Paumchariu Part 1

SR No.: 002523
Original Sutra Author: Swayambhudev
Author: H C Bhayani
Publisher: ZZZ Unknown
Publication Year: 1953
Total Pages: 458
Language: Sanskrit, English
Classification: Book_Devnagari & Literature
File Size: 11 MB

Page 93

52
PAUMACARIU
cation. SC. quotes the following lines 'under the name of Caturmukha to illustrate the non-position making character of an Anusvāra appearing on the end syllable of a word:
haum Ajjuņu, tumha, eum raņu/SC. IV 2 (a).
Compare with this the second Pada in the following Ghatta found in the 11. Kadavaka of the 67. Sandhi (Jayadrathavadha) of RC.: kuru paccāriu Ajjuņeņa te tumhaim, so haum, eu ranu.
rakkaho sisu Jayaddahaho, lai dharahu savvu maim ekku khaņu.
The resemblance of b in the above with the line cited in SC. is unmistakable. A close study of the two epics of Svayambhū may reveal some more such resemblances.
6. GRAMMATICAL PECULIARITIES OF PC. I-XX
I. Orthogrphy $1. Manuscripts of Apabhramsa texts are notorious for their erratic orthography. Not only different Mss. of a particular text spell a particular word differently but one and the same Ms. is disconcertingly inconsistent with regard to the spelling of one and the same word. Five factors are responsible for most of these vagaries of Apabhramśa orthography: defective alphabet, defective calligraphy, dialectal variation, modernization and scribal ignorance. Short e and o, the Anunāsika, nasalized vand yasruti and vaśruti are characteristic of the Apabhramsa sound system, while they are unknown to the phonetic system of Sanskrit. No new characters, however, are developed to represent them. They are expressed by the characters for their phonetic near-equivalents. Short e and o are represented either by ē and õ thus sacrificing the quantity, or by i and u, thus sacrificing the quality, of the original sounds. The Anunāsika is written either as an Anusvāra, or is omitted altogether. m, mv and v with or without the nasilization of the preceding vowel alternatively stand for the nasalized v, Y and v serve to express ya-śruti and va-sruti or the latter are not expressed at all.
$2. Secondly, we can well understand what a fruitful source of confusion can hurried, careless or obscure handwriting prove, when textual transmission was solely dependent upon copying on the part of successive generations. This applies to the copyists who were ignorant of the language of their Mss. On the other hand an educated copyist is also liable to alter the text, if he claims some literary interest. The potentiality of the copyist for altering the original text assumes greater significance if we remember the fact that the language of these texts was in certain particulars not far removed from the spoken language of the day, which was constantly but subtly changing from generation to generation and hence it was quite easy and natural for an ordinary scribe to substitute for the the original form, a developed or dialectical form which but slightly varied from the original. This substitution was hardly a conscious process, so that the modernization worked in a random fashion, and as in most cases we possess the MSS. whose copying date is removed by several centuries from the date of composition
copyist is also likes of their Mss.es to the copyists on the part
(1) Critical description and studies of the grammatical facts of Ap. will be found
in Jacobi, 1918, 1921; Alsdorf, 1928, 1936, 1937; Bhayani, 1945; Tagare, 1948.