No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 March 2011
The past tense in Marāṭhī is formed by adding a suffix lā. The same suffix is also used in Bihārī, Oṛiyā, Bengali, and Gujarātī. This form has long been a puzzle to scholars. Mr. Beames, A Comparative Grammar of the Modern Aryan Languages of India, vol. iii, p. 135, compares the past tense in Slavonic languages; Dr. Hoernle, A Comparative Grammar of the Gaudian Languages, p. 139 f., derives la from the suffix ta of the past participle passive in Sanskrit; and Sir Charles Lyall, A Sketch of the Hindustani Language, Edinburgh, 1880, p. 48 f., thinks that la is a diminutive suffix added to the old past participle passive. This last view is essentially the same as that held by Dr. Grierson, who some time ago, and before I had arrived at any independent opinion regarding the question, told me that he derives la from the Prakrit suffix illa (Hemacandra, ii, 164).
page 419 note 1 I do not believe in the derivation of the infinitive suffix ṇ 
from -anīyam. The suffix aṇa, aṇaũ in Apabhraṁśa (Hemacandra, iv, 411) certainly belongs to an ordinary verbal noun in ana, and I am unable to explain the phonetical changes and the development of the sense of the form which must be supposed when adopting the derivation from anīyam. The suffix anīya becomes aṇijja in Māhārāṣṭrī, and Marāṭhī agrees with that dialect in the formation of passive forms. Hindī and especially Braj, on the other hand, show some points of connection with Śaurasenī (compare, for instance, kiyau, done, with Śaurasenī kida, where Māhārāṣṭrī has kaa), and anīya in Śaurasenī becomes aṇīa. I therefore think it probable that an old verbal noun in aṇaa, corresponding to the Apabhraṁśa infinitive in aṇaũ, has in Hindī been confounded with a form derived from the participle of necessity in anīya. Such a supposition would explain the fact that the Hindī form in nā is used both as an infinitive and as a future participle passive. In Marāṭhī, however, the form in ṇ is a pure verbal noun. And its derivation from anīya is, I think, phonetically impossible. A suffix -aṇaaṁ, on the other hand, must become Marāṭhī ṇ , Braj naũ, and so forth. Compare the analogous development of the past participle passive.