Some Topics in the Development of OIA MIA NIA

SR No.: 001575
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: H C Bhayani
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad
Publication Year: 1997
Total Pages: 154
Language: English
Classification: Book_English, Language, & Grammar
File Size: 7 MB

Page 73

for various senses of pahuppai we think this is due to usual semantic change. We explain also pahuppai analogically, as has been done by Jacobi, Turner etc. Tieken's objections ('Hāla's Sattasai', 1983, p. 196) also to deriving Pk. pahuttafrom Sk. prabhuta- are not valid. The same applies to his view regarding parālutta-. He says, the derivation suggested by Weber from bhutta (.....Hem. II. 99. hutta for bhüta) fails to convince from the point of the meaning as well as from the fact that hutta for bhata does not actually occur'. But we think pahutta- and parāhutta derive from Sk. prabhata- and parabhūta- (= parii + bhota- i.e. paranmukha-). Eventhough the derivation of -hutta < Sk. mukha- in amtohutta- (= adhomukha also according to DN. 1.21), parahutta-, gharahutta-, piyahuttaetc. is wrong: its derivation from -vítta- (Insler, p. 101), is unconvicing
P. 21 Tessitori has explained OG. ppp. in -dha- as phonological development ("Grammar of Old Western Rajasthani', $126 (3). M. C. Modi has however favoured analogical explanation following Turner ("Gurjararāsā vali', 1956, word-index, under liddha). He has also accepted Turner's explanation of pahutta-, pahucca-.
Appendix
With regard to the large-scale restructuring that took place in morphology during the MIA. period, the following general observations about the grammatieal change made by Lightfoot in the 'Pinciples of Diachronic Syntax' will be found pertinent :
Peacemeal changes resulting in a complication of a grammar. rendering it as a whole more marked, less highly valued. This is followed by a catastrophe, a major re-analysis of grammar, eliminating the markedness and complexity--the symptoms of such a cataclysmnic restructuring will be a set of simaltaneous but apparently unrelated changes (p. 78).
Grammars practise therapy, not prophylaxis i.e. changes take place, which, while perhaps having therapeutic effect in one area of grammar, contribute to derivational opacity elesewhere..... When the