1895 .] of the Modern Indo-Aryan Languages. 365 
in the case of Intransitive verbs we can also use the Past 
Participle with the Verb Substantive in the Kartari 
praydga. Instead of calal-ahu ach l , we can say calal chi, 
‘ gone I am,’ calito ’ smi, while on the other hand we cannot 
use such a form in the case of Transitive verbs. We can¬ 
not say, for the Perfect active ‘ maral chi , which would 
mean, ‘ killed I am,’ ‘ I am killed,’ not ‘ I have killed.’ 
Biharl, however attempts to use the Kartari praydga in 
the case of Transitive verbs, and does so by a curious 
periphrasis. Instead of saying marala-ahii ach % ‘ beaten- 
by-me is,’ we can also optionally say ‘ by-means-of-(so 
and so)-being-beaten I am,’ mdrale chin. Here the Past 
Participle Passive is put in the Instrumental case, as if 
we were to say in Sanskrit, aham Deva-dattena mdriteua 
as mi, ‘ I, by means of the beaten Deva-datta, am.’ It is 
true that before all these verbs the subject-pronoun appears 
to be in the Nominative case, but, as already explained 
that is because no true Instrumental form of any Pronoun 
has survived in Maithili, or, indeed, in any Eastern Indian 
Language. Instead of saying ‘ mayd mdritam asH ,’ all 
the languages of the Eastern Family appaiently say aham 
mdritam asti , a purely nonsensical phrase, merely because 
the special form for mayd has disappeared altogether, and 
the word for aham is used instead of it. 
An interesting light on this loss of the sense of the original pas¬ 
sive meaning of the past tense is shown by the Gujarati corruption of 
the Bhdve praydga. In that construction, the passive participle being 
used impersonally, should be in the neuter. In Gujarati, however, this 
is forgotten, and the passive participle agrees in number and person with 
the object of the sentence, which is, according to custom, in the dative 
case. Thus tene rani ne man, is in the Bhave praydga, and means * he 
killed the queen.’ It should be properly tene rani ne rnciryu , ‘ by him 
(tene) with-reference-to-the-queen {rani ne) it-was-killed ( maryu ),’ but 
mdryu (neuter) is changed to the feminine mari, to agree with rani, as 
if it were in the Karmani praydga, which it is not. 
With the exception of Biharl, none of the Eastern languages make 
any distinction between the conjugation of the past tense of intransi¬ 
tive and transitive verbs. I hence, here, content myself, with giving 
only the Biharl conjugation of both forms. 
J, i. 47 
