hold, that long before the dissemination or dispersion of Aryan speech or speeches in Europe, the Aryans developed a central dominating language, amid a good number of dialects of theirs. This dominating language seems to have attained such a perfection in the dim past, as characterizes a literary language,—even though letters or art of writing did not come into existence. I just cite two examples, in addition to what has already been stated, to explain what I mean by the literary character of the pre-Vedic language. Such natural lispings or utterances of children, as have been the roots of words for father and mother in many languages of the world, as Bā, Ābbā, Pā, Āmmā, Mā, etc., are found in well shaped forms in all Aryan speeches, and the forms পিতর্ and মাতর্ framed by a generalized grammatical rule, are found grouped with other relation-indicating words, such as ভ্রাতর্, and দুহিতর্. For the next example, I refer to the tense system; on the evidence of tense system of old Greek as agreeing with those of Vedic, we may hold that the pre-Vedic language attained a high literary character.
I have thrown out suggestions, as to what was in all probability, the position and character of the Aryan language in pre-Vedic days. It goes however without saying that the Chhāndasa language as disclosed by the early Vedic Saṁhitās, is a very rich and well-developed literary speech. It has to be borne in mind, in this connection, that inspite of the unifying influence of a central literary language, the provincial dialects do not all necessarily die out, and they may at times continue to live with full vigour, getting fresh lease of life under some changed conditions. That the Vedic language became in course of time purely hieratic, because of the sacredness of the mantras, and was not, or rather could not therefore be allowed to be changed with the changing conditions of time, can be well established
