338 
REPORT —1847. 
Thus, loha-v'i^mta, celebrated in the world, i. e. among men; loka-vikmkjt. 
tle8)>i8ed by the world, i. e. by men. One can even say striloia, mewiini 
the world of ivomen, t. e. womankind in general. I consider then the forni- 
ation of the plural by means of dig as based on the same connexion ofidm 
and this would account at the same time why the Bengalis generally uie 
tbi* form of the plur.n! for retisonabJe beings only, as jiutidit Higtte, in ibe 
Jcanied world; while worths like a number, o tribe, dal, .n bind, 
cargo, a class, are used promiscuously for animate and inanimate bemijs 
'I'he two sulHxes /rf nnd {i arc often found at ilie end of Bubstantitfl d 
the numeral pronouns ; (d udded to the names of living beings indioifsis- 
difference or contempt: ekafit kukuroe kiikiirfd, \ ekafdfitaHvthyaor’'^^ 
nti$/ij/a{(i, .-i mannikin, the mob. 'i’he same sulHx added to the nanwoi 
things gives nn idea of m.agnitude, tAafd g/mr or g'AorM, a great house. Tk 
siiftix (i expresses in similar easen afftretion or j>ity in the case ol ^ 
itigs, nnd couiempt in that of things : ekaft bdlah or Mlakf'i, s little doH* 
darlifig ; tkdfi inkif, lokdti, a very small sum, a stiver, a mite. 
It vrould be difficult to give un explanation of the true meaning nf 
suflixes, if we did not sometimes find the dental t in the place of the linaiih' 
Now the cerebrals are pronounced in IJongali as the denials are in Staff* 
It is therefore probable that td and ft are the same suffixes hymeoin 
which collective and abstract nouns arc formed in Sanscrit. At *** 
time it is to be remarked, that in many modern languages tlie 8U&«' 
dc-scined to form .abstract and colloetivo names, give sometimes w e** 
wortU tm additional meaning, jiiat in tlie same manner as the sums** ■' 
and fii ns, in Knglish, wotim'n nnd womankind, governors and 
nicnl; and still more in French words, like loger, logis, logemeWi 
boiirgeois, Ja bourgeoisie, lu people, la populace. We must »\so niri 
tlmt in Bong,nli tliesc diSereiit sliades of meaning almost alwawdcj>«>'> 
the character of the whole phrase, and that, generally, for insttiw.® • 
tMldk means only a child, ekafd g/utr, a house? while, on 
ualahfd, gharfd, have tlie more definite meaning of* the child,' 'the • 
The most important point, however, of the Bengali is whatwr 
its secondary or periphrastic declension, which by the clearness 
allows us an interesting insightinto the secret working of language, 
us a key for many modern formations in kindred languages, wlicre Uie_ 
gtnni elements of these new formations are often obliterated and utifxp^ 
able. Although we have seen that in the singular there are some 
of the nnt-ictit forms in the locative, ablative and genitive, yel the 
has lost the conscience of their true meaning, and they are made use 
in the most simple and distinct cases. In the modern language these 
have no longer sulfident power to perform the functions which they “ 
in Sanscrit, and they have consequently been replaced by more 
tmd more intelligible words. AVe must not, however, look upon ibe*® _ 
formations in the light of arbitrary compositions, for, having becotP®^^ 
crated these forms are rcg.irded by the Bengalis as having u*® . 
value which the cases of the Sanscrit were considered to have by die _ 
]>eo|ile who spoke it. As it may be of interest for the comparative 
motlcni languages, we give a list of the most usual forms of these 
cases 
1. Karltik (expressing ngenev), helnk (expressing cause) form the ip* 
memaJ, ablative and dative. 'TJius, Uarkartrik jagad Mfa 
world IS created by God, j. e. having God for the agent in its 
sent, i^vurena or Igmnit)’, dhanhetuk yalna karikk, he exerts hmweii 
