The agent case is the case which a noun takes when it is the subject
of a transitive verb in a tense formed from the past participle.
This participle is passive in origin, and must be construed passively.
In the Prakrit stage the subject was in such cases put into the
instrumental case (see Prakrit), as in the phrase ahaṁ tēṇa māriō,
I by-him (was) struck, i.e. he struck me. In Eastern Hindi this is
still the case, the old instrumental being represented by the oblique
form without any suffix. The other two languages define the fact
that the subject is in the instrumental (or agent) case by the addition
of the postposition nē, &c., an old form
employed elsewhere to define the dative. It
is really the oblique form (by origin a locative)
of nā or nō, which is employed in
Gujarati (q.v.) for the genitive. As this suffix
is never employed to indicate a material
instrument but here only to indicate the
agent or subject of a verb, it is called the
postposition of the “agent” case.
The genitive postpositions have an interesting
origin. In Buddhist Sanskrit the words
kr̥tas, done, and kr̥tyas, to be done, were
added to a noun to form a kind of genitive.
A synonym of kr̥tyas was kāryas. These
three words were all adjectives, and agreed
with the thing possessed in gender, number,
and case; thus, māla-kr̥tēkaraṇḍē, in the
basket of the garland, literally, in the garland-made
basket. In the various dialects of
Apabhraṁśa Prakrit kr̥tas became (strong
form) kida-u or kia-u, kr̥tyas became kicca-u,
and kāryas became kēra-u or kajja-u, the
initial k of which is liable to elision after a
vowel. With the exception of Gujarati (and
perhaps Marathi, q.v.) every Indo-Aryan language
has genitive postpositions derived from
one or other of these forms. Thus from (ki)da-u
we have Panjabi dā; from kia-u we have H. kā, Br. kau, E.H. and
Bihari k and Naipali kō; from (ki)cca-u we have perhaps Marathi
cā; from kēra-u, E.H. and Bihari kēr, kar, Bengali Oriya and
Assamese -r, and Rajasthani -rō; while from (ka)jja-u we have the
Sindhi jō. It will be observed that while k, kēr, kar, and r are weak
forms, the rest are strong. As already stated, the genitive is an
adjective. Bāp means “father,” and bāp-kāghōrā is literally
“the paternal horse.” Hence (while the weak forms as usual do
not change) these genitives agree with the thing possessed in gender,
number, and case. Thus, bāp-kā ghōṛā, the horse of the father,
but bāp-kī ghōṛī, the mare of the father, and bāp-kē ghōṛē-kō, to the
horse of the father, the kā being put into the oblique case masculine
kē, to agree with ghōṛē, which is itself in an oblique case. The details
of the agreement vary slightly in P. and W.H., and must be learnt
from the grammars. The E.H. weak forms do not change in the
modern language. Finally, in Prakrit it was customary to add
these postpositions (kēra-u, &c.) to the genitive, as in mama or
mama kēra-u, of me. Similarly these postpositions are, in the
modern languages, added to the oblique form.
The locative of the Sanskrit kr̥tas, kr̥tē, was used in that language
as a dative postposition, and it can be shown that all the dative
postpositions given above are by origin old oblique forms of some
genitive postposition. Thus H. kō, Br. kaũ, is a contraction of
kahũ, an old oblique form of kia-u. Similarly for the others. The
origin of the ablative postpositions is obscure. To the present
writer they all seem (like the Bengal haïtē) to be connected with the
verb substantive, but their derivation has not been definitely fixed.
The locative postpositions mē̃ and maī are derived from the Skr.
madhyē, in, through majjhi, māhī, and so on. The derivation of
vicc and bikhē is obscure.
Apabhraṁśa.
Panjabi.
Hindostani.
Braj Bhasha.
Eastern Hindi.
I,
Nom.
Obl.
haū
maī
maĩ
haũ
maī
maī, mahu, majjhu
mai
mujh
mohi
mō
WE,
Nom.
Obl.
amhē
asī̃
ham
ham
ham
amahã
asā
hamō̃
hamaū, hamani
ham
THOU,
Nom.
Obl.
tuhũ
tū̃
tū
tū
taĩ
taĩ, tuha, tujjhu
tai
tujh
tohi
tō
YOU,
Nom.
Obl.
tumhē
tusī̃
tum
tum
tum
tumhahã
tusā
tumhō̃
tumhaū
tum
The pronouns closely follow the Prakrit originals. This will be
evident from the preceding table of the first two personal pronouns
compared with Apabhraṁśa.
It will be observed that in most of the nominatives of the first
person, and in the E.H. nominative of the second person, the old
nominative has disappeared, and its place has been supplied by an
oblique form, exactly as we have observed in the nominative plural
of nouns substantive. The P. asī̃, tusī̃, &c., are survivals from the
old Lahndā (see Linguistic Boundaries, above). The genitives of
these two pronouns are rarely used, possessive pronouns (in H. mērā,
my; hamārā, our; tērā, thy; tumhārā, your) being employed
instead. They can all (except P. asāḍā, our; tusāḍā, your, which
are Lahndā) be referred to corresponding Ap. forms.
There is no pronoun of the third person, the demonstrative
pronouns being used instead. The following table shows the
principal remaining pronominal forms, with their derivation from
Ap.:—
Apabhraṁśa.
Panjabi.
Hindostani.
Braj Bhasha.
Eastern Hindi.
THAT, HE,
Nom.
Obl.
?
uh
woh
wō
ū
?
uh
us
wā
ō
THOSE, THEY,
Nom.
Obl.
ōi
ōh
wē
wai
unh
?
unhā̃
unh
uni
unh
THIS, HE,
Nom.
Obl.
ēhu
ih
yeh
yah
ī
ēhasu, ēhaho
ih
is
yā
ē
THESE, THEY,
Nom.
Obl.
ēi
ēh
yē
yai
inh
ēhāṇa
inhā̃
inh
ini
inh
THAT,
Nom.
Obl.
sō
sō
sō
sō
sē
tasu, taho
tih
tis
tā
tē
THOSE,
Nom.
Obl.
sē
sō
sō
sō
sē
tāṇa
tinhā̃
tinh
tini
tenh
WHO,
Nom.
Obl.
jō
jō
jō
jō
jē
jasu, jaho
jih
jis
jā
jē
WHO (pl.),
Nom.
Obl.
jē
jō
jō
jō
jē
jāṇa
jinhā̃
jinh
jini
jenh
WHO?
Nom.
Obl.
kō, kawaṇu
kauṇ
kaun
kō
kē
kasu, kaho
kih
kis
kā
kē
WHO? (pl.),
Nom.
Obl.
kē
kauṇ
kaun
kō
kē
kāṇa
kinhā̃
kinh
kini
kenh
WHAT? (Neut.),
Nom.
Obl.
kiṁ
kiā
kyā
kahā
kā
kāha, kāsu
kāh, kās
kāhē
kāhē
kāhē
The origin of the first pronoun given above (that, he; those,
they) cannot be referred to Sanskrit. It is derived from an Indo-Aryan
base which was not admitted to the classical literary language,
but of which we find sporadic traces in Apabhraṁśa. The existence
of this base is further vouched for by its occurrence in the Iranian
language of the Avesta under the form ava-. The base of the
second pronoun is the same as the base of the first syllable in the
Skr. ē-ṣas, this, and other connected pronouns, and also occurs in
the Avesta. Ap. ēhu is directly derived from ē-sas.
There are other pronominal forms upon which, except perhaps
kōī (Pr. kō-vi, Skr. kō-’pi), any one, it is unnecessary to dwell.
The phrase kōī hai? “Is any one (there)?” is the usual formula
for calling a servant in upper India, and is the origin of the Anglo-Indian
word “Qui-hi.” The reflexive pronoun is āp (Ap. appu,
Skr. ātmā), self, which, something like the Latin suus (Skr. svas),
always refers to the subject of the sentence, but to all persons, not
only to the third. Thus maĩ apnē (not mērē) bāp-kō dēkhtā-hū̃,
“I see my father.”
C. Conjugation.—The synthetic conjugation was already commencing
to disappear in Prakrit, and in the modern languages the
only original tenses which remain are the present, the imperative,
and here and there the future. The first is now generally employed
as a present subjunctive. In the accompanying table we have the conjugation
of this tense, and also the three participles, present active,
and past and future passive, compared with Apabhraṁśa, the verb
selected being the intransitive root call or cal, go. In Ap. the word
may be spelt with one or with two ls, which accounts for the variations
of spelling in the modern languages.
The imperative closely resembles the old present, except that it
drops all terminations in the 2nd person singular; thus, cal, go thou.
In P. and H. a future is formed by adding the
syllable gā (fem. gī) to the simple present. Thus, H.
calū̃-gā, I shall go. The gā is commonly said to
be derived from the Skr. gatas (Pr. gaō), gone, but
this suggestion is not altogether acceptable to the
present writer, although he is not now able to propose
a better. Under the form of -gau the same
termination is used in Br., but in that dialect the old
future has also survived, as in calihaũ (Ap. calihaũ,
Skr. caliṣyāmi), I shall go, which is conjugated like
the simple present. The E.H. formation of the
future is closely analogous to what we find in
Bihari (q.v.). The third person is formed as in Braj
Bhasha, but the first and second persons are formed
by adding pronominal suffixes, meaning “by me,”
“by thee,” &c., to the future passive participle.
