342 
BEPOET—1847. 
This signi6cation, once formed and favoured by the double charactei <( 
the pronoun, of which there is also a respectful and contemptful form, i: 
becomes possible to explain how on the one hand the singular of substantim 
might be followed by the plural form, denoting respect, and how od ik 
other Iwnd other substantives would be followed by the singular ftmn, «• 
pressing contempt. Thus the pronoun of tlie second person, turn, woa 
take the sense of you (plural), while it was more customary to addre* ■ 
person of distinction by dpani or mahd^y (your hommr), both of «1« - 
govern the iliird person plural of the verb. The pronoun lui, which 
governs the singular with a sense of contempt, would cease to be 
even in its plural, lord, as a word expressing many individuals, butwoolik 
held to be a collective word with the sense of contempt. 
In general however it may be borne in mind that people of rank dc » 
employ this pronoun and the corresponding form of die verb even ii *!• 
dresaing their servants, because at the same time tliat the respectful forcui* 
the plural lay aside almost altogether, by continual use, their respectful »*«• 
the other become so full of contempt, that in conversaiiwx they are injurious 
The first person alone haa pre>icrved both in the plural and singulw 
samo form; so that with the exception of the ditleronce between thep*’ 
nouns (dtui and r»«f), the form of the verb remains the same. 
The late Dr. Yate*, who, after such a long intercourse vrith thenatim' 
Dengal, may be considered as a good authority on this subject, 
fercnce to these forms of the verb and the pronouns : “ It would be well for* 
first and second of these proiioun8(m?« and tui),and for the verbs thatup* 
with them, to be expunged from the language; yet as they are Irequ*^ 
used in common uouveraation, it is necessary to notice them, to enable 
student to understand what he will frequently hear. The third ofi» 
swer* a useful purpose in distinguishing between the Creator 
turc, the king and the subject, the master and the servant, the aninjatc 
the inanimate." And 
; iiionilitr 
V..C wwru person must t)<- exempted, as it is used in all good 
expressing common lacta nr events, and will on that ground in 
embodied in the honorific form of conjugation.” . j 
A slight knowledge of the system of the Indo-Germanic conjugan^’ 
suHicicnc to show that all the personal terminations of the verb ca^ _ 
yio same source as those of the otlier cognate languages, and 
tarn the remains of personal prououus, added to the verbal root, and ci^ 
more or less in the gradual development of the language. It 
ot place to retrace hero the origin of every Bengali termination, andW 
1 10 greater or lesser regnlaritv of its successive alterations by 
the UTmmaiions of other languages. I think that the characteristic 
ence between the personal suffixes for the present and the imperfect ; 
c, ar/t, I, a)y as well as the sulBxes themselves, speak so clearly as >® 
no oU.er pr^f for their Indo-Germanic tiescent, and I defy any one 
any but an Indo-Germanic language, i and am, as tlie sign for 
n, M *“'1 * for die second, or en as the termination for the 
p ural. U e only observe, that the terminations of the 
tb* ^oottiin the personal suffixes in their simplest . 
o" auxiliary verb, and the excellent Work of Prof- 
in c * ' tcient instances of analogous forms of the personal ten® 
" ^ariscnt and its filial languages. 
