^{page 484 note 1} This monograph is referred to as ‘H’ in the following, numbers referring to sections, and page-numbers being quoted, if necessary, with a preceding ‘p’.

^{page 484 note 2} This seems to be an instance of that ‘wide gulf’ or ‘seemingly unbridgeable gap’ which at present exists between two main currents in linguistics; cf. Archivum Linguisticum, IV, 1, 1952, 16Google Scholar; Word, X, 2–3, 1954, 121Google Scholar; Proceedings of the eighth International Congress of Linguists, Oslo, 1958, 842–7, in particular p. 843Google Scholar.

^{page 484 note 3} This article is referred to as ‘C’in the following, numbers referring to pages of BSOAS, XIX, 3, 1957Google Scholar.

^{page 485 note 1} Here and throughout the present article, terms either proposed by Mr. Burton-Page (e.g. ‘operator’) or used in his acceptation, which more or less diverges from the traditional sense (e.g. ‘transitive’), are included in single quotation marks. Terms proposed by me in H are put in double quotation marks (e.g. “explicative”).

^{page 485 note 2} In the present article I use a transcription of Hindi words that follows most of the rules internationally adopted for the transcription of Sanskrit. The vowel ऋ is denoted by , the retroflex consonant by ṛ. In quoting from C, the transcription is transposed into that of the present article to avoid confusion.

^{page 486 note 1} Mr. Burton-Page says that his description ‘is not meant to be exhaustive’ (C, 469). But as in his method the detailed statement of the morphological and syntactical possibilities replaces, as it were, the definition of the compound verb, these possibilities at least should have been recorded completely. This is, however, not the case. Formations and constructions not recorded in C are described in the following sections of H: 44, 46 (a) and (b), 78, 80 [p. 68] (possibilities of composition with ānā); 78 (lenā with the “-e-absolutive”); 55 and 59 (uṭhnā with transitives); 83 (baiṭhnā with the “-e-absolutive” of transitives—not intransitives; cf. also vah maī bahut pahle se samjhe baiṭhā h [Premcand, , Nirmalā, Banāras, 1954, p. 157Google Scholar]); 50, 51, 54 (paṛnā with transitives); 78 [p. 67] and 80 [p. 68] (paṛnā with the past participle of intransitives); 86–88 (pānā with the “short absolutive”); 84–85 (calnā, not mentioned in the table of C); 82–83 (“-kar-absolutives” compounded with ānā, jānā, and baiṭhnā; cf. also the composition with rahnā in anivārya śikṣā ho karke hī rahegī). As regards formations not studied in H, it may be noted that, if instances like vah khānā khāne baiṭhā and aurat roṭī pakāne āyī (gayī), which completely fit in with the formal principles underlying the table, are excluded on the ground that in such sentences ko or ke lie may be added to the inflected infinitive, the reason for their exclusion ought to have been stated. Finally, the frecment combination of the “-e-absolutive” with rakhnā (^tVe rakh^I) is not registered. Examples: banāye rakhnā and man kuch cāhtā hai, tan as man ko b rakhtā hai(Kumār, Jainendra, Prastut praśn, 2nd ed., Dillī, 1953, p. 278Google Scholar).

^{page 486 note 2} The term “absolutive” (German: Absolativ) as used by me is meant to express nothing but the idea that the forms thus denoted are employed “absolutely”, i.e. without their syntactic relation to nouns being indicated by inflexional means. In Sanskrit grammar, the verbal forms ending in -tvā are absolutives. The corresponding form in modern Hindi is that ending in -kar (-ke, -karke); hence the term “-kar-absolutive”. From the historical and comparative points of view as well as with reference to certain modern uses the form that, in view of the morphology of modern Hindi, may be called the base (Stamm), is also an “absolutive”; I have therefore termed this form “short absolutive” (Kurzabsolutiv). In using the term “-e-absolutive” for the adverbial past participle in -e, I have in view the fact that many or most of the uses of this form, especially those treated in H, are parallel to those of the “-kar-absolutive”. This terminology stresses, in particular, the parallelism existing between the formation of the “explicatives” and that of the “intensives”. (“Explicatives” are compounds of the “short absolutive” of a main verb with one of the auxiliaries denā, lenā, jānā, ānā, paṛnā, uṭhnā, ḍālnā, baiṭhnā; “intensives” are compounds of the “-e-absolutive” of a transitive main verb with denā, lenā, ḍālnā, or baiṭhnā, or of the past participle of intransitive main verbs with jānā, ānā, or paṛnā; moreover, there are certain special cases of “intensives” formed with the “-kar-absolutive”.) None of the other uses of the form ending in -e would entirely preclude the employment of the term “-e-absolutive”. Moreover, in old Hindi the “-e-absolutive” is often used in contexts where the “-i-absolutive” (i.e. the form Corresponding to the modern “short absolutive”) would be equally allowable. But I have no objection to the term adverbial perfect participle, as defended, e.g., by Pořizka, V. in Archiv Orientální, XVIII, 4, 1950, 177 f.Google Scholar, and by J. Marck in tho same journal, XXVII, 4, 1959, 710. I think that uniformity of terminology is not absolutely necessary.

^{page 486 note 3} cf. H, 29–30 and 34–35.

^{page 487 note 1} ‘Imperfective’ tenses in Mr. Burton-Page's terminology comprise forms in which the present participle occurs as well as the subjunctive, the imperative, and the future tense; ‘perfective’ are those forms in which the past participle occurs. As for his use of the terms ‘transitive’ and ‘intransitive’, see this page, subsection 5.

^{page 487 note 2} For the latter formations cf. H, 76, 78, and 80 with the note to these three sections on p. 68.

^{page 487 note 3} cf. H, 46 (a).

^{page 487 note 4} cf. H, 80, p. 68.

^{page 487 note 5} cf. H, 50 and 51.

^{page 487 note 6} cf. H, 54.

^{page 487 note 7} cf. H, 34.

^{page 488 note 1} cf. H, 75 and 82 (p. 70).

^{page 488 note 2} In rendering Mr. Burton-Page's statements, I translate his symbolic expressions into terminological language.

^{page 489 note 1} cf. H, 77.

^{page 489 note 2} Kumār, Jainendra, Sāhitya kā śreya aur preya, Dillī, 1953, p. 292Google Scholar.

^{page 489 note 3} calnā has also to be reckoned among the ‘operators’, cf. above, p. 486, n. 1.

^{page 489 note 4} cf. H, 82.

^{page 490 note 1} ef. H, 76.

^{page 490 note 2} Premcand, , Nirmalā, Banāras, 1954, p. 156Google Scholar.

^{page 490 note 3} Quoted by Guru, Kāmtāprasād, Hindī vyākaran, Kāśī, sāvat 2009, section 423Google Scholar.

^{page 490 note 4} As for improper compounds, cf. H, 43 and 90 (p. 78), n. 1.

^{page 491 note 1} It was not, after all, without experiments and experience that I was hesitant and cautious with regard to negative statements in writing my monograph, though I did make some statements about what Mr. Burton-Page would classify as ‘restrictions’.

^{page 491 note 2} cf. H, 15, 20, 33, 89, etc.; also below, section VI.

^{page 492 note 1} saknā denotes that the action can, or may, be done, without evoking the idea that it is done; cf. H, 88 (p. 76).

^{page 492 note 2} cf. below, pp. 497–8, and H, 94.

^{page 492 note 3} cf. H, 94–104, in particular 104. Though the use of compound verbs in non-finite forms is one of the problems I expressly reserved for later investigation in H (cf. 93–94), the results I arrived at, if they be correct, must of course be applicable to such forms.

^{page 492 note 4} Kellogg, S. H., A grammar of the Hindi language, 3rd ed., London, 1938, section 755Google Scholar.

^{page 492 note 5} Kumār, Jainendra, Sāhitya kā śreya aur preya, Dillī, 1953, p. 11Google Scholar.

^{page 493 note 1} cf. Varmā, Rāmcandra, Acchī Hindī, 7th ed., Banaras, sãvat 2009, p. 168Google Scholar.

^{page 493 note 2} cf. H, 16 (p. 14).

^{page 493 note 3} Kumār, Jainendra, op. cit., p. 48Google Scholar.

^{page 494 note 1} Premcand, , Nirmalā (ed. cit.), p. 22Google Scholar.

^{page 494 note 2} In this article, I use the term “conjunct verb” to denote not only the verbs treated by Mr. Burton-Page in C, 473–8, but all the combinations described by S. H. Kellogg, op. cit., sections 448–65; cf. section IV7 of this article.

^{page 494 note 3} From a newspaper.

^{page 494 note 4} This distinction, however, virtually collapses immediately, since the author states that for the first pair, given under (a), there may also arise situations where the formations with the ‘operator’ are not interchangeable with those without it (C, 473).

^{page 494 note 6} Mr. Burton-Page observes that both sentences, Us ne mujhe dūdh becā and Us ne, mujhe dūdh bec diyā, ‘could be used in reply to the question “What did he do when he was here a few minutes ago ?”’, but if the question ‘What connexion did you have with him when he was trading in this neighbourhood last year?’ was to be answered, only the sentence without the ‘operator’ could be used. It seems that the informant who gave these explanations interpreted the first sentence (without the ‘operator’) as possibly referring to a remote past while both could refer to a near past. But this is obviously an error, typical of informants who do not possess the capability, which is indeed very rare, of interpreting their own linguistic habits, but do not realize their inability and therefore, when called upon to make such observations, indulge in imaginative thinking. During my investigations into the auxiliary verbs I received much information of this kind, always shrewd, but often contradictory, until I discovered that what my informants replied was often not observation but either imagination or reminiscences of what they had learnt from questionable sources. The use of denā has nothing to do with either remote or near past. The phrases ‘a few minutes ago’ and ‘last year’ in Mr, Burton-Page's annotations may safely be omitted,

^{page 495 note 1} Firth, J. R., Papers in linguistics, London, 1957, 27–31Google Scholar.

^{page 495 note 2} Bloomfield, L., Language, New York, 1933, 139Google Scholar.

^{page 495 note 3} Firth, J. R., op. cit., 19Google Scholar.

^{page 497 note 1} cf. H, 13, 17, 94, 98, 100.

^{page 497 note 2} cf. H, 15, 89 (and also 33).

^{page 497 note 3} cf. above, p. 494, n. 5.

^{page 497 note 4} cf. above, p. 494, n. 5.

^{page 497 note 5} cf. H, 94 and 98.

^{page 497 note 6} cf. H, 100.

^{page 497 note 7} cf. H, 94. Mr. Burton-Page has evidently not read this section carefully, for what he accuses me of leaving ‘unsaid’is there stated explicitly.

^{page 497 note 8} cf. H, 94.

^{page 498 note 1} cf. BSOAS, XIX, 1, 1957, p. 99, n. 3Google Scholar.

^{page 498 note 2} In this section the terms “noun” and “substantive” are distinguished, the former comprising both substantives and adjectives.

^{page 498 note 3} BSOAS, XIX, 1, 1957, p. 99, n. 3Google Scholar.

^{page 498 note 4} It need not be stressed that the lists of conjunct verbs as given by Kellogg are to-day obsolete.

^{page 502 note 1} The remark given in C, 472, n. 4, evades this problem instead of solving it.

^{page 503 note 1} It is true that traditional methods of description require much correction and improvement, but I cannot see any augmentation of knowledge in expanded restatements of well-known facts by methods that claim to (but actually do not entirely) leave out of account considerations of meaning. The fundamental laws governing the syntax of the compound verbs are known and do not require lengthy restatement (cf. H, 93). The real problems lie elsewhere.

^{page 503 note 2} cf. Barannikov, A. P. and Barannikov, P. A., Khindustani, Khindi i Urdu, Moskva, 1956, pp. 128 and 133Google Scholar.

^{page 503 note 3} cf. H, p. 78, footnote, and Barannikov, , op. cit., p. 137Google Scholar.

^{page 504 note 1} Criticizing Ullmann's, S. book The principles of semantics, 2nd ed., Glasgow and Oxford, 1957Google Scholar, which essays a remarkable application of structuralist principles to semantics but maintains the distinction of ‘syntactic morphology’ (corresponding to the ‘syntactic level’) from ‘syntactic semantics’ (corresponding to the ‘semantic level’), Wissemann writes: ‘Der Hauptwert einer sauberen theoretischen Scheidung von Form und Inhalt besteht gerade darin, dass sie die Voraussetzung für eine noch wichtigere Einsicht ist, nämlich für die Einsicht in das innige und vielfältige Aufeinanderbezogensein dieser beiden Seiten des Sprachlichen. Diese letztere Einsicht aber liefert das ausschlaggebende theoretische Argument, das dagegen spricht, dass wir in der Grammatik Form und Inhalt durch eine scharfe Disziplinengrenze auseinanderreissen. Eine Disziplin, die die formale Seite des Syntagmas untersucht (syntactic morphology), muss auch die Bedeutungen der Formen in ihre Betrachtungen einbeziehen.… Die traditionelle Grammatik tut das ja auch, und schon sie ist in Gefahr, sich durch ihre das Verhältnis Form: Inhalt weniger verletzende Aufgliederung der Disziplinen den Blick für die organische Einheit der Sprache gelegentlich zu verbauen und wichtige Zusammenhänge zu übersehen. Noch grōsser aber wäre diese Gefahr bei einer konsequenten Anwendung der Ullmannschen Konzeption auf die grammatische Praxis’ (Indogermanische Forschungen, LXV, 1, 1960, 48Google Scholar; italics mine). Cf. also Firth, J. R., ‘Structural linguistics’, TPS, 1955, 98–103Google Scholar, and Glinz, H., in Proceedings of the eighth International Congress of Linguists, Oslo, 1958, 377–9Google Scholar.

^{page 504 note 2} Incidentally, it may be noted here that the maxim ‘without intonation no syntax’, as enunciated by Professor Firth and repeated by Mr. Burton-Page (BSOAS, XXIII, 3, 1960, 603Google Scholar), is an exaggeration. No linguist will deny the syntactical relevance of intonation, but it must be admitted that written language is also intelligible language, and intonation is not written. Syntax can very well be studied without regard to intonation, but never without considerations of meaning and content.

^{page 504 note 3} Ganzheit von Lautform und Inhalt; cf. Weisgerber, L., Vom Weltbild der deutschen Sprache, I, 2nd ed., Düsseldorf, 1953, 73 ffGoogle Scholar. It seems to me that the main ideas of Professor Weisgerber's idealistic system can very well be combined with the basic concept of (materialistic) structuralism (viz. the concept of language as a structure of interrelations) as well as with the naïve realism of traditional grammar and with elements of psychological and sociological linguistics to arrive at the scientific realism of a comprehensive view of language.

^{page 505 note 1} This is, incidentally, one of the causes of the constant polemies directed by modern grammarians against ‘traditional’ grammar. However, the abrogation of old compromises can in this field result only in new ones, which may be more questionable than the old.

^{page 505 note 2} cf. T. G. Bailey's definition quoted in C, 471, n. 1.

^{page 505 note 3} cf. above, p. 486, n. 1.

^{page 506 note 1} For amusing examples, see BSOAS, XIX, 1, 1957, p. 100, n. 1Google Scholar, and Acta Linguistica, VI, 2–3, 1950–1951, 71Google Scholar.

^{page 508 note 1} This includes investigation into what may be called the distribution of the “explicative” compounds. But I prefer to avoid the term ‘distribution’ as it has been given a special connotation by mechanical structuralism. Distributional analysis of the mechanical kind taught, e.g., by Z. S. Harris, more or less tacitly presupposes considerations of meaning (cf. Harris, , Methods in structural linguistics, Chicago, 1951, p. 365, n. 6Google Scholar) and cannot therefore be preparatory to solving a task like that I had set myself. If the meaning-qualifying function of a syntactic structure-element like the “explicative” auxiliary is to be found out, it is naturally the meaning-relations of this element to other parts of the sentence that become relevant. Therefore, if the term “distribution” were to be adapted to, and adopted in, such studies, it would here signify the different types of meaning-features as linked with syntactic structure-elements, in correlation to the occurrence (or non-occurrence) of an “explicative” auxiliary in their environment. Mr. Burton-Page claims in his review of H that ‘full investigations’ should ‘first be conducted into the distribution and frequency of the compound verbs in terms of their context’ (italics his). But it has to be noted that the ‘fulness’ demanded here is highly problematic. For though the material of a language consists to a large extent in preformed possibilities of expression, it leaves room for new collocations, and even the slightest amount of originality in thinking will lead to elements appearing in environments in which they had not been noticed before. Secondly, if investigations into distribution are, as Mr. Burton-Page obviously thinks, to precede the ‘semantic study’ proper, they can only be of the mechanical kind and must therefore lead to partly misleading results rather than afford decisive aid in the ‘semantic study’. If, however, studies of distribution are to be relevant to semantic research, they must from the outset form an integral part of the semantic investigation itself. In such studies syntactic considerations are inseparably linked with interpretation, which can never be a more or less automatic result of mechanical analysis, but has to render perceptible something beyond formal relations unless the whole effort is to remain nugatory.

^{page 510 note 1} The formalistic method as practised, e.g., by Mr. Burton-Page, virtually abolishes tbe distinction between subject and object, which is so important a feature of Indo-European languages. Cf. above, p. 488.

^{page 515 note 1} Mr. Burton-Page has criticized me for not considering ‘geographical speech variation’ and ‘social stratification’ in my tentative ‘stylistic appraisal of the compound verb in Hindi’. This criticism amounts to a confusion of the concepts of style and dialect (or Sondersprache, which may be interpreted as a special case of dialect)—a confusion which seems to be characteristic of the mechanical approach of the structuralist, who is reluctant to appreciate the facts that are constitutive of style (Harris, Z. S. thinks that style ‘differs only in degree from dialect differences’, op. cit., 10Google Scholar). I will not underrate the importance of the study of dialects and Sondersprachen. But I must insist on the fact that general stylistics is a branch of linguistics different from dialectology. And just as the study of syntactico-semantic facts does not presuppose, but may even be hampered by, procedures of mechanical structuralism, so the investigation into the style of the common literary language need not necessarily by ‘integrated’ with, but may even be confused and spoilt by the inclusion of, social and regional dialects or Sondersprachen.

^{page 515 note 2} Harris, Z. S. (op. cit., 11)Google Scholar speaks of ‘the stylistic contrast between be seein' ya and be seeing you’. However, these examples do not by themselves mark a difference of style, but the first ‘utterance’ belongs to a dialect or Sondersprache, and only when it occurs in a context where the second utterance would be appropriate or normal, may it have a stylistic import.

^{page 515 note 3} This is another reason why I find the term ‘semantic function’ not quite appropriate if applied to “explicative” auxiliaries. Compound verbs, of course, have a meaning or a semantic function in the sentence, but explicative auxiliaries have a syntactic function, which implies, and cannot be abstracted from, their ‘semantic function’.

^{page 516 note 1} For particulars see H, ch. xiii.