________________ Now the Padapathakara has noticed the form as 37TTT without the final 'Visarga'. Can it not be possible that in the Samhita-lPatha, there was elision of of original visarga of aper:, the originally intended form and anyhow the author of Padapatha missed it ? There are many instances in which the older authors of Padapathas differed from one another in splitting Samhita text into its component padas. This has been adduced to by Yaska himself. Thus Yiska takes note of difference of opinion of various authors of Padapatha with regard to the word आदित्य :शाकल्यायप्रभृति वगृहीतम्, पूर्वनिर्वचनाभिप्रायेण / गार्यप्रभृतिभिरवगृहीतमिति तदेव कारणम्, विचित्राः पदकाराणामभिप्रायाः, क्वचिदुपसर्गविषयेऽपि नावगृह णन्ति यथा शाकल्येन "अधीवासम्" इति नावगृहीतम, आत्रयेण तु “अधिवासम्'-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 // 2 But Sikalya splits the word into two padas, as मा / स कृत् / / 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. Sathhita (Poona), Vol I, p. 649. इतिहास और पुरातत्त्व : 117 Jain Education International For Private & Personal Use Only www.jainelibrary.org
