________________
An Unassimilated Group in Apabhramśa
these rhymes in Apabhramśa is that they pertain not only to the final syllable, which must be identical, but also to the vowel preceding it, to make it a good rhyme. Thus if a word of two syllables occurs at the end of a line so as to rhyme with another we can naturally suppose that their vowel elements must be identical. In Mahāpurāna we find the following cases of end-rhymes :
*69. 15. 7.
paramakrya
paccakkhasrya
34. 1. 6.
dehi sṛya
31. 8. 8.
prāṇapru
*45. 12. 4.
tāsu prya
*45. 3. 8.
gampi thiu
82. 1. 11.
pañcamahu piya
Three of these cases marked may not prove anything. But the other cases clearly indicate that both the modes of writing r and ri represented the same sound, which made good rhymes with the first syllable of piu (= pitā) and piya (= priya), and this sound can only be ri in these circumstances.
saṇāha kriya
kuberapiu nai srya
prāṇapriu
paccakkha srya
81
As regards the forms of inorganic r as taught by Hemacandra VIII 4. 399. Alsdorf was not able to get any in his part of the text. Now we have a few cases in the following places: 49. 4. 2. nipriha (T. explains niḥspṛha), 42. 3. 5. prayanti (pādānte), 16. 11. 7. bruhasamgamu (budhasangama), 99. 3. 5. vrahiu (vadhita), 98. 8. 6. vrāsu (vyāsa) of which last is the illustration given by Hemacandra and Märkandeya. A doubtful case is 25. 5. 7. prae samprāviu prāṇanihanu vani vāhe viddhau harinamihuņu which can give a better meaning by taking prae as an adjective of vähe in the sense of 'sinful' as the reading of M. B. P. pave suggests, though the explanation of T. prāyaḥ is just possible.
These cases amply justify the rule of the grammarians which is cautiously worded and would inspire confidence in their statements, when we see them confirmed even in obscure cases like the present. The real explanation of such forms is, however, difficult to find. Following Märkandeya (XVII. 3. vyāsāder yasya rephaḥ syat) Alsdorf thinks that this r may have developed out of y. Tram may be from tyad and not from tad; bhantri may presuppose bhrantyi. This explanation cannot hold good in our cases. If vrahiu is the result of contamination between vadhitaḥ and vranitah (which actually occurs in 99. 3. 5) others remain without explanation. Here, I think, Hemacandra is right in calling the r extraneous (abhūta non-existent) than