No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Some Aspects of the History of Modern Hindi Nahîn “No”, “Not”
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 March 2011
Extract
In an examination of word-phrases A. Meillet stated long ago: “Des mots comme oui, non représentent le plus haut degré d'abstraction que puisse atteindre ainsi une réponse consistant en un seul mot.” As has been repeatedly pointed out, the classical Indo-European languages did not have any exact equivalent of this abstract method of expression. The majority of the modern languages on the other hand have arrived at these convenient “special expletive interjections”. Hindi nahîn, like the cognate Marathi nâhĩ, Gujerati nahi(m), etc. typifies this development of most modern Indo-European languages both syntactically and formally: it is used as an equivalent of “no” (though it may serve also as negative adverb), and it represents an enlargement of the old Indo-European negative particle, Sanskrit na. This formal and syntactic transformation of Sanskrit na into modern nahîn has been variously explained. The standard theories involve the addition to the negative particle of some part of a substantive verb, a development by no means isolated in the Indo-European languages. They may be summarized as follows:—
I. Theories in which parts of the verb as- “to be” are added.
(a) Kellogg stated: “The common negative nahîn, Braj nâhi has arisen from the combination of the negative na with the 3rd singular âhi of the substantive verb.
(b) S. K. Chatterji thinks that *asati based on Sanskrit asti may have been added to na.
(c) Dwijendranath Basu believes that only a derivation from na + âsit can account for the Bengali forms. Similar explanations were given also by Sen and others.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Royal Asiatic Society 1959
References
page 44 note 1 Meillet, A., Linguistique historique et linguistique générate, ii, p. 4, Paris, 1938Google Scholar.
page 44 note 2 Cf. Bloomfield, , Language, p. 177Google Scholar, and for the great variety in the expression of the negative cf. Otto, E., Stand und Aufgaben der allgemeinen Sprachwissenschaft, p. 18 and p. 24Google Scholar.
page 44 note 3 Cf. Hirt, H., Indogermanische Grammatilc, vii, Syntax, pp. 72 ffGoogle Scholar.
page 44 note 4 Kellogg, S. H., A Grammar of the Hindi Language, 3rd ed., London, 1938, p. 281Google Scholar.
page 44 note 6 Chatterji, S. K., Origin and Development of the Bengali Language, Calcutta, 1926, p. 1039Google Scholar.
page 44 note 6 Basu, Dwijendranath, “On the Negative Auxiliary in Bengali,” Indian Linguistics, vol. xv, 1955Google Scholar.
page 45 note 1 Sen, Sukumar, “Index Verborum of Old Bengali Carya Songs and Fragments,” Indian Linguistics, ix, 1946–8Google Scholar.
page 45 note 2 Tessitori, L. P., “Notes on the Grammar of the Old Western Rajasthani,” IA., 1914–1916, paragraph 103Google Scholar.
page 45 note 3 Bloch, J., Histoire de la Langue Marathe, Paris, 1918, p. 292Google Scholar.
page 45 note 4 Turner, R. L., Nepali Dictionary, London, 1931, p. 337bGoogle Scholar.
page 45 note 6 Modi, M. C. in the glossary of the Gurjararâsâvali, Baroda, 1956, p. 235Google Scholar.
page 46 note 1 A less widely accepted alternative etymology nûnam is given by R. Pischel, Grammatik der Prakritsprachen.
page 46 note 2 Quoted by the Paiasaddamahaṇṇavo s.v.
page 47 note 1 Cf. Turner, R. L., “The phonetic weakness of terminational elements in Indo-Aryan,” JRAS., 1927Google Scholar.
page 48 note 1 Separate etymologies are usually given for the comparative particles ṇâim, ṇâvai, and ṇam, but because of their similarity and simultaneous appearance they are probably connected with each other. Ṇâiṃ is derived from nyâyena “in such a manner” by Bloch, , Langue Marathe, p. 205Google Scholar; ṇâvai from jnâyate “it is known” by Bhayani, Paumacariu, Glossary s.v. ṇajjai; ṇaṃ from Vedic na “like” by Alsdorf, Harivamśapurâna, Glossary s.v. naṃ. The alternative explanation of ṇaṃ from nanu “indeed” is more convincing, as there are numerous instances where ṇaṃ could easily be interpreted as meaning either “like”, “as if” or “indeed” and often in editions of Apabhraṃśa texts the English translation and the Sanskrit commentary are at variance over this. The change of meaning from the averative nanu > ṇaṃ to a comparative is late and does not feature in Prakrit except in a reconstructed line of the Lîlavaîkahâ, v. 1308. This late appearance renders a direct connection of nam with the Vedic na “like” improbable, but there is a possibility that Apabhraṃśa speakers used similar methods of expression to those that brought about the comparative meaning of Vedic na “not” (cf. Macdonell, Vedic Grammar for Students, paragraph 180), and that the comparative particles are in fact derived from the negative.
page 49 note 1 Cf. Saksena, Baburam, The Evolution of Awadhi, Allahabad, 1937, p. 309.Google Scholar
page 50 note 1 For the contraction of the final -aya of masculine nouns cf. Alsdorf, L., Apabhramśa Studien, Hamburg, 1937Google Scholar.