Nas, as I before said, is corruption or rot; thus, Glek-Nas may be construed, "the universal strife-rot." Their compounds are very expressive; thus, Bodh being knowledge, and Too a participle that implies the action of cautiously approaching,-Too-bodh is their word for Philosophy; Pah is a contemptuous exclamation analogous to our idiom, "stuff and nonsense;"Pah-bodh (literally stuff and nonsense-knowledge) is their term for futile and false philosophy, and applied to a species of metaphysical or speculative ratiocination formerly in vogue, which consisted in making inquiries that could not be answered, and were not worth making; such, for instance, as "Why does an An have five toes to his feet instead of four or six? Did the first An, created by the All-Good, have the same number of toes as his descendants? In the form by which an An will be recognised by his friends in the future state of being, will he retain any toes at all, and, if so, will they be material toes or spiritual toes?" I take these illustrations of Pahbodh, not in irony or jest, but because the very inquiries I name formed the subject of controversy by the latest cultivators of that 'science,'4000 years ago.
51
In the declension of nouns I was informed that anciently there were eight cases (one more than in the Sanskrit Grammar); but the effect of time has been to reduce these cases, and multiply, instead of these varying terminations, explanatory propositions.At present, in the Grammar submitted to my study, there were four cases to nouns, three having varying terminations, and the fourth a differing prefix.
SINGULAR.PLURAL.
Nom.An,Man, | Nom.Ana, Men.
Dat.Ano,to Man, | Dat.Anoi, to Men.
Ac.Anan, Man, | Ac.Ananda, Men.
Voc.Hil-an, O Man, | Voc.Hil-Ananda, O Men.
In the elder inflectional literature the dual form existed- it has long been obsolete.
The genitive case with them is also obsolete; the dative supplies its place: they say the House 'to' a Man, instead of the House 'of' a Man.When used (sometimes in poetry), the genitive in the termination is the same as the nominative; so is the ablative, the preposition that marks it being a prefix or suffix at option, and generally decided by ear, according to the sound of the noun.It will be observed that the prefix Hil marks the vocative case.It is always retained in addressing another, except in the most intimate domestic relations; its omission would be considered rude: just as in our of forms of speech in addressing a king it would have been deemed disrespectful to say "King," and reverential to say "O King."In fact, as they have no titles of honour, the vocative adjuration supplies the place of a title, and is given impartially to all.The prefix Hil enters into the composition of words that imply distant communications, as Hil-ya, to travel.
In the conjugation of their verbs, which is much too lengthy a subject to enter on here, the auxiliary verb Ya, "to go," which plays so considerable part in the Sanskrit, appears and performs a kindred office, as if it were a radical in some language from which both had descended.But another auxiliary 52or opposite signification also accompanies it and shares its labours- viz., Zi, to stay or repose.Thus Ya enters into the future tense, and Zi in the preterite of all verbs requiring auxiliaries.Yam, I shall go- Yiam, I may go- Yani-ya, I shall go (literally, I go to go), Zam-poo-yan, I have gone (literally, I rest from gone).Ya, as a termination, implies by analogy, progress, movement, efflorescence.Zi, as a terminal, denotes fixity, sometimes in a good sense, sometimes in a bad, according to the word with which it is coupled.
