Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T14:07:48.710Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

XVIII On the Origin of the Dative and Genitive Postpositions in Gujarati and Marwari

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 March 2011

L. P. Tessitori
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is mainly with the two principal sets nē, nō of Gujarātī and rai, rō of Mārwāṛī, and with their older forms, that I propose to deal in these pages. Since the right clue to the explanation of them—with the exception of rō, which presents no difficulty—has been missed by scholars as yet, I trust that the present investigation into their origin will be of use even to such as might hesitate to accept all my views unreservedly.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society , Volume 45 , Issue 3 , July 1913 , pp. 553 - 567
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Asiatic Society 1913

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 553 note 1 I confine myself to mentioning the case of k, on which my derivations are based and which seems to have been the most frequent. Of other consonants being dropped at the beginning of a word I may quote the three instances following: Old Western Rājasthānī taü from h taü (< Ap. hontaü < Skt. *bhavantakaḥ), māṭaĩ from Ap. *nimattaī (< Skt. *nimittakēna), Modern Mārwāṛī rō from parō, varō, an adjective used to form verbal intensives. It will be observed that all the three words given above are of very frequent occurrence, a fact which partly accounts for their curtailment. Traces of apheresis of initial consonants are already found in Prakrit. I know the following: ḍhilla (< Skt. śithila), ṇaṃ (< Skt. nūnam), and āharaṇa (< Skt. udāharaṇa), which occurs in the Jaina Māhārāṣṭrī of the Uvaēsamālā (227).

page 554 note 1 I understand under this name the common parent of Modern Gujarātī and Modern Mārwāṛī. I have been fortunate enough to discover some MSS. written in that language amongst the Indian collection in the Regia Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale at Florence. From them I have collected much new material, which I hope to publish soon. All the Old Western Rājasthānī quotations in the present article, which are termed by F followed by a number, refer to MSS. that will be found registered in Professor P. E. Pavolini's “I Manoscritti Indiani della Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale di Firenze”: GSAI., vol. xx, pp. 63–157, 1907.

page 554 note 2 This MS. will be found recorded in Theodor Aufrecht's Florentine Sanskrit Manuscripts, Leipzig, 1892.Google Scholar

page 555 note 1 Kellogg, Hindī Grammar, §§ 201–2.

page 555 note 2 From Kellogg, op. cit., § 203.

page 555 note 3 The simplification of ṇṇ into ṇ had already begun in Prakrit and Apabhraṁśa. Cf. paṇa- (from paṇṇa-) in Pischel's Grammatik d. Prakrit-Sprachen, § 273, and aṇu (from aṇṇu<anyad?) in Pischel's Materialien z. Kenntniss d. Apabhraṁśa, 415. In the Old Western Rājasthānī I may cite the case of the cardinal “three”, which occurs under the forms triṇṇi, traṇṇi, traṇi. In the MS. F 700 both the Gujarātī forms triṇhi, triṇha and the Rājasthānī form tīna are used side by side.

page 556 note 1 Sindhī Grammar, p. 401.Google Scholar

page 556 note 2 Ganḍian Grammar, § 376.Google Scholar

page 557 note 1 As shown by Sir George Grierson in his article “On certain Suffixes in the Modern Indo-Aryan Vernaculars”: Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete der Indogermanischen Sprachen, 1903, pp. 473 ff.

page 558 note 1 After the present article had gone to press, I discovered in the MS. F 700 (p. 10, a) a real instance of naī used in the agentive function, which had escaped my attention before. It is the following: Ādišvara-naï dīkṣā līdhī jāṇī (“having learned, that Ādīšvara had taken the dīkṣā”).

page 559 note 1 Comparative. Grammar, ii, 270.Google Scholar

page 559 note 2 Ganḍian Grammar, § 371.

page 559 note 3 “On certain Suffixes …,” loc. cit., p. 484.Google Scholar

page 559 note 4 Cf. the Modern Gujarātī construction mārā-thī vāta kahēvāya, which is equivalent with m vāta kahī (Taylor, , Gujarātī bhāṣā-nū Vyākaraṇa, 177, 430, 437Google Scholar (ī)). Cf. also Kellogg, , Hindī GrammarGoogle Scholar, § 691 (6). In the following passage from the MS. F 700 kanhaĩ has become an ablative grammatically also: bhagavanta-kanh dīkṣā divarāvī (“he caused the Venerable one to give him the dīkṣā”).

page 560 note 1 Sir George Grierson suggests to me that nō might be from the Apabhraṁśa kiṇṇaü. Such a derivation would be supported by the analogy of the cognate vernaculars, most of which have genitive postpositions that are connected with the Sanskrit root kṛ. But against it would be, perhaps, the fact that Old Western Rājasthānī has no traces of *kīnhaü, but substitutes the form kīdhaü for it.

page 560 note 2 In the MS. F 700 a few instances occur of naĩ used in quite the same genitive meaning as naü. One is the following: ē Bhagavanta-naï tēramaü bhava (“this is the thirteenth existence of the Venerable one”).

page 561 note 1 Lately printed by K. H. Dhruva. I owe this quotation to the kindness of Sir George Grierson, who lent to me his own copy of the little work.

page 561 note 2 In the following passage from the MS. F 557 both postpositions occur, and the difference in their meaning is very evident. It is a paraphrase of the Sanskrit adjectival compound nānāpiṇḍaratāḥ (nom. plur. m.): nānā-prakāra gṛhastha-taṇaĩ gharē piṇḍa āhāra-naĩ viṣaĩ rata āsakta chaĩ(F 557, i, 4).

page 563 note 1 Linguistic Survey of India, vol. ix, pt. ii, p. 22, 1908.Google Scholar

page 564 note 1 Quoted by SirGrierson, George, Ling. Surv., loc. cit.Google Scholar

page 564 note 2 For the shortening of the pretonic long vowel, see Pischel, , Grammatik d. Prakrit-Sprachen, § 81.Google Scholar

page 564 note 3 Grierson, , Ling. Surv., vol. ix, pt. ii, p. 363, 1908.Google Scholar

page 565 note 1 Trumpp, , Sindhī Grammar, p. 391.Google Scholar

page 566 note 1 This refers to a MS. in the India Office Library, which I have been able to collate at the Biblioteca Comunale at Udine (Italy) through the kindness of the Librarian, Dr. F. W. Thomas.

page 567 note 1 I believe that the Marāṭhī postposition for the genitive is from *kiccaü, as already pointed out by Dr. Konow and Sir George Grierson (“On certain Suffixes …,” loc. cit., p. 490).Google Scholar