Imatges de pÓgina

Ascos y s @Boost osiwi o odos o The letters vii, ese and ou, are inflected with, and are prosodially just equal to, the vowel ar. If it were other

qu wise, we should be giving at the rate of 14 syllabic instants to each of the above letters, 177 syllabic instants to the whole line. It is apprehended that the grammarian has fallen into this error, by not giving ou and on as two separate independent vowels, respectively short and long, in the Singhalese language. That they should be so treated appears clearly from the circumstance, that if there were not these independent vowel sounds, we should be at a loss to say how oil sur, ou con, &c. &c., are inflected, vide Introduction. Hence, treating these as independent vowels, we have no difficulty in assigning them a quantity common with the rest of the vowels.

There are in the Singhalese other letters, which the writer of the “ Elu Prosody” states, are more than one instant in quantity. They are consonants which have o, on, on, or , inflected with another consonant that is not deprived of its inherent vowel sound; as peo‘horn;' vide Introduction, p. lxi. Here the writer seems to have arrived at this conclusion upon reasoning like the following. “If with its inherent vowel sound w is equal to one instant, when it is inflected with another consonant (e. g. c.); 15. must be 1} syllabic instants.' This could only be pronounced correct reasoning, if the increase in quantity, were dependent upon the number of letters with which compound letters are formed. But this is not the criterion for the ascertainment of quantity. The rule is (see § 62.) that a letter which may be uttered in the twinkling of an eye, or in an instant, is of one syllabic instant.' Thus, b), a sonant letter, is prosodially one syllabic instant in quantity; but d, which is a mute letter, deprived of its inberent vowel sound, is less than one instant; because it can be uttered in shorter time than .. Now by combining a different character with this self-same letter, we change the sound, but do not thereby render it long. A reference to poets, who are all agreed in this respect, will clearly establish the soundness of our views. Thus, in the Kaviasekare the following stanza, (composed under the rule at p. xciii. by which the first line is of 9 instants, the 2nd 11, the third 9, and the fourth 14), has six c.'s; and if each be more than one instant, the poetry must be inaccurato and discordant, which it is not.

සු ර හ ග ත ර ණ
qog au & Jog
es 9 &dom of
cogen 3.000 anom

Note (*) at p. 22.

First person.

PRONOUNS. Pronouns, which are regarded in the Singhalese as nouns, may be divided into the same classes as in English, and bear a great resemblance to those in the Sanscrit family of languages.


There is but one pronoun, O 'I,' for the first person.

See its declension in Addenda, p. 99. It is devoid of gender. Its influence over verbs in the formation of the personal terminations, is well known. Both in the singular, and in the plural, and in its several moods and tenses, the verb takes with different modifications; see conjugation infra. And in its primary signification, seems to be the distiuguishing of the person speakiny Hence after o became the recognized pronoun

The Revd. Mr. Callaway in his valuable “Hints" prefired to his Dictionary, says, The pronouns in declining, undergo some slight variations: The second o in osis dropped belore the terminations.” p. 34.

This is a mistake. is the pronominal root of Or; and the second O in the Nominative is an addition to the root, so that in the other cases no @ is dropped, but the simple root is inflected by case-affixes.

Second person.

[ocr errors]

of the first person, it seems to have been reduplicated to convey its original meaning, as 03-5, an addition which is likewise made to the other pronouns, with the same object of laying stress, or emphasis upon, or of singling out, a particular person—vide infra.

o seems to have been originally the only nominal base for the second person, without a distinction of gender; see declension in Addenda, p. 100; and like @, it conveys per se no meaning beyond that of a vocal, or, as the Tamils designate it, the signification of a “noun referring to persons standing before us” (Rhenius' Tamil Grammar, p. 21.) Thus (see § 41) 981, o, a, aços, The sounds ma 'I,' tha 'thou,' and an other.' In course of time, however, the original simplicity of the language seems to have been abandoned by the formation of a feminine form for the second person, (see Introduction, p. xlii.) and the adoption of different other nouns for the second person ; e. g. &B'yonder' (see $42), which was anciently used for the third person, has been since invariably applied to the second; and if the same be now used in its original import, 99 out of a 100 persons will take it in the sense of a pronoun for the second person. We have already noticed (see note † at p. 41) that a plural pronoun is often used for the singular, with a view of conveying respect to the person addressed. This is the case also in English. Professor Ollendorff says, in his “New method to learn a language in

, six months,” and in reference to the modern use of the plural pronoun of the second person, “It is perhaps, through an abuse of civilization that the use of the second person plural you, has been introduced into modern languages. The Italians, however, go still further, and use, as the pronoun of address, even in speaking to a man, the third person singular feminine Ella, which they begin with a large letter, out of deference for the person they speak to, and to distinguish it from the third person feminine. It relates to Vostra

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Signoria (contracted: Vossignoria, abridged V. S., Your Worship), which is understood.”

Owing to changes in the usage of the language, such as those wbich we have noticed, a question has arisen as to the proper selection of a pronoun for the second person in certain cases. In determining this, we experience no difficulty in a grammatical point of view. The grammarian has more than once left all disputes arising out of changes in the language, to the just decision of the tribunal of usc. That by this use or usage is meant the present, reputable, and national usage,' there can be but little doubt. Dr. Campbell, in his Philosophy of Rhetoric, book II. chap. 1, $81, 2, 3, has considered this subject in the abstract; and we refer the reader to his own language. He inquires, “In what extent of signification must we understand the word present? How far may we safely range in quest of authorities? Or at what distance backwards from this moment are authors still to be accounted as possessing a legislative voice in language?" Dr. Campbell, after much sound sense added to a rich stock of erudition, and after noticing all the objections pro and con, states—“One inclines to remove the standard to the distance of a century and a half; another may with as good reason fix it three centuries backwards; and another six. And if the language of any of these periods is to be judged by the use of any other, it will be found, no doubt, entirely barbarous. To me it is so evident either that the

. present use must be the standard of the present language, or that the language admits no standard whatsoever, that I

cannot conceive a clearer or more indisputable principle · from which to bring an argument to support it.” Now as

to the present use of @@ as a pronoun for the second person, even if we should remove this “ standard ” to the distance of nearly four centuries and a half backwards, we shall still find our best authors agreed as to the present use. For, in almost every standard writer, from the Kaviasekare down

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

wards, we find an uninterrupted use of @@, where respect was intended, as a substitute for 90.), e. g. In the Kusajatake occurs the following:

බරවග න ම බ ...පබවත බිසත් 60

ගම% එහෙතෙමාබ ...රජ කරවපැටි සූබසින් ම “By reason of the good request to the effect : ' receiving (all this) do thou (oba) reign until I, having obtained Pabawati, shall return thither.'”

The elegant writer of the Guttile has made a similar use of @a. Here is a specimen:

මොකදුර හිමිට්. සා...ල: බදහසකසා

ගත ව ප බ ස අ සා...ඔ බප මහරහව සිපවසා "On account of our lord the Teacher of Niwana, he having first learned the four Diána, and having also heard the tripitaka doctrines, and having then affirmed that thou (oba) art not his master.” One other from the Kaviasekara will suffice:

හිමි ඔබණංහවසස...පසසඋන වූ සබකුස
කි ස ගම හ බස...ඊ ය නිසයි හැඳිනඅදහස

They having said thus much : ‘Lord, praising the extent of thy (oba) wisdom, have we been in the heart of this assembly :' he learned their intention, and being satisfied sat.”

From @@, it is believed, are derived @ and 3), also nouns for the second person. Although em does not occur

. in books, ogə nevertheless does: e. g. 10636 939 sled8 කලිඟුරජ නුපුයුවරජ සුළු ආදිඟු ඇමර තම බාල හකලිඟුරජහු ගෙ උදහසිඅටුල්වනයෙහිව හිදෑක මාහා අවුද්දහුබ දෙදහා දැක්ටිව සිටි යුහුණා.UV hen the parents had returned she said unto them : prince Kalingu, who was sub-king, and moreover the son of king Kalingu, having, by reason of the wroth of his elder brother, the (present) king Kalingu, arrived hither, now abides in the forest; and, having seen me near the meandering rivulet, and having accompanied me, he is now here wishing to see you both.””


[ocr errors]

The young

« AnteriorContinua »