Collected Articles Of LA Schwarzschild On Indo Aryan 1953 1979

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

Page 91

SOME INTERROGATIVE PARTICLES IN PRAKRIT : 207
208 : SHRI MAHAVIRA JAINA VIDYALAYA GOLDEN JUBILEE VOLUME
samiya <samyale in Ardhamagadhi). One might be tempted to quote the Niya form king whoever', 'whatever' in support of the view that linna represents kena, but this Niya word may well represent a generalisation of the neuter form rather than a use of the instrumental for the nominative as suggested by Professor Burrow.8 kinnam and kinni mainly belong to Ardhamagadhi and Jaina Maharastri. They are less restricted dialectally in their occurrence than the interrogative se-clauses, and are part of a general tendency to strengthen the particle Icim in interrogations. This tendency is continued in the literary Prakrits, and is of course also a feature of Sanskrit. It is noteworthy that in the Prakrit of the dramas the type of strengthening particle used does not vary so much with the dialect of the speaker as with the style of the author : thus kinh khu is used by Aśvaghosa in the Sariputrapralarana; kim quite simply or kimnu is preferred in all dialects by Sadraka in the Mechalatika; Bhasa almost invariably writes icim u khu; Kalidasa uses kim (nu) khu regardless of whether it is in the Magadhi spoken by the policemen in Sakuntala or whether it in the Saurasenl of the Malavikagnimitra, and sometimes he uses kim una <kim punab; Rajasekhara in the Karpüramajari uses only lithuna. The list could be continued, and the Prakrit usage of these authors generally reflects the formulae used for interrogation in Sanskrit by these same authors, e. g., leith khalu is prevalent in the Sanskrit text of Bhasa's dramas. The analysis of the interrogative constructions alone would be sufficient proof-if proof were needed--that the literary Prakrits of the drama are highly artificial. The formulae for interrogation in particular reflect fashion and even individual style.
Apart from the three locutions se kena käranena, se kim and kimnam which are so characteristic of the Svetämbara canon, there is another, rarer method of expressing 'why' in the canonical texts, which is nevertheless of interest. This is the phrase kassa heun why
because of what? In this phrase it is quite clear that he was used adverbially just as was nama by name' in Sanskrit. Edgerton has shown that he could be used adverbially both in Pali and in Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit, and the Prakrit usage lends support to
this view. Sometimes heart might not appear so readily to be an adverb, as for instance in the phrase kasst att ta het for what reason is that?' (Süyagalanga II. 7). An analysis of this phrase shows that tans is the pronoun that', and not a pronoun adjective that agrees with heute; the literal translation of the sentence Into Sanskrit would be tat kena hetund. The adverbial use of he is very clear in the repeated phrases of the Sugagadanga (II. 1) O panassa heuri dhamma ailcheja, novarthassa hem.... lepassa heur....10 sayanassa Reuvit' he should not teach the law for the sake of a livellhood, for the sake of clothes, nor for the sake of a house or a bed.... Apart from the adverbial use of heuri, the phrase kassaheum is interest ing in that it almost certainly represents a stage in the development of the usual interrogative Idea why?' in Prakrit, Pall lcissa. The change of lassa to kissa is easily explicable by the influence of leim what, why! The way in which this influence made itself felt can be seen from a Pali Jataka texto where Icissa is used as a genitive neuter, as opposed to kassa in the masculine. It is not surprising that Icam should influence the neuter forms, and particularly that leith
why ? should influence kassa heun why?' to form Issa (he ). Päli kissa hetu 'why?' Examples of this use of kissa are found in the later parts of the Svetambara canon, e. &, kisnat pan tumani mama puttami egante ulkurudiylie ujjavesi'why do you cause my son to be abandoned in a deserted place, a place used for refuse?' (Nirayávallydo I). With simplification of the double consonant and compensatory lengthening leissa became leisa in Prakrit, and figured as a very usual form of interrogation in Jaina Maharastri texts, such as the Vasudevahindi and the Lilavailaha. It was also used in the Magadhi and Sauraseni of the dramas, but its frequency is very much dependent not on the dialect, but on the individual taste of the author : thus it is absent from Kalidasa's works and rare in the Kuvalayamala. The form kisa had to some extent become independent of the interrogative pronoun in Jaina Mahārāştri, and did not correspond to the normal genitive form, which was kassa in the masculine and neuter, and leise, kle in the feminine. Teise became rare in Apabhramsa, but it has survived in the Old Gujarati as kisa, kisa, which, as K. R. Norman has pointed out, can hardly be derived from kids.11
7 Pischel, op. cit., p. 67. 8 T. Burrow, The Language of the Kharoshi Documents from Chinese
Turkestan, Cambridge 1937, p. 35. 9 F.Edgerton, Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Dictionary, New Haven 1953,
S. V. het.
10 W. Geiger, Pali Literatur und Sprache, Strassburg 1916, 111. 11 K. R. Norman, JRAS 1964, p. 67.
- 162 -
- 163 -