________________
20
Amrita
contact, voice and denasalisation. This tendency is evidently contrary to the normal procedure of the Präkrits.
In order to explain the nature of this group of two plosives resulting from a peculiar process of assimilation, we must examine more carefully the phonetic structure of the Sanskrit groups from which they have developed. One thing which requires particular notice in this connection is the fact that in the original Sanskrit groups the second member is either a semi-vowel -vor a nasal stop-m-, both of which lack the complete closure of the regular plosive which forms the first member. Phonetically, it is possible to pronounce a consonant with a semi-vowel like -y- or -V- without making a conjunct capable of making position. In other words, instead of forming ordinary conjuncts of the regular type, we may pronounce them as simple consonants which are either labialised or palatalised. Normally, however, in the medial position, the preceding consonant was doubled in Sanskrit and catvārah was pronounced as cattvārah, with the first syllable long by position. This usual practice where the syllabic division was cat / tvārah has resulted into the normal MIA. form cattāro. With the preservation of the syllabic structure of the word, -tva- became -tta- But in some locality or in some dialects, there appears to have existed another kind of syllabic division and a different pronunciation of such groups, as can be seen from the statement of the Taittirīya Prātiśākhya XXI. 7 according to which the first consonant of such groups went over to the following syllable, giving rise to a division like ga tvā. Dr. Varma rightly objects to this division on the ground that such a syllabication cannot be valid if the first syllable is heavy by position. But it is equally likely that what the statement means is the fact that 'this syllabic division also implied a different syllabic value of the word and that -tva was not a conjunct making position. It was a simple labialised plosive. That this is not a mere theoretical supposition but an actual fact is seen from the important feature revealed by the illustrations of the Aśokan inscriptions (ātpa-mahātpā, etc.) where the first syllable preceding the seeming conjunct, preserves its normal length, which is abnormal in MIA. phonology. In these cases, we must admit an open syllable in the original words from which they have developed and thus admit a syllabic division like ā/tman exactly similar to ga/tva. With such a division current in some locality or dialect, the abnormal development of these groups can be easily explained.
These considerations lead us to the supposition that a dialectal difference existed in the pronunciation of the Sanskrit conjuncts giving rise to two divergent developments in the MIA. one of which is revealed by the