91 
1873.] A. F. Rudolf Hoernle — Essays on the Gaurian Languages. 
other difficulties ; not only to one , but several, which moreover are more 
serious and much less capable of being surmounted. The explanation is 
this. The G-aurian diphthong y; can be not only a contraction of ITT, but 
also of ^r. If we suppose the latter to be the case in the Hindi oblique 
form in ^ there is no necessity of assuming a change of the Prakrit base 
termination into ^f. In this case the oblique form in ^ (e. g., f%i}) 
is to be explained thus ; the Prakrit genitives or change 
to to or At this stage, as I have shown on 
former occasions, the word passed into Gaurian, and, according to Gaurian 
rule, either Sandhi must take place, or a euphonic letter must be inserted, 
to prevent hiatus. The question is, which of these two alternatives happens. 
According to the present theory we must assume that the euphonic letter 
^[was inserted. Hence we get which finally changes to fojto; or 
So far there is no difficulty ; on the contrary it obviates the difficulty 
involved in the other theory of changing the base in into one in 
But there is positive evidence to show that of the two alternative cases just 
now mentioned, not the one here assumed (viz., insertion of ^), but the other 
(of Sandhi) took place in reality. In Marwari, namely, the oblique form 
is not but f%3JT, and what this fact indicates is this, that in the form 
f^fT^WT when it passed into Gaurian, not the insertion of a euphonic 
consonant but Sanclhi of the hiatus-vowels (^f and ^n) took plaee ; viz., 
was contracted into or (with euphonic ^) fejT^TT. Evidence of 
the same fact is the ISTaipali and Gujarati with their oblique form in ^T, 
which, as I have already shown, is the contraction of a terminal form 
e. g., Gujarati gold, obi. form *jt«TT; equivalent to Prakrit Nom. sing. 
and Gen. sing. or or or and 
contracted %*TT. It follows from all this that if the Prakrit base in 
remained unchanged in the process of transition of the Prakrit into Gaurian, 
the termination of the Prakrit genitive was contracted by Sandhi into ^T, 
and not changed, by the insertion of a euphonic ^, into ^*tt; and hence the 
origin of the termination ^ must be differently explained. And the 
explanation is, that there was an alternative case ; in some places the Prakrit 
base in remained unchanged, and gave rise to the oblique form in ; 
in other places the Prakrit base in was weakened to and thus 
gave rise to the oblique form in or E. g., the base gold re¬ 
mained unchanged in Gujarati and its genitive (for was 
contracted to ^T*TT; while in Hindustan, it was weakened to and its 
genitive was contracted to or 
The objection explained in the preceding remarks is only one of the 
reasons against the derivation of the termination y of the Hindi oblique form 
from an original termination ^stt. I shall now proceed to state a few more 
reasons against it, in order to remove as much as possible, all doubts as to 
the truth of the theory, that the termination stands for *jt, and this for 
( = T^T). 
