Collected Articles Of LA Schwarzschild On Indo Aryan 1953 1979

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

Page 90

SOME INTERROGATIVE PARTICLES IN PRAKRIT: 205
206 : SHRI MAHAVIRA JAINA VIDYALAYA GOLDEN JUBILEE VOLUME
canon. The most striking of these locutions is the use of the slightly emphatic and adversative particle re to introduce a question. This particle has been derived by Pischell from Vedie sed, sa+id. This derivation no longer seems tenable on account of the Pali evidence, as given for instance by M. Mayrhofer, and from the evidence of Middle Indo-Aryan in general: the distribution of the particle se shows it to be quite clearly a Mágadht form of the neuter singular of the pronoun sa and equivalent to the form tam <ted of the other Middle Indo-Aryan languages. Alsdorf has shown that the particle se was used in the Dhauli and Jaugada versions of Asoka's edicts in a slightly adversative sense and it appears to have been characteristic of the extreme eastern parts of India. Examples from the canon are for instance : se keratthenam, Goyama, manusad tivihd ponnatt-why then, Gautama, are human beings considered to be of three kinds ?' (Bhagaval I.2); se loenarthena bhante evet vucl'why then, Sir, is it said that..?". Bhagaval 1.1). In the first of these examples, perhaps even more than in the second, it is quite clear that re has developed the function of a particle and is no longer simply the neuter form of the pronoun. The introductory se is also frequent in other kinds of interrogative clauses, as in the very usual phrase se leith anh then what is..?!, e.g., se kimi tam neraiyd what then are the creatures of hell?' (Pannavanduttan I). This kind of construction is found in the earlier as well as the later portions of the canon, and occurs for instance in a really old text like the Sayagadanga (11.1): se kimanga puna vayam...mucchimo-why then, are we confused?' The use of the particle se to introduce a question appears to be characteristic of the Ardhamagadhi and to a lesser extent the Jaina Maharastri of the Svetambara Jaina canon, and does not seem to have survived in post-canonical literature, though there are a few instances of the use of se in various other constructions in the later texts. This may be partially due to the regional restrictions of the use of se and partially to the fact that it was a weak particle without any very distinctive meaning. It does reappear occasionally in the less stereotyped Maharastri texts, as for instance in the Lilavalkaho, but only as a meaningless adjunct to any kind of phrase. It has been weakened to al in Maharastri, just as the partiele je was
weakened to fi, though in the case of je this change occurred at a somewhat later date and figures mainly in Apabhrama. The weak particle si was only rarely associated with interrogative locutions at this stage, e.g. Lilavaikahd v. 708 : kattha puno tam si disihasi-' where indeed will you be seen again ?" Professor A. N. Upadhye in his edition has naturally recognised si as a particle here, but the unknown Jaina author of the otti has failed to do so, and this in itself may be taken as an indication of the rarity of seal in the later texts. The interrogative introduced by se must therefore be considered as a characteristic of the style of the Svetambara Jaina canon
Another striking feature of interrogation in the Jaina canon, apart from the particle se, is the particle at which often follows the interrogative pronouns, e. g., se ke nam janai ke puvuit gamande lee paccha gamande' who indeed knows who is to go first and last ? (Nayadhammakahão 1. 1). It is particularly common with him, and combines with it to form Icinan-why ? how is it that..?!, e.g. keinnar tumam na janasi' how is it that you do not know?, and linnam tuman Devånuppiya chayamanasanlappe Ghiyayasi-why, beloved of the gods, do you ponder, your mind and spirit dejected?' (Ndyddhammakahdo I. 16). There seems little doubt about the origin of this locution from kim+ram, and it has a close parallel in jannan < yad + par, which is used frequently for instance in the Pannavanasuttatis (11). Sometimes however the final syllable of the particle leinat has been altered and it appears as linna, e.g., Icinná phude (often repeated in Pannevanasuttam XV.1), and tome nam ima eydriva diuva deviddhi, divue devenubhave kirna Laddhe-how is it that this heavenly, divine wealth and these heavenly divine powers have been acquired by you?' (Uvasagadasco 167). Both kinnan and the alternative form inná oceur occasionally in later Jaina literature and in Maharastri. The form kinnd has often been explained as due to the influence of the instrumental Rena. It is difficult to believe this in view of the frequency of kinnan which is not noticeably different in use and meaning: the instrumental sense is not really more marked in kinna than it is in kinnan. The change of final -ar to - is by no means unusual especially in a particle (e. g., Samiyati,
1 R. Pischel, Grammatik der Prakritsprachen, Strassburg 1900, p. 299. 2 M. Mayrhofe., Handbuch des Pali, Heidelberg 1951, p. 109. 3 L. Alsdorf, Contributions to the Study of Asoka's Inscriptions'
Bulletin of the Deccan College Research Institute, Vol. 20, 1960, p. 259.
4 The Indeclinable je in Middle Indo-Aryan', Bharatiya Vidya Vols.
XX-XXI, p. 213. 5 Lītāvai of Koühala, ed. A. N. Upadhye, Singhi Jain Series Vol. 31,
Bombay 1949, pp. 361-362. 6 Pischel, op. cit., p. 304.
- 160 -