________________
No. 6.]
JUNAGADH INSCRIPTION OF RUDRADAMAN.
The language of the inscription is Sanskrit, and the whole is in prose. In respect of orthography, we may notice the use, already mentioned above, of the lingual in the words páļi, l. 1, pranáļi, 11. 2 and 9 (but not in pranádya, 1. 9), and vyáļa, 1. 10; the exceptional doubling of p before in pada-ppratisparddhs- and supprativihita-ppranáļi., both in line 2, and of t and n before y in prabhritty=avihata-, 1. 9, and kannya-, l. 15, (but not e.g. in rúpapratt, 1. 6, mahaty-upa', 1. 3, and parijanyêna, 1. 5); the insertion (ocopsionally found in later inscriptions from the south) of an anusvára before no and my in marudhaînva", 1. 8, and abhiganmya, 1. 9; and the use common enough everywhere) of tu instead of tto, in satuadibhiḥ, . 14, and atimahatváda, 1. 17. There is, besides, a certain want of uniformity in the writing, shown by the facts that, after r, consonants (excepting sibilants) are doubled 38 times but left single 29 times; that, in the interior of simple words before ch, t, d, etc., the special nasal of a class is used 12 times and anusvára 8 times; and that at the end of a word, before following s, visarga is left unchanged 6 times and changed to s three times. With reference to the external sandhi it may also be noted that no less than 10 times the rules concerning the combination of final with following initial vowels have been disregarded, even where two words are closely connected in sense (as e.g. in parjjanyena ékárnava-bhútayam-, 1. 5, -dv[]dúraya anutsádanát-, l. 12); that before an initial vowel anusvára is three times written instead of m (88 e.g. in nadinám atimátr., 1. 6); and that in rajñaḥ Chandra', 1. 8, visarga has been left unchanged before ch. And as regards the internal sandhi, the dental has been wrongly used instead of the lingual in -anuragéna, l. 13, and Suráshfránáin, 1. 18. These two last may of course be mere clerical errors; and so no doubt are -vôgêna for -vêgéna, in line 7, rakshanartha for rakshan-árthan, in line 9, nirvyájam=avajity-avajitya for nirvyájam-avajity-dvajitya in line 12, and very probably tasmit for tasmina, in line 9, and kofd for košanu, in line 16. The i of vitad-uttarany= in line 7 may be ascribed to the influence of the Prakpit visa ; what the author intended was vintad-uttaranya, where vimsat would have been used for vinsari in accordance with the practice of literary works like the Ramayana. In -úv[c]daraya, 1. 12, for apparently -ávidúratayá, the syllable ta must have been left out by a mistake of the writer ; and similarly the syllable ksi may have been omitted in Mauryasya tê, l. 8, for which I propose to read Mauryasya ksite.- Looking at the language in general, what strikes one at once is the extreme dearth of verbal forms. In the text as preserved there are only two finite verbs, vartate in line 3 and asit in line 7, and even in its complete state the inscription could not have contained more than four such verbs, vis., in addition to the two just mentioned, probably another asit in line 8, and perhaps one verb in line 9. This scarcity of verbs will cause no surprise to the reader of classical prose works. While the chapter on conjugation takes the comparatively largest share of a Sanskrit grammar and presents considerable difficulties to the student, prose writers often employ only a few of the most common verbs' and easiest verbal derivatives. On the other hand -- and here again our text agrees with some of the best prose
1 This word is ordinarily spelt pranádi or prandll. - Attention may perhaps be drawn also to the spelling of taddka, 1. 1, and vaiddrya, 1. 14. This last word, according to the Nagurf MSS. of Papini': Ashiddhydy and of the Mahabhdahya and the Karika-Vritti on P. IV. 3, 84, would have to be spelt vaidúrya; but the Kasmir MSS. known to me derive it from vidúra. Vaidurya also is the reading of the MSS. of Hêmachandra's grammar which I have compared. In Pali the word is vefuriya.
* This one of the axustára as well as the non-observance of the rules of sandhi may be due to the influence of the Prakrit.
The statement that ch has been frequently omitted before chl in this inscription is incorrect; it has not been omitted once.
See the note on the text. If the reading were really tasmist, the anurodra here too might be ascribed to the influence of the Prikrit (Pali).
Compare, e.g., pimiad-bhuja, Ram. (Bombay ed.) III. 83, 8 (vitali-bhuja, but against the metre, III. 85, 9); dimiad-yojana, V, 1, 154; VI. 39, 20; pitial, VI. 67, 7 and 98; chaturvimist, IV. 42, 20.-Either einiat- or oblat. was apparently intended above, Vol. III. p. 321, 1. 16.
