Encyclopaedia Britannica > Volume 21, ROT-Siam

LANGUAGE.]
can still be traced back to tlie parent language, as, for instance,
such dative forms as /ry-dse = viv-ere; sdh-adhijdi^^^Qai dti-
m(tne = ^6fj.evaL •, dd!-vane = Sovvai. Further, ji-she, “to conquer,”
for ji-se, apparently an aorist infinitive with the dative ending
(parallel to the radical forms, such as yudh-6, “ to fight,” dris'-e, “ to
see”), thus corresponding to the Greek aorist infinitive Xvaai (but cf.
also Latiu da-re, for dase, esse, &c.). The classical Sanskrit, on
the other hand, practically uses only one infinitive form, viz., the
accusative of a verbal noun in tu, e.g., sih&tum, etum, correspond¬
ing to the Latin supinum datum, itum. But, as in Latin another
case, the ablative {datu), of the same abstract noun is utilized for
a similar purpose, so the Yedic language makes two other cases do
duty as infinitives, viz., the dative in tave {e.g., datave, and the
anomalous etavdi), and the gen. -abl. in tos [dates). A prominent
feature of the later Sanskrit syntax is the so-called gerund or inde¬
clinable participle in tvd, apparently the instrumental of a stem in
tva (probably a derivative from that in tu), as well as the gerund in
ya (or tya after a final short radical vowel) made from compound
verbs. The old language knows not only such gerunds in tvd,
rising them, however, very sparingly, but also corresponding dative
forms in tvtlya (yuktvdya), and the curious contracted forms in tvi'
{Jcritvt, “ to do ”). And, besides those in ya and tya, it frequently
uses forms with a final long vowel, as bhid-yd, i-tyd, thus show¬
ing the former to be shortened instrumentals of abstract nouns
in i and ti.
The Sanskrit verb, like the Greek, has two voices, active and
middle, called, after their primary functions, parasmdi-pada,
“ word for another,” and dtmane-pada, “ word for one’s self. ” While
in Greek the middle forms have to do duty also for the passive in
all tenses except the aorist and future, the Sanskrit, on the other
hand, has developed for the passive a special present-stem in ya,
the other tenses being supplied by the corresponding middle forms,
with the exception of the third person singular aorist, for which a
special form in i is usually assigned to the passive.
The present-stem system is by far the most important part of the
whole verb system, both on account of frequency of actual occur¬
rence and of its excellent state of preservation. It is with regard
to the different ways of present-stem formation that the entire stock
of assumed roots has been grouped by the native grammarians under
ten different classes. These classes again naturally fall under two
divisions or “ conjugations,” with this characteristic difference that
the one (the second) retains the same stem (ending in a) through¬
out the present and imperfect, only lengthening the final vowel
before terminations beginning with v ox m (not final); while the
other shows two different forms of the stem, a strong and a weak
form, according as the accent falls on the stem-syllable or on the
personal ending: e.g., 3 sing, bhdra-ti, <ptpei—2 pi. bhdra-tha,
(pepere ; but e-ti, elai—i-thd, rre (for It4) ; 1 sing, strno-mi, arop-
vvyi—1 pi. strnu-mds {<TT6pvvp.es).
As several of the personal endings show a decided similarity to
personal or demonstrative pronouns, it is highly probable that, as
might indeed be a priori expected, all or most of them are of
pronominal origin,—though, owing to their exposed position and
consequent decay, their original form and identity cannot now be
determined with certainty. The active singular terminations, with
the exception of the second person of the imperative, are unaccented
and of comparatively light appearance ; while those of the dual
and plural, as well as the middle terminations, have the accent,
being apparently too heavy to be supported by the stem-accent,
either because, as_ Schleicher supposed, they are composed of two
different pronominal elements, or otherwise. The treatment of
the personal endings in the first, and presumably older, conjuga¬
tion may thus be said somewhat to resemble that of enclitics in
Greek.
In the imperfect, the present-stem is increased by the augment,
consisting of a prefixed d. Here, as in the other tenses in which
it appears, it has invariably the accent, as being the distinctive
element (originally probably an independent demonstrative adverb
then”) for the expression of past time. This shifting of the
word-accent seems to have contributed to the further reduction of
the personal endings, and thus caused the formation of a new, or
secondary, set of terminations which came to be appropriated for
secondary tenses and moods generally. As in Greek poetry, the
augment is frequently omitted in Sanskrit.
I he mood-sign of the subjunctive is d, added to (the strong form
of) the tense-stem. If the stem ends already in a, the latter be¬
comes lengthened. As regard the personal terminations, some
persons take the primary, others the secondary forms, while others
again may take either the one or the other. The first singular
active, however, takes ni instead of mi, to distinguish it from the
indicative. But besides these forms, showing the mood-sign d,
the subjunctive (both present and aorist) may take another form,
without any distinctive modal sign, and with the secondary endings,
being thus identical with the augmentless form of the preterite.
Ihe optative invariably takes the secondary endings, with some
peculiar variations. In the active of the first conjugation, its mood-
S1gn is yd, affixed to the weak form of the stem : e.g., root as,—
271
sydm = Lat. siem, shn; while in the second conjugation and
throughout the middle it is i, probably a contraction of yd : e.g.
bhdves = (pspois.
Besides the ordinary perfect, made from a reduplicated stem,
With distinction between strong (active singular) and weak forms,
and a partly peculiar set of endings, the later language makes
large use of a periphrastic perfect, consisting of the accusative of
a feminine abstract noun in <1 {-dm) with the reduplicated perfect
forms of the auxiliary verbs kar, “to do,” or as (and occasionally
b/id), “to be.” Though more particularly resorted to for the
derivative forms of conjugation—viz., the causative (including the
so-called tenth conjugational class), the desiderative, intensive, and
denominative—this perfect-form is also commonly used with roots
beginning with prosodically long vowels, as well as with a few
other isolated roots. In the Bigveda this formation is quite
unknown, and the Atharvan offers a single instance of it, from a
causative verb, with the auxiliary kar. In the Vedic prose, on
the other hand, it is rather frequent,1 and it is quite common in
the later language.
In addition to the ordinary participles, active and middle, of
the reduplicated perfect,—e.g., jajan-vdn,^ yeyov-dos ; bubudh-dnd,
TreirvcT-pevo,—there is a secondary participial formation, obtained
by affixing the possessive suffix vat (vant) to the passive past
participle: e.g., krita-vant, lit. “having (that which is) done.” A
secondary participle of this kind occurs once in the Atharvaveda,
and it is occasionally met with in the Brahmanas. In the later
language, however, it not only is of rather frequent occurrence,
but has assumed quite a new function, viz., that of a finite perfect-
form ; thus kritavdn, kritavantas, without any auxiliary verb,
mean, not “having done,' but “he has done,” “they have done.”’
The original Indo-Germanic future-stem formation in sya, with
primary endings,-—e.g., dasydti—Severel (for SdxreTi),—is the ordinary
tense-form both in Vedic and classical Sanskrit,—a preterite of it,
with a conditional force attached to it {dddsyat), being also common
to all periods of the language.
Side by side with this future, however, an analytic tense-form
makes its appearance in the Brahmanas, obtaining wider currency
in the later language. This periphrastic future is made by means
°f the nominative singular of a nomen agentis in tar {ddtar, nom.
defed —Lat. dator), followed by the corresponding present forms of
as, “ to be ” {ddtd-smi, as it were, daturus sum), with the excep¬
tion of the third persons, which need no auxiliary, but take the
respective nominative of the noun.
The aorist system is somewhat complicated, including as it does
augment-preterites of various formations, viz., a radical aorist,
sometimes with reduplicated stem,—e.g., dsthdm=e<TTyv •, srudhi
= k\v0i ; ddudrot ; an a-aorist (or thematic aorist) with or
without reduplication,—e.g., dricas=e\nres ; dpaptam, cf. eirecpvov,
and. several different forms of a sibilant-aorist. In the older
Vedic language the radical aorist is far more common than the
a-aorist, which becomes more frequently used later on. Of the
different kinds of sibilant-aorists, the most common is the one
which makes its stem by the addition of s to the root, either with
or without a connecting vowel i in different roots: e.g., root ji—
1 sing, djdisham, 1 pi. ajdishrna; dkramisham, dkramishma. A
limited number of roots take a double aorist-sign with inserted
connecting vowel {sish for sis),—e.g., dydsisham {cf. scrip-sis-ti);
whilst others—very rarely in the older but more numerously in the
later language—make their aorist-stem by the addition of sa,—e.g.,
ddikshas = e8ei£as.
As regards the syntactic functions of the three preterites,—the
imperfect, perfect, and aorist,—the classical writers make virtually
no distinction between them, but use them quite indiscriminately.
In the older language, on the other hand, the imperfect is chiefly
used as a narrative tense, while the other two generally refer to a
past action which is now complete,—the aorist, however, more
frequently to that which is only just done or completed. The
perfect, owing doubtless to its reduplicative form, has also not
infrequently the force of an iterative, or intensive, present.
The Sanskrit, like the Greek, shows at all times a considerable Word
power and facility of noun-composition. But, while in the older forma-
language, as well as in the earlier literary products of the classical tion.
period, such combinations rarely exceed the limits compatible with
the general economy of inflexional speech, during the later, arti¬
ficial period of the language they gradually become more and more
excessive, both in size and frequency of use, till at last they absorb
almost the entire range of syntactic construction.
One of the most striking features of Sanskrit word-formation is
that regular interchange of light and strong vowel-sounds, usually
designated by the native terms of guna (quality) and vriddlii
(increase). The phonetic process implied in these terms consists
in the raising, under certain conditions, of a radical or thematic
light vowel i, u, r, l, by means of an inserted a-sound, to the
diphthongal (guna) sounds di (Sanskr. 6), du (Sanskr. <$), and the
i It also shows occasionally other tense-forms than the perfect of the same
periphrastic formation with kar.
SANSKRIT