1895.] G. A. Grierson — Suffixes in the Kagmirt Language. 345 
' 
KI 9 MIR!. 
W. Panjabi. 
Sindhi. 
Full Pro¬ 
noun. 
Suffix. 
Full Pro¬ 
noun. 
Suffix. 
Full Pro¬ 
noun. 
Suffix. 
1st Person. 
Sing. Dir. 
* • • 
bo 
m or s 
max 
m or s 
au 
se or me 
Obi. 
• • • 
me 
m 
max 
m‘ 
mttliu 
me 
Plur. Dir. 
• •« 
asi 
assa 
se 
asx 
si su 
Obi. 
• • • 
osi 
assd 
se 
asd 
u, six 
2nd Person. 
Sing. Dir. 
• • • 
tsa 
h 
tu 
vd or 0 
tti 
S, e 
Obi. 
• • • 
tse 
t (dat. 1 ?/) 
tax 
el (dat. i) 
to 
e (el) 
Plur. Dir. 
• • • 
told 
va 
tussa 
ve 
tavhi 
u, va 
Obi. 
tohi 
va 
tussd 
ve or 0 
tavlid 
va 
3rd Person. 
Sing. Dir. Masc. 
su 
n 
u , so 
s . 
it, so 
—(se) 
Obi. 
Instr. tam\ 
n (dat. s) 
u , tax 
s 
una, take 
se (instr., t) 
dat. tas 
Plur. Dir. 
tint 
h 
u , so 
hu, se 
— (ne) 
Obi. 
Instr. timau 
h 
uhd, tinha 
, 
~ he or ni 
hune, tane 
ne (instr. d) 
We now proceed to consider the origin of these Pronominal suffixes. 
First Person. —The Sanskrit Enclitic pronouns of the First Person 
are, as already stated; sg., acc., ma, dat. gen., me; pi. acc., dat. gen. 
nas. These become in standard Prakrit sg. mam, me; PL no. FronF 
the singular we get the suffix m or me. It is well known that oblique 
forms are generally to be referred to a Prakrit genitive, and that there 
is a common tendency observable in all Indo-Aryan Vernaculars, for the 
oblique form to usurp the functions of the direct form. We have just 
noticed that this is at the present day, the case in Sindhi. The form 
in s or se is evidently borrowed from the plural, also a commonplace of 
Indian philology. The Sanskrit nas , cannot account for the plural 
forms. The reason for the abandonment of this enclitic, is probably to 
avoid confusions with the n of the third person. It is evident that the 
forms se, si, siZ, are based on the corresponding full forms of the Pronouns. 
Hoernle, 1 no doubt correctly, accounts for these full forms, by referring 
them to the Sanskrit asmad, through a Prakrit oblique *assahi, assaz, or 
* amsahi.% The form sn, may be either derived from a Prakrit # assahit , 
or the u may be due to the m of asmad, through a form * asumahi, 
asuvdhi, hence asti, sU. According to Brugmann (Grundriss, ii, 
803), asmad was originally itself a plural, though used as a singular 
in Sanskrit. A by-form of the Sindhi ti, is hn, and this points to the 
1 Gd., Gr. p. 280. 2 Cf. H. C. iii, 59, 60; where sm of the loc., becomes ss. 
