________________
Now the Padapāțhakāra has noticed the form as er without the final 'Visarga'. Can it not be possible that in the Samhita-Patha, there was elision of of original visarga of 3T9:, the originally intended form and anyhow the author of Padapātha missed it ?
There are many instances in which the older authors of Padapāthas differed from one another in splitting Samhită text into its component padas. This has been adduced to by Yåska himself. Thus Yiska takes note of difference of opinion of various authors of Padapātha with regard to the word आदित्य :शाकल्यायप्रभति वगृहीतम, पूर्वनिर्वचनाभिप्रायेण । गाग्र्यप्रभृतिभिरवगृहीतमिति तदेव कारणम, विचित्राः पदकाराणामभिप्रायाः, क्वचिदुपसर्गविषयेऽपि नावगृहणन्ति यथा शाकल्येन "अधीवासम्” इति नावगृहीतम्, आत्रयेण तु "अविश्वासम्" इत्यवगृहीतम् । तस्मादवग्रहोऽनवग्रहः।।
____Similarly with regard to the word भासकृत in R V I, 105, 18, Yaska takes it as an Upapada compound and hence as one word, thus : मासकृत् मासानां चार्धभासानां च कर्ता भवति चन्द्रमाः ।।
But Sikalya splits the word into two padas, as मा । स कृ त ।
Thus this possibility of the presence of originally existent but morphophonemically elided Visarga sets at rest all the unnecessary efforts of the traditional commentators and modern orientalists.
1. Nirukta. II, 13. 2. Nirukta, V, 21 3. cf. Padapatha of RV I, 105, 18 in RV. Samhita (Poona), Vol I, p. 649.
इतिहास और पुरातत्त्व : ११७
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
