In the discussion on syntax I talked about the first case. Today I will speak about the second case. However, before talking about the second case, a little more remains to be said about the first case because often the first case can also be used in situations where the second case is used. Hence karmmańi dvitiiyá [the accusative is the second case] in accordance with the Sanskrit rule does not always hold true in Bengali. Sah odanam bhakśayati. Here odanam is in the second case.

The Bengali word bhát [cooked rice] comes from the Prákrta word bhatta, that is, the word bhát is Prákrta-derived, not Sanskrit-derived. It is said that the Bengali vocabulary contains words derived from Sanskrit, borrowed from Sanskrit, altered borrowings from Sanskrit, foreign words and native Bengali words. However there has been an effort to disregard the fact that Bengali also contains words either derived or borrowed from Prákrta, and this is not proper. The word bhát comes from the Prákrta word bhatta. From sah bhattam khádati comes the Prákrta sa bhattam kháati ← sa bhatta kháai ← se bhát kháy. In other words, bhattam is a four thousand year old Prákrta word. The native Sanskrit word for bhát is not bhattam but odanam. The Sanskrit word for cál [uncooked rice] is tańd́ula and the Sanskrit word for bhát is odanam. In the olden days, when the Aryans first came into contact with paddy, they were as yet unacquainted with the husking pedal. They learned to use a wooden mortar for husking the paddy. When they used to pound the paddy in the mortar the rice would jump out; thus they gave rice the name tańd́ula which means “that whose nature is to jump”. The dance which demonstrates a proclivity for jumping we call táńd́ava. However the word cál is pure Bengali or native Bengali. That which we get from sifting [cálá] in a strainer or winnowing platter is cál. Cál does not refer only to what we get from paddy; we also say dhaner cál [cál of coriander]. In old Bengali there was a practice of pronouncing long ao or long ú after á thus cál in some places became cáol and in some places cául and elsewhere cáur (Angika, Magahii, Maethilii).

At any rate, sah odanam bhakśayati (karmmańi dvitiiyá) – Sanskrit has this rule, but in Sanskrit the second case is also used in situations that are not accusative or half-accusative. In Bengali, Hindi and English, however, this never happens. In English the work of the second case is performed by the preposition “to”. Often the word “to” is implied in an English sentence. At such times the case must be understood by context. This also happens in Bengali. In Sanskrit the matter of the accusative case is not altogether clear because often the second case-ending is used despite the fact that it is not accusative. For example, the second case-ending is employed when adding the words prati, anu, dhik, nikaśá, antará, antareńa and yávat (pratyanudhiuṋg-nikasá-ntará-ntareńa-yávadbhih). However there is no explanation as to why it is so. They are proved by usage, that is, they are in the sútra thus they must be so used. Bengali is not like this. In Bengali you will have to depend on the context of the sentence to determine when it is in the second case. Furthermore, according to the usage it can become the seventh in place of the second. And sometimes in Bengali, if the passive voice and the impersonal voice change into the active voice, it becomes the first case nominative. Thus the Sanskrit rule karmmańi dvitiiyá does not apply to Bengali.

Moreover, in Sanskrit the second case-ending is also used in the locative case. For example, káládhvanaratyanatasaḿyoge. – “such a long time, such a long way” – if this kind of meaning is understood then the second case-ending is used although actually it falls within the jurisdiction of the locative case. In Sanskrit the third case-ending is used for the same reason if the completion of the action and the completion of the effect are indicated. Young children memorize without understanding the correct meaning. If they understand the meaning then there is no need for memorization. If they memorize without understanding then they forget. Thus I do not accept the opinion of olden times about the necessity of memorization. In those days they used to say ávrttih sarvashástráńáḿ bodhádapi gariiyasii [the recitation of scriptures is better than grasping their meaning].

In Sanskrit the third case-ending indicates apavarga. Apavarga means that the action has been completed and its results have also been obtained. If the action is not completed then the second case is used; if the action has been completed it changes to the third case. Actually both situations are locative. However, by being bound to the sútra either the second or the third case is stipulated. Yojanam pustakam adhiitam – here yojanam is in the second case because it indicates that the reading has not been completed. But if one says yojanena pustakam adhiitam it becomes the third case because it means that the book has been read and the knowledge that was to be acquired from the book has been acquired.

In Bengali if one says ramer prati se asanttaśt́a then rám is in the sixth case but in Sanskrit it becomes rámaḿ prati, that is, second case, because it says in the sútra that if prati is present then the second case is used. Hindi is similar to Bengali. For example, mere liye, rámke liye, etc. Due to the meaning the action is effected in the sixth case. Se rástáy khete khete jácche. Rástáy means “in the road”; thus the seventh case-ending is used in Bengali and it is clearly the locative case.

Now the question arises: if the second case-ending is used in Sanskrit then why is it different in Bengali? The reason is that they are different languages, although Sanskrit is the source of Bengali. Of course, secondarily we can also say that Sanskrit is no longer the spoken language of the common people so its days of undergoing transformation have come to an end. It is bound by the iron fetters of grammar while Bengali is a flowing river which moves forward by virtue of its own vital energy, breaking the dams, overflowing the banks, devastating and recreating the countryside. Grammar is unable to bind it with its hard and fast rules. Grammar is like leg-irons on the legs of Sanskrit while it is like ankle-bells on the ankles of Bengali.

A further point is that Sanskrit is the language of the scholars. What to speak of the general populace, how many people are there for whom this language actually reflects their inner psychology! This inner psychology is not easily understood by the general people, thus the obvious difference. The same situation occurs in the case of Latin as well. I have observed that if you speak simple Latin with those who still use a little Latin in the church today, they have difficulty in understanding. In other words, Latin is their language of worship; it is their Venus in a distant sky. Latin is not something you can hold in your hand – even if Latin has its historical ties, it has been severed from the veins and arteries.

In Sanskrit karmmańi dvitiiyá [the accusative is the second case] but not in Bengali. In Hindi and Urdu the accusative is the second case and also the seventh. For example, mujhko dená and mujhe dená, mujhko málum nehii and mujhe málum nehii – it is both second and seventh. Often in Bengali, where the second or the seventh case should have been used, it is changed into the active voice, and in such instances the active voice uses the first case-ending. This is done in the case of feelings and perceptions but an exception is made for taste. In the case of feelings one says ámár bhay lágche [I feel afraid]. In the active voice it becomes ámi bhay pácchi. But in the case of taste one says ámár t́ak lágche [it tastes sour] or ámáke t́ak lágche or ámáy t́ak lágche. In this case there is no scope for saying something like ámi t́ak lágche [first case]. However with feelings this kind of thing can be done – ámár bhála láge [I like it], ámáke bhála láge or ámi bhála bujhi. Ámár bhála láge – here I am using the vocative case. Ámar bhála lágche, ámáy bhála lágche – both of these can be used but ámáke bhála lágche is more correct. This is Rarhi Bengali. Here the accusative is in effect, thus the second case. Whatever is being used in the living language has to be accepted as correct. A grammar created in imitation of an old language cannot be accepted as correct. Six hundred years ago “thou” was used to mean “you”, but nowadays it has practically vanished. Now “you” is used in place of “thou”. In those days “thou” was used in the singular and “you” in the plural, however nowadays “you” is used for both singular and plural. In the case of the singular, “is” was correct and there is no logic to support the use of the plural verb “are” for the singular but it is used because the people have accepted its usage. In French at one time the word tu was used for the polite form of “you”, now vous is used.

The Sanskrit word bhaván has now been replaced by tvam. Bhaván has practically disappeared nowadays. The word bhaván is a little like the Farsi word tashrif. The exact meaning of the word bhaván is not tumi [you – familiar form] or tvam, nor is it ápani [you – polite form]. It signifies “your greatness”. Like the Farsi áiye tashrif láiye, bhaván kiḿ karoti, means “What is your greatness doing?”. Here bhaván is third person singular. “Your greatness” is the addressee, thus the verb form is third person singular. Sanskrit bhaván → Prákrta appana (the thirty-five hundred year old form) → Angika apne → Bengali ápani. In the villages of eastern Bengal one still hears ápane ki kairatyásen. In old Bengali we find:

Appane raci raci bhavanirváńá
Michá loen bandhávae apaná

I was saying that for feelings the first case is used. In Calcutta Bengali one says ámi bhálabási and in Rarhi Bengali one says mu bhálabási. In Calcutta Bengali we use the verb bási when we say ámi bhálabási but there is no other instance in which the verb bási is used. However in Rarhi Bengali the verb bási is always used for feelings. For example, mui bhálabási [I love], mui láj bási [I feel shy], mui d́ar bási [I’m afraid], mui jáŕ bási [I feel cold], and so on. The verb bási is a Rarhi Bengali verb. In Calcutta láj bási, d́ar bási, jáŕ bási, etc. are not used. Anyhow, the use of the third person active voice for feelings and perceptions does not hold for tastes. In other words, I have not seen ámi jhál [spicy] bási, ámi t́ak [sour] bási, and so on, being used.

In many languages the second case is used to denote direction. It is also considered to be the second case in those languages in which a separate form is not used. Se kalkátáy tháke [He stays in Calcutta] – here kalakátáy is locative, thus the use of the seventh case. However if we say se kalkátáy jácche [He is going to Calcutta] it indicates direction. Here, although we write it with the seventh case-ending, the seventh is actually used for the second. In English we use “to” in the phrase “He is going to Calcutta”. It is the second case. In Oriya and Rarhi Bengali the second case is used. For example, in central Rarhi one says gharke jáva [I will go home]. In Oriya it is gharku jivi. Similarly, kutháke gelche go? – ghát́ke gelche [Where has he gone? He has gone home].

There is a Bhádugán [a type of traditional folk-song] in Hooghly District which contains these lines:

Sát bhádute jalke gela ámár bhádu kunt́i go?
Sát bhádute gharke ela, ámár bhádu ká’r váŕii?

[Seven damsels went to the water. Which one is my nearest? Seven damsels came back home. Where is my dearest?]

This is all second case.

Rabindranath has also written:

Belá je paŕe ela jalke cala

In these circumstances the second case is not used in standard Bengali. The seventh or the first case is used instead. For example, se varddhamán jácche or else se varddhamáne jácche [He is going to Burdwan]. We say Rám báŕii jácche [Rám is going home], not Rám báŕiike jácche. Báŕii is accusative but the first case-ending is used. One has to apply one’s intellect in order to determine when the seventh case indicating presence is being used, or when it is the first case implying the nominative, or when it is the seventh indicating direction, and so on. If one says Rám bhát khácche then one has to use one’s intellect to understand whether Ram is eating the rice or whether the rice is eating Ram. The eater is the nominative and that which is being eaten is the accusative. When one says “He is going to Calcutta” in English, then “to” is used to make it accusative, but in “He is drinking water” neither “to” nor any other preposition is used although “water” is accusative. “Ram” is in the nominative although as with “water” there is no preposition either before or after to indicate this. In old English “to”, “toward”, “unto”, “upon”, “on” were used in the second case. Nowadays this is no longer so much the case, although in refined English this usage still continues to some extent.

In Oriya and Rarhi Bengali if direction is not implied then karmmańi dvitiiyá usage is not in force. In Rarhi Bengali Siitá jalke jávek [Sita will go to the water] but Siitá bhát khecche [Sita is eating rice]. Here bhátke khecche is not used because direction is not implied. In the majority of cases in Hindi karmmańi dvitiiyá is not followed regardless of whether or not direction is implied. In such cases the accusative has to be recognized although the second case-ending is not employed. For example, Rám bhát khá rahá hae [Ram is eating rice] is used rather than Rám bhátko khá rahá hae (In Hindi both bhát and cával are common), that is, it is accusative but the second case-ending is not employed. In the spoken language of certain areas near Delhi the second case is used but it is not used in the written language. For example, one says ápko kanháko jáná hae but it is written ápko kánhá jáná. And in Hindi if ne is added then the verb changes according to the gender of the object. One has to remember that the verb does not change according to the gender of the subject but rather according to the gender of the object. Thus I said that when ne is added the doership of the subject no longer remains. It is transformed into the half-accusative case and the object also does not remain accusative. It is transformed into the half-nominative. In the case of feelings also, Hindi and Urdu use the second case – if not in all situations then certainly in most. For example, bakreká pasiindá ápko pasand hae ná. In Bengali in such an example the sixth case is generally employed, not the second, although there is some difference from dialect to dialect.

In Hindi and Urdu one does not use the second case to indicate direction. In Hindi one says Vah ghar já rahá hae [He is going home] – not gharko. However in the chaste Hindi of some areas near Delhi ko is used. For example, ápko kánháko jáná hae jii [Where are you going, sir?]? Adding ko is correct from the grammatical point of view but it is omitted when writing. So one can say mujhko dená in Hindi for “give me” but the idiomatic expression is mujhe dená. And nowadays one says mereko dená jii but one writes mujhe dená. In the same way mujhko málum nehii [I don’t know] is not altogether wrong from the grammatical point of view, however mujhe málum nehii, that is, the seventh case, is more proper.

Let us move on to the third case. It is said karańe trtiiyá, that is, the instrumental case is the third case. Is this always so? In Sanskrit it is. There is a Sanskrit sútra which says sahayoge trtiiyá, that is, by adding the word saha [with] we get the third case. This does not hold true in Bengali. In Sanskrit one says bhaván mayá saha calatu but in Bengali we say ámár saunge calun [come with me]. In other words, in Bengali we get the sixth case genitive by adding saha. Thus in Bengali the rule that the instrumental case is always the third case does not hold true. If anyone says this in Bengali they will be mistaken, nor is it a fact that it is the gospel truth in Sanskrit either. In English one says “come with me”, that is, the second case. In Hindi and Urdu one says mere sáth á jáo. Here it is the sixth case. Thus adding the word saha does not always make it the third case.

This reminds me of something concerning the learning of languages. The spoken language must be also learned while one is learning a language. For example, in English we write “come with me” but the actual pronunciation in the spoken language is “come’ith me”. Similarly, in English we write “it will cost ten pence” but in the spoken language it becomes “it is ten pennworth”. And Dayá kare ámáke Dilli jábár sekeńd́ kláser ek pit́her ekt́i t́ikit́ din [Could you please give me a second class single journey ticket for Delhi?] becomes “A Delhi second single please.”

One has to study the spoken language while learning a language but it seems that spoken English is not properly taught in the English courses in schools and colleges. Moreover it is important to study idiomatic expressions when studying English. I have heard a Bengali professor say kyával, áslo, ise, cád, phád, pác, giyechilám ná [various mistakes]. Those who are teaching others should pay a little attention to what they themselves are doing. They should especially steer clear from vulgar mistakes in their pronunciation. Sha, śa and sa should be correctly pronounced. Pronouncing mess “mech”, recent “rechent”, etc. is reprehensible.

In Bengali also there are differences in the spoken language. To indicate many things together we use the plural word guli in Bengali. In south Bengal they say guli for the plural; in Rarh they say gulán (for example, in the spoken language of Birbhum: chágalgulán bándhá railen, má t́hákruń dekho [look mother, the goats were tied up]); in north Bengal guŕi; and in east Bengal gulon. In Calcutta Bengali guli is used respectfully and gulo disrespectfully. For example, chelegulo bakát́e haye geche [the boys have become wayward]; cheleguli kata bhála [How good those boys are!].

There are also differences regarding the use of ná in a negative sentence in the spoken Bengali of certain areas. Ná is placed after the verb in all areas except where Raḿpuri and Rarhi Bengali is spoken; in Rarhi and Raḿpuri Bengali it can go either before or after the verb. For example in Rarhi Bengali one can say mui páirabu nái (páirabo is also common) or mui nái páirabu – in Raḿpurii mu ná párim or mu párima ná. It should be remembered that ná always goes after the verb in standard Bengali. In some important languages the ná goes before the verb. Bengali is more or less an exception. For example, “I will not go”, maen nehii jáuṋgá, ahaḿ na gamisyámi, hamma nyay jáivek, ham na jáiva, but in Bengali ámi jáva ná. Here ná is placed after the verb. When studying the spoken language one has to learn the customary practice.

Anyhow, I was talking about the third case. In Sanskrit saha is added in the instrumental, and for other cases it is the third. In Bengali there are few examples of the work of the instrumental being done by another but occasionally its job is managed by using the words saunge or káche. For example: Se rákśaser viruddhe laŕái karche [He is fighting with the demon.]. We can also say it this way: Se rákśaser saunge laŕái karche. Likewise, Tomáder parer klás ki ámár káche áche? [Is your next class with me?]. In all of these the word “with” is used in English. But in English the meaning of the sentence changes depending on the preposition. For example, “put off”, “put on”, “read”, “read out”, and so on. Thus prepositions must be used carefully. When the container is referred to then either “with” or “in” can be used, but when the contained is referred to then “in” is used. For example, “The Sundarbans abound in (or ‘with’) tigers.” In this case the Sundarbans is the container. But “Tigers abound in the Sundarbans”.

I have just said that if one does not know how to use prepositions correctly in English then it creates ambiguity or confusion. When there is a comparison between two entities then the word “between” is used, for example, “between Ram and Shyam”. However if the comparison is between more than two then the words “among” or “amongst” are used. Nevertheless, nowadays one easily uses any of these when and where one wishes. There is nothing anyone can say about it.

The same kind of waywardness in the use of words can be seen in spelling as well. Due to an improper understanding of prefix, root word and suffix, many letters are considered extraneous and get omitted. This happens in English more than anywhere else. “Co” – “nect” + “ion” = “connection”. Those who are unacquainted with the root throw out letters as they please that they consider extraneous when they spell it. For example, “conexion”. Similarly, “labour”, “honor” or “onor”, putting a small “i” in place of a capital “I”, “yoghurt” instead of “curd” and so on. Of course, when it comes to spelling one should follow the rules. If not it creates confusion. This confusion will harm the literature and consequently the social consciousness will suffer.

In the case of comparison, when two entities are of the same kind then “compare with” is used, for example, a comparison of the Alps with the Himalayas. However when two things of opposing natures are compared, for example, the Himalayas and the Indian Ocean, then “compare to” is used. Of course, an English synonym for “compare to” is “contrast”.

Even many educated people confuse the use of the English prepositions “in”, “on”, and “to”. For instance, the Punjab, Pakistan and Iran are all west in regards to India. However three different prepositions will be used to indicate this. Although the Punjab is in the west, it is within India, thus “The Punjab is in the west”; Pakistan is outside India but it is bordering India, thus it will be “on the west”; and Iran is west but not bordering, that is, there is a separation, thus it is “to the west”. Bear in mind that even though Punjab appears to be a proper noun, “the” is placed before it, that is, it is written “the Punjab” because the word paiṋjáb means “a collection of the waters of five rivers”. Thus although it is a proper noun, it is not a true proper noun. Along with “to”, “upon”, “on”, “unto”, “into”, etc. are indicators of the second case in English. They are extensively used in Biblical English, however by the late Victorian age the use of “unto” had practically ceased and the use of “upon” had diminished significantly. There is, however, a need for both “upon” and “into” to remain in use. In olden times “into” was used in the sense of going inside from outside and “in” was used for “remaining inside”. For example, “He is entering into the room”. Similarly there was a significant difference between “on” and “upon” as well. “On” meant “above but touching” while “upon” meant “above but not touching”. “The glass is on the table” but “The ceiling fan is upon the table”. I have just said that in modern English “unto” is no longer used and “upon” is falling into disuse. “Into” is also being used less. Naturally there is nothing to say about what is happening but it will lead to difficulty in expression and ambiguity or confusion.

The other day I talked about the use of Farsi words in Bengali. At that time I mentioned that Farsi words have entered Bengali to such an extent that it is futile to try to keep them out of the language.

The Bengali word ákádamii is originally Farsi – ákádamii in Farsi and “academy” in English. Similarly, the Vedic vriihi became rici in Latin and its English derivation is “rice”. I have seen many pandits try to pass off the word ákádamii as Latin. Of course, the word is now Latin but it was originally Farsi. Although the word nocturn is considered Latin it comes from the Vedic word nactram. Among other Farsi words, we have hámán-distá and mashallá. The substance called “vinegar” which is used in cooking nowadays is known as sirká (chirká) in Farsi. The word páyá [officer, rank] is also a Farsi word but the word pinŕi is a native Bengali word (in some places people say pinŕe also). The word shaláh from the Bengali word shaláparámarsha is Farsi and it means “advice” – shaláh-i parámarsha – shaláh-parámarsha (nityasamása). The tábij [armlet] that one ties around the wrist is also a Farsi word. In addition to these there are many more Farsi words in Bengali. Most of them have entered Bengali in altered form or else have undergone alteration after becoming Bengali or else an effort has been made to change them into Sanskrit. Whatever the case may be, it is better not to try to remove them from Bengali.