Encyclopaedia Britannica > Volume 21, ROT-Siam

Accentua¬
tion.
272
SANSKRIT
[language.
combination civ and al respectively, and, by a repetition of the same
process, to the (vriddhi) sounds di, au, dr, and dl respectively.
Thus from root vid, uto know,” we have vedci, knowledge,^ and
therefrom vMdika ; from yug, ydgci, ydugika. While the inter¬
change of the former kind, due mainly to accentual causes, was un¬
doubtedly a common feature of Indo-Germanic speech, the latter,
or vriddhi-change, which chiefly occurs in secondary stems, is pro¬
bably a later development. Moreover, there can be no doubt that
the vriddhi-vowels are really due to what the term implies, viz., to
a process of “ increment,” or vowel-raising. The same was univer¬
sally assumed by comparative philologists till a few years ago,
as regards the relation between the guna-sounds di (e) and au (6)
and the respective simple i- and «.-sounds. According to a recent
theory, however, which has already received a considerable amount
of acceptance, we are henceforth to look upon the heavier vowels
as the original, and upon the lighter vowels as the later sounds,
produced through the absence of stress and pitch. The grounds
on which this theory is recommended are those of logical consist¬
ency. In the analogous cases of interchange between r and ar,
as well as l and al, most scholars have indeed been wont to regard
the syllabic r and l as weakened from original ar and al, while
the native grammarians represent the latter as produced from the
former by increment. Similarly the verb as (e.s), “ to be,” loses its
vowel wherever the radical syllable is unaccented: e.g., dsti, Lat.
est—smds, s(u)rnus; opt. sydm, Lat. siem (sim). For other analo¬
gous cases of vowel-change, see Philology, vol. xviii. p. 783 sq.
On the strength of these analogous cases of vowel-modification we
are, therefore, to accept some such equation as this :—
dsmi: smds=SepKO/jiat : e5p(a)Kov = \e'nra> : \nre7v
= erni (efui): imds (fyiev for lp.lv)
= <f>evy<i) : (pvyeTv
= dohmi (I milk) : duhmds.
Acquiescence in this equation would seem to involve at least
one important admission, viz., that original root-syllables contained
no simple i- and n-vowels, except as the second element of the
diphthongs ai, ei, oi; au, eu, ou. We ought no longer to speak
of the roots vid, “to know,” dik, “to show, to bid,” dhugh, “to
milk,” yug, “to join,” but of veid, deik, dhaugh or dheugh, yeug,
kc. Nay, as the same law would apply with equal force to suffixal
vowels, the suffix nu would have to be called nau or neu ; and, in
explaining, for instance, the irregularly formed Se'iKvvpi, fieltcviipev,
we might say that, by the affixion of vev to the root Seize, the
present-stem Sizcveu was obtained (dutvevpi), which, as the stress
was shifted forward, became 1 plur. 5LKvvpea-(i),—the subsequent
modifications in the radical and formative syllables being due to
the effects of “analogy” (cf. G. Meyer, Griech. Gramm., § 487).
Now, if there be any truth in the “ agglutination” theory, accord¬
ing to which the radical and formative elements of Indo-Germanic
speech were at one time independent words, we would have to be
prepared for a pretty liberal allowance, to the parent language,
of diphthongal monosyllables such as deik neti, while simple com¬
binations such as dik nu could only spring up after separate
syllable-words had become united by the force of a common accent.
But, whether the agglutinationists be right or wrong, a theory in¬
volving the priority of the diphthongal over the simple sounds
can hardly be said to be one of great prima facie probability ; and
one may well ask whether the requirements of logical consistency
might not be satisfied in some other, less improbable, way.
Now, the analogous cases which have called forth this theory
turn upon the loss of a radical or suffixal a (8), occasioned by the
shifting of the word-accent to some other syllable : e.g., acc.
matdram, instr. mdtra ; -n-It open, iirropnv ; SlpKopai, eSp(a)Kov ;
dsmi, smds. Might we not then assume that at an early stage of
noun and verb inflexion, through the giving way, under certain
conditions, of the stem a (2), the habit of stem-gradation, as an
element of inflexion, came to establish itself and ultimately to
extend its sphere over stems with i- and li-vowels, but that, on
meeting here with more resistance1 than in the a (g)-vowel, the
stem-gradation then took the shape of a raising of the simple
vowel, in the “ strong ” cases and verb-forms, by that same a-
element which constituted the distinctive element of those cases in
the other variable stems ? In this way the above equation would
still hold good, and the corresponding vowel-grades, though of
somewhat different genesis, would yet be strictly analogous.
The accent of Sanskrit words is marked only in the more import¬
ant Yedic texts, different systems of notation being used in different
works. Our knowledge of the later accentuation of words is entirely
derived from the statements of grammarians. As in Greek, there
are three accents, the uddtta (“raised,” i.e., acute), the anuddtta
( not raised, i.e., grave), and the svarita (“sounded, modulated,”
i.e., circumflex). The last is a combination of the two others,
1 We might comp/re the different treatment in Sanskrit of an and in has
ynurdhani-murdhna; vadini-vadina) •, for, though the latter are doubtless
later origin, their inflexion might have been influenced by that of the forme
Also a comparison of such forms as (devd) devanam, (agni) agnlnam, and (dhen
dhenunam, tells m favour of the i- and n-vowels, as regards power of resistant
inasmuch as it does not reejuire the accent in order to remain intact.
its proper use being confined almost entirely to a vowel preceded
by a semivowel y or v, representing an original acuted vowel.
Hindu scholars, however, also include in this term the accent of a
grave syllable preceded by an acuted syllable, and itself followed
by a grave.
The Sanskrit and Greek accentuations present numerous coin¬
cidences. Although the Greek rule, confining the accent within
the last three syllables, has frequently obliterated the original
likeness, the old features may often be traced through the later
forms. Thus, though augmented verb-forms in Greek cannot
always have the accent on the augment as in Sanskrit, they have
it invariably as little removed from it as the accentual restrictions
will allow: e.g., dbharam, Gpepov; dbhardma, i<pepopev; dbhard-
mahi, e<pep6pe9a.
The most striking coincidence in noun declension is the
accentual distinction made by both languages between the “ strong ”
and “weak” cases of monosyllabic nouns,—the only difl'erence in
this respect being that in Sanskrit the accusative plural, as a rule,
has the accent on the case-ending, and consequently shows the
weak form of the stem: e.g., stem quid, ttoS; padam, TrilSa] padds,
Trodo? ; padi, tto8( ; pddas, noSes ; padds, TzASas ; paddm, iroSdv ;
patsd, irnai. In Sanskrit a few other classes of stems (especially
present participles in ant, at), accented on the last syllable, are apt
to yield their accent to heavy vowel (not consonantal) termina¬
tions ; compare the analogous accentuation of Sanskrit and Greek
stems in tdr : pitdram, n are pa ; pitre, irarpos ; pitdras, irarcpes ;
pitfshu, TraTp(d)(ri.
The vocative, when heading a sentence (or verse-division), has
invariably the accent on the first syllable ; otherwise it is not
accented.
Finite verb-forms also, as a rule, lose their accent, except when
standing at the beginning of a sentence or verse-division (a vocative
not being taken into account), or in dependent (mostly relative)
clauses, or in conjunction with certain particles. Of two or more
co-ordinate verb-forms, however, only the first is unaccented.
In writing Sanskrit the natives, in different parts of India, Written
generally employ the particular character used for writing their own char-
vernacular. The character, however, most widely understood and acters.
employed by Hindu scholars, and used invariably in European
editions of Sanskrit works (unless printed in Roman letters) is the
so-called Devandgart, or ndgari (“town’’-script) of the gods.
The origin of the Indian alphabets is still enveloped in doubt.
The oldest hitherto known specimens of Indian writing are five
rock-inscriptions, containing religious edicts in Pali (the Prakrit
used in the Buddhist scriptures), issued by the emperor Asoka
(Piyadasi) of the Maurya dynasty, in 253-251 B.C., and scattered
over the area of northern India from the vicinity of Peshawar, on
the north-west frontier, and Girnar in Guzerat, to Jaugada and
Dhauli in Katak, on the eastern coast. The most western of these
inscriptions—called, from villages near it, the Kapurdagarhi or
Shahbaz-garhi inscription—is executed in a different alphabet
from the others. It reads from right to left, and is usually called
the Arian Pali alphabet, it being also used on the coins of the
Greek and Indo-Scythian princes of Ariana; while the other,
which reads from left to right, is called the Indian Pali alphabet.
The former, which is manifestly derived from a Semitic (probably
Aramaean) source, has left no traces on the subsequent development
of Indian writing. The Indo-Pali alphabet, on the other hand,
from which the modern Indian alphabets are derived, is of uncertain
origin. The similarity, however, which several of its letters
present to those of the old Phoenician alphabet (itself probably
derived from the Egyptian hieroglyphics) suggests for this alphabet
also—or at least for the germ of it—the probability of a Semitic
origin, though, already at Asoka’s time, the Indians had worked
it up to a high degree of perfection and wonderfully adapted it to
their peculiar scientific ends. As to the probable time and channel
of its introduction, no satisfactory theory has yet been proposed.
Considering, however, the high state of perfection it exhibits in
the Maurya and Andhra inscriptions, as well as the wide area over
which these are scattered, it can hardly be doubted that the art
of writing must have been known to and practised by the Indians
for various purposes long before the time of Asoka. The fact that
no reference to it is found in the contemporary literature has
probably to be accounted for by a strong reluctance on the part of
the Brahmans to commit their sacred wmrks to writing. A useful
resume of the various theories proposed on this subject will be found
in a paper contributed by Mr R. Oust to the Journal of the Royal
Asiatic Society, new series, vol. xvi.
The invention of the numeral figures, which used to be generally
ascribed to the Indians, has also been rendered doubtful by more
recent research.
An excellent Sanskrit grammar, dealing with the language historically, has
been published by Prof. W. D. Whitney. Of other English grammars, dealing
almost exclusively with the classical Sanskrit, those of Profs. Max Muller,
Monier Williams, and F. Kielhorn are now most widely used.
The best dictionary is the great Sanskrit-German Wdrterbuch, published at St
Petersburg, in 7 vols., by Profs. Bbhtlingk and Roth. Largely based on this
great thesaurus are the Sanskrit-English dictionaries by Prof. M. Williams and
the late Prof. Th. Benfey.