^{page 78 note 1} So, too, in chale jāna “ to continue to go ” the idea of continuity lies in the jāna “ vide ” (d).

^{page 78 note 2} When a present participle is repeated it is usual to inflect it statically, and the hu,ā is always omitted.

^{page 78 note 3} In Hindi chalā chalā may be used.

^{page 78 note 4} As regards this omission of mē. Sir George Grierson points out to me that this is “ a convenient way of puttingit and is not a true statement. Chalte, like ghore, is itself a representative of six original Sanskrit cases, and can be used for any of them. Hence its use by itself for the locative, is quite natural and proper, and is not added merely because in this particular instance a denning particle is not necessary, the meaning being clear without it. The meaning of all this rigmarole is that in modern Indian languages, ‘ denning particles ’ are used only when the sense clearly requires it.

“ A good instance of ‘ defining particles ’ occurs in the infinitive wuh dekhne āyā. Here it is commonly said that dekhne is for dekhne ko. It is really nothing of the sort: dekhne by itself is a dative (as well as other cases), and as its use in this place as a dative is perfectly clear, no denning particle is required… ”

^{page 79 note 1} The present participle gātī hu,ī is here treated as an adjective, and indicates an act in progress without any idea of state. Sir George Grierson suggests that there is a slight difference in meaning between these two constructions. “ The latter means that the moment she arrived she happened to be singing and has no reference to what she was doing before she arrived. The former means that the woman was singing and while she was singing (or in the middle of her song) she arrived.”

^{page 79 note 2} But chinghātī hu,ī hathnī ne “ the screaming she-elephant ”.

^{page 79 note 3} Platts, , p. 336.Google Scholar

^{page 79 note 4} Platts, , p. 338.Google Scholar

^{page 79 note 5} But bahāṇa kartā thā indicates a particular occasion.

^{page 79 note 6} Soye- or soyā-rahnā suggests an intransitive meaning, “ to be asleep,” and sole- or sotā-rahnā an active meaning “ to sleep, to compose oneself to sleep ”.

^{page 79 note 7} Sau rūpiya khizāne mē bachā raktā hai, “ a sum of a hundred rupees remains in reserve in the treasury,” but sau rūpiya bachtā raktā hai, ” a sum of a hundred rupees is always being left over or always happens to be spare at stated intervals.”

^{page 79 note 8} But pakartā rah would mean, if it meant anything, “ keep on catching it.”.

^{page 80 note 1} Or statically, larte bhirte. In both cases the repetition indicates continuity. Platts explanation of this example (p. 334, Rem.) seems involved. Why not Rotī ko the object of the Statical bachā, e ?

^{page 80 note 2} But daurā āya “ hastened to the spot (with an object in view) ”.

^{page 80 note 3} The repetition in paṛe paṛe or paṛā paṛā, indicates continuity.

^{page 80 note 4} The hu, e could not be omitted, vide (k).

^{page 80 note 5} Paṛe hai is probably the old Present tense (common in proverbs) and not a Statical; it is so used by Ghālib. Sir George Grierson tells me this is still in use in the Dakhin.

^{page 81 note 1} Maī is hotel mē hamesha thahartā rahā hū, “ I have always been staying in this hotel.”

^{page 81 note 2} Pare rahnā is, however, common.

^{page 82 note 1} But Rajā haude mē baithtā hai “ the Raja always sits in the hauda ”. Sir George Grierson, however, points out that the root meaning of baithnā is not “ to sit ” but “ to be seated ”.

^{page 82 note 2} Neither the conjunctive participle nor the past participle of intensives is in use.

^{page 83 note 1} Maī rāsle mē chalā jātā thā and Is per hi jarē dūr tak chalī jatī haī.

^{page 83 note 2} “ Went on in a state of casting.” Chalā-gayā does not here mean “ went away ”.

^{page 83 note 3} From a story about an Arab who was burying his daughter alive.

^{page 83 note 4} But yih kahtī hu,ī chalī ga,ī “ she went away saying this ”. Yih kahlcar chalīga,ī “ she said this and then went away ”. The difference between these two is really slight.

^{page 83 note 5} Pincott, , p. 166.Google Scholar

^{page 84 note 1} Pincott, , p. 193.Google Scholar

^{page 84 note 2} It will be noticed that this use may be affirmative as well as negative.

^{page 84 note 3} Can this be a Statical ?

^{page 84 note 4} Compare Mujh se khānā khāyā-nahī-jātā: mujh se chald nahī jāt¯. Also the construction Yih darwāza mere Ichole se nahi khultā.

^{page 84 note 5} Bantī fem., because ofchhabi.

^{page 84 note 6} Sir George Grierson suggests that jānā and ānā are here “ sisters of honā ”, and equivalent to it, which would explain this idiom.

^{page 84 note 7} But maī be-dam holā jātā hū “ I am gradually getting out of breath “.

^{page 85 note 1} But kah-detā hū “ I tell you outright or once for all ”.

^{page 85 note 2} But khānā lā-detā hū “ I'll go and get dinner ”.

^{page 85 note 3} Inless refined speech lātā hū or lāyā.

^{page 86 note 1} The post-position ke in such instances is omitted.

^{page 86 note 2} It is often supposed that the hu,ā confines the participle to its adjectival use.

^{page 86 note 3} The noun “ man ” and “ men” is understood, as the participles here are adjectives. You cannot say marte (or larte) ne kaha. These two examples are perhaps exceptional phrases.

^{page 86 note 4} Sir George Grierson suggests that there is a shade of difference between the two, the former really signifying “ a chattering (or loquacious) mainā, ” and the latter “ a mainā who is a speaker (i.e. who can speak).”

^{page 87 note 1} So, too, the Panjabi construction of putting the subject of a simple passive verb in the accusative, as Usko mārā-gay¯a. Usko qatl kiyā gayā, however, is correct, in Modern Urdu.