________________
25
zifefa, zifèfa, qonfefa (Future, III Sg.)
कज्जति, कत्थति, कीरति, घेप्पति, छिज्जति, तप्पति, दिस्सति, बुज्झिज्जति,
वुच्चति, हम्मति (Passive, III Sg.)
जीवितुं (Infinitive)
संभूतं, हतोवहते ( Past Passive)
अतियच्च (Absolutive)
कारावेति, खमावेति, दावेति, ठावेति (Casual, III Sg. )
परितप्पमाण (Present Participle)
अतिवापज्जा (Optative)
तू = द् : पाद (पात ← पत्त
पात्र)
The above usages that are quoted from the grammar of Jacobi sufficiently prove that the Amg. Prakrit was distinct not only in morphology but in its phonological composition also from Śauraseni and Mahārāṣṭrī and it resembled Pāli in certain respects and was an archaic language. But no Prakrit grammarian (including Hemacandra) and even modern scholars (authors of Prakrit grammar) have treated Amg. separately with the distinct phonological nature of its vocables and usages.
R. Pischel has utilized the text of Acaranga edited by H. Jacobi along with his grammar of Jaina Prakrit but he13 has in his grammar not at all specified that the archaic Amg. retained sometimes or optionally the medial consonants (see Para No. 17, 18 and 19) and further he has not included in his grammar the usages mentioned above from Jacobi's grammar while explaining the rules of Prakrit grammar and that of Amg. In his grammar one will be surprised to find that he has quoted under Amg. the converted Mahārāṣṭrī forms of the Amg. usages mentioned by Jacobi. This calls for emendation of his grammar as far as the Amg. language is concerned because generally there is no phonological difference between the vocables of Ardhamāgadhī and Mahārāṣṭrī in his grammar.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
