350 G. A. Grierson —Suffixes in the Kagmiri Language. [No. 4, 
or, in Prakrit aha, 1 but it is, more probably, merely an old nominative 
plural termination of tbe participle, agreeing in gender and number 
with its subject. Its feminine is z7i, thus mdratlh , ‘ they (fern.) will 
kill,’ sutallh. ‘ they (fern.) slept.’ 
In the third person of the Past tense of transitive verbs, we see 
clearly the passive nature of the conjugation. The termination nh l of 
the third person plural, as in the case of the corresponding forms of the 
North-West, is derived from the Prakrit instrumental plural nehz ; 
hence mdral-(a)nh i means ‘killed by them.’ The k of the third person 
singular, I am not able to derive in a way satisfactory to myself, 
as I have elsewhere stated ; but it is evidently a pronominal suffix of 
the third person with an instrumental power, and is the same as the 
Ka^mirl corresponding termination h (k). 
We have not by any means exhausted the wild maze of forms, 
which is presented by the Maithill verb. I have described above 
how the termination ai becomes au, We are now in a position to trace 
the origin of this termination ai , which can be added optionally to 
almost every form of the verb. Jt is merely the pronominal suffix 
of the third person, referring to the object. It is said that it can be 
used also when the first person is the object. I do not remember 
having met any instance of this, but in tbe nature of things such an 
occurrence must be comparatively rare, and the use of the termination 
could easily have extended to the first person, once its original mean¬ 
ing was lost sight of. There are numerous Prakrit pronominal forms 
to which it can be referred. Perhaps the simplest would be to 
consider it, either as aya, the Ap. Pr., nom. sg. of idam , ‘ this,’ or 
as the oblique form ahahi of aha ( adas ), ‘ that.’ We can then 
explain mdraVkai (an optional form of maral-ak) by mdral-k k-\- ai, 
i. e., he (ai) was killed ( mdral) by him (k) : exactly equivalent to the 
K^mlri mor u -h(a)-n , he (n) was killed (mor u ) by them (h, i. e., k). 
This k can again be superadded to these forms. At the present day 
it appears to be merely pleonastic, as in such a phrase as mdral- kaik 
( maral-\ k + ai + k), but sometimes its original force remains, as in 
mar'liauk (i.e , mdral -f i + au-\- k), which means ‘ I killed him for you,’ 
literally ‘ he ( k) was killed (mdral) by me (i) for you ( au ).’ 
Another use of the termination nld already described may be 
noticed. It may be added to almost any form of the verb to attribute 
respect to the object. Thus, a Tirhutiya says, ham ok'rd k§ dekliliai , 
‘ I saw him,’ but ham raja ks dekh'liai-nh *, ‘I saw (His Majesty) the 
King.’ Here the nh 1 is simply a plural of respect, and the sentence 
means literally ‘ I saw-them, the king.’ So again he says He raja , ham 
1 H. C. iii, 87. Cf. iv, 362, eho for esah, in Ap. Pr. 
