________________
INTRODUCTION
both of which are rightly noticed by Rt (see Rt. II. 2. 13). Rt further notices the use of ahuni adhunā which is absent in Mk's work. Mk allows the conjunct -cch to become sch (Mk XII. 7) while Rt makes it sc Rt. II. 2.18). This rule of Rt is in conformity with that of Hc (IV. 295.) Again Rt prefixes y to every letter of the ca group and also in the case of conjuncts ( Rt. II. 2,19 ) while Mk limits the same to the letters ca and ja only (cajayor upari yaḥ syat, XII. 21.7). Rt has 'kuycchimadi' whereas Mk has kucchimadi' for the same word in Sanskrit, kukṣimatī. Again eccording to Rt the equivalent of the root stha is ycinţă unlike scința according to Mk (XII. 32).
These are some of the striking differences between the two authors which go to show the least possibility of one having consulted the work of the other. But this much is certain that both of them as well as Pu had one and the same source for composing their own grammars. As has been rightly remarked by PISCHEL, Mk has drawn a line of sharp distinction between Mahārāṣṭrī and Sauraseni. This is not only true of Mk but also of Rt and Pu. But as has been rightly observed by NITTI, one important group of Sutras dealing with the personal pronoun (Mk. IX. 87-94) is almost lacking in both Pu and Rt (see Les Gram. p.116) Mk has treated Sauraseni on 158 Sutras divided into nine prakaranas on the line of the treatment of Maharāṣṭrī. The standard forms which are permissible in Mahārāṣṭrī are prohibited in Sauraseni. This has been nicely dealt with by Mk who draws his illustrations
151
7. See GRIERSON's article The Pronunciation of Pkt palatals' JRAS, 1913 and his notes on this in IA (1928) pp. 30ff.
8.
Grammatik, 40
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
