________________
376
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA.
the language of these documents. Unfortunately the number of the inscriptions is still 80 small that it is impossible to obtain in this respect perfectly certain results. Nevertheless I will state that from the materials accessible to me, I consider it to have been in some points more similar to the Jaina Prakrit and the Maharashtrì than to the Pali and to the language of Asoka's edicts and of the older Andhra inscriptions. Words like the representatives just enumerated of Vajri and Vajrd, like Kottiya for Kotfika, Brahma. dásiya for Brahmadásika, Siriya for Sirika, lohavániya for lohavánija, and Haganardi for Bhaganandi, seem to indicate that the destruction of the medial and initial consonants had begun, and it is quite possible that among the numerous counter-instances some, at least, may be due to the desire of the authors to make their language sound like Sanskrit, i.e., that they may be attempts at a retranslation of more advanced Prakrit forms into Sanskrit. Thus the two forms Bahmadárika and Brahmadásiya lead me to suspect that the real popular form was Bamhaddsiya or even Bambhadásiya, which was retransliterated into Sanskrit in two different ways, both times with indifferent success. In two points this Prakrit probably differed from nearly all the literary Prakrits, agreeing at the same time with the modern vernaculars. First, it probably possessed, like the latter, only two sibilants, sa and ka, which were, as is done in the present day, frequently interchanged. The inscriptions have, it is true, the three signs used in Sanskrit, and their use remains unchanged in pure Sanskrit words. Even the lingual sha keeps its place in such words and in the hybrid forms with shka and shta, e.g., in Kanishka, Huvishka, pratishțápita, Goshtha... Jeshtahaslin, viahțdyamana, sishya. But, when regular Prakrit forms are substituted for, or derived from, the Sanskrit words, the lingual sha almost disappears. The palatal sa, on the contrary, mostly remains and even extends its sphere; here and there sa appears in its stead. Thus we find in the Prakrit equivalent for sishya, once kisha (No. VB, l. 1), once bisa (No. XIVB, 1. 1), and twice sisa (No. IX, 1. 2, and Cunningham's No. 10, 1. 1, basasya, according to the facsimile). The Prakrit feminine of fishya is spelt once fishini (No. VIB, 1. 2) and six times bitini or siçini (No.IIC.1.1: No. VIIB, 1. 1; No. XL4, 1.2, No. XII, 1.2; No. XIV B, 1.1). Further, évalura becomes batura (No. XVII, 1, 4); Srí is invariably siri in the names Sirika or Siriya and Buddhubiri (No. XIX, 1.2); Pushyamitriya is changed to Pukyamitriya (No. VI, 1. 2). The dental sa is put instead of ba in sethi (No. 14, 1. 2), suohila (No. III.B, 1.3), and in sabrá for Svafrit (No. XVII, 1. 4). Heuce I regard the occurrence of sha in Prakrit words as merely graphic, and assume that sa and ta were the only two sibilants of the Prakrit vernacular, but were occasionally used the one for the other. That is just what is done in all the vernaculars of Northern, Western, and Central Indin, which from Kasmir down to the Markthå country possess only the dental and the palatal sibilants and exchange them very frequently, especially in their true popular varieties. The second point, in which the Prakrit of our inscriptions agreed with the modern vernaculars, not with the literary Prakrits, is the neglect of the aspiration of conjunct hard aspirates. We have sláne for stháne (No. XVIII, 1. 2), pratishțápito for pratishthápito (No. XVIII, 1. 4). Jeshtahastisya (No. XIVB, 1.1, twice) for Jyeshthahastisya, sarttavahiniye (Cunningham, No. 7, 1. 2) for sártthavá hinyáh, śreshtaputrena and freshfind (Cunningham, No. 9, 1. 3) for freshthiputrena and freshthind. It is just in these very groups that, according to the popular pronunciation of the vernaculars of Northern, Western, and Central India ( with the exception of the Marathi ), the aspiration is omitted, though in writing it is frequently expressed. The numerous Sanskrit words, like kunish!ha, pra
