Sanskrit Noun‑Inflexion
By Batakrishna Ghosh
Summary
Sanskrit Noun-Inflexion details the flexibility of endings and suffixes in Rgvedic language, where some endings appear supplied from apposed forms (e.g., *ndvyasd* for *ndvyasd*). Certain case-ending alternations with adverbial suffixes (e.g., *hastā* with locative *-tra*) suggest sporadic poetic usage rather than systematic preflexional stages. Sanskrit preserved the original Indo-European case system with minimal syncretism (e.g., *pil* for dative post-Brahmanas). The instrumental plural endings *-bhi* and *-ṛbhi* may reflect merged historical cases for accompaniment and means. The locative plural ending *-su* (Indo-European origin, cf. Avestan *-hsu*) was strengthened by deictic particles (*i*, *u*), later evolving differently across dialects. Vedic shows irregularities like *-si* in dative plural (Greek parallel) and postpositions (e.g., *-4* in locatives). Genitive plural forms like *devan* (beside *devadnam*) are analogical constructs without historical depth. Neuter nominative/accusative plurals in Vedic lack uniform endings, using singular endings collectively, unlike classical Sanskrit’s nasal-inflected *-i* types.
Conclusion
This analysis of Sanskrit noun-inflexion reveals a system marked by remarkable fidelity to the Indo-European case structure, despite isolated instances where endings and suffixes exhibit agglutinative tendencies or functional overlaps. The preservation of distinct nominal and pronominal flexional features, even in later stages, underscores Sanskrit's conservative nature in morphology. While sporadic examples of case-ending alternations or adverbial suffix substitutions (e.g., -tra for locative, -tal for ablative) might suggest fluidity, they are rare and likely poetic or analogical rather than systemic. The study highlights Sanskrit's unique balance: a rigid, well-established flexional framework coexists with subtle innovations, such as the dual instrumental endings (-bhi, -ṣu), hinting at historical layering. These findings reinforce the view that Sanskrit's morphological complexity reflects a fully developed, stable system, preserving core Indo-European features while showcasing distinct dialectal and poetic adaptations.