336 
REPORT —1847. 
question whether a comparison of languages, historically connected with the 
IJengali, might not furnisli a more satisfactory solution. In tlie first case, w 
must remember that in Bengali itself he is very often omitted, and that the ac¬ 
cusative is represented by the same form as the nominative, when the whole 
structure of the sentence shows that the substantive, depi-ndent upon avert, 
tu be taken as its object am! therefore as an accusative. Besides, kk 
not so uiiidt to be considered as the termination of an accusative, but who 
aa that of an objective case, because it is frequently used to represent die 
dative also, as //an bahudhan HaridiUhe dilcn (Hari gave much moaevio 
Haridas). Nor is it, like the other terminations r, te, rA, added to tIle>^ 
condary Ibrm of a substantive {manushye-r, manuthye^te, manushye-Td),yi 
to the absolute form {inanushya-ke, puniah'ke). Now if we go back toSui- 
scril, particularly m its more modcro form, and to the Pracrit dialecti, « 
may observe a great tendency of the language to out the suffix i’fl si 
end ol many words without changing considerably their meaning, h b*™* 
that in some cases the .affix ka serves to express eonteaipt, pity, ivi 
but generally the meaning of the word remains the same, only assuniing t 
more concrete, objective or neuter character. Thus /oAi/o means reaiLk* 
taka, a ruby, tdc is speech, vddkam, a delivered speech or discourse. 
exists a close relation, logically as well as grammatically, between the net*' • 
in its nominative and accusative and the accusative of the masculine. 
accu.sative represents the aubstantivtf, which is active and independent, if«• 
pressed in the nominative, as a passive object, and we may account thcff!" 
wliy in nuuiy cases the same graminalical element, which serves to expte** 
tiK* neuter gender, has been employed for expressing the objective ewf - 
tbe masculine, as am in Sansertt, um in Latin, or io Greek. If then the*’'' 
ku has ubeaily in Sanscrit the signification which we have just explain^-’’ 
might seem well«adaptcd Ibr words which by their relation to other foti 
convey tlic meaning of pas-sive objectivity. Althougli therefore tbUpafi^' 
may not have fiecome, neither in Sanscrit nor hi Pracrit, the mere conveaww* 
sign oi the accusative case, yel its analogous use gets so extensive in PtJff'-’ 
an particularly in the Qakkan dialect, that we have sufficient reason 
Bengali ke historically back to Ute Sanscrit and Pracrit ka. 
I lie termination of the ablative also, which is /e in Bengali and Martw 
a in 1 ushtoo and in Singhalese, and which Dr. Stevenson considers tbo- 
ore as^ a rentnant ol the laugiiage of the aboriginal Hindus, i< certaioh^ 
aiiicnt origin. In Bengaii tc is at the same time the termination of i 
ablative and the locative. Besides, there Is still another more SanstriiicW* 
nu ion ine, for the locative of words ending in a consonant or thevow*; 
le same lorin is, by a false analogy, employed fdso for words which 
our vowels, such as rd/re (at night), instead of ratrite or ratrikdle- 
crmination te, if employt^ as the sign of tl»c dative, corresponds to tbe^-’ 
change of tra into le is justihed by the aren“' 
^ I * sounds and double consonants which we frequently find hi 
Ihus Professor Bopp derives ingeniously the Greek 
Sanscrit tra, supposing the suppression of r and the u«w 
SI ion off into a. 'fhe same suppression of the r takes place in Bcngil'' 
acre tiic short a, as usually at the end of words derived from Sanscrit, ^ 
cliangcd into e. 
as the sign of the ablative, represents the Sa®* 
wlior. and the change of tas into te appears even more 
final a ^ ^snicrnber that the Pali and Pracrit languages suppress equally tN 
instead of changing the a into 0 , as in the wse of these dialects aw 
