________________
A STUDY OF SEUTER PLURAL ENDINGS IN MIDDLE INDO-ARYAN
The situation as discussed above can be summarized in the following
manner:
Vedic neuter plural -a (archaic style, adjectives and enumerations) early Pali, Amg., J.M., Asokan 4 (as before)" usage then discontinued, -d supplanted by the long form -dni.
1. (6) The late MIA neuter plural -
There is a totally different situation where neuter plurals in - are found in later Pali texts, in southern Indian inscriptions (Mehendale (1948), 241) and particularly in Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit. These forms are not associated with adjectives or enumerations, they occur readily in all kinds of nouns, sometimes with complete confusion of gender: sabbe te rupa all these appearances. This different usage does not appear to have arisen from the Vedio tradition described above, and an explanation must be sought elsewhere. Such an explanation was already indicated by Hemacandra (Pischel (1877-80), 1, 33) and was discussed further particularly by Edgerton (1953), 58: the use of -d for ani in the neuter plural shows the influence of the old nominative masculine ending ->ah.
The main argument in favour of Edgerton's theory is the early evidence of confusion between the neuter and masculine endings in the plural. Although the distinction between masculines and neuters was always weak (Renou (1961), 278), the confusion seems to have begun in the East and arose from the similarity of the neuter plural nominative, vocative and accusative ending -dni and the masculine accusative plural ending -an. This confusion and the subsequent use of -ini in the masculine has been discussed in detail by Lüders (1913), 988 ff., and more recently by Regamey (1954), 526, and by Bechert (1958), 310.
The use of -a in the neuter plural, based on this confusion of genders, became more widespread in later Middle Indo-Aryan and was particularly common in the eastern Apabhrama of the Dohäkosas (Tagare (1948), 138). This is in agreement with the growing lack of distinction between genders which was especially pronounced in the east where all distinction between genders has disappeared in the modern languages (Bloch (1963), map 5). Gender distinction has also disappeared in the Niya inscriptions, and -dni is only used in Sanskritizing formulae (Burrow (1937), 25). The situation can be summarized in the following table:
Nom.
Acc.
Sanskrit Neuter pl. -áni
Nom.
Acc.
Middle Indo-Aryan (Eastern) (Ardhamagadhi, Jain Mähärägtet, the eastern dialect underlying Pali, and Apabhrama)
Neuter pl.
-, -, -
Mase. -äh
-188
-an
331
Masc.
-
(-dini, traces in Pali)
e (Western influence)
332
L. A. SCHWARZSCHILD
2. The ending-d
There has been some discussion of the origin of this ending. Gray (1935), 566 thought of it as coming from Vedic - with the addition of -ini borrowed from nouns with a stem-final in. This explanation is not altogether satisfactory, particularly in view of the existence of parallel forms in - and - for the - and -u stems. There is no other evidence of any such composite ending. -aim is much more likely to be a derivative by metathesis and weakening from -ins (and -im, -dim from ini, ni). This change was made possible by the well-known phonetic weakness of terminational elements in Middle IndoAryan (Turner (1927), 230). The isolated examples of a neuter plural ending -mim, e.g. dhanamim, quoted by Kramadiévara in his grammar, are of interest in that they may well represent intermediate forms. The distribution of -dim and -dni is as follows: -dni only
only - (and minor variants)
-dim and -dni Ardhamagadhi Sauraseni Magadhi Jain Mähäräştri
It is obvious that -äni is the older ending, and - with its minor variants is more recent. This again involves a stylistic difference: -äni belongs to a more elevated and formal style, and it is therefore not surprising that it is the only ending found in inscriptional Prakrits. It is equally obvious that -äni survived longer in the west and that -a like many other innovations began in the eastern dialects. But it is those dialects in which both -ni and -im are found which are most interesting in this respect: it is here in Ardhamagadhi, Magadhi, Sauraseni and Jain Mähäräștri that the stylistic and syntactic differences between the two endings can be seen most clearly.
-Tai is both the older and also the more emphatic ending: it is used in situations where' phonetic weakening of terminational elements' is least likely to occur. Thus -dai is the prevailing form before enclitic and emphatic particles of any kind; some examples of this were already listed by Pischel (1900), $367): ruppa-päyäni vä, suvanna-päyäni vä
encl.
Pāli
Gandhari Dhammapada Inscriptional MIA Jain Sauraseni
Maharastri Apabhrama
encl.
silver or golden vessels' (Oravaiyasuttans, 37)
annani vi jäi loe dukkhaim
and those other misfortunes that are in this world' (Kunalayamala, 135.24). The ending ani is particularly common with anna <anya 'other' because s strong contrast is usually implied:
annani ya maka-kaviyara-kappiydi
and those other works of great authors' (Kuvalayamālā, 174.23).
On the whole the stronger ending ani is preferred in nouns rather than in adjectives and pronouns, particularly when there are no enclitic particles involved:
jantāni tena viraiyai pāvena
noun.
adj.
these devices have been set up by that evil-doer' (Paumacariyam, 6.226) watth'abharanani raya-santiyam
noun
adj.
the garments and jewels belonging to the king' (Ausgewählte Erzählungen)
- 189
