Sandesha Rasaka

SR No.: 002918
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Abdul Rahman, Jinvijay, H C Bhayani
Publisher: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan
Publication Year: 1945
Total Pages: 282
Language: Sanskrit, English
Classification: Book_Devnagari & Literature
File Size: 17 MB

Page 53

SAMDESARĀSAKA
either all the three Mss. of the Sk. have me or all of them liave P. They scarcely differ among themselves. IIence, the principle of determining the probably original spelling by the substantial majority of one sort of variants over those of the other sorts, though fully valid for the Mss. like those of the Hr., does not serve to solve the orthographical tanglo of the Miss. of our text and consequently we have to fall back upon the alternative of assuming in tlie case of the endings like those considered above a varying pronunciation as 'iz ONE The proportion of the nasalised and umnasalised cases (2:3) indicates that the tendency to pronounce the final vowel of this ending unnasalised was comparatively stronger. These remarks are in substance applicable to other cases of nasalization considered below.
§ 4. (2) Genitives. As we shall see under $ 51 A, the Apabhramsa presented by our test too, like the Svetämbara (or Gurjara) Apabhramsa of the San., has the assimilated' genitives. And since in the San. the gen. plur. differs from the sing. only in having the final vowel of the ending nasalized, we can naturally expect to find a parallel state in our text. But the genitive plural forms of the feminine 3-stems only come up to this expectation. They take fe in the singular, and op in the plural. For the rest such a distinction does not exist. The gen. plur. ending of the 3-stems is completely identical with the sing. ending except possibly in one case JHVIDTŠ 193d (plural?) in the constituted text and in random cases in mostly one Ms., e. g., A FIN-99m 549,1; but such cases are too scanty to deserve more consideration. It is instructive to note that there occur about four gen. sing. forms ( Flat 50c,
are 1046, a t 1316, 31r8fa47 1310) with their ending nasalised. As Front points out, their nasalisation is but tlic result of confusion with the plural ending and as such unjustified. Can it suggest that in the case of the gen. plur. ending of the 37-stems too, the nasalisation was optionally present?
$ 5. (3) Nom. and Acc. plur. forms of neuter stems. In our text there is no trace of the neuter forms in °31š, excepting three cases which can be shown as occurring under specific conditions ( $ 52. Remarks). The casc-ending of the two out of these three is written 36 and of the remaining one, 3. In the Prakrit passages we come across one or