The History of the Bengali Language/Lecture 14
LECTURE XIV
BENGALI AS DISTINGUISHED FROM ITS ALLIED VERNACULARS.
I propose to pursue in this lecture, a stratigraphical study of the Bengali language with the help of the facts set forth and discussed in the previous lectures. In the present state of our knowledge, we cannot make a definite pronouncement of the ethnic elements that came into the composition of our people; we are not in possession of a history which deals with the evolution of our social structure. It was therefore only possible for me, to state in a general manner, of some of the influences that have been at work in shaping our speech in its present form. I have however made it tolerably acceptable that philology can be employed as a good strata-metre, if this instrument be fitted into the handle of the history of the races speaking the language under investigation. We have seen, that in their old and archaic forms, the speeches of the Gauḍian group resemble one another so closely, that it becomes ordinarily difficult to distinguish them as separate speeches, by noticing those points of difference which determine their character as so many independent dialects. To recognise aright our early forms as differentiated Bengali forms, separate from the forms of allied languages or dialects, let us proceed first to examine the structure of our speech primarily with reference to declension in a comparative method, that is to say, by considering carefully the inflexions of nominal stems (both noun and pronoun) by means of such endings as represent the various cases. This involves the consideration of the nominal formations connected with the verbs as participles, infinitives, etc., and the finite verbs indicating different tenses and moods. Other important points of grammatical or structural changes or evolution will be next noticed to determine, or rather to confirm the proposition advanced before, regarding the origin and character of Bengali.
We may set down on the evidence of old literary records, the language of which must be accepted on all hands to be Bengali, that 'মই' and 'মুই' are the earliest forms of personal pronoun of the first person in singular number and 'আমি' or 'আম্হি' is the plural form of 'মই' and 'মুই.' The earliest Prākṛta form 'মি' from which 'মই' comes out, is in use in Mārhāṭi, but we do not meet with the form in old Bengali. 'মই' and 'মুই' occur indiscriminately in the "শ্রীকৃষ্ণকীর্ত্তন" noticed before; 'মই' is still current in the provincial Bengali dialect of Rangpur and this is the form that obtains in Assamese. 'মুহি' was only the accented form of 'মুই' as 'আম্হি' was the accented or emphatic form of 'আমি.' In Oriya the singular form is 'মুহি' (though reduced very often to 'মুই' and 'মু' in colloquial speech) and the plural form is 'আম্ভে' which is a changed form of 'আম্হি.' 'আমি' the oldest singular form acquired the dignity of being treated as plural when 'মুই' came into use; it is still the plural form in Mārhāṭi and also in Assamese which is closely related to Bengali. As the ending 'এ' invariably occurred in old times to signify nominative case, 'আম্হি' became 'আম্হে' in Oriya and this 'আম্হে' when reduced to one word assumed the shape 'আম্ভে.' As we cannot be sure of the time of the 'বৌদ্ধ গান ও দোঁহা' edited by Pandit Hara Prasad Sastri, we must say (for want of literary evidence in support of any proposition to the contrary) that these differentiated forms cannot be shown to date from a time earlier than the 10th century A.D.; that the 10th century A.D. is the probable time when Oriya was formed as a distinct independent language, has been tried to be shown in the next preceding lecture by adducing some historical facts.
When the genuine singular forms were regarded non-honorific and vulgar, the plural forms were brought into use as singular and such plural-forming suffixes for nouns as রা (Beng.), মানে (Oriya), লোকে (Assamese) etc., were added to the real plural forms to make plural of them. The plural-forming suffixes 'রা' of Bengali, 'মানে' of Oriya and 'লোকে' (as well as 'বোরে,' 'হঁতে,' 'বিলাকে') of Assamese are of provincial growth of which মানে and লোকে can be traced to old Māgadhi source. It is interesting to note that though the original form of the Oriya speech flowed into Orissa, through Bengal, the Behari plural-forming suffix বন্ (which is only ন in two dialects) has been adopted as মান্ in Oriya; neither বন্ nor ন can be shown to have been in use in Bengali at any time. This confirms what has been stated before that two streams (one through Bengal and the other through the Kośala tract) flowed into Orissa to form the language of that country.
My remarks regarding the pronoun of the 1st person are applicable to the pronouns of the second person which are 'তু,' 'তুহি,' 'তুই' and 'তই' in singular and 'তুমি' (now singular in Bengali), 'তোমরা,' 'তোমালোকে' (Assamese), 'তুম্ভে' and তুম্ভেমানে (Oriya) in plural. Regarding the form আমালোকে, it is to be remarked, that though আমালোকে is idiomatic in Assamese, and the very form আমালোকে is freely used in Naogaon and Tejpur, the form is considered incorrect to-day in the standard Assamese language.
The honorific form alike of 'তুই' and 'তুমি' is 'আপনি' in Bengali; the corresponding Assamese form is 'আপুনি' and the Oriya form is 'আপণ.' It comes from 'আত্মনঃ' in the possessive case; the oldest 'Apabhraṇśa' was 'অত্তন' and the later form was 'অপ্পন'; the original possessive sense is retained by 'আপন' as adjective as in আপন ঘর (one's own house). 'আপনি' as pronoun, signifies literally 'your own self.' This form however is seldom met with in very old literary records to signify 'you'; its use was restricted mainly to indicate 'by one's own self' as adverb; 'I,' 'you' or 'he' did a thing, 'আপ্নি আপ্নি' (Bengali) or 'অাপে or আপে' (Oriya) or 'আপুনি' (Assamese) means that the doer did not take the help of any other person in doing the act. At times it also signifies 'I myself,' 'you yourself' or 'he himself' as the case may be, as in যুগে যুগে আপনি হইব (first person) অবতার (Bengali) or in আপে আসি ভগবান দেলে দরশন (Oriya).
I need hardly point out, that the genuine Māgadhi form সে (the successor of the earlier form সো) is in use in Bengali and Oriya, and its slightly altered form 'সি' is in use in Assamese. The forms 'যে' and 'কে' may also be noticed along with it. Oriya wholly agrees with Bengali in the use of these forms; the use of কিএ for কে is wholly irregular being a new departure from the standard oriya use according to the Eastern Provincial peculiarity in pronunciation. I mention this fact, so that this provincial Oriya 'কিএ,' may not be mistaken for the Eastern মাগধী কিঅ, of which the modern representative is কিবা.
The plural form of 'সে' is 'তে' in Māgadhi while যে and কে are found used both in the singular and plural. The plural form 'তে' is noticeable in old Bengali but not in old Oriya; 'তেঁহ' and 'তেঁই' as derived from it were in use in Bengali till the other day, and 'তে' itself is still in use (both as singular and plural) in the provincial speech of Chittagong, as a co-relative pronoun linked with 'যে,' which is introductory. That our 'তেঁহ' and 'তেঁই' are generally found in use in singular to indicate honour, need not be pointed out. 'তেঁই' (the honoured he) is not to be confounded with the identical form, which is an indeclinable to indicate 'for that reason': the pun on the word by Bharat Chandra in 'অনেকের পতি তেঁই পতি মোর বাম' may be referred to; the primary meaning is—He, who is the lord of many is my husband, and the other meaning suggested is—My husband is also the husband of others, and for that reason he is not favourably disposed towards me. They are identical in form but different in origin: তেঁই (for that reason) is derived from তর্হি = তহিঁ and our 'তাই' signifying the same meaning is a variant or a changed form of 'তেঁই'; this 'তাই' being wrongly spelt as 'তাহাই' is confounded with the provincial form 'তাহা + ই' of emphasis; the latter form is derived from তহ = তদ্. In our honorific তিনি, there is the pronoun 'ন' in an enclitic manner; in Pāli, we get this 'ন' in the accusative case only in the form of নং (= তাহাকে); 'that respected he' is the round about expression to indicate honour: তেনার and তেন্রা (his) are not unusual in the mouth of our vulgar people. The Bengalis who settled in Orissa, long ago, carried with them, as a matter of course many archaic forms, and their descendants now, not being in touch with the progress and change effected in Bengal, use তেনার (his), তান্রান (they), etc., very commonly. The forms, যিনি (occurs as জিনি in old Bengali), ইনি and উনি, as are peculiar to Bengali should also be taken note of here. I think, that the ন of direct pronominal origin, as has been noticed here, is not the ন which we get in কোন; signifying certain person or certain object. কোন appears to me to be the decayed portion of কেনচিৎ, since কৌণসি almost representing কেনচিৎ obtains in Oriya as well as in Hindi. That the ন of কেন comes directly from ম of কিম্ need not be pointed out.
I may note here that both the earlier emphatic form of কে (who) as কেহ, and the later form কেউ, are in use in Bengali; on reference to the modern Behari, we can see that কেউ (and not merely কেহ) grew in মাগধী on the very soil of Magadha, yet it is only কেহি (corresponding to our কেহ) which we get in Oriya.
Case declension—The sign for nominative.—The 'অ' sound of the non-হসন্ত finals of all nouns in the Nominative Singular was reduced to 'ও' sound in Pāli, to represent very likely the সংবৃত pronunciation of অ, as I have suggested before. This sound of 'অ' which is almost ও continues with us, as an inherent Bengali speciality but we do not write 'ধম্মো' for 'ধম্ম' to paint the special shade of our 'অ' sound. This form of the word in the nominative case did not become extinct in the মাগধী speech, when the ending এ for ও came into general use, for we get in the Jaina Prākṛta, that though all nouns in the nominative case took generally the এ final, the forms with ও final were also in use; along with the forms মহাবীরে, জালিয়ে, মেহে, etc., we meet with the older form with ও ending as occurs for instance in such a sentence as 'যহা মেহো তহা জালি.' As it is in the provincial Bengali of Rungpur, so it is in Assamese that the nouns in the nominative case take 'এ' final invariably. ই for এ in such cases in Assamese as গাধই (ass) লতাই (creeper), etc., is rightly explained in the Assamese Grammar as the euphonic mutation of 'এ.' This 'এ' was once much in use both in Bengali and Oriya, but now the use is limited to some special cases only. Almost all the nouns in the nominative case have 'এ' or 'ই' final in the শ্রীকৃষ্ণ কীর্ত্তন of a time not earlier than the 14th century A.D. The modern use of it in Bengali in such cases as লোকে বলে (so the people say), মানুষে করে (so men generally do), ছাগলে খায় (the goats usually eat) is sufficiently expressive to denote the idea of plurality in an indefinite way. In Oriya, however, when a particular Pandit for example is alluded to it will be correct to say পণ্ডিতে কহিলে; we cannot but notice that this Oriya idiomatic use indicates honour. As signification of honour is associated with the form of plurality, it may be noted here that when distinction between singular and plural was not being strictly observed, the nominative-forming suffix এ came to be used to signify singular and plural alike, and the older plural-forming suffix আ fell fully into disuse.
This supposition is not correct that the nominative-indicating এ originates from the sign-indicating instrumentality; the reduction for instance of সো to সে may be sufficient to show the wrongness of the proposition; the instances of the use of all sorts of words in the nominative case in the Jaina Prākṛta will clear up the situation. The nominative singular forms of pronouns are quite fixed; in other cases the pronominal stems in the shape of আমা, তোমা, তাহা, etc., take those case-endings which are generally usual with the noun stems. It will also be seen, that some case-denoting suffixes though pronominal in origin, are applied equally to nouns and pronouns.
The sign for accusative.—It will not be less than 1400 years when the author of the Nātya Śāstra noted the predominance of এ sound in the speeches of the Eastern Gangetic valley extending from Behar to the Bay of Bengal; perhaps the lines I cite below show this predominance of এ sound in modern- Bengali, far in excess of what it could be in olden time. এ of different origins and of various significations may be noted in the lines:
গ্রামে লোকে এক-মনেপূজিয়ে দেবতাগণে
খড়্গে ছাগে কাটে লোক-হিতে
We see in the first place that এ as a case-denoting particle signifies many cases: লোকে is in the nominative case or has the প্রথমা বিভক্তি, দেবগণে and ছাগে are in the objective case, i.e., in the দ্বিতীয়া বিভক্তি, খড়্গে is in the instrumental case, i.e., in তৃতীয়া বিভক্তি, লোক হিতে (= লোক হিতায়) is technically in চতুর্থী বিভক্তি and গ্রামে indicating locative is in the সপ্তমী বিভক্তি. Then again the এ final of একমনে is adverb-forming, পূজিয়ে is in infinitive and কাটে is a finite verb; the last three cases will be dealt with in their proper places later on.
We have studied the history of the nominative-indicating এ; it is this এ which signifies accusative as well as dative at times; 'মো-এ,' (me) and 'আম্হা-এ' (us) have been in use, since long, and the modern form 'আমায়' is but a slightly changed form of them. When অম্ or অন্ ceased to denote the accusative case in মাগধী, nominative sign of nouns came to be used to signify the accusative as well as dative in a large number of cases. When again, the noun stems ceased to take any nominative-indicating suffix, it was only at times that the accusative was marked with a suffix; this rule, I should say still holds good. The following sentence will be illustrative of the phenomenon, that in the case of nouns, it is with reference to syntax that we have to distinguish nominative from the accusative, and not by looking to the case-ending: মা-বাপ ছেলে শাসন না করিলে, ছেলে মা-বাপ মানে না; translated into old Bengali the sentence will stand as—জই (যদি) মাএ বাপে পো-এ শাসন ন করই পো-এ মা-বাপা (or মা বাপে) ন মানই.
The আ final of nouns to signify both nominative and accusative, as we meet with at times in the latest প্রাকৃত and in old Bengali, has not altogether fallen into disuse; this আ is more emphasis-indicating than case-denoting in such a sentence as ওগ্গর ভত্তা, (object)...দিজ্জই কন্তা, খা পুন বন্তা (nominative). It is at times diminutive-indicating, that is to say, indicative of affection or familiarity: in মা-এ বলেন পড় পুতা, the word পুতা is in diminutive form; in common conversation this আ is added to names to signify either familiarity or contempt.
As to the Dravidian origin of the suffix কে to signify dative as well as accusative, my remarks in the 5th lecture (pp. 59-60) should be referred to. The Dravidian কু remains unchanged in Oriya, and in old Bengali, we get it both in the shape of কে and ক; in the provinciality of Rungpur the form 'ক' is still in use, as may be noticed in the forms মোক্ (আমাকে) and তাক্ (তাহাকে).
To convert possessive form to objective, adding এ to the possessive form, we need not import any foreign influence; for, an idea, relating to an object may be expressed in the objective case, without drowning the sense of relation; the line—'যাদেরে চাহিয়া তোমারে ভুলেছি, তারাত চাহেনা আমারে,' will sufficiently illustrate the case, if the thought underlying the sentence is properly analysed. This form of the objective case is met with more in poetry than in prose, in our modern language; in Eastern Bengal, however, this form obtains in common conversation language; cf., the Eastern Bengal sentences, মার-এ মারেনা = মাকে মারিতে নাই, and মোরে কও নাও ডুবাইবার? (How dare you suggest that the boat will be sunk by me?). We can easily trace this form of expression to a প্রাকৃত idiom: কসু-এ বি পেক্খদু (whomsoever you may meet) is equivalent to যারেই (যাকেই) দেখতে পাও; 'কসু' is in the possessive form being the অপভ্রংশ form of কস্য and এ is clearly object-indicating here.
Instrumental Case.—To signify the instrumental case we have in Bengali the suffixes এ, দিয়া, and হতে; their history may be briefly narrated here.
এ—The Pali Instrumental Plural suffix হি comes no doubt from ভিস্ or ভিঃ. It is well known that distinction between singular and plural was not much observed in the later Prākṛtas, and one well-formed suffix, no matter whether it was originally singular or plural-indicating, became the general case-denoting suffix. There are lots of instances of হি being used as suffix to denote instrumental singular; take for instance the line মানিনি, মানহি কাঁইফল (What does it avail, Oh Mānini, by becoming cross?). No doubt at first হি was reduced to ই as we meet with in the old literary Prākṛta works, but its reduction to এই is not also very recent. The instrumental ই ending in such cases as ইচ্ছাই (ইচ্ছয়া) বিদ্ধাই (বিদ্ধয়া), etc. as we meet with in the সেতুবন্ধ may be considered with some reasons to be derived from য়া, but the early history starting with হি is not in favour of this supposition. Be that as it may, we get the suffix ই, as well as এই, in old প্রাকৃত works of uncertain dates; ভমরেহি or লতাহি being reduced to ভমরেই or লতাই, the path for further reduction to ভমরে or লতা-এ (or লতায়) was paved. The history of the idiomatic use of the instrumental case forms, if studied in regular succession, it does not become easy to hold that 'এন' (say of দেবেন) generated the 'এ' in question by dropping the final ন. I have discussed in the previous lecture that in our proto-Bengali, 'এন' does not occur and that its occurrence in one passage in a বৌদ্ধ দোঁহা has been wrongly formulated because of incorrect reading of the text. The cases where 'এন' seems to occur in Oriya as instrumental suffix have not been in my opinion properly studied; it will be observed that the words with seeming এন suffix in Oriya have been used to denote locative case as well; I am inclined to hold, on reference to the use of ন as a particle of emphasis in Oriya, that the words with a suffix (denoting either instrumental or locative ease) stand with additional ন to indicate emphasis. The half-nasal occurring in ইচ্ছেঁ (by the desire) or নেহাএঁ (by the affection) does not seem to represent the loss of ন, for the instrumental form with এন is not met with in the Prākṛta speeches which are later than Pali in date; corresponding to 'এ' we get 'এরে' in Assamese and রে in Oriya; the growth of র here is but euphonic growth. In Bengali the noun-stems having ই or উ final take an additional ত which is but an euphonic growth to facilitate easy pronunciation; compare the forms হাতে ধর and ছুরিতে কাট. This euphonic transmutation is noticeable alike in Nominative and Locative, where এ is the case-denoting suffix. Where however difficulty does not occur in pronunciation, the euphonic ত does not occur; for instance ঘিয়ে ভাজ is commoner than ঘিতে ভাজ. Besides the ordinary examples of instrumental with এ final, I notice the instance where a peculiar Sanskrit idiom is expressed in Bengali: In আমায় তোমায় বোঝা পড়া আছে, আমায় and তোমায় correspond to ত্বয়া-ময়া as in অদ্য যুদ্ধম্ ত্বয়া-ময়া.
দিয়া—We have noticed the instrumental case-ending 'তে' and its variant 'দে' in the Māgadhi Prākṛta which is usually designated as Jaina Prākṛta. It is surmised by some that this দে is but the changed form of earlier হি.
This দে can be clearly recognised in the instrumental case-ending 'দি' in use in the district of Rangpur and 'দেই' in use in Oriya. This archaic 'দি' of Rangpur is now used as 'দিয়া' in standard Bengali language; as such it has no connection with 'দা' to give; nor the upstart দ্বারা set up by the Pandits, can have any relationship with it.
হতে—I have traced the genesis of হতে in the previous lecture and have shown there, that in its origin as well as in its general use in our vernacular, হতে is purely the sign of the ablative case. In such a use as আমা হতে হেন কার্য্য না হবে সাধন, the word হতে signifies certainly instrumentality, but its ablative sense is also noticeable in the use; the action 'flowing out of me' can be construed to be the underlying idea.
Dative.—In Assamese we get 'লৈ' as a special dative case-ending, while in Bengali and Oriya, we have the same 'কু' or 'ক' or 'কে'-suffix both for accusative and dative. This 'লৈ,' noticeable also in Nepalese and in a Behari dialect, is the reduced form of 'লাগি,' in use in Bengali as well as in Oriya; তোমার লাগি (for you) is rather a poetic use in Bengali.
Ablative.—হতে (not to be confounded with হইতে = to be) and থেকে are the two ablative suffixes in Bengali. How the ablative denoting অৎ generated the suflix হতে has been discussed in Lecture XIII, p. 244. Both the প্রাকৃত forms হিন্ত and হঁৎ are met with in old Hindi. হঁৎ has been reduced to হতে in Bengali and to হুঁ in Hindi. It is the further reduced form of হুঁ in the shape of উঁ, that we meet with in Oriya as well as in Marathi. The Oriya form ঘরু, from house, is not the contracted form of ঘরঠুঁ. Oriya ঠুঁ or corresponding Marathi থুন্ is quite another suffix as we shall presently notice. It has been stated that from অৎ we have got হতে (cf. বৃক্ষাৎ = রুক্খতে = রুকখ হতে) as a general ablative forming suffix; then again we have to notice that this very অৎ being joined to the demonstrative pronouns 'ই' or ইদ, and এ or এত) (contraction of এতদ্) gave rise to the particular forms ইৎথি and এৎথি (from here) and this newly formed থি of এৎথি and ইৎথি, is the progenitor of the suffix থি or থে. We have to further note that it is থে and not থেকে which is in use in the speech of the Bengali-people all throughout the Northern and the Eastern districts and in the Districts of Jessore and Khulna. সেখান থে and not সেখান থেকে is what we hear in the tracts mentioned above. We can thus clearly see that থেকে of the standard language has acquired an otiose or euphonic ক.
In the district of Chittagong we get the form থুন্ for থে which by chance agrees with the Marathi form থুন্. Corresponding Oriya form is ঠু or ঠুঁ which is reducible to থু or থুঁ or থুন্. I have already suggested that the Marathi উন্ and Oriya উ are not contracted forms of থুন্ and ঠুঁ respectively, but that they are derived from হু which comes out of হঁৎ (the progenitor of হতে). থুন of Marathi and ঠুঁ of Oriya are additional suffixes; cf. the double Marathi forms এ থুন্ and আপল্যা পাশুন্ and the double Oriya forms এ ঠুঁ and ঘরুঁ. In ঠারু (Oriya), the suffix উ is added to ঠার.
Genitive—There have been various suggestions regarding the genesis of র, of which one or two will be noticed here. As such Sanskrit genitive forms as হরেঃ, গুরোঃ, etc evolve 'র' in their conjunction with vowels, semi-vowels, and consonants which are not surds, some suppose that the Vernacular র suffix has to be traced to this special phenomenon; in this supposition, it is lost sight of that বিসর্জ্জনীয় was never in use in the Prākṛtas, and the Sanskrit forms in question were never idiomatic in the Prākṛta speeches. What we have to really notice, is the Prākṛta idiomatic form to trace the history of র. We first notice that স্ স took the place of স্য and then অ as the representative of স came into use. We have also noticed in earlier lectures that the suffix অ (indicating genitive) was not only liable to be mistaken for other suffixes but was incapable of expressing the idea of possession with some emphasis, on account of its fluid pronunciation or boneless character; that very often হ had to be substituted for the sake of forcible pronunciation, has been noticed in the course of examination of some Prākṛta forms. That the final boneless vowels have been at times either liable to be reduced to র, or require to be otherwise strengthened, may be noted over again: গ-উ has been reduced to গরু, and করিঅ has assumed the form করিয়া in Bengali. The tendency to put in র to ensure distinct pronunciation is observable in such a Sandhi conjunction in Pali, as পন্নরসে + ইব = পন্নরসেরিব, where according to Sanskrit Sandhi rule a র is not justified.
Most convincing proof of র coming out of স (or from a vowel sound representing স) is to be sought in the phonetic peculiarity which is almost universal: change of 's' into 'r' as a Dravidian peculiarity, has been elaborately noticed by Bishop Caldwell and others and this very peculiarity in all the Aryan languages of Europe has been well studied by the Philologists. How the 's' of the genitive-indicating স্য of the Aryan speech has been reduced to 'r' in a very large number of cases in Italian, French, German and English, is too well known to scholars to require an illustrative statement. Thus in accordance with the universally prevalent phonetic law, and quite consistently with the actual idiomatic use of the old times, we get the history of the growth of our genitive-signifying suffix র. What is to be noted is that in tracing this history one is not forced to create an imaginary condition of things, disregarding the actual idiomatic use which has always been in force.
Having given the real history of র, I just refer to an untenable theory regarding it upheld by some learned scholars. On the flimsy basis of a form which cannot be shown to have been idiomatic in the Prākṛtas, 'কের' has been set up by some as the progenitor of র; only one solitary instance of very doubtful import is cited from the মৃচ্ছকটিক in support of the existence of the form কের, by wholly overlooking the clear cases of the use of genitive in the Prākṛtas. It is clear that the form কের has been specially favoured, by the scholars under review, as an explanation, regarding the form 'এর' has been needed; it should be seen, in the first place, that in Western Hindi and in Oriya, it is 'র' and not 'এর্' which is the suffix; in Oriya 'এর্' is wholly unknown and the Hindi forms হামারা, তোমারা, etc., point simply to a simple 'র' suffix. I proceed to show in the second place that এর্ is merely an euphonic mutation of 'র,' in Bengali; and কের্ as a suffix has never been known in our language.
That এর্ is but an euphonic mutation of র will be clearly seen on reference to the rules of idiomatic use of র and এর in Bengali: (1) এগার-র (where final is non-হসন্ত), আমার, দাদা-র, দিদি-র, রাণী-র, সাধু-র, বধূ-র, ছেলে-র, আলো-র are examples of words of various final sounds taking 'র' as the genitive-signifying suffix. (2) When the final is হসন্ত, which is never the case in Oriya, the simple suffix র cannot be assimilated with the word, and so এর is to be suffixed; e.g., রাখাল্-র makes 'র' a separate or non-হসন্ত syllable unsuited to the genius of Bengali pronunciation, and so we have রাখাল-এর, এক-এর, দশ-এর, etc. (3) Non-হসন্ত words of one letter, i.e., to say non-হসন্ত single consonants treated as words must take 'এর' to maintain their distinctness as words; e.g., ক-এর আঁকড়ী, শ (contracted form of শব)-এর কড়ি, etc.; contrast with them কবিতায়, যত-র সঙ্গে এত-র ভাল মিল হয়না. (4) Words ending with compound letters always generate non-হসন্ত sounds (unlike what it is in Hindi) in Bengali and yet they take এর্ and not র as we may notice in কষ্টের, গন্ধের, চন্দ্রের, etc. In Eastern Bengal, however, simple র is affixed in such cases in spoken language following perhaps the general rule which is in the air. (5) When the final sound is ঐ (অই) or ঔ (অউ), the final ই or উ becomes separate syllable and as such the euphony requires the affixing of এর্; e.g., দই-এর, বউ-এর, etc.
I have heard this example adduced by some to illustrate the use of কের as a suffix in Bengali, viz., কতকের as in কতকের পর্য্যায় but it is overlooked that here ক is an otiose ক to which according to the previously illustrated rule এর has to be suffixed; if we refer to কতকে in such an expression as 'এ মাছটা কতকে কিন্লে' the situation will be clear. It will be invariably found, that where কের occurs, it does not occur as a suffix but only এর is added to a word which has an otiose ক as final.
ক and দিগের.—In Eastern Māgadhi and in proto-Bengali we meet ক as a sign for genetive; the history of it, as well as of দিগের is interesting. Sir R. G. Bhandarkar has rightly remarked that ক of say, অম্হাক (অস্মাকম্) once came to be used as a genitive-indicating suffix. Since difference between singular and plural has not been maintained in the Vernaculars, such forms as আমা-ক and 'গাইক ঘিত্তা' (noticed previously) may easily be explained; I need not state that this ক is now in use in Hindi. Sir R. G. Bhandarkar has also very rightly shown in his Wilson Lectures, that when মম or তব was not considered to be either very forcible or honorific, মদীয় and ত্বদীয়, etc., became highly fashionable in Sanskrit as well as in Prākṛta speeches; that the history of our plural দিগের is to be traced to this phenomenon is what I assert here. That the case-denoting suffixes for our nouns are generally pronominal in origin, and that a portion of an expression used as a post-position becomes a suffix, have also been ably illustrated by Sir R. G. Bhandarkar; দীয় or rather দিয় of মদীয়, ত্বদীয়, etc., being joined to the general suffix র to indicate honour, the plural-denoting দিগের has originated.[1]
The Locative sign 'এ' is as old as the hills, and so no remark regarding it is necessary. I have to notice that in old Bengali 'ত' (from তস্) was once in use, and this use is now noticeable in the provincial speech of Rangpur. It is on this account, that the unusual particle 'ত' comes now in such euphonic combinations as হাতিতে, গরুতে; this euphonic 'ত' though grown in locative formations appears in other case formations also where এ is the suffix and ই, উ, etc., are the finals.
Verbs.—The history of the forms, which verbs assume in different tenses and moods, should next engage our attention. How the Vedic tense systems were gradually simplified in the Prākṛta speeches has been discussed at some length in Lectures X and XI; here our discussion will be directed more to the history of our current forms than to the history of the reduction of old systems into their present condition.
The Present system.—করোতি in the 3rd person singular gave rise to the form করই and from করই comes the modern form করে, which is common to Bengali, Oriya and Assamese. সে করে of Bengali as well as of Oriya has the corresponding Assamese form সি (as well as তেওঁ and আনে) করে. The older form করই—current in the Prākṛta speeches—is often met with in the old time literature of Bengal and Orissa. It is to be first noted, that unlike in Oriya, the Bengali verbs are alike in form in singular and plural. On reference to the archaic Bengali forms করন্তি, যান্তি, কহন্তি, etc., one may be led to suppose that once our verbs had plural forms; but it is not so. It should be first observed that the plural forms referred to here, were in use in the 3rd person only, and that use again was limited to present time; in the second place it is to be noted that a verb took the অন্তি ending when honour of the person agreeing with the verb was sought to be denoted. Of the অন্তি ending, now only ন remains and in the case of honorific mention, we say তিনি করেন, as well as আপনি করেন; it need be mentioned that though আপনি is treated as 2nd person, it is not strictly so from grammatical point of view. The সি of করোসি, in the 2nd person is not wholly obsolete; 'স' of করিস, as in তুই করিস, is the representative of it. Again, we may notice that the old সি has assumed the form সে and is treated as an indeclinable particle; when we say করসে, মরসে, etc., an emphasis is put upon the verb by the addition of সে; pure 'সি' to signify second person, occurs very much in the Srikṛṣṇa Kirtan.
It is wrongly urged by some, that the মি ending of the verb in the 1st person indefinite, so common in the প্রাকৃতs, is not met with in Bengali; the mistake is due to the fact that some provincial future-indicating forms which take the suffix ম or মি, are not recognized as forms of present indefinite. That in the following instances, the present indefinite has been reduced to future (as is done in all languages), may be easily noticed: (1) করিম্ as the contracted form of করিমি (cf. Oriya করিবি as well as করিমি where ব and ম are interchangeable) is in use as 1st person future in the provincial dialect of Rangpur; (2) the forms করিম্, খাম্, যাম্, etc., as well as করমু, খামু, যামু, etc., are current in the speech of the common people of Mymensing; (3) the 'ম' ending of the verb in the 1st person, present tense, as is traceable in the Singhalese speech, must be owing to the influence which the প্রাকৃত of old Bengal exerted there.
The Present Progressive.—presents a very interesting form. In করিতেছে, we get the infinitive form of the principal verb linked with the present indefinite form আছে (derived from অৎথি = অস্ + তি), in such a manner that the latter appears, not as an auxiliary but as a suffix. The formation of corresponding Oriya form করুঅছি has been exactly in the above manner. It is noteworthy, that a contracted form of Bengali করিতেছে, is in use in Assamese; it is therefore doubtless, that Assamese করিছে had its origin in Bengal; করিছে from করিতেছে is in use in Bengal and its further contracted form কর্ছে is also in use in our common speech. As 'করিতে' (formed originally by the শতৃ suffix) is closes to the Prākṛta form করৎ, it is earlier in date than Oriya করু. Though the form করিতে is now unknown in the standard Oriya, it is in use in the Provincial dialect of Sambalpur, and was in use in old Oriya as noticeable in the writings of Balaram Das. As an example of its use in Sambalpur, I may cite this sentence, মু দেখতে আইলি (I was observing when I was coming). This 'করিতে' formed by শতৃ suffix should not be confounded with 'করিতে' (for doing) formed by the suffix তুম্. How words in English formed originally by the suffixes 'ing' and 'ung,' look now wholly alike, may be noticed as a parallel case.
Present Perfect and Past.—The Bengali present perfect has two forms such as করিল and করিয়াছে; to the archaic past forms of the verbs either the particle ল signifying past participle or the verbal stem 'আছ' noticed above, is added or suffixed or agglutinated. That the introduction of past participle to denote present perfect, is of great antiquity has been shown in Lectures X and XI, but it is interesting to inquire how two distinct forms, to denote present perfect has been brought into use.
I have noticed before that the past form of অত্থি (অস্তি) is আসী (আসীৎ) in old Māgadhi; আসী as the past form assumed the shape আছী when আছ became the stem of the Bengali verb, derived from অস্. That in the analogy of আসী, the past forms করি, ধরি, হোই, etc. became the past forms in the Prākṛtas, has been shown before; it has also been shown that in the 3rd person singular, those past forms assumed the shape করে, ধরে, etc, in Proto-Bengali, when, করি, ধরি, etc., commenced to signify 1st person in the past tense; though the matter has been discussed before, I cite over again an example, to show that these archaic past forms are still in use in Bengali:—সে আমায় নিষেধ করে [i.e., করিয়াছিল] তাই আমি 'করি' নাই [here করিয়াছিলাম না will be unidiomatic bad Bengali]. The agglutination of the present stem 'আছ' with the past form করি, to signify the present perfect, may very well be done in the formation of করিয়াছে, করিয়াছ and করিয়াছি, but why in addition to the form with ল suffix, another form was introduced, has to be examined. We notice on examining the archaic paradigms, that when করি, ধরি, etc., became identical in form with the infinitives, and আছি (আসীৎ) could not clearly signify the past tense, being almost similar with the present form of the stem আছ, ল was given an extended use to signify the past, and the form আছি ল (Modern Bengali ছিল) was made to denote the past tense; to distinguish then between the present perfect and the past, say of the verb কর, করিল আছে (contracted into করিলছে) was made the present perfect and করি-আছিল (করিয়াছিল) was made the past form. শ্রীকৃষ্ণকীর্ত্তন, which of all hitherto known old books abounds with archaic forms, furnishes us with the present perfect forms ফুটিলছে (ফুটিল + আছে), রহিলছে (রহিল + আছে) etc. Since করিল, ফুটিল, রহিল, etc., were in existence previous to the formation of করিলছে etc., we can clearly see, how the present forms with only ল-suffix could not be lost to the language.
Some special participle forms.—Though regarding the origin of ল no doubt exists now, I refer briefly to the history of it to notice some important grammatical forms. Professor Lassen has rightly suggested that কৃত underwent the changes কিদ and কিড and ল took the place of ড and became finally a sign for the past tense. Pointing out along with it the fact that the Slavonic preterites are formed by 'l,' Prof. Lassen has remarked that the characteristic 'l' of the Slavonic preterite, arises out of 'd' which in its original form again is 'l.' The analogy being complete, we have been rightly asked to compare in this connection such forms of our language as খাত, খাল, দেখিলাম, দেখিনু, etc. It is very clear that ল of our past tense came out of either ত or ন of the past participle. The Prākṛta from which Bengali is directly derived, gives us অ as the অপভ্রংশ form of ত of the past participle; the অ of প্রাকৃত became আ in Bengali to give rise to special forms as করা কাজ, কওয়া কথা, গণা টাকা, ছাড়া কাপড়, ছেঁড়া কাগজ, মরা মানুষ, etc. The corresponding Oriya forms are however like these,—কলা কাম, গলা কথা, মলা লোক, etc. As to the ন forms of ত as we get in ভিন্ন (Sans.) and দিন্ন (প্রাকৃত), we may notice the Bengali past participle forms, such as আঁচড়ান চুল, কোঁচান কাপড়, সাজান বাগান etc.
Special past form.—A special form in the past tense may be noted here. The particle 'ন' indicating negation coalesced with 'অত্থি' and gave rise to the form 'নত্থি' (does not exist) as a single word; 'নাই' in our vernacular being the decayed form of নৎথি is not a simple particle to signify negation but carries with it the verb 'to be' in enclitic form. 'নাই' is alone sufficient to express 'does not exist' and such a Hindi form as 'নেহি হায়' has no place in Bengali. I have already stated that if to indicate negation this word 'নাই' be joined to the archaic past form, the full-bodied modern past form will be dispensed with; 'করি নাই' fully signifies 'I did not do.'
The Imperative mood.—Before dealing with the future system, an examination of the Bengali Imperative mood is necessary. I had occasion to show in a previous lecture that such প্রাকৃত forms to denote the imperative mood in the 3rd person, as কর্-উ, জা-উ, খা-উ, etc., are in use in Oriya, and the Bengali forms করুক্, যাক্, খাক্, etc., are the very old forms with the addition of an otiose ক; that the forms in the 2nd person কর, যাও, খাও, etc., are almost universal, in the vernaculars, and that they come from the Prākṛta করহ, জাহ (as well as জাঅ), খাহ (খাঅ) etc., need hardly be pointed out. As in the Prākṛtas, so it is in the modern vernaculars, that the forms of the 1st person present indicative, signify the imperative mood in the 1st person. One special characteristic in Bengali is that to indicate stress or emphasis the particle 'গে' (which is the same in origin as 'গে' or 'গা' of Hindi, used almost as an auxiliary with the Hindi verbs to indicate futurity) is used as a post-position after the forms in the imperative mood as illustrated above.
There is one special form of the imperative mood in the second person which is formed by the suffix 'ইও'; করিও, যাইও, খাইও, etc., signify অনুজ্ঞা or command in such a manner that the action indicated by the verbs, is asked to be done, not immediately; consequently the form with ইও in the imperative mood is akin to future tense. It is of much importance to note (though it is a very common fact of phonology) that ব and ও are very much interchangeable alike in Prākṛta and vernacular; it is certainly well known that করিও (contracted in ordinary speech into কোরো) is found at times in old Bengali in the shape of করিব (earlier করিহ). We shall presently see, that it has been quite organic with us, since dim past, to develop the sound of ই at the end of the verb stem, when even in a little degree the idea of futurity is sought to be conveyed. If on reference to the arguments to be adduced presently, this phonetic peculiarity be considered to be a genuine phenomenon, the 'ইও' suffix of the imperative mood may be held to tender a good explanation of the origin of the future indicating ইব. However, I proceed to consider the whole question in connection with the origin of our future system; I may only note here that in the imperative form discussed here, the idea conveyed by the Sanskrit suffix 'তব্য' is not present.
As the particle 'ন' which is added to the words in the imperative form to give a stress, will be dealt with separately, I do not discuss here, such a form as করনা = rather do.
The future system.—Some general remarks regarding the evolution of tenses seem called for, to explain some phenomena connected with the formation of future tense. I do not state a new proposition, when I say that it is the doing of an act, or the happening of an event, that is to say, the present tense of a verb that arises first in the primitive grammar; it is also but a repetition of the recognised truth that an action in the past and an expectation of a thing to happen in the future, were at first expressed differently, only, by the change of accent, and not by changing the form of the verb in the present tense. I have discussed in a previous lecture, what the probable origin of 'তি,' 'সি' and 'মি' might be; it may be observed that the past-forming suffixes 'দ,' 'স' and 'অম্' are formed by clipping the final 'ই' sound of the present-indicating suffixes and thereby shortening the accent to indicate as it were the faded away past; this is also how 'তে,' 'সে' and 'এ' were reduced to 'ত,' 'থাস্' and 'ই.' The present creating অস্মি (derived from অস + মি) and the past creating 'স্ম' also disclose the same history. This analysis will help us to ascertain the character of the future-indicating suffixes.
The fact that the present indefinite which is the real present to start with, indicates futurity in all languages, proves that a special gesture or accent was only added to the present form to signify futurity. Some remnants of old forms justify us in supposing that the final vowel sound of the present-indicating suffixes was prominently intonated to indicate futurity; I bring up for comparison the Prākṛta present form 'হোই' which is changed into 'হোহি' to indicate future tense merely by the putting of an accent on the final 'ই' sound. As the 'ই' sound to denote futurity, was prominently intonated, the sound became a special characteristic of the future tense, and as such stuck to the root or stem of the verb, even when a special time differentiating suffix (স্যতি, স্যসি, etc.) was introduced.
It thus appears on examining the morphology of the future-forming suffixes, that the characteristic 'ই' to denote partly the future tense, became in a manner an inseparable part of the verbal stem as করি, গমি, ভবি, etc., and the present indefinite form of অস্ as স্যতি, স্যসি, স্যামি, etc., were made suffixes in the place of articulated gestures for signifying futurity. These newly formed suffixes assumed rather the character of auxiliary verbs like আছি, আছে, etc., of Bengali, which are joined to Bengali verbal stems to amplify the tenses. We notice this fact in the Māgadhi speech, that when the auxiliary portion was dropped, the simple ই remained with a special accent attached to it, to indicate futurity; at times হি was introduced to fully represent the future indicating stress, as may be noticed in such a form for example as জাই হি; in the subjunctive mood as well, we meet with 'জই (যদি) করিহি,' 'জই যা এ হি,' etc., for জই করই, জই যাএ (present forms indicating future sense), etc. Thus we clearly see, that in some প্রাকৃতs (specially in the মাগধী we are concerned with) ই or হি became sufficient to express the idea of futurity. As it is not simply ই but ইব, which is the future-forming suffix in Bengali, Oriya and Assamese, some scholars give us ইব from a source which is not connected with the future denoting form which obtained in the Prākṛtas. It has been formulated by some European scholars, that তব্য which forms the participle of the future passive, generated the complete form ইব as the future-forming suffix. I must fully admit that this theory explains the matter completely but as it implies a break of continuity with the past, I proceed to examine the claim which has been set up for তব্য.
The words formed by তব্য were adopted in the early Māgadhi speech in such forms as, কত্তব্বো, জ্ঞাতব্বো, পত্তব্বো, সোতব্বো, হোতব্বো or হোদব্বো,[2] etc. We see that there was no ই in these forms to begin with. I think that when the idea of futurity involved in those words had to be prominently brought out in the new infinitives with a shade of some difference in meaning, ই was inserted or rather grew up in the new forms করিব্ব, জানিব্ব, পাইব্ব, শুনিব্ব, হোইব্ব, etc. The forms ভবিতব্য, হোদব্বো, হোইব্ব, and হোইবার are arranged in a regular series or chronological order to show that হোইবার which comes directly out of হোইব্ব, does not fully express the meaning indicated by 'ভবিতব্য'; 'পত্তব্বং ঠানং' may be nicely translated by 'পাইবার স্থান,' but the full meaning of প্রাপ্তব্য is not obtained in the Bengali form and as such in addition to 'পাইবার' we have borrowd 'প্রাপ্তব্য' from Sanskrit in our modern Bengali.[3] ভবিতব্য has to be translated into Bengali by 'যাহা হইবার আছে তাহা.' This 'তব্য' which has given rise to such infinitive forms as দেখিবা, করিবা, etc., in Oriya and দেখিবার, করিবার, etc., in Bengali, may very likely give us 'ইব' in question, but whether such an extraction was made out of তব্য to form future tense anew by breaking with the past, is a matter for much consideration. Purposeful coining of a new suffix to indicate a tense is not a natural phenomenon; that the old idiomatic forms are transmuted imperceptibly is what should be accepted to be the natural procedure.
It is difficult to imagine that the suffix which was not extracted from তব্য in the shape of ইব, even in the latest known প্রাকৃত to signify futurity, was given currency in that lost language which gave rise to the dialects (now languages) in which ইব is now used. How in a far-fetched way ইব has to be extracted from তব্য to make it a future-denoting suffix, and how in accepting the theory to be correct, we have to accept the situation that the idiomatic use of the past time was wholly ignored in some modern vernaculars, have been sufficiently discussed. We have seen, on the other hand, in our analysis of the forms of verbs in the imperative mood, that such a form as করহ (do immediately now) was naturally reduced to করিহ and then to করিঅ or করিও to denote a command relating to doing in future; that this naturally evolved suffix ইও, easily transmutable to ইব, could be taken up for use as a future-forming suffix, without violating the idiomatic use of the past time, is, in my opinion, sufficiently clear.
It is not true, what is generally supposed to be the case, that most of the Bengali verbs require the help of the verbs of 'ভূ' and 'কৃ' origin to express their action. Auxiliary verbs.We can easily notice that the verbs in the old Māgadhi speech did not stand in need of any additional support from other verbs as auxiliaries; it is equally clear that our genuine Bengali verbs 'খাওয়া,' 'চলা,' 'শোওয়া,' etc., do not require the verbs of 'ভূ' or 'কৃ' origin to come to their help in expressing their own action. When in consequence of Sanskrit renaissance, our Bengali verbs were looked down upon as inelegant and vulgar, the Sanskrit verbal nouns were formed according to the rules of Sanskrit grammar, and a new method of expression being devised, the verbal nouns were made to be governed by the verbs of 'ভূ' or 'কৃ' origin. খাইতেছি, চলিবে, শুইল are the natural and genuine Bengali forms, while ভোজন করিতেছি, গমন করিবে, শয়ন করিল are unnatural Sanskritie forms. The influence of the Pandits became so very much dominating, that some verbs (denoting mental acts generally) were reduced wholly to noun forms; 'ইচ্ছ' to wish, 'চিন্ত' to think, 'পূজ' to worship, etc., are not allowed now to be declined as verbs and such forms as 'ইচ্ছিল' 'চিন্তিবে' and 'পূজিছ' are regarded as archaic or obsolete.
The peculiarity of the forms 'মেরে ফেল' (kill outright), 'ফেলে দাও' (throw away), 'জুটে পড়' or 'যোগ দাও' (join up), 'সরে পড়' (get away), সেরে নাও (finish up), etc., need be explained. That 'ফেল,' 'দাও' 'পড়,' etc., are mere stress-giving adjuncts and are not verbs in reality, cannot be easily noticed on account of the fact that these mere emphasis-indicating adjuncts take the tense-forming as well as other suffixes. It may be seen, that when emphasis is not put upon the verbal phrases of this class, the adjuncts naturally fall off; compare the sentences 'কাপড় ছেড়েছি' and 'কাজ সেরেছি' in contrast with 'কাপড় ছেড়ে ফেলেছি' and 'কাজ সেরে নিয়েছি.' It is amusing to note that the Pandits, considering the emphasis-indicating adjuncts to be the real verbs, sanskritise some of these verbal phrases in a highly ridiculous manner; not seeing that 'দেওয়া' in 'যোগ দেওয়া,' does not mean 'giving,' they use the hideous phrase 'যোগদান করা' for 'যোগ দেওয়া'; in their mania to sanskritise Bengali phrases and idioms, they forget also that the word 'দান' does not signify simple 'giving' in Bengali, but that it signifies 'giving away' or 'making a gift in charity.' The full absurdity of the situation will be realised, if in the analogy of 'যোগদান করা,' the phrases 'ছেড়ে ফেল' and 'সরে পড়' be sanskritised into 'ছেড়ে নিক্ষেপ কর' and 'সরে পতিত হও.'
Some verbs do not usually take suffixes in declension and exist as decayed forms of old verbs; when these verbs are used, additional verbs as auxiliaries are joined to them; as usual the added adjuncts are only changed in conjugation. The verb 'কাড়া' 'to snatch away' is in use, but independently it cannot take verbal suffixes. 'সে কাড়িল,' 'আমি কাড়িলাম' etc., are not in use; the forms in use are 'সে কেড়ে নিল,' 'আমি কেড়ে নিলাম,' etc.
The infinitives called 'অসমাপিকা' verbs formed by আ (= Pr. অ = S. য় and ত্বা), as করিয়া, ধরিয়া, ছাড়িয়া, etc., are identical with Prākṛta করিঅ, ধরিঅ, ছড্ডিঅ, etc.; as their later contracted forms করি, ধরি, ছাড়ি, etc., are only met with in Oriya literature, and the fuller early forms cannot be proved to have existed at any time in Oriya, we may presume that the forms as contracted on the soil of Bengal flowed into Orissa. In addition to the forms 'করি,' 'ধরি,' etc, we meet with 'করিণ,' 'ধরিণ,' etc., in use in the literature of Orissa and not in the common speech of the people; this exclusively literary ণ suffix of Oriya, is in existence in Marathi, but it is not from Marathi that Oriya borrowed it, since from the earliest known time, the use of this suffix is noticeable in Oriya literature. We do not exactly know, who those Marhattas are, who have been named in the Purāṇas, along with the wild hordes of the frontier of Bengal.
The adverbial use of the অসমাপিকা verbs in Eastern Vernaculars, including Bengali, is interesting. হেঁটে (i.e., হাঁটিয়া) is অসমাপিকা verb in such a sentence as 'আমি হেঁটে যাচ্চি,' but it is adverb, having the meaning "quickly" in the sentence "বেলা যাচ্চে, হেঁটে চল"; in some cases, 'করিয়া' being compounded with some adjectives or nouns, adverbs are formed, such as, 'ভাল করে পড়,' 'যত্ন করে রাখ,' 'বুদ্ধি করে কাজ কর,' etc.; করিয়া or করে referred to here, is identical with করিয়া which indicates instrumental case, as in হাতে করে ধর. A class of compounds similar in form is in use in the Burdwan Division, but the compounds of this class are adjectives and their final component 'করে' conveys the meaning 'মত' or like, as may be noticed in such phrases as 'রোগা করে লোকটি,' 'কাল করে মেয়েটি,' etc. It may also be noted here, that in the idiom of some Eastern Districts, for such a phrase as 'রাম নামে' (as in রাম নামে এক লোক ছিল) 'রাম করে' is used.
It is necessary to point out, that the adverb-forming এ suffix, as noticeable in 'জোরে,' 'ধীরে,' etc., is identical with the এ which signifies the instrumental case; as such the forms 'ধীরে,' 'জোরে,' etc., should not be confounded with the contracted forms of 'হাঁটিয়া,' 'করিয়া,' etc., which are used as adverbs.
Voice.—Our Bengali idiom does not admit such an expression as 'ইহা আমা-দ্বারা' (or তোমা-, or তাঁহা-) কৃত; only our Pandits at times write such horrid things in close imitation of ময়া (or ত্বয়া or তেন) কৃতমিদম্. It is a peculiarity with our Māgadhi vernaculars that even when the voice is not active, the finite verbs retain their usual form, e.g., 'গাছ কাটা হইয়াছে, মন্দির গড়া হইবে, ভাত রাঁধা হয় নাই' etc.; in these cases what is called the অনুক্ত nominative cannot be introduced anywhere in the sentence by putting দিয়া, দ্বারা or কর্ত্তৃক after the অনুক্ত nominative. In those cases where there is a distinct reference to the person doing an act, the অনুক্ত nominative takes the form of genitive case, e.g., আমার ভাত খাওয়া হইবে না, তাঁহার নাওয়া হইয়াছে, etc. It is noticeable in all the above illustrations, that verbal nouns, কাটা, গড়া, রাঁধা, খাওয়া, and নাওয়া have been made objects of the finite verbs. In the following examples, আমায় যাইতে হইবে, তোমায় করিতে হইয়াছিল, etc., আমায় and তোমায় are certainly in the instrumental case, but the verbs are unchanged in their form, and the infinitive forms যাইতে, করিতে, etc., have been used with the finite verbs. It is also noticeable, that আমায় and তোমায় of the above sentences, may be optionally reduced to আমাকে and তোমাকে, indicating perhaps thereby, that the ক final of আমা and তোমা is wholly otiose, and is not a sign of the accusative case. The following impersonal form এটা ভাল দেখায় (or শোনায়) না = it does not look (or hear) well, shows that the causative forms of the verbs to see and to hear, have been idiomatic in such a case in Bengali; in Oriya in such cases we get সুব্ and দিশ্ for ordinary শুনা and দেখা respectively, but they are not causative forms; in some ordinary cases too দিশ্ and সুব্ occur optionally in Oriya, e.g., গোটিএ শব্দ সুবুছি or শুনা যাউ অছি (একটা শব্দ শুনা যাচ্চে) and, খণ্ডিএ নৌকা দিশুছি or দেখা যাউ অছি (এক খানা নৌকা দেখা যাচ্চে). According to special Bengali idiom, such honorific expressions as আপনার আসা হলো, and তাঁহার যাওয়া হবে, are very common. As for special peculiarities of Bengali voice, the above examples will quite do.
Some particles and indeclinables.—The scope of these lectures does not allow me to deal with all the parts of speech and with all primary and secondary suffixes; it is not to write a regular grammar, but to trace the history of our language, that these lectures are intended. I proceed now to deal with those particles and indeclinables, which being peculiar to the Bengali language, differentiate Bengali from the allied Vernaculars, and which have to disclose to us the interesting history of their origin.
(1) আই. This peculiarly Bengali interjection is no longer in use; we get it, for example in the অন্নদামঙ্গল, "আই আই আই! অই বুড়া কি এই গৌরীর বর লো?"; in some Eastern districts however, it survives in the form of আউ as an interjection expressing disgust, and is often heard with ছি at the end of it, as আউ ছি?
(2) আজ্ঞা in respectful response to a call, is not much in use in the sea-board districts of Orissa, where the Hindi word জি is much in vogue, but this Bengali form is fully in use in the Sambalpur tract.
(3) আবার, আর, আর-উ and ও—from অপর we got অবর and this অবর is আবর in Hindi and Oriya and is আবার in Bengali; in Hindi the pronunciation is আউ-অর, but in Oriya it is pronounced with 'b' and not with 'v.' We should remember that আবার has no connection with আরবার, for আর has a different history. আ as a variant of অ (derived from চ) was once compounded with another particle উ to form the compound conjunction আউ, which is still in use in Oriya; this আউ reduced to the form আরু is in use in Bengali, but আরু is now generally confounded with আর-ও; 'আর' is a changed form of আউ or rather আরু, and its signification is 'and' as well as 'also.' To denote 'also,' the particle বি, a broken part of অপি or অবি, has been in use in Hindi and Oriya, and never in Bengali, so far as literary records show. 'অবি' was very likely pronounced in Bengal, as ওবি, as our phonetic peculiarity warrants us to hold; and thus perhaps we got ও which signifies 'even' as in আমি ও; this ও is different in meaning and origin from ও which signifies 'and' which comes from অ (= চ) by virtue of the peculiarity of our Bengali pronunciation. It is significant, that ও (= and) is also in use in Oriya, though the full সংবৃত sound of অ does not prevail in Oriya. [For another ও see (5) below.]
(4) উঁ—a particle, uttered in response to a call; though a variant of হুঁ (= yes), it has a different signification; the corresponding Oriya form is অঁ which is different from হঁ (Bengali হাঁ) as signifies assent.
(5) ও—which is uttered in response to a call as well as in addressing a man, is in use in Oriya as well. Vedic হয়ে was reduced to অহে and then to ওহে; ওহে is used in Bengali in addressing, following the traditional meaning, but its decayed form ও is generally uttered in response to a call.
(6) কতি and ততি.—These two Vedic indeclinables, signifying 'how much' and 'that much' respectively, are not met with in Sanskrit. We have added পয় (from পদ to signify many steps perhaps) to কতি and the compound form কতিপয় is in use in high-flown Bengali; 'ততি' being compounded with ক্ষণ, once came into use in Bengali as ততিক্ষণ; this form is wholly different from তক্খন (Prākṛta as well as old Bengali) which is derived from তৎক্ষণ.
(7) গে—Its use with verbs in the imperative mood has already been commented upon. Its another use as a resting ground for thought, like 'ওর নাম কি' (cf. Sanskrit and Prākṛta, নাম of singular use) or অর্থাৎ or কিনা, etc., may be noticed, in such phrases as আর হচ্চেগে (further more), কথা হচ্চেগে (the thing is), etc.
(8) চাই—in such a sentence as চাইকি তিনি যদি নাই যান, is but the representative of চেৎ which was reduced to simple চে in Prākṛta.
(9) ছি—It is curious that some scholars have missed its real derivation which is from ধিক্ (ধি = ছি).
(10) টি and গোটা.—The fact that the derivation of the particle has been a puzzle to many scholars, is partly in support of its origin from the Dravidian source. A very definite and distinct root of this particle is found deeply planted in the Dravidian speech or speeches; all the branches of the Dravidian language possess it in one form or another, and the very form টি is in the speech of the Andhras, who once established intimate relation with all parts of Northern India. This টি of Telegu which corresponds to other forms in other Dravidian languages, is a characteristic inflectional increment at the end of neuter nouns. That in our use of টি, as definite article in Bengali and Oriya, we agree with Telegu, will be convincing on reference to the history of this particle as given in Caldwell's Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian Languages (vide ibid, p. 264). It seems that to begin with, টি used to be affixed to neuter nouns only, and its variant 'ডি' was being used with other nouns, for in old time idiom, we meet with গাছটি, পাহাড়টি, লাটিটি, etc., on one side and বহুড়ি, ঝিউড়ি, শাশুড়ি, etc., on the other side; we may notice that in Eastern Bengal, such forms as ভাইডি, বোনডি, etc., are still in use. We may compare with the above forms, the Hindi particle ঠো used with adjectives and neuter nouns, as in Telegu and so also the Hindi use of ডি as agreeing with বহুড়ি, ঝিউড়ি, etc. I may further remark, that the pseudo-Sanskrit form বধূটি, of a very late time Sanskrit, points to the extensive use of the particle in question in past time.
The supposition, that the definite article টি comes from গোটা (= entire in Bengali), is doubly faulty. We have no doubt seen that টি in its form and function as agreeing with our usage, is in its natural position in the Dravidian language, but we have to further notice that গোটা has never been in use in Hindi, and yet we meet with ঠো and ডি in that language; I should note that I exclude purposely Nepalese from the list, as owing to a special Dravidian influence the word গোটা has gone over to that country to signify exactly 'one' as in Oriya. In the next place we have to take note of the fact that গোটা signifying either 'entire' or 'one,' comes from the Telegu cardinal numeral okaṭi; that okaṭi is not an adaptation of Sanskrit এক, but is connected radically with the original Dravidian term for 'one,' cannot be discussed here and the students may refer for it to Caldwell's work as named above. I only notice that গোটা in the form of গোতান্ is a suffix in the speech of our Dravidian neighbours the Orāons.
(11) তরে (for the purpose of).—It is specially to be noted that to indicate the meaning 'for the purpose of' the particle হি was in use in the Chhāndasa or Vedic language, and this হি was not adopted by the Sanskrit language; it is well known that we meet with 'তরে' in Pali, exactly to serve the purpose of the Vedic হি, and so we may rightly presume that this তরে is a genuine দেশী particle; we then notice that in Sanskrit the corresponding form is তর্হি, 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 Jessore and Nadiya) and সে যাবি নি (Eastern Nadiya and Northern Bengal) are examples. I think these examples from various quarters, show, that না, নে, নি, and ন itself, are identical with প্রাকৃত 'ন' of ancient নু origin.
We have noticed in the 13th Lecture, that 'হি' performing the function of ন or নু, was reduced to সি (as in সে-সি of শ্রীকৃষ্ণকীর্ত্তন = modern সে-ত); it is pretty clear that this সি with the appendage of aforesaid ন or না, appears in Oriya, as সিনা (e.g., সে সিনা কহিথিলা = সে ত কয়েছিল) and in the Eastern Districts of Bengal, as সেন্ (e.g., সে সেন্ বলেছিল = সেত বলেছিল). It may be supposed that সিনা or সেন্ comes from Sanskrit স্বিৎ; but as স্বিৎ in any form does not occur in the প্রাকৃতs, the derivation, I have suggested, seems to be the right one.
(13) বই, as in তোমা বই আর জানিনি is certainly the decayed form of ব্যতীত; it will be very wrong to identify it with Sanskrit particle বই of the series, চ, বই, তু, হি. I need hardly point out that ত comes from তু of the above series.
(14) যদি and যাই.—I notice যদি, as re-sanskritised from প্রাকৃত and old Bengali জই, for this reason that it has been mostly in use in Bengali, and the introduction of it in Oriya has been at a very recent date. In Oriya যেবে (Bengali যবে, Hindi যব্) has been always the form in use. The প্রাকৃত form of যদা as জাই has been in use in Bengali only; in the form of যাই (e.g., সে যাই এল, অম্নি আমি গেলাম).
(15) স—This particle which is used as a prefix is of much interest. Formation of adverbs with this prefix in strict accordance with the Sanskrit usage, is no doubt in vague in Bengali, as may be noticed in such expressions as সদর্পে, সস্নেহে, etc., but it is the non-Sanskritic use of this prefix, which we have to note here. 'স' as opposite of privative 'অ' in such an expression, for instance as সকিঞ্চন (opposite of অকিঞ্চন) has been in use in Pali as well as in other Prākṛtas of later days; it is this use which is now idiomatic in our Vernacular. Such instances as সকর্ম্মা, সপারগ, সক্ষম, etc, (opposite of অকর্ম্মা, অপারগ, অক্ষম, etc.), are often met with in Bengali; here the form সক্ষম for instance may be bad according to Sanskrit Grammar, but it is not so according to Bengali idiom, as may be noticed on reference to the following Bengali idiomatic expressions. ঠিক is an adjective and it takes the prefix স, signifying very much, to express intensity of meaning; সঠিক (very much accurate) does not change its character and remains an adjective; সকাতর, সচকিত, etc., are similar expressions. Neither the adjective form সজাগ (very wakeful) nor the adverb form সজোরে (with force), should be referred to any rule of Sanskrit Grammar.
Some Secondary Suffixes.—I proceed now to notice a few secondary suffixes of Bengali, as disclose some special characteristics of our language.
Feminine-forming suffixes.—It has to be noted that the ছান্দস rules for reducing masculine to feminine were not always strictly followed in Pāli; the feminine form of 'চোর' is চোরী in Pāli, and it will be seen that our modern rules are fully in harmony and accordance with the spirit of the Māgadhi usages. The suffix আ of the Sanskrit Grammar, did not come into use in the Prākṛta from which Bengali originates. In the প্রাকৃতs ঈ and নী were the two suffixes which have been inherited by Bengali; our Pandits only at times violate our idiomatic use by importing the Sanskrit suffix আ.
It is rather a simple rule in Bengali, that all masculine nouns having অ or আ final, take ঈ (occasionally ই in feminine), and all other words (i.e., having ই, উ, এ and ও finals) take ইনী (at times reduced to আনী in euphonic mutation) to indicate feminine forms; the only important proviso is, that the words having অ or আ final do also take ইনী, when they signify a class or a trade-guild. The examples are:
(1) From words having অ final.—নির্লজ্জী (শ্রীকৃষ্ণকীর্ত্তন), রামী (চণ্ডীদাস), বাঁদরী, শয়তানী, etc. Here we notice two exceptions, viz., সাপিনী from সাপ (ভারতচন্দ্র) and বাঘিনী from বাঘ, which is usual in our speech; in respect of these two exceptions, I should say, that they are due to euphonic reasons. In বোনাই from বোন, and নন্দাই from ননদ perhaps we get the ই to denote masculine from the ending of জামাই by false analogy. It may also be supposed that the words were compounded with পতি which was reduced first to পই and then to অই.
(2) From words having আ final.—কাকী, খুকী, ছুঁড়ী, বেঙ্গমী (from বেঙ্গমা), বুড়ী, চন্দ্রমুহী or -মুখী (from Prākṛta চন্দমুহা), পোড়ারমুখী (mas. is not -মুখো but virtually -মুহা or মুখা), আদুরী (really from আদুরিআ, which is only reduced to আদুরে; আদরিনী is a pseudo-Bengali form coined by Jatrawalas to make the word dignified). Like আদরিনী, পাগলিনী is a pseudo-Bengali term, for in our speech the word পাগ্লী (be it from পাগল or পাগ্লা) is in universal use.
N.B.—As the feminine forms of words of আ final have the suffix ঈ, the masculine words, formed grammatically from feminine words, with ঈ final, have been made words with আ final; for example, from মাসি and পিসি (orig. মাউসি, and পিউসি), we have got মাউসিআ (মেসো) and পিউসিআ (পিসে). Similarly when from ব্যক্তি the অপভ্রংশ form বেটি was formed, a new regular masculine word was coined as বেটা.
(3) The words signifying class or trade-guild must take ইনী (or its variant আনী or নী), no matter whether the final is হসন্ত or has অ or আ or any other vowel. The examples are: বৈদ্য—বইদ্যানী, নাপিৎ—নাপ্তিনী or নাপিতানী, কামারনী, গোয়ালা—গোয়াল্নী, ময়রানী, ধোবানী, বাগ্দি—বাগ্দিনী, তেলিনী, কলু—কলুনী, মালো—মালুনী etc. We have also to notice, when new words are formed by our villagers they follow the unwritten law of our grammar and coin such feminines from words denoting occupation as মাষ্টারনী, ডাক্তারনী and পণ্ডিতানী.
N.B.—When the feminine forms themselves have come to us having already been formed in Sanskrit, as a matter of course, we do not Bengalicize them, even when we make অপভ্রংশ of them; thus it is, that though the word ব্রাহ্মণ signifies a class, the অপভ্রংশ of ব্রাহ্মণী, as বাম্নী remains unchanged in Bengali. It may also be said in respect of this particular example that as ন happens to be the final of the word in question, ন of the suffix ইনী is bound to be dropped for euphonic reasons.
I notice also here the words having ওয়ালা suffix which seemingly appear as exceptions; the words having been borrowed from Hindi, the Hindi forms are used in feminine, and the suffix ইনী appropriate to trade-signifying class, is not used.
I make this general statement that all masculine forms as do not come under (1) and (2) above take ইনী for feminine forming suffix. What I have stated in commenting on আদরিনী and পাগলিনী may be said in respect of the following words; some words which are never used in Bengali as মাতঙ্গ, কুরঙ্গ, etc., present the forms মাতঙ্গিনী, কুরঙ্গিনী, etc.; we clearly see that these forms could never be coined in a natural way in Bengali, and certainly our Jatrawalas coined them to make a show of pedantry. Our genuine Bengali words conform to the rules I have enunciated.
Suffix আ of various significations.—The diminutive-forming আ is rather universal in Northern India, and as such special examples need not be cited in using such a form as হরিয়া (হরে), for হরি to signify non-honorifix address; we agree with other Indian Vernaculars, but we may note that to signify affection, we use the suffix উ where euphonic combination becomes possible; কানু, হরু, খুকু, etc., are examples. It is supposed that the উ suffix mentioned above is virtually the contracted form of উ আ which is a variant of ই আ or rather the euphonic mutation of আ. For examples of আ as signifying diminutive, and as not connected with or derived from the final ক which is diminutive-indicating in Sanskrit, I may just mention two words namely বাসা (temporary lodging or nest) from বাস, and ঘরা (a little hole, say, a button-hole) from ঘর. That পুতা for পুত্তা (e.g., মায়ে বলেন পড় পুতা) from পুত্রক is entirely different from either ঘরা or বাসা, is clear and so we may hold that there is a pure and independent আ which signifies diminutive.
The adjective-forming কা is generally considered to be a combination of ক and আ; this appears doubtful to me, on reference to the signification of the following forms, viz., (1) পল্কা = liable to break easily (from পড় to fall + কা), (2) হাল্কা = light (লঘু = লহু = হলু + কা), (3) খট্কা, that which causes a খট্ or doubt in the mind (here old agency-signifying ক in the form of কা may be the suffix) (4) বলকা as in বলকা দুধ (which is slightly বর্ত্তিত or rather আবর্ত্তিত or boiled).
As to the adjective-forming আ, derived from past-participle-forming ক্ত = ত = অ, remarks have already been made in a previous lecture.
The adjective-forming ইয়া as in বর্দ্ধমানিয়া or বর্দ্ধমেনে has no connection with general আ suffix; it is Sanskrit ই (as in মদীয়) which is our adjective-forming ইয়া; this ইয়, we clearly see, indicates relation.
I have omitted to take notice of the Sanskrit suffixes and forms in use in Bengali, as no special remarks regarding them may be considered needed in these lectures, though it is interesting to know when and under what circumstances Sanskrit language was made to contribute to the stock of our language. I should not omit to mention, however, that a real necessity impelled our writers to import Sanskrit words and Sanskritic forms. It has already been mentioned that as our proud ancestors did not care to express their high thoughts in the vernaculars of the people, the living speeches dragged on a miserable existence. We needed suitable expressions and new serviceable suffixes to express ourselves properly. Sonorous Sanskrit words were also laid under contribution, to maintain an elegance of style. I may remind you that classical words and old flexions are for the very reason employed in modern European languages to give vent to æsthetic ideas in an effective manner. Some fine sentiments and associations may only be best expressed, if, as in English, classical forms are resorted to. The remarks of the English philologists, that while the old forms are useful and effective in an elegant composition to express æsthetic ideas, the modern simple forms are very much necessary to make very accurate and lucid statements of facts, are wholly applicable to Bengali. I mention these facts, not so much to justify the procedure in question, as to show how changes are effected and have been effected.