25 
1874.] A. F. Rudolf IToernle —Essays on the Gaurian Languages. 
fem. in and ; it is evident that the Skr. fem. ending in be¬ 
comes in Gaurian ^ or Xi according as the Skr. fem. in assumes in 
Prakrit one of the two equivalent fem. forms in ^EfT or (-^t). If the 
Skr. fem. in retained in Prakrit its form in ^JT, it assumed in Gaurian 
the fem. form in % but if it assumed in Prakrit the feminine form in 
(T^T ), it changed in Gaurian to the form in ^; and if it had in Prakrit 
either form in or f^r, it shows also in Gaurian either form in ^ or 
Hence, e. g., the Skr. fem. itfT ewe, is in Gaurian both and simply 
because in Prakrit the word was current in both its equivalent forms 
and ; on the other hand the Skr. fem. may have been in 
Prakrit current generally only in the one form ^Tiy, and hence appears in 
Gaurian only in the form qT<T, but never in the form «Teft or and 
again all Skr. adjectives (as true) were in the (colloquial) Prakrit, 
generally at least, current in the amplified form in f^T (as true}; 
and hence appear in Gaurian generally as ending in \ (as 
This theory is clearly proved by a few exceptional forms occurring in 
High-Hindi. Exceptions, it may be remarked, as a general rule, are like 
archaic and poetical forms, invaluable for the determination of the origin 
of grammatical forms, the derivation of which has become obscured. There 
is a small number of Hindi masculine nouns in ^r, which form their femi- 
nines not, according to the rule, in but irregularly in ; e. g. 
old man (Skr. Pr. ‘ggre^HT) forms its feminine not old 
woman ; dog has fem. <fifyrqT; parcel, fem. tjfg'qT; coat , 
fem. ^ifwl^T; doll, etc.f Now fffRT, etc., clearly stand for the 
Prakrit (Skr. sf%aRT), ffffF^T, etc. The masculine corresponding to 
would be which is represented on the one hand in Skr. by 
on the other hand in Gaurian by ^"ST.. But it is evident that the 
origin of the regular feminine in T cannot be different in kind from that 
of irregular feminines in ^??T. Their difference simply consists in the degree 
to which phonetic corruption has gone in either, and the anomaly of those 
Hindi nouns which have a feminine in ^qfT, is merely this, that while in the 
masculine they have assumed the proper Gaurian form in (or srjT, i. e. 
^'%T), in the feminine they retain the full Prakrit form in (i. e. T^Tf), 
instead of assuming like the others, also in the feminine the proper Gaurian 
form in It follows, therefore, that the feminine ending in is a curtail¬ 
ment of the original Prakrit ending (^l) or ; and that all Gaurian 
* The reason, probably, was to keep it distinct from the word ^Trft or light , 
candle. 
f The Bangali lias 3 -ft old woman; and the low Hindi (Ganwari) has also vrgl 
cv (\ • ’ 
besides ofsT^y. I 11 the Ganwari every fem. in \ may have an alternative from in T-STT, 
to express contempt or emphasis and determinateness ; see note on p. 94.—The Marathi has 
frflt not ^frF?H. 
D 
