which is nothing but an amalgamation of the Prākṛta তর and old-time হি.
From তর্হি of Sanskrit again, came the Prākṛta তহিঁ (for that reason), which should not be confounded with তহিং and its later form তহিঁ as derived from তস্মিন্. From তহিঁ of প্রাকৃত, there came out another form তেহিঁ or তেঁই of which তেঁ became the contracted form. In my opinion তেঁ does not come direct from 'তেন' to indicate তেন কারণেন. That our old Bengali তেঁই and modern তাই have to be derived from প্রাকৃত তহিঁ of তর্হি origin, has been already discussed. We have to note that 'তরে' of old-time প্রাকৃত or পালি, is itself in use in the Bengali language.
(12) না, সি, and সেন্—It is well known that the particle নু of Vedic times (as in কৃণবাবহৈ নু—ante, p. 109) has always been in use in Sanskrit, and 'ন' has been its form in the Prākṛtas. I am strongly inclined to hold by differing from the time-honoured opinion of the grammarians of old days, that ন as occurs for instance with 'তে' and 'সময়ে' in such Pali sentence as তেন খো পন সময়েন, has the force of হি and is the ন of নু-origin, and not the sign of instrumental case, for, the regular locative forms are in plenty in পালি. This suggestion of mine, however, has no concern with what I am going to illustrate. I have no doubt that our emphasis-indicating না as in এসনা (please do come) is identical with প্রাকৃত 'ন' of নু origin. In Oriya we meet with the particle both in the shape of 'ন' and 'নি'; the latter is in literary use (as in হেলা নি—it is done) and the former is in the mouth of all people, along with নি in the Sambalpur tract; দশ বাজিলা-ন and দশ বাজিলা-নি are used alike in common parlance. In some parts of the District of Jessore, in the Eastern parts of the District of Nadiya, and in Northern Bengal, নে and নি are of general use as articles of emphasis; আমি যাবনে (Eastern parts of
