Note on the Prakrit Passive

Summary

In this philological note, S.N. Ghosal reviews the debate over whether certain Prakrit passive forms function as active or even future tense. Rudolf Pischel, in his Grammatik der Prakrit-Sprachen, argued that Prakrit sometimes uses passive endings to convey active meaning and cited forms like kijjai from Mārkandeya and from the dramas Mṛcchakaṭika and Veni‑saṃhāra. He even translated Hemacandra’s Apabhraṃśa example kijjess as “I shall make,” suggesting a future sensefile:///home/oai/share/Note_on_the_Prakrit_Passive.pdf#:~:text=Note%20on%20the%20Prakrit%20Passive,the%20passive%20present%20indicative%20can. Ghosal recounts that Ludwig Alsdorf contested this interpretation, insisting that kijjai is a passive first‑person singular meaning “may I be offered” and that Pischel misread the contextfile:///home/oai/share/Note_on_the_Prakrit_Passive.pdf#:~:text=It%2015%20interesting%20to%20note,bbavisyati%20bbuvab%20syatam%20bbaviadi%20bbuviadi. The article reproduces verses and translations from both scholars to show how the disagreement hinges on whether words like bali kijjai should be rendered “I shall make an offering” or “may I be sacrificed.” Ghosal points out that Hemacandra’s grammar appeared centuries after Prakrit ceased to be a living language; thus Pischel’s reliance on it may be misplaced. Turning to linguistic evidence, Ghosal notes that Prakrit passive forms arose by resolving the Sanskrit passive suffix –ya into –ia or –ijja; comparative grammar shows that modern Indo‑Aryan languages form passives by adding –ijja to the stem, producing genuinely passive verbs such as suṅijjai (“he is heard”) and gamijjai (“he is gone”)ribbeanhindustani.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/A_Comparative_Grammar_of_the_Modern_Arya.pdf#:~:text=a%20Prakrit%20passive,In%20Sindhi%20the. The article provides several examples from Apabhraṃśa texts where passive forms with apparent active meaning actually express a wish or self‑offering and are glossed in Sanskrit commentaries as passivesfile:///home/oai/share/Note_on_the_Prakrit_Passive.pdf#:~:text=refer%20also%20%E0%AB%AC%E0%AB%A6%20the%20Sutra,the%20Gandian%20languages%20%C2%A7%20348. Ghosal concludes that Pischel correctly observed that passive forms sometimes substitute for active constructions, but he erred in attributing a future sense; the usage expresses present or optative, not future. Alsdorf’s interpretation, supported by commentaries, better reflects the semantics of the Prakrit passive.