________________
An Unassimilated Group in Apabhramsa
" As said above, though the verses of the Kumārapālacarita may not be taken as good evidence for linguistic purpose, it is nevertheless important to see how far they may help us in indicating the scope of Hemacandra's rule vādho ro luk, for even a poet writing ad hoc for the purpose of illustrating his grammar cannot write a non-existent form, especially in words not meant for illustration and when there is no metrical or other necessity for their choice. Thus besides the words expressedly taught in his sūtras, we have, in addition, krva (8. 66) krvā (8. 82) krvālū (8. 82) drahi (8. 68) grnhia (8. 45) nrva (8. 82; 8. 83) prāvai (8. 58) prāmvei (8. 69). That these stanzas do show the same phonological features as the quotations in his grammar can be seen from an interesting coincidence, which cannot be reasonably said to be intentional. Thus all the above words do not make long the preceding syllable in spite of the conjunct of r. But we find the word tudhra used with the metrical scheme-u which is the same as found in the line tudhra anuttara khanti of his grammar (4. 372).
These facts about the phonology of Apabhramśa have raised a number of problems, many of which Dr. Alsdorf has dealt with, with reference to the cases found in the Harivamsa and has come to some tentative conclusions. With this fuller material, they can be now in part confirmed and in modified. Of his forms one pittrya must be rejected as being not substantiated by the Mss. evidence and his reading of C (=S of Dr. Vaidya) in 84. 10. 11 vrahena (vadhena) is also doubtful as it is not recorded by the later editor.
As regards the question whether all such forms can be the result of Sanskrit influence on the scribes, Dr. Alsdorf has rightly pointed out that the number of such forms, which has now become quite considerable, the agreement between the illustrative words of the grammarians and the words found in the Mahāpurāna, the agreement of the different unrelated Mss. and the absence of any other traces of Sanskritisms on the part of the scribes, all go to show that they are not due to Sanskrit influence. But he has added two more considerations of a different nature to prove the same fact. The writing of srya for śrī and trya for stri cannot be due to the influence of Sanskrit, in which case we should expect writings like sriya and triya. Secondly there is uniformity in the writing of nrva (with dental.n) on the one hand and niva (with cerebral n) on the other. In case of a simple Sanskritism we should have expected a p as well in this word. But the choice of n with the vowel ļ may be due to the form current in Sanskrit.
If we accept the fact that the written r in these words in Apabhramsa