Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, "Justinian II." to "Kells" Volume 15, Slice 6

Part 38

Chapter 383,021 wordsPublic domain

Nouns substantive and adjective have two genders, a masculine and a feminine. Words referring to males are masculine, and to females are feminine. Inanimate things are sometimes masculine and sometimes feminine. Pronouns have three genders, arranged on a different principle. One gender refers to male living beings, another to female living beings, and a third (or neuter) to all inanimate things whether they are grammatically masculine or feminine. Nouns ending in _^u_ are masculine, and most, but not all, of those ending in _^i_, _^u_, _e_ or _n_ are feminine. Of nouns ending in consonants, some are masculine, and some are feminine. No rule can be formulated regarding these, except that all abstract nouns ending in _ar_ (a very numerous class) are masculine. There are four declensions. The first consists of masculine nouns ending in a consonant, in _a_, _e_ or _^u_ (very few of these last two). The second consists of the important class of masculine nouns in _^u_; the third of feminine nouns in _^i_, _^u_, or _n_ (being the feminines corresponding to the masculine nouns of the second declension); and the fourth of feminine nouns ending in _^a_, _e_ or a consonant.

The noun possesses two numbers, a singular and a plural, and in each number there are, besides the nominative, three organic cases, the accusative, the case of the agent (see below, under "verbs"), and the ablative. The accusative, when not definite, may also be the same in form as the nominative. The following are the forms which a noun takes in each declension, the words chosen as examples being: First declension, _tsur_, a thief; second declension, _mal^u_, a father; third declension, _maj^u_, a mother; fourth declension, (a) _mal_, a garland, (b) _rat-_, night.

The declension 4_b_ is confined to certain nouns in _t_, _th_, _d_, _n_, _h_ and _l_, in which the final consonant is liable to change owing to a following _u-matra_.

Other cases are formed (as in true Indo-Aryan languages) by the addition of postpositions, some of which are added to the accusative, while others are added to the ablative case. To the former are added _manz_, in; _kit^u_, to or for; _sutin_, with, and others. To the ablative are added _sutin_, when it signifies "by means of"; _putshy_, for; _peth^a_, from, and others. For the genitive, masculine nouns in the singular, signifying animate beings, take _sand^u_, and if they signify things without life, take _k^u_. All masculine plural nouns and all feminine nouns whether singular or plural take _hand^u_. _Sand^u_ and _hand^u_ are added to the accusative, which drops a final _s_, while _k^u_ is added to the ablative. Thus, _tsura sand^u_, of the thief; _mal^i sand^u_, of the father; _sonak^u_ (usually written _sonuk^u_), of gold (_son_, abl. sing. _sona_); _tsuran nand^u_, of thieves; _karen hand^u_, of bracelets (second declension); _maje hand^u_, of the mother; _majen hand^u_, of the mothers. Masculine proper names, however, take _n^u_ in the singular, as in _Radhakrsnan^u_ of Radhakrishna. These genitive terminations, and also the dative termination _kit^u_, are adjectives, and agree with the governing noun in gender, number and case. Thus, _tsura sand^u neciv^u_, the son of the thief; _tsura sand^i neciv^i_, by the son of the thief; _tsura sanz^u kor^u_, the daughter of the thief; _kulik^u lang_, a bough of the tree; _kulic^u land^u_, a twig of the tree. _Sand^u_, has fem. sing. _sanz^u_, masc. plur. _sand^i_, fem. plur. _sanza_. Similarly _hand^u_. _K^u_ has fem. sing. _c^u_, masc. plur. _k^i_, fem. plur. _ce_; _n^u_, fem. sing. _n_, masc. plur. _n^i_, fem. plur. _ne_. Similarly for the dative we have the following forms: _malis kit^u pan^u_, water (masc.) for the father; _malis kits^u gav_, a cow for the father; _malis kit^i rav_, blankets (masc. plur.) for the father; _malis kitsa pothe_, books (fem. plur.) for the father. All these postpositions of the genitive and _kit^u_ of the dative are declined regularly as substantives, the masculine ones belonging to the second declension and the feminine ones to the third. Note that the feminine plural of _sand^u_ is _sanza_, not _sanze_, as we might expect; so also feminine nouns in _ts^u_, _tsh^u_, _z^u_ and _s^u_.

Adjectives ending in _^u_ (second declension) form the feminine in _^u_, with the usual changes of the preceding consonant. Thus _tat^u_, hot, fem. _tats^u_ (pronounced _tuts_). Other adjectives do not change for gender. All adjectives agree with the qualified noun in gender, number and case, the postposition, if any, being added to the latter word of the two. Take, for example, _chat^u_, white, and _gur^u_, a horse. From these we have _chat^u gur^u_, a white horse; acc. sing. _chatis guris_; nom. plur. _chat^i gur^i_; and _chatyau guryau sutin_, by means of white horses.

The first two personal pronouns are _boh_, I; _me_, me, by me; _as^i_, we; _ase_, us, by us; and _ts^ah_, thou; _tse_, thee, by thee; _toh^i_, ye; _tohe_ you, by you. Possessive pronouns are employed instead of the genitive. Thus, _myan^u_, my; _san^u_, our; _cyan^u_, thy; _tuhand^u_, your. For the third person, we have sing. masc. _suh_, fem. _soh_, neut. _tih_; acc. sing. (masc. or fem.) _tamis_ or _tas_, neut. _tath_; agent sing. masc. neut. _tam^i_, fem. _tami_. The plural is of common gender throughout. Nom. _tim_; acc. _timan_; ag. _timau_. The possessive pronoun is _tasand^u_, of him, of her; _tamyuk^n_, of it; _tihand^u_, of them. The neuter gender is used for all things without life.

Other pronouns are:--This: _yih_ (com. gen.); acc. masc. fem. _yimis_, or _nomis_, neut, _yith_, _noth_; ag. masc. neut., _yim^i_, _nom^i_, fem. _yimi_, _nomi_; nom. plur. _yim_, fem. _yima_, and so on.

That (within sight): masc. neut. _huh_, fem. _hoh_; acc. masc. fem. _humis_ or _amis_, neut. _huth_, and so on; nom. plur. masc _hum_.

Who, masc. _yus_, fem. _yossa_, neut. _yih_; acc. masc. fem. _yemis_, _yes_, neut. _yeth_; ag. masc. neut. _yem^i_, fem. _yemi_; nom. plur. masc. _yim_, and so on.

Who? masc. _kus_, fem. _kossa_, neut. _kyah_; acc. masc. fem. _kamis_, _kas_, neut. _kath_; ag. masc. neut. _kam^i_, fem. _kami_; nom. plur. masc. _kam_.

Self, _pana_. Anyone, someone, _kah_, _kuh_, or _katshah_, neut. _ketshah_.

Kashmiri makes very free use of pronominal suffixes, which are added to verbs to supply the place of personal terminations. These represent almost any case, and are as follows:--

+--------+---------------+----------------+---------------+ | | First Person. | Second Person. | Third Person. | | +---------------+----------------+---------------+ | Sing.--| | | | | Nom. | _s_ | _kh_, _h_ | none | | Acc. | _m_ | _th_, _y_ | _s_ | | Dat. | _m_ | _y_ | _s_ | | Ag. | _m_ | _th_, _y_ | _n_ | | Plur.--| | | | | Nom. | none | _wa_ | none | | Other | | | | | cases | none | _wa_ | _kh_, _h_ | +--------+---------------+----------------+---------------+

Before these the verbal terminations are often slightly changed for the sake of euphony, and, when necessary for the pronunciation, the vowel _a_ is inserted as a junction vowel.

In this connexion we may mention another set of suffixes also commonly added to verbs, with an adverbial force. Of these _na_ negatives the verb, as in _chuh_, he is; _chuna_, he is not; _a_ asks a question, as in _chwa_, is he? _ti_ adds emphasis, as in _chuti_, he is indeed; and _tya_ asks a question with emphasis, as in _chutya_, is he indeed?

Two or three suffixes may be employed together, as in _kar^u_, was made, _karu-m_, was made by me, _kar^u-m-akh_, thou wast made by me; _kar^u-m-akh-a_, wast thou made by me? The two _kh_ suffixes become _h_ when they are followed by a pronominal suffix commencing with a vowel, as in _kar^u-h-as_ (for _kar^u-kh-as_), I was made by them.

E. _Conjugation._ As in the case of the modern Indo-Aryan vernaculars, the conjugation of the verb is mainly participial. Three only of the old tenses, the present, the future and the imperative have survived, the first having become a future, and the second a past conditional. These three we may call radical tenses. The rest, viz. the Kashmiri present, imperfect, past, aorist, perfect and other past tenses are all participial.

The verb substantive, which is also used as an auxiliary verb, has two tenses, a present and a past. The former is made by adding the pronominal suffixes of the nominative to a base _chu(h)_, and the latter by adding the same to a base _as^u_. Thus:--

As for the finite verb, the modern future (old present), and the past conditional (old future) do not change for gender, and do not employ suffixes, but retain relics of the old personal terminations of the tenses from which they are derived. They are thus conjugated, taking the verbal root _kar_, as the typical verb.

+---+--------------------------+--------------------------------------| | | Future, I shall make, &c.|Past Conditional, (if) I had made, &c.| | +------------+-------------+-----------------+--------------------+ | | _Singular_ | _Plural_ | _Singular_ | _Plural_ | +---+------------+-------------+-----------------+--------------------+ | 1 | kara | karav | karaha | karahav | | 2 | karakh | kariv | karahakh | kar^ihiv | | 3 | kari | karan | karihe | karahan | +---+------------+-------------+-----------------+--------------------+

For the imperative we have 2nd person singular, _kar_, plur. _kariv_; third person singular and plural _karin_.

Many of the above forms will be intelligible from a consideration of the closely allied Sanskrit, although they are not derived from that language; but some (e.g. those of the second person singular) can only be explained by the analogy of the Iranian and of the Pisaca languages.

The present participle is formed by adding _an_ to the root; thus, _karan_, making. It does not change for gender. From this we get a present and an imperfect, formed by adding respectively the present and past tenses of the auxiliary verb. Thus, _karan chus_, I (masculine) am making, I make; _karan ches_, I (feminine) am making, I make; _karan asus_, I (masculine) was making; and so on.

There are several past participles, all of which are liable to change for gender, and are utilized in conjugation. We have:--

In the strong past participle and the pluperfect participle, the final _v_ and _y_ (like the final _h_ of _chuh_ quoted above) are not parts of the original words, but are only added for the sake of euphony. The true words are _karyo_, _karye_, _karya_ and _karyeye_. There are three conjugations. The first includes all transitive verbs. These have both the weak and the strong past participles. The second conjugation consists of sixty-six common intransitive verbs, which also have both of these participles. The third conjugation consists of the remaining intransitive verbs. These have only the strong past participle. The weak past participle in the first two conjugations refers to something which has lately happened, and is used to form an immediate past tense. The strong past participle is more indefinite, and is employed to form a tense corresponding to the Greek aorist. The pluperfect participle refers to something which happened a long time ago, and is used to form the past tense of narration. As the third conjugation has no weak past participle, the strong past participle is employed to make the immediate past, and the pluperfect participle is employed to make the aorist past, while the new pluperfect participle is formed to make the tense of narration. Thus, from the root _wuph_, fly (third conjugation) we have _wuphyov_, he flew just now, while _karyov_ (first conjugation) means "he was made at some indefinite time"; _wuphyav_, he flew at some indefinite time, but _karyav_, he was made a long time ago; finally, the new participle of the third conjugation, _wuphiyav_, he flew a long time ago.

The corresponding tenses are formed by adding pronominal suffixes to the weak, the strong, or the pluperfect participle. In the last two the final _v_ and _y_, being no longer required by euphony, are dropped. In the case of transitive verbs the participles are passive by derivation and in signification, and hence the suffix indicating the subject must be in the agent case. Thus _kar^u_ means "made." For "I made" we must say "made by me," _karu-m_; for "thou madest," _karu-th_, made by thee, and so on. If the thing made is feminine the participle must be feminine, and similarly if it is plural it must be plural. Thus, _karu-m_, I made him; _kar^u-m_, I made her; _kari-m_, I made them (masculine); and _kare-m_, I made them (feminine). Similarly from the other two participles we have _karyo-m_, I made him; _karyeya-m_, I made her; _karya-m_, I made him (a long time ago). The past participles of intransitive verbs are not passive, and hence the suffix indicating the subject must be in the nominative form. Thus _tsal^u_, escaped (second conjugation); _tsalu-s_, escaped-I, I (masculine) escaped; _tsaj^u-s_, I (feminine) escaped, and so on. Similarly for the third conjugation, _wuphyov_, flew; _wuphyo-s_, I (masculine) flew; _wuphyeya-s_, I (feminine) flew, &c.

As explained above, these suffixes may be piled one on another. As a further example we may give _kar^u_, made; _karu-n_, made by him, he made; _karu-n-as_, made by him I, he made me, or (as -_s_ also means "for him") he made for him; _karu-n-as-a_, did he make me? or, did he make for him? and so on.

Tenses corresponding to the English perfect and pluperfect are formed by conjugating the auxiliary verb, adding the appropriate suffixes, with the compound past participle. Thus _kar^umat^u chu-n-as_, made am-by-him-I, he has made me; _tsal^umat^u chu-kh_, escaped art thou, thou hast escaped; _wuphyomat^u chu-s_, flown am-I, I have flown. Similarly for the pluperfect, _kar^umat^u asu-n-as_, made was-by-him-I, he had made me, and so on.

Many verbs have irregular past participles. Thus _mar_, die, has _mud^u_; _di_, give, has _dit^u_; _khi_, eat, has _khyauv_ for its weak, and _kheyov_ for its strong participle, while _ni_, take, has _nyuv_ and _niyov_, respectively. Others must be learnt from the regular grammars.

The infinitive is formed by adding -_un_ to the root; thus _kar-un_, to make. It is declined like a somewhat irregular noun of the first declension, its accusative being _karanas_. There are three forms of the noun of agency, of which typical examples are _kar-awun^u_, _kar-an-wal^u_, and _kar-an-grakh_, a maker.

The passive is formed by conjugating the verb _yi_, come, with the ablative of the infinitive. Thus, _karana yiwan chuh_, it is coming by making, or into making, i.e. it is being made. A root is made active or causal by adding -_anaw_, -_aw_, or -_^araw_. Thus, _kar-anaw_, cause to make; _kumal_, be tender, _kumal-aw_, make tender; _kal_, be dumb, _kal-^araw_, make dumb. Some verbs take one form and some another, and there are numerous irregularities, especially in the case of the last.

F. _Indeclinables._ Indeclinables (adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions and interjections) must be learnt from the dictionary. The number of interjections is very large, and they are distinguished by minute rules depending on the gender of the person addressed and the exact amount of respect due to him.

_Literature._--Kashmiri possesses a somewhat extensive literature, which has been very little studied. The missionary William Carey published in 1821 a version of the New Testament (in the Sarada character), which was the first book published in the language. In 1885 the Rev. J. Hinton Knowles published at Bombay a collection of Kashmiri proverbs and sayings, and K. F. Burkhard in 1895 published an edition of Mahmud Gami's poem on Yusuf and Zulaikha. This, with the exception of later translations of the Scriptures in the Persian character and a few minor works, is all the literature that has been printed or about which anything has been written. Mahmud Gami's poem is valuable as an example of the Kashmiri used by Mussulmans. For Hindu literature, we may quote a history of Krishna by Dinanatha. The very popular _Lalla-vakya_, a poem on Saiva philosophy by a woman named _Lalladevi_, is said to be the oldest work in the language which has survived. Another esteemed work is the _Siva Parinaya_ of Krsna Rajanaka, a living author. These and other books which have been studied by the present writer have little independent value, being imitations of Sanskrit literature. Nothing is known about the dates of most of the authors.

AUTHORITIES.--The scientific study of Kashmiri is of very recent date. The only printed lexicographical work is a short vocabulary by W. J. Elmslie (London, 1872). K. F. Burkhard brought out a grammar of the Mussulman dialect in the _Proceedings of the Royal Bavarian Academy of Science_ for 1887-1889, of which a translation by G. A. Grierson appeared in the _Indian Antiquary_ of 1895 and the following years (reprinted as a separate publication, Bombay, 1897). T. R. Wade's Grammar (London, 1888) is the merest sketch, and the only attempt at a complete work of the kind in English is G. A. Grierson's _Essays on Kacmiri Grammar_ (London and Calcutta, 1899). A valuable native grammar in Sanskrit, the _Kasmirasabdamrta_ of Isvara Kaula, has been edited by the same writer (Calcutta, 1888). For an examination of the origin of Kashmiri grammatical forms and the Pisaca question generally, see G. A. Grierson's "On Certain Suffixes in the Modern Indo-Aryan Vernaculars" in the _Zeitschrift fur Vergleichende Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete der Indogermanischen Sprachen_ for 1903 and _The Pisaca Languages of North-Western India_ (London, 1906).

The only important text which has been published is Burkhard's edition, with a partial translation, of Mahmud Gami's "Yusuf and Zulaikha" in the _Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft_ for 1895 and 1899. The text of the _Siva Parinaya_, edited by G. A. Grierson, is in course of publication by the Asiatic Society of Bengal. (G. A. Gr.)

FOOTNOTE:

[1] See G. A. Grierson, "On Pronominal Suffixes in the Kacmiri Languages," and "On the Radical and Participial Tenses of the Modern Indo-Aryan Languages," in _Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal_, vol. lxiv. (1895), pt. i. pp. 336 and 352.

KASHUBES (sing. _Kaszub_, plur. _Kaszebe_), a Slavonic people numbering about 200,000, and living on the borders of West Prussia and Pomerania, along the Baltic coast between Danzig and Lake Garden, and inland as far as Konitz. They have no literature and no history, as they consist of peasants and fishermen, the educated classes being mostly Germans or Poles. Their language has been held to be but a dialect of Polish, but it seems better to separate it, as in some points it is quite independent, in some it offers a resemblance to the language of the Polabs (q.v.). This is most seen in the western dialect of the so-called Slovinci (of whom there are about 250 left) and Kabatki, whereas the eastern Kashube is more like Polish, which is encroaching upon and assimilating it. Lorentz calls the western dialect a language, and distinguishes 38 vowels. The chief points of Kashube as against Polish are that all its vowels can be nasal instead of a and e only, that it has preserved quantity and a free accent, has developed several special vowels, e.g. _o, oe, u_, and has preserved the original order, e.g. _gard_ as against _grod_. The consonants are very like Polish. (See also SLAVS.)