Kansvaho

SR No.: 001886
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Rama Paniwada, A N Upadhye
Publisher: Motilal Banarasidas
Publication Year: 1968
Total Pages: 266
Language: Prakrit, English
Classification: Book_Devnagari, Story, & Literature
File Size: 11 MB

Page 45

xliv
KAMSAVAHO
-jja (bhanejja i. 14). As against PISCHEL's expectation we come across Passive in -iji (kahijjaë i. 15) and Absol. in -una and so also in -ia (gamiūna i. 34, parivedhiūna i. 53 hakkāriä i. 23, samõanniä i. 35 etc.). The 3rd p. sing. termination of the Present is i throughout and never di ; there are only two cases of the softening of t in the 3rd p. sing. of the Imperative (ii. 6, 7). In this text ry is changed to jj and in one case nt. is changed to nd (sujjakandā iii. 14). The above scrutiny does not warrant us to conclude that the dialect of our text is Sauraseni ; but this much is to be admitted that it is sprinkled here and there with what are called Sauraseni characteristics. 42
It is already remarked above that our author closely follows Vararuci's grammar and his dialect fundamentally agrees with the one discussed in the first nine chapters of Präkyta. prakāśa. Hemacandra and others who are indebted to Vararuci call the main dialect by the name Prăkrit. . The 12th chapter of PrākȚta-prakāśa mentions Māhārāstri, but the text, as it is available, shows certain inconsistencies ; so the genuineness of the 12th chapter can be called into question. Other grammarians like Mārkandeya start with Māhārāştri as the basic dialect, and according to their view Vararuci's Prākrit can be called Mahārāştri. Exception is taken to this view, and it is claimed that the Prākrit of Vararuci belongs to Indian Midland, and therefore it should be called Sauraseri ; 12 and this agrees well with the references to Sauraseni in the 10th and 11th chapters. Admitting that it was once the dialect of the Indian Midland, we may still call it Māhārāştri following
41 Being a late work the text of Kansavaho is not likely to be subjected to many changes at the hands of generations of copyists. The study of the dialect leaves the impression that our author did not discriminate one dialect from the other as rigorously as the modern scholars like WEBER, KONOW and others.
42 See the Papers of Drs. CHATTERJI and GHOSH noted above.