No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Art. XIII.—The Gaurian compared with the Romance Languages. Part II.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 March 2011
Extract
In Part I. published in the preceding Volume, XI. page 287, I compared, principally, the phonology of the two groups. I now proceed to compare some of the other parts of their grammar. Since Part I. was written, the third volume of Mr. Beames's Grammar has appeared, which gives a very complete account of the Gaurian verb, and also by the kindness of Professor Hoernle the proof-sheets of a great part of his Grammar of the Eastern Hindi have been sent me. This work is also a comparative grammar of the Gaurian languages in general. It is, it seems to me, a most valuable work, and throws a great deal of new light on the origin of many of the grammatical forms. Professor Hoernle now calls the languages treated of ‘Gaudian’ instead of ‘Gaurian,’ as we have ‘Dravidian’ instead of ‘Dravirian.’
- Type
- Original Communications
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Royal Asiatic Society 1880
References
page 335 note 1 For the abbreviations see Part I. p. 288.
page 340 note 1 Walachian.
page 340 note 2 Compare these forms, It. anni and legna, M. jībhā, bhintī, and 
in which the original distinction of termination is preserved in the pl., but not in the sing.
page 340 note 3 The i is occasionally retained; as, H. muni ‘a sage’ from Skr. munis; u is treated like i generally dropped; as, H. sās ‘a mother-in-law’ from Skr. s'vas'rūs; but occasionally retained; as, H. taru ‘a tree’ from Skr. tarus. In Romance the u subst. pass into the 2nd decl.; as, Lat. fructus, It. frutto, Pl. frutti.
page 340 note 4 The stem, as preserved in the pl., alone admits of comparison; thus also S. bhaur-a, Fr. frere-s.
page 346 note 1 Compare Lat. bis for dvis.
page 348 note 1 The Skr. nom. pl. vayam, Pr. vaam, has not survived in Gaurian.
page 356 note 1 Beames, vol. iii. p. 36.Google Scholar