________________
Vol. XXIII, 2000
K. R. CHANDRA
S.
आयय
बुइयाओ
1.7
आयत
4.16 एगत्तगते
1.10
एगत्तगए गीताई
1.8
गीयाई निवतिते
4.10
निवइए पणतासी
3.9
पणयासी पिहितच्चे
1.10
पिहियच्चे पिहिता
2.14
पिहिया बुइताओ
2.1 -भीत
1.4
-भीयविगत
4.15
विगयसमिते
2.10
समिए समीतासी
4.16
समीयासी -सहिता
1.4
-सहिया हत्पुव्वो
हयपुवो In the Jacobi's edition of the Acārānga medial consonants are generally retained in the A set whereas in the B set they are dropped and in such cases the letter is italicized. This tendency of the Mss. indicates that in the older Mss. the consonant was retained and later on due to the influence of Prakrit grammarians it was dropped. Hence in such cases the concerned consonant should be taken as retained in the Jacobi's edition.
This comparative table reveals that medial -k- is generally changed into -g-, medial -g- is generally preserved, medial -c- is also preserved and medial - bh- is also generally preserved in both the editions but medial -j-, -d-, -dh- and -t- are preserved in the edition of Jacobi at several places whereas in the edition of Schubring they are elided totally. The elision of medial consonants in general by Prof. Schubring can not be accepted as factual representation of the original form of the archaic Ardhamāgadhi of the ganadharas of Tirthankara Mahāvira of the 6th century B.C. and that also a dialect of the Magadha Country and its border areas. In this light the edition of Ācārānga by Schubring becomes linguistically unauthentic and it needs revision. If the editions of other canonical works are edited in the same way applying the same method of Schubring) then they also need to be revised linguistically because the rules formed by Prakrit grammarians at least more than 1000 years affer the composition of Senior canonical works cannot be applied to the Ardhamāgadhi Prakrit language of pre-Christian era.
