could vie with the wonderful mechanism of his eight books of grammatical rules. But unrivalled as that system is, it is not suited to the wants of English students, least of all to the wants of beginners. While availing myself therefore of the materials collected in the grammar of Pâṇini and in later works, such as the Prakriyâ-Kaumudî, the Siddhânta-Kaumudî, the Sârasvatî Prakriyâ, and the Mâdhavîya-dhâtu-vṛitti, I have abstained, as much as possible, from introducing any more of the peculiar system and of the terminology of Indian grammarians[1] than has already found admittance into our Sanskrit grammars; nay, I have frequently rejected the grammatical observations supplied ready to hand in their works, in order not to overwhelm the memory of the student with too many rules and too many exceptions. Whether I have always been successful in drawing a line between what is essential in Sanskrit grammar and what is not, I must leave to the judgment of those who enjoy the good fortune of being engaged in the practical teaching of a language the students of which may be counted no longer by tons, but by hundreds[2]. I only wish it to be understood that where I have left out rules
- ↑ The few alterations that I have made in the usual terminology have been made solely with a view of facilitating the work of the learner. Thus instead of numbering the ten classes of verbs, I have called each by its first verb. This relieves the memory of much unnecessary trouble, as the very name indicates the character of each class; and though the names may at first sound somewhat uncouth, they are after all the only names recognized by native grammarians. Knowing from my experience as an examiner, how difficult it is to remember the merely numerical distinction between the first, second, or third preterites, or the first and second futures, I have kept as much as possible to the terminology with which classical scholars are familiar, calling the tense corresponding to the Greek Imperfect, Imperfect; that corresponding to the Perfect, Reduplicated Perfect; that corresponding to the Aorist, Aorist; and the mood corresponding to the Optative, Optative. The names of Periphrastic Perfect and Periphrastic Future tell their own story; and if I have retained the merely numerical distinction between the First and Second Aorists, it was because this distinction seemed to be more intelligible to a classical scholar than the six or seven forms of the so-called multiform Preterite. If it were possible to make a change in the established grammatical nomenclature, I should much prefer to call the First the Second, and the Second the First Aorist; the former being a secondary and compound, the latter a primary and simple tense. But First and Second Aorists have become almost proper names, and will not easily yield their place to mere argument.
- ↑ In the University of Leipzig alone, as many as fifty pupils attend every year the classes of Professor Brockhaus in order to acquire a knowledge of the elements of Sanskrit, previous to the study of Comparative Philology under Professor Curtius.
