Collected Articles Of LA Schwarzschild On Indo Aryan 1953 1979

Author(s): Royce Wiles
Publisher: Australian National University

Page 63

THE INDECLINABLE JE IN MIDDLE INDO-ARYAN
tic significance, and began to be treated as a mere adjunct to the infinitive form. Although in its earlier appearances it had been exclusively used with the infinitive as such, and only in a final position, it occurs in the later Jain Mähäräştri of the Nanapamcamikaha with an infinitive form that is actualy used in the meaning of an absolutive, kaum je (L. 79). It was also extended to other positions in the sentence. In Apabhramsa and in texts influenced by Apabhramsa je appears in the weakened form ji and figures as a mere expletive anywhere in the sentence, mainly after pronouns, particularly in the expression so je, so ji, equivalent to 'he indeed' or 'just he'. The word is therefore listed by Hemacandra as a mere expletive (je in 2.217, and ji in 4.420), and it has survived as such in the modern Gujarati -1.7
The original emphatic meaning is in keeping with the etymology of the particle je. There is no doubt whatever that je developed from the Prakrit jeva, jjeva 'thus', 'indeed', and that this form jeva came from the Sanskrit eva 'thus', 'actually', 'indeed', which was generally used in Sanskrit to lend emphasis to the word that preceded it. It is the details of the irregular phonetic development of eva to jeva and je that are most complex.
In order to retain their emotive and emphatic value, particles tend to be reinforced. There are two major ways in which such reinforcement takes place, and this can be illustrated from IndoAryan as well as elsewhere:
1. New sounds are added to the particles to strengthen them, and the source of the new sounds is not always clear (e.g. Latin tantum gives Old French i-tant 'so much").
2. Two or more particles are heaped together so that their cumulative force is felt, as for instance with the postpositive particle vai which forms ha sma vai, and ha vai in Vedic and later eva vai, api vai, tu val etc. Similarly the Latin particle sic 'thus' is strengthened by in to give in sic, whence Old French ensi, modern ainsi 'thus'.
Both these types of reinforcement have been suggested by scholars in attempts to explain the development of eva to jeva, je. According to those who favour the first theory, jeva represents the normal phonetic development from an earlier word yeva 'thus which is found in Pali and in the Aśokan inscriptions. Geiger suggested that the initial y of this word was a sandhi consonant, which was inserted before eva if the preceding word ended with a vowel or with anusvära. He quoted other words which he thought showed the introduction of such a sandhi consonant in similar circumstances. In the case of yeva jeva, je this would agree quite well
213
-106
L.A. SCHWARZSCHILD
with the usage found in the Jain Mähäräştri and Jain Sauraseni texts where je generally follows the anusvära of the infinitive. There are cases where other consonants appear to have been inserted before eva: there was a tendency in Aśokan Prakrit to add h before this word, to and hevam, hemeva therefore appear occasionally, mainly in inscriptions of eastern provenance. The main weakness of the theory of Geiger is that there are no true parallel examples: of the insertion of a sandhi y in Middle Indo-Aryan at the beginning of any word other than eva. As pointed out already by Edgerton1 the parallel cases quoted by Geiger are in fact to be explained by quite different causes, and the Pali form yeva Prakrit jeva, je therefore stands quite isolated.
There have been attempts to explain the Prakrit word jeva, je according to the second process of reinforcement which is so frequent in the case of particles, namely the accumulation of particles. According to this theory jeva is not directly connected with the Pali yeva, but is derived from two particles, ca and eva which normally gave ceva, ccia.12 The Asokan forms hevam etc. could come from a similar accumulation of particles, ha+eva heva. There is no doubt that the compound particle ceva, ccia was in fact often used in Prakrit for emphasis; there is even one instance in the text of Hala (v. 524) where there is hesitation between je and ccia after an infinitive. The parallel between the two forms is continued later, when ceia > Old Marathi ci survives as the modern Marathi -e, while je, Apabhramsa ji survives as the modern Gujarati -j. But it is probable that the similarity arose mainly from the fact that ccia, ceva ca eva and jeva, je were both derived from eva. The close resemblance between ceva, ccia and jeva, je does not necessarily imply that there was a direct link between the two words and that jeva was in fact a derivative of ceva ca+ eva. The derivation of jeva from ceva is quite possible phonetically, as weakening of the initial e to i would not be out of place in an enclitic particle, 13 The main difficulty of this explanation however is that the Pali word yeva, which appears to be inseparable from the Prakrit jeva, je, is left unaccounted for: Pali yeva cannot be derived from ceva <ca + eva.
This means that we must return to the first explanation and the theory of the intrusive consonant. As the absence of parallel developments makes it unlikely that the y of yeva < era was a sandhi consonant, another phonetic cause might seem possible. The Asokan texts, particularly the eastern inscriptions and inscriptions under eastern influence show some forms that are closely related to this problem. In the Kalsi, Dhauli and Jaugada inscrip
214
-107