were composed during those later times, in the earlier obsolete Prākṛtas. Consequently, a general continuity of the Prākṛta speeches in their transformation through ages, cannot very easily be traced in literature. Properly speaking, no general secular literature existed in the provincial dialects, to give models of language to the Prākṛta-speaking people of successive generations. The people continued to speak in their Prākṛta speeches, but serious literature was always being composed by the learned in Sanskrit. When, therefore any good or elevated thought had to be expressed in a public document for universal use, in any Prākṛta dialect, a great want was felt in getting adequate terms in the current speech of the people. Sanskrit words were therefore laid under contribution, from the current literary works. This is why during the early literary activities in all our Vernaculars, we notice the influence of Sanskrit upon the Vernaculars. We should not, at the same time, fail to notice, that the Prākṛta or vernacular-speaking people of all times, have maintained the non-Sanskritic structure of their speech. It is by Grammar principally, and not by Vocabulary, that the character of a speech is to be judged; if we do so, we will find that the genetic affinities between the Prākṛtas of early and late times, will be clearly noticeable. As the subject will be specially delineated in another lecture, no further remarks need be added here.
That the classical Sanskrit has been through all times greatly influenced by the Prākṛtas, has been shown by a few examples only; a further consideration of the subject is necessary. The শিষ্টs who could not but belong to the dialect-speaking people, could not but use the Prākṛta forms (though unawares) in their Sanskrit composition. I adduce below some examples to show how this was done. I cannot however resist the temptation of quoting here
