Epigraphia Indica Vol 01

Author(s): Jas Burgess
Publisher: Archaeological Survey of India

Page 16

PALLAVA GRANT OF SIVASKANDAVARMAN.
3
kareyya (1.40) and kareyyama (1. 41) against kiravejjd (L 40), vaṭṭeja (1. 46), and hoja (1.48); yo (1.46) against-jo (1. 44); ppayutte (1. 6) against asjutto (1.47). A great many other words, like 'yaji (1. 1), visayesa (1. 3), show only ya. The occasional change of ya to ja separates the language of the inscription from the literary Pâli and the dialects used in Aśoka's inscriptions, while it agrees with the practice followed in the caveinscriptions. An instance of the change, which in literary Pali is very rare, of ja to ya, occurs in Bharaddaya (1. 2, 16, 19) for Sanskrit Bharadvaja.
2. A very peculiar principle is observed in the change of na to na. It almost invariably takes place in the affixes of inflection, Pallavána (1. 2), manusána (1. 7),° vat. thavana (18), "bamlaşdṣan (1. 8, 27, 30, 38), bhátukdya (1. 18), *pamukhdar (1.27, 38), likhiteņa (1. 51), kátanam, (1. 10, 29), nátúnam, the only counter-instance being madena (1. 40). In other cases frequently, though not invariably, a single medial na suffers the same change, while initial na and medial nna always remain unchanged. On the whole the lingual na occurs more frequently than in Pâli, in the Girnår redaction of Asoka's edicts and the cave-inscriptions, but more rarely than in the Prâkrit of the Jainas, where it has nearly supplanted the dental nasal.
3. Some cases in which hard consonants are softened likewise come nearer to the usage of the Jaina and Maharashtri dialects, than to that of the Pâli and of the older inscriptions. Thus we find Kassava (1. 18) for Kályapa, kâravejjá (1. 40), anuvaṭṭháveti (1. 45), and vi (1. 6, 29), while the original consonant is preserved in parihapetavva (1. 37), and api (1. 37). With these instances may be compared bhada for bhata (1. 7, 43), and kada or kada (1. 51) against adhikata (1. 4). An exceptional case of hardening occurs in majataye for Sanskrit maryádayá. The representation of Sanskrit varsha by vása (1. 48, 49) and varisa (1. 42) is against the usage in Pâli and in most of Asoka's edicts, but is found in the cave-inscriptions.
4. Some peculiar forms, in the declension especially of pronouns and numerals, which deserve to be noted, are: the masculine sammo (1. 46) instead of the neuter sammam, Sanskrit sarma, the nominative plural masculine chattári (1. 18, 39) instead of chattaro, the instrumental singular majataye (1. 43), the form be (1. 14, 20, 39) for dve or duve, the genitive plural amham (1. 3, 42) instead of amhakam, the genitive plural etesi (1. 27) for etesam, and chasi (1. 46), i.e., cha esi, for cha esam, the genitive plural chatunham (1. 18) instead of chatunnam. Analogies for the first three forms occur already in Aśoka's edicts. The last five are known from the cave-inscriptions and the later Prakrits. Most remarkable is the inflection of the Dvandva compound in the phrase KumaranamdiKumarasama-Koṭṭasama-Sattissa cha chatuṛham bhátukána chattári pattibhágá (1. 17), where we should expect the termination of the plural instead of that of the singular. The preceding adjective Kosikasagotasa and the following cha show that we have not to deal with an accidental mistake. Analogies are found in the Sanskrit Sutras. Thus we find in Apastamba's Dharmaedtra, I. 31, 21, préyatyabrahmacharyakálecharyayá
cha.
5. There are further several cases, which exhibit a curious disregard of the rules of concord:-L. 10-11 the adjectives appatikataadaapasa and anekaki[raya]kodigo. halasatasahassappadayino, standing in the genitive singular, have to be taken with the
With respect to the elision of the second vowel compare Pâli chattarome instead of chattaro ime and other instances mentioned by Kuhn, Beiträge zur Pali Grammatik, p. 60.
See also my remarks in the Zeitschrift der Deutsch-Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, vol. XLI, p. 250.