THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.

212

[July, 1873.

believe kera to be rather a corruption of kārya.” So Prof. Lassen is not quite so positive as my critic represents. Prof. Weber (Hála, p. 38), treat

ing i or y. The difficulty, however, may not be so absolute as Lassen seems to have thought. In

ing of the changes of it into e, says that it changes

supposition is, therefore, quite allowable, that the Prākrit past part. form kalo (in Mrichchh. Calc. edn. for kado) might be the original of the form ke lao or kerao. This was my theory formerly, which was briefly stated by me on p. 133. Nevertheless my critic insinuates that I made the e of kelaka

so sometimes under the influence of a following y, as sejd (sayyá); achchhera (ischarya); maha keram (mama krite). This does not show that he is more positive than Prof. Lassen. The fact is that they are both

too

cautious

and

too

well-informed

some instances such an influence is doubtful. The

scholars to commit themselves to such a dog

to be a modification of the Sanskrit ri; and then

matic statement on insufficient data.

he proceeds to knock down the man of straw of his own creation. (And, by the way, what are we to think of a Prākrit form keta, to which my critic thinks kyita might change P) Further on Dr. Pischel says that I “believe that in some examples keraka has become a sort of affix; if this be true, it ought not to be inflected, as it really is,” like all other adj. nouns. Now the

I do not

know on what grounds Prof. Hoefer may have supported the traditional interpretation, as unfor nately I am not able to refer to his work. But that it is the true interpretation the modern ver naculars conclusively prove. In Marăthi the equivalent of krita is keld, and in the Low-Hindi it is kailá (or kayald or kailt). Now keld or kailá are contractions or modifications of the Prākrit

substance of what I said was this, that in some

kelao (or kelo), or kerao (or kero); and it follows that the Prākrit kerao or kero are also equivalents of the Sanskrit kritaka or krita. The interchange

have originated. For my own part I am inclined

instances keraka has no (predicative) meaning, but merely determines the case of another noun, and that in this respect it had become like an affix (see p. 130). Now this is altogether a dif ferent thing from what Dr. Pischel attributes to me. That keraka is an adj. noun and treated as such, I know very well; in fact, it is the whole drift of my second essay to prove that the Hind genitive post-positions are curtailments of such an adj. noun (see p. 125). Again, Dr. Pischel adduces a number of other words, as kajjah, kichchanh, etc., which he says are used exactly in the same way as I say keraſh or kerakaſh is. This is again a mis understanding. What I maintain is, that keraka is used very often pleonastically, or to form a periphrastical genitive, as amhakerao for amhánań. Now the words instanced by Dr. Pischel are not used pleonastically ; for if omitted in the sentences quoted, the sense of the latter would

to believe the origin to be this. In Prākrit, roots

be incomplete or none at all; and, moreover, they

in ri not uncommonly form the past part. pass. with the connecting vowel i (comp. Lassen, Inst. Prakrit. p. 363); thus bhri has bharita, dhri has dharita, etc. (I give the full phonetic ground

are used to form a periphrastical datire, not a genitive. These means of forming a periphrastic

of r and l is so common that it needs no remark.

Its extreme frequency in the modern vernaculars shows that in colloquial Prākrit it must have been even more frequent than in literary Prākrit. The l of kelao is a substitute for d, and d again for the Sanskrit t; namely, krita becomes kada, and

kada becomes kela or kelaa. This disposes of one of the two difficulties of Prof. Lassen, which was the r in keraka in the place of the Sanskrit t. This assumes that the form kelao is the earlier

one; but even if the other form kerao be thought the earlier, the r can be explained by the help of the modern vernaculars. The Low-Hindi has still

a past part. kará for Sanskrit krita (just as mará for mºrita, dhard for dhrita, etc.). Here we have r in the place of the Sanskrit t, however it may

dative are well known.

Keran is one of them.

served in the old Hindi form karyau (e.g. Chand,

But keratiº in this particular use was irrelevant to my purpose. Dr. Pischel will find it discussed in a future paper on the dative post-positions, which I shall try to show can be traced back

XXVII. 60), and in Modern Hindi is contracted

to it.

to kará.

syllable; just as achchhario contracts into ach

As regard the three words nija, gada, sanāha, they are never used pleonastically, certainly not in the instances quoted by Dr. Pischel; e. g. if gadena were left out in the phrase taggadena ahild

chhero. This disposes of the second difficulty of Prof. Lassen (p. 118), which is that the vowel ;

sena, its sense would become doubtful; it might mean both “by his desire for her” or “by her

changes to e only under the influence of a follow

desire.” Again if miam be omitted in the sentence

forms).

Thus kri would form karita, that is, in

Prākrit kario (or kariao), which is actually pre Now the Prākrit forms kario or kariao

would easily explain the forms kero or kerao, by the translation of the vowel i into the preceding

. .” “Hinckéra-ka a kārya potius depravatºm crediterim”—Curiously, though no doubt wrongly, M. Williams, in his Sak. p. 289, concludes from Lassen's words that he adhered to the usual derivation of keraka from the Sanskr. Krita.