|
INTRODUCTION
>*Daḍanikkhama─>Daḍanikama- B 77.
Once –k- seems to have become –v-, due to assimilations, cf. Veṇukagrāma-
> Venuvagima- A 52. jatara B 42 for jataka is obviously a mistake.
(b) The palatals are equally well preserved. The change of –j->-y- is to be noticed
in Mahāsāmājikā->Mahāsāmāyikā- B 18. (For palatalisation see below §13.)
(c) The cerebrals, with the exception of ṇ, are well preserved. The change of -ṭ->-ḍ-
is found once in sāṭikā (or saṭṭaka)>sāḍika- B 27. The change of ṭh>ṭ is
perhaps to be noticed in Sthāna->*Ṭhāna-> Ṭana- A 127, Śreshṭhaka->
Seṭṭhaka->Seṭaka- A 18, sṛishṭotpādāna-(?)>*saṭṭhopādāna->saṭupadāna- A 58,
and the change of -ḍh->-ḍ- is noticed thrice:
Sk. Ashāḍhā>asaḍā B 64, Sk. Virūḍhaka->Viruḍaka- B 4, Sk. Dṛiḍhanishkrama-
>Daḍanikama-[1] B 77.
The cerebral nasal ṇ is, however, in all cases changed to n, except in the inscriptions A 1 and A 2:
Sk. bhāṇaka->bhanaka-or bhānaka- A 39, A 59, A 54a, A 61, A 62, Sk. śramaṇā>
Samanā A 12, sk. brāhmaṇa->bramana- B 51.
Even in term. we have n for ṇ, cf. m[ā]tāpituna A 108. In B 14 we have Vesabhuṇā. But as the gen. sg. term. is no, this is obviously a mistake for Vesabhuno. Now in A 1 and A 2 we find ṇ preserved in the body of the word and in terminations, cf. toraṇa[2] A 2, puteṇa A 1, pauteṇa A 1.
In A 1 we have toranāṁ. The nā, as has been noted in Lüders’ treatment of the
inscription, is obviously a mistake for ṇa. Similarly Vāchhiputena in A 1 may be considered as a mistake for Vāchhiputeṇa. (For cerebralisation see below § 14.)
(d) The dentals show only the following few instances of certain changes :
Change of a surd to sonant is found in two cases :
-t->-d- in Sk. āmravat(a)->Aboda- B 69,
-th->-dh- in Anāthapiṇḍika->Anādhapeḍika- B 32.
The contrary change of a sonant to surd is found in –d->-t- in Sk. Vidura-
>Vitura- B 55. (See the change of –b->-p- below.) -d->-y- in Sk. avādesi>avayesi B 51. Lüders notes that this change is an
eastern peculiarity and shows that the original text of the Gāthās was com-
posed in a dialect of eastern India. On the other hand we get bramano in
the same inscription, and the preservation of the cluster br as well as the
nom. sg. in o are western characteristics.
(e) The labials also show only instances of sporadic changes : -b->-p- in Kubera-
>Kupira- B 1 (see above the change of –d->-t-), b>bh in Sk. bias-> bhisa- B 58.
§ 13. Palatalisation : The instances of palatalisation are not frequent, cf. vidyādhara-
>vijadhara- B 61, Aṅgāradyut-> Āgaraju- A 1, A 2 and yavamadhyakīya>yavamajhakiya B 52.
Perhaps we find palatalisation also in Vātsīputra->Vāchhiputa- in A 1, dhenachhaka B 76< dhenūtsaka-. The cluster ps is palatalized to chh in Sk. apsaras->achharā- B 28, B 30, B 31.
More important is the treatment of the cluster ksh which is sometimes assimilated to
(k)kh, but sometimes palatalished to (ch)chh. The word that shows both the treatments
_________________________
Hultzsch derives it from Daṇḍanishkrama.
But we have torana- in A 129.
|
