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 317

12
M. A. MÉHENDALE
(§ 32) for the Niya Prakṛta, cf. such forms as yiyo = iyam, yima
ime. I am now inclined to give up the explanation of diyaḍha or diyadhiya, which occurs in M, K and the versions of the minor rock edict including those at Mysore, as coming directly from duyardha," but regard it as a simple combination of di ( (<dvi) and a (d) dha (<ardha) with the analogical appearance of the initial y before the vowel a in a (d) dha. That this analogy was not complete is shown by diadha which occurs in S, M and also in the two separate edicts. As diyaḍha and diadha occur in the thirteenth rock edict which is not found at Dhauli and Jaugada, it is not possible to say what the eastern equivalent of diyaḍha was. But the Ardha-magadhi form, which occurs as a borrowing also in Pali by the side of the local form (GEIGER § 46), shows that it would have been divadha."
(4) Clusters ty and ts: In the Mysore versions both these are palatalised as in the west and the north-west. Thus br and jtr give saca (satya),as with which we may compare äcäyika (ätyayika) in G and acayika in S, M, but atiyayika in D, J. Similarly we have savachara or samvachara (samvatsara)" in br, sd, with which we may compare cikichā (cikitsā) in G, but cikisā in D, J. In this respect the S, M versions also give cikisa as a borrowing from the east, Savachala (instead of savasala) occurs in the eastern Sahasram version also. As the instances are few it is difficult to say whether the Sahasram form is a loan from the original draft or whether this form was current in the east also.
21. As suggested by TURNER, The Gavimath and Pälki-gundu Inscriptions of Asoka (Calcutta, 1932), p. 11, f. n. 2, and adopted by me in Hist. Gr. of Inscr. Pkts., p. 11, f. n. 25. This (diyadha < duyardha) is also the view of LÜDERS, Beobachtungen, p. 78, f.n. 2. HULTZSCH'S (op. cit. p. lxxi) derivation from dvikärdha is rejected by LÜDERS (op. cit.). The change of mononsyllabic dvi> di in the compound form di-guna in the Niya Prakrta, which also gives the ordinal biti. See BURROW § 43, § 89. Pali also has diguna, though dutiya (GEIGER § 114, § 118).
22. The Sahasram version of the minor rock edict, which is in the east, is expected to give the form divadhiyam. But it also gives diyaḍhiyam as a loan from the north-western dialect of the original draft. PISCHEL'S (§ 230, §450) explanation of divadha from dvikärdha is rejected by LUDERS (op. cit. p. 72, f.n. 2). He regards it as a mixed form from diyaddha (<di + addha) and duvaddha (< du + addha).
25. This is, however, the general tendency in Pali (GEIGER §55) and later Präktas (PISCHEL § 280). For Niya Prakrta cf. BURROW 41, and later Kharoşthi inscr., MEHENDALE § 515.
24. In the Niya Prakrta ts is preserved in samvatsara (BURROW §48), but also assimilated due to eastern influence in osuka (autṣukya). In the later Khar. inscr. we have samvatsara (MEHENDALE §515e). In Päli ts>cch (GEIGER § 57) as also in later Präkṛtas except Magadhi which shows ts > sc (PISCHEL §32).
Madhu Vidya/292