|
The Indian Analyst
|
South Indian Inscriptions |
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA
The language of the inscription is Sanskṛit, and the whole is in prose. In respect of
orthography, we may notice the use, already mentioned above, of the lingual ḷ in the words
pâḷî, l. 1, pranâḷî,[1] ll. 2 and 9 (but not in pranâḍyâ, l. 9), and vyâḷa, l. 10 ; the exceptional
doubling of p before r in pâda-ppratisparddhi- and supprativihita-ppranâḷî-, both in line 2,
and of t and n before y in prabhṛitty=avihata-, l. 9, and kannyâ-, l. 15 (but not e.g. in ºrûpa-pratîº,l. 6, mahaty=upaº,l. 3, and parjjanyêna, l. 5) ; the insertion (occasionally found in later
inscriptions from the south) of an anusvâra before nv and my in marufhaṁnvaº,l. 8, and
abhigaṁmya, l. 9 ; and the use (common enough everywhere) of tv instead of ttv, in satv-âdibhiḥ, l. 14, and atimahatvâd=, l. 17. There is, besides, a certain want of uniformity in the
writing, shown by the facts that, after r, consonants (excepting sibilants) are doubled 38 times
but left single 29 times ; that, in the interior of simple words before ch, t, d, etc., the special
nasal of a class is used 12 times and anusvâra 8 times ; and that at the end of a word, before
following s, visarga is left unchanged 6 times and changed to s three times. With reference to the
external saṁdhi it may also be noted that no less than 10 times the rules concerning the combination of final with following initial vowels have been disregarded, even where two words
are closely connected in sense (as e.g. in parjjanyêna êkâtṇava-bhûtâyâm=, l. 5, -âv[i]dûrayâ
anutsâdanât=, l. 12) ; that before an initial vowel anusvâra is three times written instead of m
(as e.g. in nadînâṁ atimâtr-, l. 6) ;[2] and that in râjñaḥ Chaṁdraº,l. 8, visarga has been left
unchanged before ch. And as regards the internal saṁdhi, the dental n has been wrongly used
instead of the lingual ṇ in –ânurâgêna, l. 13, and Surâshṭrânâṁ, l. 18.[3] These two last may
of course be mere clerical errors ; and so no doubt are –vôgêna for –vêgêna, in line 7, rakshaṇ-ârtha for rakshaṇ-ârthaṁ, in line 9, nîrvyâjam=avajîty-avajîtya for nirvyâjam=avajity-âvajitya
in line 12, and very probably tasmi[4]for tasmin=, in line 9, and kôśâ for kôśân=, in line 16.
The î of vîśad-uttarâṇy= in line 7 may be ascribed to the influence of the influence of the Prâkṛit vîsa ; what the
author intended was viṁśad-uttarâṇy=, where viṁśat would have been used for viṁśavi in
accordance with the practice of literary works like the Râmâyaṇa.[5] In -âv[i]dûrayâ, l. 12, for
and similarly the syllable kṛi may have been omitted in Mauryasya tê, l. 8, for which I propose
to read Mauryasya kṛitê.─ Looking at the language in general, what strikes one at once is the
extreme dearth of verbal forms. In the text as preserved there are only two finite verbs, vartatê
in line 3 and âsît in line 7, and even in its complete state the inscription could not have contained more than four such verbs, viz., in addition to the two just mentioned, probably
another âsît in line 8, and perhaps one verb in line 9. This scarcity of verbs will cause no
surprise to the reader of classical prose works. While the chapter on conjugation taken the
comparatively largest share of a Sanskṛit grammar and presents considerable difficulties to the
student, prose writers often employ only a few of the most common verbs and easiest verbal
derivatives. On the other hand ─ and here again our text agrees with some of the best prose
[1] This word is ordinarily spelt praṇâḍî or praṇâlî.─ Attention may perhaps be drawn also to the spelling of
taḍâka, l. 1, and vaiḍûrya, l. 14. This last word, according to the Nâgarî MSS. of Pâṇini’s Ashṭâdhyâyî and of
the Mahâbhâshya and the Kâśikâ-Vṛitti on P. IV. 3, 84, would have to be spelt vaidûrya ;but the Kaśmîr MSS.
known to me derive it from viḍûra. Vaiḍûrya also is the reading of the MSS. of Hêmachandra’s grammar
which I have compared. In Pâli the word is veḷuriya.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|