North Indian Inscriptions

INTRODUCTION

simultaneously is bhikshuṇi^[1]. According to T. Michelson^[2] and Lüders^[3], the –kh- forms are the eastern and the –chh- forms are the western ones, because this distinction is clearly shown by the Eastern and Western inscriptions of Aśoka^[4]. Recently H. Berger has put forward this view in a modified form. He states that ksh>chchh is not found in the east, in Māgadhī. The change of ksh>chchh in the central and western dialects in a number of instances is explained by him not as the result of a spontaneous dialectic tendency but is taken as the result of ‘certain phonetic conditions’; accordingly in all such cases where ksh becomes chchh, he tries to find out the phonetic conditions which govern the change (see Berger l.c. p.71 ff. and p. 86). So while in the opinion of S. K. Chatterji, ksh becomes chchh in bhikshu (ṇi), because of the habit to pronounce this word as bhikshyu(ṇī), according to H. Berger the chchh is the result of dissimilation of the two gutturals in the form bhikshuka> bhikkhuka. But this seems unlikely, as the word bhikshuka does not occur in Buddhist literature and in Prakrit inscriptions, and even in Sanskrit literature it is not very old. It is more reasonable to suppose that the double treatment shows the different speech habits of the regions from which the monks (or nuns) came, or of the scribes who were responsible for recording the donations. The Eastern form bhikkhu gradually must have gone over to the other regions as it was an ecclesiastical term, cf. also Lüders, Bhārh. p. 174.

(I) Instances for ksh>kh are dakshiṇa->dakhina- B 26, yaksha->yakha- B 1, B 3 etc.^[5]; Ṛishirakshita>Isirakhita A 50, A 53, A 87, A 88^[6]; bhikshuṇi>bhikhuni A 11, A 12, A 29 etc.
(II) Instances of the Western change of ksh>chh are found mostly in the parallels for the Sk. word bhikshuṇī ; cf. bhichhuni A 24, A 37, A 42, A 43, A 74, etc. It may be interesting to observe that this change takes place when the (ab. or) gen. suffix is –ye or –ya. It never shows this form with the suffix –yā.
Words other than bhichhuni in which palatalisation of ksh is found are Chula- (Kshudra-) B 11, sechha- (śaiksha-) B 45^[7] and kuchhi- (kukshi) B 62.^[8]
Perhaps the word for ‘ six ’ chha B 26, and B 49, is to be equated with *kshaṭ.^[9] §14. Cerebralisation : Not many instances of cerebralisation are witnessed in these inscriptions. The only instances available are paṭisaṁdhi (prati-) B 18, aṭha (artha) A 108, paṭhama (prathama) A 34, Bhogavaḍhaniya (-vardhana) A 51, Sthāna>*Ṭhāna>Ṭana A 127 (for cerebralisation of n sec §12 c above).

   §15. Sibilants : As in the case of the Prakrits of the midland all the three sibilants are reduced to the single dental sibilant without any exception ; cf. Ajātasatu (-śatru) B 40, sisa
___________________________

^[1] The word bhikshu : bhikkhu, bhichchhu does not occur in the Bhārhut inscriptions. Both the Prakrit forms, however, occur in the Sāñchī inscriptions.
^[2] FAOS., 30, 88.
^[3] Bhārh., p. 173 ff. See also Reichelt in Stand und Aufgaben der Sprachwissenschaft (Festschrift Streitberg, 1924) p. 244 ; J. Bloch, La Formation de la Langue Marathe p. 111 ff.; S. K. Chatterji, The Origin and Development of the Bengali Language, Calcutta, 1926, p. 469.
^[4] Mehendale, Historical Grammar of inscriptional Prakrits, Poona 1948, §37 (iii) and f. n. 42.
^[5] We have also yakhila A 105, yakhi B 2, A 116, yakhini B 10.
^[6] We have also Agirakhita A 23; Gorakhita A 46 ; A 68, Devarakhita A 93; Dhamarakhita A 95, A 118; Nāgarakhitā A 4, [Na]garakhita A 54 b, Budharakhita A 55, A 57, A 58, A 76; Bhutarakhita A 31 ; Sagharakhita A 108.
^[7] Acc. to Lüders sechha is the western form, whereas sekha is the eastern one. See Bhārh. p. 174 and below p. 124. H. Berger (p. 86) says that the palatal in sechha does not conform to his theory, which demands sekha and that the word is therefore an exception which cannot be explained.
^[8] Acc. to Berger the palatal in kuchhi is due to dissimilation to avoid the second guttural (kukhi), p. 72.
^[9] In the opinion of H. Berger the palatal in chha should have first developed, when this word followed an anusvāra at the end of the preceding word in a sentence. According to him there was a tendency in the Indo-Aryan to avoid the sequence of a nasal and a sibilant. p. 70.