The Indian Analyst
 

South Indian Inscriptions

 

 

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.

Home Page

>
>