O. and B. having lost all gender, do not inflect the adjective; they use the following: O. "how much," B. . The former series, that indicating quantity, is based upon Skr. fa कियन्त (m.), faturat (f.), fara (n.), which in Pr. becomes f (Var. iv. 25), also. The older Hindi form is, which is an immediate descendant of the Pr. form. Thus Chand केते नर रिष राई ॥ भए सुर दानव अग्गे ॥ "How many men and Rajârshis have there been, (and) gods and demons of you?"-i. 162. The addition of the affix in Bengali indicates affirmation, and the affix seems to have been at first distinct; thus in OldBengali regularly follows (kötö), as in Bidyâpati: कत ना जतने कत अदभूत बिहि बहि तोरे देल ॥ "With how much labour, how many wonders has fate brought to thee!" -Pad. 1352. कत ना जतने कत ना गोपसि हिमे गिरि ना लुकाय ॥ "With how much labour, how much soever thou coverest it, the snowy mountain will not be hidden."-Pad. ib. and are not In fact, in the eastern area and in Orissa negatives only, but affirmatives also, the sense depending on the sentence or on the tone of the voice; thus in Oriya: मो घरकु जिबु ना जिबि "Will you go to my house? Yes, I will go." is probably in H. a diminutive (§ 24), and with this agrees the S. and the Marwari fa, where is also a diminutive ending, as is also the perhaps is of the Marathi. This of G., and so is a common addition to the pronouns of this series; thus we often hear in eastern H. f, and in M. fat; it is, I think, erroneous to connect this, as some grammarians do, with u, supposing a to be used as unos, unas, in Spanish, in the sense of " some." The appears to be the sign of the nom. pl., and does not belong to the affix, which latter consists simply of, a longer form of which is, and a longer still af, from which an or is made by omitting the T. Both forms occur with the pronoun in one passage of Chand जाके देह न होय । ताहि कैसे के गहिये ॥ "Of whom there is no body, him how can one seize?"—i. 161. And fagi fze a fhê | argi 3⁄4ã afc yâ || "Where sight does not pierce, there how can one see?”—ib. and â af literally mean "what kind (of work) having done,” and thus, too, कितेक would mean किते करि “ how many (works) having done." In the form a "some," however, the latter element may be admitted to be a, and it is often written as two words, especially in modern Urdu. The group कैसा, etc., comes from Pr. केरिसा, Skr. कीदृश, as has been already stated. P. and S., more suo, change making and shortened fag, to which S. adds the diminutive ending. G. appears to arise from the substitution of v for h, which is characteristic of the Rajput dialects of Hindi, from which G. sprung.1 into, There is another series meaning "how great" in some of the languages, which arises from a composition of the Pr. बडो (Skr. वृद्ध) or बढो “ great.” This is S. केडी ; P. केडा, 1 Dr. Bühler's welcome announcement of his discovery at Jesalmer of the Vikramârka charitam, or Chronicle of the Châlukyas, leads us to hope that we shall now have some trustworthy data as to this interesting race, valuable for the early history of Gujarati. a; G.; M.; 0. (indeclinable). Thus Dîna krishna काम मदे तु होइ मत्त भोळा ॥ करु मझ ठारे या एडे हेळा ॥ कि तु जानु नाहं ए जेडे सरु ॥ कुच जुगल तोर जेडे गुरु ॥ "Thou, drunk with the wine of love, forgetting Art, thy waist how slight (it is). What, knowest thou not how small it (is), Thy twin breasts how heavy?"-Rasakallol. iii. 43. Hindi does not possess this form, saying instead fatal 51 and the like. Sindhi here, also, uses a diminutive af meaning "how small?" a form which is not in use in the other languages. The whole of these series will be seen in their correspondence with the adverbs, the generic types running through the whole with admirable regularity. § 75. Sindhi allies itself to Persian and Pushtu by a practice foreign to its sister tongues of suffixing pronominal signs to nouns, pronouns, and verbs, a complicated and difficult system, from which the other languages are fortunately free. These suffixes are, according to Trumpp (p. 225)— gen. ལ་ Into the intricate changes rendered necessary by the addition of these suffixes in the terminating vowels of nouns, etc., it is not necessary here to enter. f is undoubtedly the Pr. and is still sounded me in Pushtu, but m in Persian; from Pr. by elision of, so also the third person f from. In the plural, or, which appears to be used only with pro nouns, is by Trumpp referred to the Pr. form (rather ), which, however, hardly accounts for the anunâsika: a more probable origin would be from, reduced to igi, and thus to and; the second person recalls Pr. t, and the third person f from qui, a Pr. gen. pl. of the base, which we have already seen is substituted for that of the near demonstrative used as a third person. The general rule for the method of adding these suffixes appears to be that the noun undergoes merely euphonic changes of its final vowel, but not constructive changes, and the discussion of them pertains rather to the study of the individual language than to that of comparative grammar. The Old-Hindi and Bengali, and to a certain extent also modern colloquial Oriya, exhibit the beginnings of a tendency to this system, which, happily for those who had to speak the languages, did not get beyond the first stage, namely, using the crude form of the personal pronouns, as in Chand's मो पित " my father,” तो पाई "thy feet," and in Mod.-Oṛiya "my house." It wanted but the shortening of the vowel and the change of position to load us with forms like घरमु, पिततु, and the rest. § 76. Not only do the substantive and adjective pronouns run in perfectly analogous series, each distinguished by the typical initial consonant or vowel, but a long string of adverbs also follows this analogy. At the risk of a little repetition, it will probably be as well to group together, so that the eye can take them all in at a glance, the whole of these concurrent forms, in a series of tables. |