Contents |
Index
|
Introduction
|
Contents
|
List of Plates
|
Additions and Corrections
|
Images
|
Contents |
Chaudhury, P.D.
|
Chhabra, B.ch.
|
DE, S. C.
|
Desai, P. B.
|
Dikshit, M. G.
|
Krishnan, K. G.
|
Desai, P. B
|
Krishna Rao, B. V.
|
Lakshminarayan Rao, N., M.A.
|
Mirashi, V. V.
|
Narasimhaswami, H. K.
|
Pandeya, L. P.,
|
Sircar, D. C.
|
Venkataramayya, M., M.A.,
|
Venkataramanayya, N., M.A.
|
Index-By A. N. Lahiri
|
Other
South-Indian Inscriptions
|
Volume
1
|
Volume
2
|
Volume
3
|
Vol.
4 - 8
|
Volume 9
|
Volume 10
|
Volume 11
|
Volume 12
|
Volume 13
|
Volume
14
|
Volume 15
|
Volume 16
|
Volume 17
|
Volume 18
|
Volume
19
|
Volume
20
|
Volume 22 Part 1
|
Volume
22 Part 2
|
Volume
23
|
Volume
24 |
Volume
26
|
Volume 27 |
Tiruvarur
|
Darasuram
|
Konerirajapuram
|
Tanjavur |
Annual Reports 1935-1944
|
Annual Reports 1945- 1947
|
Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum Volume 2, Part 2
|
Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum Volume 7, Part 3
|
Kalachuri-Chedi Era Part 1
|
Kalachuri-Chedi Era Part 2
|
Epigraphica Indica
|
Epigraphia Indica Volume 3
|
Epigraphia Indica Volume 4
|
Epigraphia Indica Volume 6
|
Epigraphia Indica Volume 7
|
Epigraphia Indica Volume 8
|
Epigraphia Indica Volume 27
|
Epigraphia Indica Volume 29
|
Epigraphia Indica Volume 30
|
Epigraphia Indica Volume 31
|
Epigraphia Indica Volume 32
|
Paramaras Volume 7, Part 2
|
Śilāhāras Volume 6, Part 2
|
Vākāṭakas Volume 5
|
Early Gupta Inscriptions
|
Archaeological
Links
|
Archaeological-Survey
of India
|
Pudukkottai
|
|
|
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA
of Taila II : Śaka 902.[1] That the Grantha and the Kannaḍa scripts of the inscription under
study can individually be assigned on palaeographical grounds to the end of the 10th century
A. C. leaves no doubt that the epigraph must be assigned to this very period. Except palaeographical indications the record does not afford any clue for fixing its date ; it bears no date nor
does it refer itself to the reign of any king, whose dynasty is specified.
Among the orthographical features may be noticed the use of a superfluous anusvāra in
the following cases : taṁuna (line 18), =ettuvoḍaṁm=ēnānuvaṁ (line 24). The class nasal is used in
kanda (line 7), nandana (line 12), etc., while it is replaced by the anusvāra in akkum=eṁdu (line 9),
paṁcha (line 17), etc. The consonants following the rēpha are doubled in =ā-chandr-ārkkaṁ
(line 6), dharmma (line 17), ūrmme (line 26).
The chief importance of the record lies in the contribution it makes to our knowledge of the
state of Kannaḍa language and prosody in the period to which it belongs, i.e., 10th century
A. C. Consequently, the special linguistic and metrical features and peculiarities found in the
record are discussed at some length here.
The language of the inscription, except that of verse 1 which is in Sanskrit, is old Kannaḍa interspersed with a few forms of middle Kannaḍa, viz., -aḍe (line 7), ippa (line 10), toreya (line 13).
Of these -aḍe comes from the older morpheme -oḍe and ippa is derived, through assimilation from
irpa, of old Kannaḍa. The accusative morpheme –an of old Kannaḍa has dropped its final nasal
in toreya. The retroflex mid-palatal l characteristic of Dravidian, is correctly employed. The
retroflex r occurs quite regularly. In beṭṭaṁ (line 12) the nominative is used instead of the
accusative beṭṭam-aṁ. Ildudaṁ<irdudaṁ towards the end of line 11 is a case of back-formation
based on analogy and is obviously not correct. Such wrong usages are frequently seen in inscription as well as old Kannaḍa manuscripts.[2] Kēśirāja (1260 A. C.) expressly prohibits the pronunciation of r + consonant as l + consonant while admitting that older poets have used the
two for the purpose of rhyme.[3] This suggests that there was a widespread practice among the
common folk of pronouncing the r + consonant cluster as l + consonant group and it may be this
that has prompted the composer, the scribe or the engraver, or possibly all the three, to use the
form ildudaṁ in the present record.
-Uṁ and -aṁ, the conjunctive morphemes of old Kannaḍa are seen here in more than one
context. One of them attaches itself to all the members entering into a conjunction and the last
one takes on the required case suffix, the rest being in the nominative. While interpreting, the
case suffix must be deemed to be present in all the other members also. As instances (1) mane-yu
nandana-vanavum-aṁ māḍisi (ll. 12-13), (2) pasuvuṁ brāhmaṇaruma (l. 19), (3) pullaḍakkan=ettuvo-ḍaṁ m=ēnānuvaṁ=biḍidoḍa (l. 24) may be quoted from the inscription. In the first two the particle
-uṁ is used and in the third the particle -aṁ is used in ettuvoḍam and is absent in biḍidoḍa, the
second member. Such usage as this is rather rare in Kannaḍa, more so in verse than in prose.4
According to the grammarians, though not expressly so stated, all the members in conjunction
must have the conjunctive particle as also the case suffix.
_________________________________________________
[1] Ibid., pp. 1 ff. and plate.
[2] Adalde<adarde :A Grammar of the Oldest Kanarese Inscriptions by Dr. A. N. Narasimhia, p. 256, No. 21 of
about 700 A. C., pelchuge<perchuge, ibid, p. 256, 1. 8 of about 675 A. C., peldore<perdore, above, Vol. XII,
p. 294, ildi<irān, above, Vol. XIII, Niḍugandi inscription, 1. 16, of 1107 A. C., Ed. L. D. Barnett, etc.,
manuscripts of Vaḍḍārādhane : earliest date 1403 A. C. poḷdidom<pordidom.
[3] Śabdamaṇidarpaṇa (Ed. Kittel, Rev. 1920), sūtra 24.
[4] See Vaḍḍārādhane (Prose work of the 10th century) Ed. D. L. Narasimhachar : balmeyuṁ valitanamuṁ
sāhasamuṁ gaṇḍa-guṇamu-man=ariyal-akkuṁ p. 29, lines 25-26, Purigere-mūnūruṁ Beḷvola-mūnūruṁ Banarase,
pannirchchhāsiramuth Kundūr-sāstramumaṁ : Bombay Karnatak Inscriptions, Vol. I, part II (S. I I., Vol. XI,
part II) Ed. N. Lakshminarayan Rao, No. 127, line 8.
|