________________
204
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA
[VOL. XXIX of Taila II: Saka 902.1 That the Grantha and the Kannada scripts of the inscription under study can individually be assigned on palaeographical grounds to the end of the 10th century A C. leaves no doubt that the epigraph must be assigned to this very period. Except palaeographical indications the record does not afford any clue for fixing its dato; it bears no date nor does it refer itself to the reign of any king, whose dynasty is specified.
Among the orthographical features may be noticed the use of a superfluous anusvära in the following eases: tamnna (line 18), -ettuvoḍamm-enänuvam (line 24). The class nasal is used in kanda (line 7), nandana (line 12), etc., while it is replaced by the anusvara in akkum=emdu (line 9), pamcha (line 17), etc. The consonants following the rêpha are doubled in a-chandr-ärkkam (line 6), dharmma (line 17), urmme (line 26).
The chief importance of the record lies in the contribution it makes to our knowledge of the state of Kannada language and prosody in the period to which it belongs, i.e., 10th century A. C. Consequently, the special linguistic and metrical features and peculiarities found in the record are discussed at some length here.
The language of the inscription, except that of verse 1 which is in Sanskrit, is old Kannada interspersed with a few forms of middle Kannada, viz., -ade (line 7), ippa (line 10), toreya (line 13). Of these -ade comes from the older morpheme -ode and ippa is derived, through assimilation from irpa, of old Kannada. The accusative morpheme -an of old Kannada has dropped its final nasal in toreya. The retroflex mid-palatal characteristic of Dravidian, is correctly employed. The retroflex r occurs quite regularly. In beṭṭam (line 12) the nominative is used instead of the accusative beṭṭam-am. Ildudam <irdudam towards the end of line 11 is a case of back-formation based on analogy and is obviously not correct. Such wrong usages are frequently seen in inscriptions as well as old Kannada manuscripts. Kesiraja (1260 A. C.) expressly prohibits the pronunciation of r+consonant as consonant while admitting that older poets have used the two for the purpose of rhyme. This suggests that there was a widespread practice among the common folk of pronouncing the r+ consonant cluster as + consonant group and it may be this that has prompted the composer, the scribe or the engraver, or possibly all the three, to use the form ildudam in the present record.
-Um and -am, the conjunctive morphemes of old Kannada are seen here in more than one context. One of them attaches itself to all the members entering into a conjunction and the last one takes on the required case suffix, the rest being in the nominative. While interpreting, the case suffix must be deemed to be present in all the other members also. As instances (1) mane-yu nandana-vanavum-am māḍisi (11. 12-13), (2) pasuvum brahmanaruma (1. 19), (3) pulladakkan-ettuvodam m-enānuvam-bididoda (1. 24) may be quoted from the inscription. In the first two the particle -um is used and in the third the particle -am is used in ettuvoḍam and is absent in bididoda, the second member. Such usage as this is rather rare in Kannada, more so in verse than in prose. According to the grammarians, though not expressly so stated, all the members in conjunction must have the conjunctive particle as also the case suffix.
1 Ibid., pp. 1 ff. and plate.
Adulde<adarde: A Grammar of the Oldest Kanarese Inscriptions by Dr. A. N. Narasimhia, p. 256, No. 21 of about 700 A. C., pelchuge< perchuge, ibid, p. 256, 1. 8 of about 675 A. C., peldore<perdore, above, Vol. XII, p. 294, ilds irdu, above, Vol. XIII, Nidugandi inscription, 1. 16, of 1107 A. C., Ed. L. D. Barnett, etc., manuscripts of Vaddaradhane: earliest date 1403 A. C. poldidom<pordidom.
Sabdamanidarpana (Ed. Kittel, Rev. 1920), sutra 24.
See l'addarådhane (Prose work of the 10th century) Ed. D. L. Narasimhachar: balmeyum valitanamum sahanamum ganda-gunamu-man-uriyal-akkum p. 29, lines 25-26, Purigere-münürum Belvola-müürum Banarase. pannirchchhäsiramum Kundür-sästramumam: Bombay Karnatak Inscriptions, Vol. I, part II (8. I I.. Vol. XI, part II) Ed. N. Lakshminarayan Rao, No. 127, line 8.
