Collected Articles Of LA Schwarzschild On Indo Aryan 1953 1979

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

Page 93

102
'moon (lover of the night), and also Prakrit dosasijjanda, dosdragana (dood-ratna 'night jewel") 'moon. It seems therefore quite probable that dosing a clear night, moonlight' representa a contamination between poland moonlight' and doet 'night', and the presence of the initial d in this word does not represent the result of an ordinary phonetic change.
Journal of the American Oriental Society, 98.1 (1978)
2. ASSIMILATION
Sometimes hesitation between palatal and dental consonants is due to assimilatory influences: this is certainly the ease in vijjajjhars, a rare Apabhrapta form
for thara < dyddkara. The change of I to e, ok in quechs, chuccha < tuccha 'small is also due to assimila tion: the tendency to retain the sasimilated form was aaniated by the presence in Prakrit of a number of very similar words meaning 'small' and beginning with e, ch: ella, challa, chulla, chudda. The nearly homophonous Prakrit word cumcha 'dried up' (probably not a Dest word bat connected with Sasakrit fuska 'dried up) appears to have followed the pattern set by escola 'small', hence we find an alternative form tucka 'dried up' in the
Deedmandia III.15.
The Sanskrit verb take (teaky-") regularly becomes tacchi "to cut' in Prakrit and occurs frequently in the Jain canon particularly in the description of various tortures, e.g., Sayagadanga 1.4.1.21: avi tepatbinde tacchiya khara-candin ya "they are rosated alive and seld is poured into their wounds. The nasimilated form cacchai < tacchai is listed by Hemaeandra IV 194, and also by Kramadivara and Märkandeya, cacchai, though not found in the texts, must have been current over a wide ares, particularly in eastern and central Indis: a glance at the Comparative Dictionary of the Indo-Aryan Languages by R. L. Turner reveals the interesting fact that the distribution of forms with initial c is very similar for both take- and fuccha. The main similarities in distribution are as follows:
Hindi Bhojpuri Bengali (Oriya)
Panjabi
(Oriya)
Initial e Jake
cond
edchal
edchá
cachid, hdchild Initial : lachd 1dchild
Juha
chick
cch
AGA
cucha
fucc tuck
The above list indicates that this very sporadic sasimilatory change (of tor e in lake, fuccka) occurred over a
M. Mayrhofer, Uber Kontaminationen der indoirsnischen Sippen von si taky, teaky-, "wark Indo Iranica, Mélanges présentés à Georg Morgmatierne, Wiesbaden 1964.
wide area. The list also gives an interesting illustration of the complexity of the development of the Indo-Aryan languages. The basic scheme of 'Controlled Historical Reconstructions" would never account for a case of this kind where there is correspondence between the otherwise not very closely related Panjabi and Oriya languages: the network of dialectal relationships in Middle and Modern Indo-Aryan can only be accounted for by 'sets of intricate interrelations as illustrated in the important article by F. C. Southworth on Family-tree Diagram
3 POBLE TENDENCE TOWARDS DISSIMILATION
The remaining examples given by Piachel to show variation between palatal and dental consonants are all, with the exception of tighati, desiderative verbs. It is highly improbable that a change which is purely phonetic, such as a 'dialectal variation between dental and palatals' should be almost entirely confined to a small and comparatively rare morphological group auch an desiderative verbe. Morphological factors most inevi tably have played some part, rather than purely phonetic developments.
As is well known, velar consonants are represented by palatala in the reduplicating syllable in Sanskrit verbs. This pattern was so dominant as to lead to analogical formations, eg, cit-'to perceive' perfect ciketa, desiderstive nikita (the k in these forms is analogical"). In Middle Indo-Aryan a few desideratives have survived and they were distinctive enough to remain as a group. It was precisely in this group that the change of > d e>foccurred, and this change would appear to be one of dissimilation": the speakers had the feeling that the first syllable differed from the second syllable and they tended to differentiate the initial consonant even further. Bence
cikita- AMg, tigicht etc., 'cure', Pali tikicchati fighate- AMg. diginckd ete., "hunger jugupe Pali diguecht 'avoidance' (AMg, duc probably represents a contamination between a form of this kind and jug),
As dissimilation played some part in the development of this group of desideratives, it might appear as if
D. P. Pattanayak, A Controlled Historical Recon atruction of Oriya, Assamese, Bengali and Hindi, The Hague, 1966.
F.C. Southworth, Family-tree diagrams, Language XL 1964, p. 562.
L. Renou, Grammaire Sanscrite, Paris 1961, p. 52.
8. Sen, Comparative Grammar of Middle Indo-Aryan, Poona 1900, p. 54.
H. Laders, Beobachtungen über die Sprache dee buddhistischen Urkanona, aus dem Nachlass herausgege ben von E. Waldschmidt (Abhandl. d. Deutschen Akade mie d. Wissenach. Berlin 1962/10), p. 100.
-166
Brief Communications
cithai < tighati were the only clear example of varia dence it est be deduced with some certainty that the tion between palatal and dental con
fricative element in the affricate pronunciation of e, ch stern dialects. This is perhaps what is implied in the J. retained ita palstal quality for a longer time in the statement of Vararucit casarparpa apastal lathalapa The desideratives listed above are interesting in their (11.5), eh, J. Jk and 6 are so pronounced as to be clear. distribution. The forms with the initial dissimilatory It is probable that in the east this distinct palatal frie dental consonant cerur only in the eastern dialects of sive element was retained even longer before the high Middle Indo-Aryan (Magadht, Ardhamsgadht) or in front vowels, and that it remained even when the plosive those which underwent certain esters influences (Jain element of the affriesten (tel. [d] beesme depalatalised, Mahiristel) and to a lesser extent Pali); they do not oosa in [tgl. (di). There was thus a close similarity between eur in Baursen and only rarely in Mahiretet: thean di alects generally have juguld avoidance', dichas 'healer. This dialectal limitation makes it probable that the change of palatals to dentals in the desiderative verbo was facilitated over much of northern and easter India by close phonetic similarity between palatal + on the one hand and dental + on the other.
+ (pronounced (teil), (pronounced djip) on the one hand, and ti, di on the other. This phonetic similarity was accentuated by the fact that the high front vowsli would have the effect of slightly retracting the point of articulation of the preceding dental to at least an alveolar if not a post-alveolar position.
The problem of the pronunciation of the palatal series of consonants in Middle Indo-Aryan was discussed by Grierson," who came to the conclusion that in Standard Mahratri Prikrit and in Baurnannt... the palatals were probably pronounced as dento-palatals, as in modern Marathi, but that in Magadht they were pronounced clearly as true palatals. This is based mainly on Markao deys's statement (xii, 21) about Magadht; cajagor upari yah ayll, 'y is prefixed to c and j. Markandeys's statement need not be taken literally, but it clearly indicates, as le suggested by Grierson, that the 'palatal' series of consonants had a more distinct palatal quality in the Eastern dialects of Middle Indo-Aryan. There is no proof that they were "pure palatale se Grierson auggests. e, oh, J.JA were still palatal plosives at the time of the Prsti Akhys literature. There are indications in Middle IndoAryan that at least in the western areas of India these palatal plosives had become affriestes and that e represented [> and j represented id> <s The assimilatory changes of early Middle Indo-Aryan to some extent confirm the arguments for this pronuncia tion, particularly the change of -ty- to-dy-to-word andy- to--. It is evident already from the Asokan inscriptions that there was considerable regional varia
It seeme then that at least in the eastern dialects the opposition between the dentale and palatals tended to be neutralised in just one environment, namely before the high front vowel . This accounts for the prevalence of the desiderative forms with initial dental, discussed above, and it also accounts for the one remaining example eited by Pischel, namely cithai isthat "to stand". ciha-le attested already in the Adokan inseriptions from the east and in inscriptions which are under strong inBluence of the eatern dialects: Dhauli, Manzehra, Kalei eitha-, but Girnar tista, Shahbangarhi tha th oths to stand then spread further and is found in all the major Middle Indo-Aryan dialects except Pali, from the Ardha-Magudhi of the Jain Canon in the east to the Kharathi Dhammapada in the west. Forms with initial (ika-) are much rarer, they occur for instance in some manuscripts of Jain Saurasent texts, (e.g., the Prapacana adra)."The word is to stand occurs far beyond the ares of the tendency towards neutraliestion of the contrast between + and +i. The reasons for this wide extension are not clear. Although it is found in all the Piskrit dialects and in Apabhraméa eka- to stand' is not as common as one might expect, it is still the usual for "to stand' in most Jain Mähiriatet texts, but ita function is gradually takes over by derivatives of the root-form atd, JM (A; these derivatives of all- also prevail in the modern Indo-Aryan languages. It would see that eigho- to stand', 'to atay' was probably not clear in many contexte because it was homophonous with ceka, cita- <ot to work hard, "to strive The distinction between e and i in closed syllables had become neutralised in Prikrit, and cethai for eithai to stand, to stay' is in fact quite common in Jain Maharisti e.g. muhulagas ceffaha, stay for a moment'. This
tion:
4. PHONETIC CHANGES UNDERLYING THE INTERCHANGE
BETWEEN PALATALE AND DENTALA
-->-- apatys > apsons in the Girnar version of Aloka's 5th Rock Ediet, apen in the Shabbatgarhi version, but apatiya in the Kalai and Dhauli inscrip
tions.
The modern languages are divided mainly between a more easterly alveo-palatal affriente, and amore westerly palato-alveolar and even denti-alveolar affrieste pronunciation of e, ck, j.jh. From this and the Akan vi
G. A. Grierson, The Pronunciation of Prakrit Palatale, JRA8 1013, pp. 301. 14W.B. Allen, Phonetics in Ancient India, Oxford 1963,
p. 52.
103
8rt Kundakundearys's Prassenandra, edited by A. N. Upadhye, Bombay 1935, p. CXIII.
H. Jacobi, Anaprushlie Brahlungen in Maddah, Leipsig 1886, p. 59, 1.27.
- 167