No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 March 2011
Possessive adjectives are not strictly essential parts of speech; their place can often be taken by the genitive of the personal pronouns. This has led to a certain lack of continuity in their development, which has, however, often been exaggerated. Apart from very isolated survivals like maīa, the Sanskrit possessives had already died out in Prakrit. The Modern Indo-Aryan vernaculars have entirely new formations, the most widespread of which is that in -r-. In the singular one can distinguish three main groups of possessive adjectives in r-:—
(1) Western Hindi, as characteristic of the first group has mērō, tērō for the possessive. (Oblique forms of the pronoun are mō, muj, mohi, muhi, and tō, tuj, tohi, tuhi.)
(2) Gujarati and most of the Rajasthani dialects except Mewati belong to a second group whose main characteristic is the vowel -a-: Gujarati mārō, tārō (oblique base ma, ta).
(3) Eastern Hindi and the Magadhan languages on the whole have -o- as the vowel of the possessive, thus Avadhi mōr, tōr (oblique mō, tō).
page 127 note 1 Hemacandra, iv, 434.
page 127 note 2 Pischel, R., Grammatik der Prahritsprachen, p. 308. Strassburg, 1900Google Scholar.
page 128 note 1 Alsdorf, L., Harivaṃśapurāṣa, p. 166. Hamburg, 1936Google Scholar.
page 128 note 2 Beames, J., A Comparative Grammar of the Modern Aryan Languages of India. London, 1876, pt. ii, p. 311Google Scholar.
page 128 note 3 Sen, S., Comparative Grammar of Middle Indo-Aryan Indian Linguistics, vol. xii, § 47Google Scholar.
page 128 note 4 Dave, T. N., A Study of the Gujarati Language in the Sixteenth Century. London, 1935, p. 59Google Scholar.
page 128 note 5 Pischel, R., IA. 1873, p. 121Google Scholar.
page 128 note 1 Chatterji, S. K., Origin and Development of the Bengali Language. Calcutta, 1926, p. 813Google Scholar.
page 128 note 2 Tessitori, L. P., “Notes on the Grammar of the Old W. Rajasthani,” IA. 1914–1916, para. 83Google Scholar.
page 128 note 3 Tagare, , Historical Grammar of Apabhramsa, Poona, 1948Google Scholar.
page 130 note 1 Upādhyaya, Ayodyāsinh, Hindi Bhāṣā aur uske sāhitya kā vikās, pp. 83 ffGoogle Scholar.
page 130 note 2 Grierson, G. A., Kuhn's Zeitschrift. 38, 1905, pp. 913 ffGoogle Scholar.
page 131 note 1 R. Pischel, op. cit.
page 132 note 1 Smith, Helmer, BSL., 34, p. 116Google Scholar.
page 133 note 1 Turner, R. L., Dictionary of the Nepali Language, London, 1931Google Scholar, under ãdhyāro. Both theae explanations are strictly phonological, unlike what is suggested above.
page 133 note 2 Saksena, B., “The language of the Kīrtilatā,” IL., iv, 1933Google Scholar.
page 134 note 1 Master, A., “Gleanings from the Kuvalayamālā-kahā,” BSOS., xiii, 2.1950Google Scholar.
page 135 note 1 Varma, Dhirendra, La langue Braj., Paris, 1935Google Scholar.