________________
138
INTRODUCTION It is noteworthy that it is also found in Old Marathi where the suffix is ūni, ūna etc. Setu has a few examples in ia, which is the recognised absolutive suffix in Sauraseni, but they are not taken as absolutives by all the commentators. Visajjia 6.77 is vissjya acc. to Krsņa, but visșsta acc. to Ramadasa. Ahilta 2.16 is usually taken as an absolutive, but there is a variant reading ahilīņa. Anuhữa 4.24 is taken only by the South Indians as anubhūya, but this is unacceptable. In Setu 11.133 sambharia is taken by several commentators as saņsmộtya, but Madhava disagrees and takes it as a past participle. In 11.92 the same word is construed by Krsna as samsmộta, while Rāmadasa takes it as an absolutive. It may be said on the whole that Setu, like Gauda, avoids the absolutive in ia. Lila (v. 1328) has vandiya (vanditvā), but such forms are rare in that work. Absolutives in ia are found in some of the Mahārāştri verses quoted by Svayambhū,3 Even GS 2.37 has sammilla (sammilya). Nevertheless üņa is the recognised absolutive suffix in Mahārāstri. Some of the forms in Setu are dāūņa 12.28, uppajūņa 8.37, ņāūņa 11.21, ukkariseūņa 15.75, uaūheūņa 11.92, āsāеūņa 11.132, ahileūņa 14.39, vodhūņa 9.75, ņiameūņa 4.55, jeūņa 3.27 etc.
Some of the gerundives used in Setu are samāsasiavva 11. 95, rottavva 11.92, māavva 9.3, uaivva=upajivya 1.31, muņeavva 4.24, soavva 2.10, bhareavva 9.3, lāiavva 15.75, ovatteavva 10.50, okkhandeavva 10.29, gejjha 10,43 etc. : Gerundives are sometimes used as nouns: visammiavva 9.2 (Fanfaat = fa 211A),-hareavva 9,3 (9*4=10), bhareavva 9.3 (Haag=qr), māavva 9.3 (A196=717), rumbhiavva 9.3 (1662 = Frea), uppaiavva 6.78 (Stafaqoq = 39949), mariavva 11.117 (Halbm=ffror), samcariavva 14 28 (#acu). Similar examples are found in GS : 1 e.g., karūni, gheüni, gheuna, leuni, hoūni, hoûna etc. OMR, P. 80; GOM, p. 142, 2 See Extracts 11,133. 3 Svayambhūcchandas p. 20, v, 45; p. 21, v. 48 etc,
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org