Amrita Collected Papers by A M Ghatage

SR No.: 006968
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Jitendra B Shah
Publisher: Kasturbhai Lalbhai Smarak Nidhi Ahmedabad
Total Pages: 530
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 10 MB

Page 171

162
Amrita
question of the correct forms in the Loc. Sing. of a-stems. The eastern school (Mār. 9, 62; Rt. 2, 1, 14) explicitly states that in Sauraseni forms only in-e are admissible. The eastern school is not definite on this point but it appears that they would allow forms in-mmi as well, as equally correct..
Pischel47 has taken the view of the eastern school as the correct one. He naturally regards all forms in -mmi as incorrect in this language. Konow has also expressed the same opinion in the introduction of this edition of Karpūramañjarī where he criticises Rājasekhara for failing to distinguish between Māhārāstrī and Saurasen148 Rājasekhara uses such forms as majjhammi (Krp. 16, 8), kavvammi (Krp. 16, 8), rāmammi, sedusīmantammi in the prose of his dramas.
In the dramas of Aśvaghosa we do not get forms in Loc. Sing. Bhāsa has forms only in e as in muhe (Bc. 10, 11), hatthe (Bc. 10, 11), gehe (Bc. 13, 12), and only in Ardha-Māgadhi he uses the form majjhammi (Bc. 59, 11). The inscriptions of Asoka show forms in-si or-mhi but never in mmi.
In Mudrārāksasa there are forms like sampuunnamandalammi (1, 18), cānakkammi (1, 20), in which mmi is used, while there are others like cande (1, 18), akarune (1, 20), narāhive (1, *20), virahe (6, 2), and kūle (7, 3) where e is found. These verses are no doubt in Sauraseni and it appears that forms in mmi were used in that language. In the verses of Mrechakatika we find vajjhammi (10, 10) and kūvammi (10, 24), but in the prose passages e is uniformly used. In the Nātyaśāstra there are forms angayammi (10), sisirammi (12), jananammi (12), vanammi (12), nimmalayammi (26), kuñjammi (29), gayanammi (30), bahulammi (57), kusumammi (77), sarammi (107), where mmi is found, but the number of forms in which -e is used far exceeds these.
From the evidence of the Natyaśāstra Mr. Ghosh49 concludes that forms in ummi are admissible in Saurasenī. He argues that the authority of Mārkandeya and Rāma-Tarkavāgīša is doubtful as they come so late in the history of Prākrit grammar. Hemacandra does not impose such a restriction and being a writer of Gujarat his testimony for Sauraseni is of greater value. The testimony of Rājasekhara who had a considerable knowledge of the Prākrits as is seen from his Kävyamīmāńsā, uses them in his dramas. Lastly it is found in Sauraseni Apabhramśa.
This line of argument, however, overlooks one vital question, and that is of historical development. As we have seen, early writers like Aśvaghosa