Madhuvidya

SR No.: 006525
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: S D Laddu, T N Dharmadhikari, Madhvi Kolhatkar, Pratibha Pingle
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad
Publication Year: 2001
Total Pages: 762
Language: English
Classification: Book_English, Literature, & Philosophy
File Size: 17 MB

Page 269

WHAT WAS TH" 'LACE OF ISSUE OF THE DHAULI... EDICTS ?
243
can be ascribed to the negligence of the scribe, the point cannot be overlooked, as the instances are quite varied. It is quite known that the Kharoşthi inscriptions from the north-west do not show the length of the vowels. If the inseribers of the separate edicts at Dhauli and Jaugada received their copies from the north-west the length of the vowels in the original draft was naturally not marked. Though in the Brāhmi versions of these edicts at Dhauli and Jaugada this length, wherever necessary, has been shown in a majority of cases, it escaped the notice of the inscribers in the following instances: (a) Nom. pl. mas. : -anuvigina d, j; ayata d, j;
nagalaka j: mahāmāta d; vataviya d;
viyohalaka j; lāja-vacanika j. (b) Nom. sg. fem. ---acala j; icha d, j; likhita di
solaviya d. (c) Inst. sg. fem. :--anāviliya dj. (d) Nom. sg. mas, :- y base :- pita j. (e) Nom. sg. mas. :-- .an base :-lāja d. (f) Inst. sg. neut. :-- -an base :--kammana d; kamana j.
7 In the end we may look to some of the pronominal forms met with in the separate edicts. Though these peculiar forms are not to be found in the north-western dialect, they are noteworthy as almost an unique feature of the separate edicts. The forms in question are :(a) Ist pers. pron. acc. pl. aphe d, apheni j.
gen. dat. pl. aphāka, aphakan d.
loc. pl. aphesū d, j. (The nom. pl. form maye is also peculiar to d and j versions). (b) 2nd pers. pron. Nom, pl. tuphe, phe d, j.
acc. pl. tuphe, tupheni j. inst. pl. tuphehi d, j. gen. pl. tuphāka d, j. loc. pl. luphesu d, j.
(of these tuphe occurs also in the Sāranātha and Yerrägudi versions, tuphakan in the Saranātha version, and tupaka in the Rūpanåtha version--all being minor rock and pillar edicts).
These forms have the base apha. (< * asma.) and tupha- (<* tusma). We may compare with this the Päli, the Prakrit, and the later Prakrit inscriptional bases amha. and tumha.. What interests us for our present discussion is the fact that these forms do not appear in any one of the versions of the major rock edicts including those at Shāh. and Mānsehrā. On the other hand, as against their appearance in the separate edicts may be pointed out that the
Madhu Vidya/244