique form in 
corresponds to the Hindi oblique form in (as Naip.ili to Hindi 
«5vT«T); the conclusion must necessarily be drawn, that the terminal ^ of 
the Hindi oblique form of nouns is a contraction of an original termination 
^?r; and this will apply not only to the termination of the oblique form of 
Hindi neuter nouns, but also to that of Hindi masculine nouns in or ; 
for, e. g., the Hindi masculine noun (ip^fT or) ip^'T horse is identical with 
the Marathi (irrfr or) irr^T; and the oblique form of the latter iiT^T must 
also be identical with the oblique form of the former i?rtf; and so forth. 
The next question is, what is the origin of this original termination sp 
of the Gaurian oblique form of neuter nouns in ^jf, ^f, gf, tf, and their 
corresponding masculine nouns. Here the infinitives afford us again a clue 
to its right interpretation. A Hindi infinitive is, e. g., c?rt«n to do ; we 
have seen, it is derived from the Prakrit Now changes in 
the Nom. case successively into or . In the 
genitive case it changes successively from to 
And thus by phonetic changes, perfectly 
regular, natural and easy, we arrive at the direct form in and , and 
the oblique form in ^ of the Hindi neuter nouns. And the conclusion we 
draw, is that the termination of the Gaurian oblique form is a contraction 
of the termination of the Prakrit genitive; and this is the case also 
with all Hindi neuter nous which are not infinitives. E. g., the oblique 
form of the neuter noun fcffqf done must represent a Prakrit 
genitive (for = Skr. ^rT^f^?), which must have changed 
successively into or (with 
euphonic ^). Perhaps at first sight there will seem to be a difficulty in this 
theory. In the case of the infinitive both the direct form in l|p 
and the oblique form in ^ were traceable to an original Prakrit base in ^ ; 
on the other hand, as regards all other Hindi neuter nouns in or 
(as, e. g., pjrqf, etc.) their direct form in ^jr is derived from a Prakrit base 
in ; while, if the theory be correet, the oblique form in ^ must be derived 
from a Prakrit base in In other words the theory necessitates 
12 m 
