প্রাকৃত speech, in contrast with the unmeaning retention of various obsolete systems in Classical Sanskrit, in its unnatural attempt to get away from the natural state of things. It is notorious that the Ramayana, and the Mahabharata in all its parts, abound with examples of indiscriminate use of various past forms in one and the same sense; it is not in the late time literature alone that we get বৈবস্বত মনুর্নাম……আসীৎ, etc., along with বভূব রাজা কিলকার্ত্তবীর্য্য; but we get আসীৎ রাজা নলোনাম, etc., by the side of পূরা বভুব, etc ……in the মহাভারত.
We notice that for the mode of expression "I have done" or "It has been done," participle forms came into use in the Prākṛta and even long before the time of পতঞ্জলি, the form was being freely used to indicate that sense in the Classical language; it could not but be so, as the writers of the Classical language, possessed the very mind and thought of the speakers of the vulgar tongue. To assert that the use of finite verbs in their special past form, where participle form was in current use, should not be regarded obsolete, the author of the মহাভাষ্য has cited some examples which are very often quoted. The examples show that for তের, চক্র, পেচ, the forms তীর্ণাঃ, কৃতবন্তঃ and পক্কবন্তঃ were in use. However much the শিষ্ট people kept themselves aloof, they could not possibly create a narrow little world of theirs but had to hold conversation at least with their wives, who could not but speak the vulgar tongue, being always in close touch with the neighbours; howsoever easy it might be for the sons of the শিষ্টs to learn their শিষ্ট speech, they could not lisp in Classical Sanskrit, when in the arms of their nurses. The influence of the real language of the people could never be kept off by setting up a barrier-wall of culture.
Pronunciation.—Not only in the matter of the use of tenses, but in other matters as well, the শিষ্টs imported
