1873.] A. F. Rudolf Hoernle— Essays on the Gaurian Languages. 105 
Bhasha form or The original, namely, is the pronominal base 
which is defective in Sanskrit, hut in Prakrit has a complete declension. 
The Gen. Sing, of i;3T is in Prakrit or T^FfT’EjT or in which, in 
later Prakrit, the 3T becomes changed to anunasika, thus (see note 
3). Finally the form becomes in Gaurian contracted (by sandhi) 
to ^ which is Ganwari, or to which is Braj Bhasha. At the same 
time it is manifest, that the alternative forms v and must be contractions 
of an original Prakrit form (with apokope of ^). Similarly the oblique 
form of the second personal pronoun in the Ganwari is or imr, in Braj 
Bhasha ?fr or The original of these forms is the Prakrit genitive 
RW (nom. 3^) , or or or (in late Prakrit) or 7JWT. Of 
the two last forms the former is contracted to ?TT^r; the later 
to flT. And so forth ; the pronouns offer many more illustrations. 
Note 5.—The Marathi boil, might be also derived from the Sanskrit 
31^?; which might be preferable, as the Skr. 3Tm means boil, while does 
not exactly. In illustration of the change of the Skr. ^ to ^r, I may 
quote the word which according to Subha Chandra sutra II, 80. 
changes in Prakrit to or If this derivation be correct, then 
31^ is another example of the change of the termination to ; for 
its proximate original will, then, be 3i^cp. I may here add a few more 
examples of the change of the termination to or in Prakrit 
which have occurred to me since writing the foregoing essay. They have 
not always been recognized as such by Prakrit grammarians. E. g., in 
Subha Chandra sutra ^T^'gJT'^T TT (II, 8. corresp. to Hema Chandra I, 44), 
it is said among the examples that TRT^ is a modification of the Sanskrit 
SRPTt; and again in his sutra snn^PtvJT (II, 53, corresponding to 
Hema Chandra 1,94,95) it is said that by the change of to ^ the Sanskrit 
becomes in Prakrit ^TTri^T. It is manifest, that the Prakrit 
or contracted (or qi^i.) is not a modification of the Sanskrit 
(of the base ) but of a Sanskrit form Again Subha Chandra 
has a sutra (II, 20, corresponding to Hema Chandra I, 50), 
according to which the vowel of the affix optionally changes to ; the 
example given is for Sanskrit ; that is, according to the Pra¬ 
krit grammarian’s theory the Skr. changes to or, with elision 
of the medial % This is evidently a fanciful theory. The truth, 
no doubt, is that the Sanskrit base is, by adding the affix 3f, amplified 
to and then weakened to the latter form naturally yields 
the Prakrit form (by eliding ^ and ). Again Subha Chandra 
has a sutra (II, 18, corresp. to Hema Chandra I, 57), 
according to which, if the comp. cons, 'rf is changed to the inherent vowel 
^ becomes ^; thus Skr. becomes in Prakrit Now the form 
• ^ ^ # 
presupposes an original base but there is no such base in Skr. ; 
14 o 
