Some Interrogative Particles in Prakrit

Author(s): L A Schwarzshield
Publisher: Z_Mahavir_Jain_Vidyalay_Suvarna_Mahotsav_Granth_Part_1_012002.pdf and Mahavir_Jain_Vidyalay_Suvarna_
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/250312/1

Page #1

Some Interrogative Particles in Prākrit
L. A. SCHWARZSCHILD
NTERROGATIVE particles, such as words meaning 'why' are not
subject to many of the semantic influences that bring about the loss of words, and yet such particles are very liable to change. They are constantly overshadowed by the interrogative pronoun and may often be replaced by more specific and intense expressions such as 'for what reason'. Such expressions are generally emphatic and may even border on slang, as for instance English 'why on earth ?' and
whatever for?' and they are therefore particularly prone to change with linguistic fashions and even with the taste of individual authors. This can be illustrated from Middle Indo-Aryan.
In Sanskrit the sense of why?' was conveyed usually by kasmāt, the ablative singular of the interrogative pronoun; a reason was asked for more specifically by kena käranena 'for what reason ?'. A rather more vague inquiry for a cause could be introduced by the neuter of the interrogative pronoun, kim, which was often strengthened by the addition of the particles u, nu, Ichalu etc. Of these expressions kismát has survived occasionally as kamhā, the ablative singular of the interrogative pronoun in Prakrit, but it was no longer generally used in the sense of 'why?'. In the Svetām bara Jain canon the other two expressions of Sanskrit, kena karañena and kim maintain their popularity, but they are often used in fixed locutions peculiar to the

Page #2

SOME INTERROGATIVE PARTICLES IN PRĀKRIT : 205
canon. The most striking of these locutions is the use of the slightly emphatic and adversative particle se to introduce a question. This particle has been derived by Pischell from Vedic sed, sa+id. This derivation no longer seems tenable on account of the Pāli evidence, as given for instance by M. Mayrhofer, and from the evidence of Middle Indo-Aryan in general : the distribution of the particle se shows it to be quite clearly a Māgadhi form of the neuter singular of the pronoun sa and equivalent to the form tam Page #3

206 : SHRI MAHAVIRA JAINA VIDYALAYA GOLDEN JUBILEE VOLUME
weakened to ji, though in the case of je this change occurred at a somewhat later date and figures mainly in Apabhramsa.4 The weak particle si was only rarely associated with interrogative locutions at this stage, e. g. Lilāvaikaha v. 708 : kattha puņo tam si disihasi—' where indeed will you be seen again ?' Professor A. N. Upadhye in his editions has naturally recognised si as a particle here, but the unknown Jaina author of the vștti has failed to do so, and this in itself may be taken as an indication of the rarity of se > si in the later texts. The interrogative introduced by se must therefore be considered as a characteristic of the style of the Svetām bara Jaina canon.
Another striking feature of interrogation in the Jaina canon, apart from the particle se, is the particle ņam which often follows the interrogative pronouns, e. g., se ke nam jāņai ke puvvim gamaņāe ke pacchă gamanāe-'who indeed knows who is to go first and last ?' (Nayadhammakahão I. 1). It is particularly common with kim, and combines with it to form kinnam-'why?', 'how is it that..?!, e.g. kinnan tumam na jäņasi—' how is it that you do not know ?', and kinnam tumaṁ Devāņuppiyā ohayamanasamkappe jhiyāyasi—'why, beloved of the gods, do you ponder, your mind and spirit dejected?' (Nāyādhammakahão I. 16). There seems little doubt about the origin of this locution from kiñ + nam, and it has a close parallel in jannań < yad +ņam, which is used frequently for instance in the Pannavaņasuttam (11). Sometimes however the final syllable of the particle kinnam has been altered and it appears as kinnä, e.g., kinnā phude (often repeated in Pannavaņāsuttam XV. 1), and tume ņam imâ eyārūvå divvă deviddhi, divve devānubhāve kinnă laddhe-- how is it that this heavenly, divine wealth and these heavenly divine powers have been acquired by you?' (Uvāsagadasão 167). Both kiņņañ and the alternative form kinnā occur occasionally in later Jaina literature and in Māhārāștri. The form kinnā has often been explained as due to the influence of the instrumental kena. It is difficult to believe this in view of the frequency of kinnam which is not noticeably different in use and meaning: the instrumental sense is not really more marked in kinnā than it is in kinnam. The change of final -am to - is by no means unusual especially in a particle (e.g., samiyam,
4 The Indeclinable je in Middle Indo-Aryan', Bharatiya Vidya Vols.
XX-XXI, p. 213. 5 Lilāvai of Koühala, ed. A. N. Upadhye, Singhi Jain Series Vol. 31,
Bombay 1949, pp. 361-362. 6 Pischel, op. cit., p. 304.

Page #4

SOME INTERROGATIVE PARTICLES IN PRĀKRIT : 207
samiya < samyak in Ardhamāgadhi). One might be tempted to quote the Niya form kirna--' whoever', 'whatever' in support of the view that kinnä represents kena, but this Niya word may well represent a generalisation of the neuter form rather than a use of the instrumental for the nominative as suggested by Professor Burrow.8 kinnan and kiņņā mainly belong to Ardhamāgadhi and Jaina Māhāraștri. They are less restricted dialectally in their occurrence than the interrogative se-clauses, and are part of a general tendency to strengthen the particle kim in interrogations. This tendency is continued in the literary Prakrits, and is of course also a feature of Sanskrit. It is noteworthy that in the Prakrit of the dramas the type of strengthening particle used does not vary so much with the dialect of the speaker as with the style of the author : thus kim khu is used by Aśvaghoṣa in the Śäriputraprakarana; kim quite simply or kiṁ nu is preferred in all dialects by Sūdraka in the Mșcchakatika; Bhāsa almost invariably writes kim ņu khu; Kālidāsa uses kiṁ (nu) khu regardless of whether it is in the Mågadhi spoken by the policemen in Sakuntala or whether it in the Sauraseni of the Malavikāgnimitra, and sometimes he uses kim una < kim punah; Rājasekhara in the Karpūramañjarī uses only kim una. The list could be continued, and the Prākrit usage of these authors generally reflects the formulae used for interrogation in Sanskrit by these same authors, e.g., kim nu khalu is prevalent in the Sanskrit text of Bhâsa's dramas. The analysis of the interrogative constructions alone would be sufficient proof-if proof were needed that the literary Prākrits of the drama are highly artificial. The formulae for interrogation in particular reflect fashion and even individual style.
Apart from the three locutions se kena kāraṇena, se kim and kinnam which are so characteristic of the svetāmbara canon, there is another, rarer method of expressing 'why' in the canonical texts, which is nevertheless of interest. This is the phrase kassa heum 'why',
because of what?'. In this phrase it is quite clear that heum was used adverbially just as was nāma ‘by name' in Sanskrit. Edgertono has shown that hetu could be used adverbially both in Pāli and in Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit, and the Prākrit usage lends support to
7 Pischel, op. cit., p. 67. 8 T. Burrow, The Language of the Kharoşthi Documents fram Chinese
Turkestan, Cambridge 1937, p. 35. 9 F. Edgerton, Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Dictionary, New Haven 1953,
s. v. hetu.

Page #5

208 SHRI MAHAVIRA JAINA VIDYALAYA GOLDEN JUBILEE VOLUME
:
this view. Sometimes heum might not appear so readily to be an adverb, as for instance in the phrase kassa nam tam heum 'for what reason is that?' (Suyagadanga II. 7). An analysis of this phrase shows that tam is the pronoun that', and not a pronoun adjective that agrees with heum; the literal translation of the sentence into Sanskrit would be tat kena hetuna. The adverbial use of heum is very clear in the repeated phrases of the Suyagadanga (II. 1) no panassa heum dhammam äikhejjā, no vatthassa heum......no lenassa heum......no sayanassa heum he should not teach the law for the sake of a livelihood, for the sake of clothes, nor for the sake of a house or a bed...'. Apart from the adverbial use of heum, the phrase kassa heum is interesting in that it almost certainly represents a stage in the development of the usual interrogative kisa why?' in Prikrit, Pali kissa. The change of kassa to kissa is easily explicable by the influence of kim 'what', 'why'. The way in which this influence made itself felt can be seen from a Päli Jātaka text10 where kissa is used as a genitive neuter, as opposed to kassa in the masculine. It is not surprising that kim should influence the neuter forms, and particularly that kim 'why?' should influence kassa heum why?' to form kissa (heur), Påli kissa hetu why?'. Examples of this use of kissa are found in the later parts of the Svetämbara canon, e. g., kissa nam tumaṁ mama puttaṁ egante ukkurudiyde ujjhävesi 'why do you cause my son to be abandoned. in a deserted place, a place used for refuse?' (Nirayavaliyão I). With simplification of the double consonant and compensatory lengthening kissa became kisa in Prakrit, and figured as a very usual form of interrogation in Jaina Mähäräştri texts, such as the Vasudevahindi and the Lilävaikaha. It was also used in the Magadhi and Sauraseni of the dramas, but its frequency is very much dependent not on the dialect, but on the individual taste of the author: thus it is absent from Kalidasa's works and rare in the Kuvalayamälä. The form kisa had to some extent become independent of the interrogative pronoun in Jaina Mahārāștri, and did not correspond to the normal genitive form, which. was kassa in the masculine and neuter, and leise, kie in the feminine. kisa became rare in Apabhramsa, but it has survived in the Old. Gujarati as kisd, kiád, which, as K. R. Norman has pointed out, can. hardly be derived from kidṛśa.11
10 W. Geiger, Päli Literatur und Sprache, Strassburg 1916, 111. 11 K. R. Norman, JRAS 1964, p. 67.

Page #6
SOME INTERROGATIVE PARTICLES IN PRAKRIT : 209 The more popular Jaina Maharastri texts already show signs of new developments; thus kiha 'why' appears in the Vasudevahindi (92.16), kiha bihesi 'why are you afraid ?'. This word must probably be explained from katham 'how?' influenced by kim. New forms based on the interrogative pronoun, particularly the neuter plural kain, become prevalent in Apabhramsa, and a new cycle of fixed locutions begins. 1. rown mo Le UU MA 16 ARA GJ.V. 14