________________
167
W, Y, S, 517 ruvasi Tp, ruasi Ma, Ti(!), Bh, R, W, Y, S, 556 ruvati Ma, Ti, Tp, T, ruamti , Y, S (rovasti Bh, R), 569 ruai Ti, Tp(!), Bh, R, V, Y, T, ruvai S, 596 ruaṁtammi , Y, 649 ruai Ma, Tp(!), W, Y, W, ruvai R, S, 784 ruai T, S, ruvai R, 837 ruaṁtie Ma, Ti, Tp(!), ruvat Te T, 848 ruvai Ma, Ti, Tp, ruai T, 885 ruvasu Ti, TP, T, ruvasi W, 895 rua Ti, Tp(!), T, 909 ruvasi Ti, Tp, ruvasu T, 915 ruvasti Ti, TP, T, 941 ruāmi Ti, Tp(!), T, 960 ruasi W, 963 ruai W.
Contrary to u(v)a(-ha) these words have comparatively obvious derivations from Sanskrit. For the -v- in Prākrit the corresponding Sanskrit words have either a -v- or a -p-, which may have provided the basis for the secondary insertion of the -v- in the Prākrit words. For ru(v)a- the situation is different. As already indicated above it most probably goes back to ru-, ruvati (Vedic; Sanskrit has rauti, but also ruvanti). However, in the commentaries and, Chāyās on the Sattasat it is almost invariably glossed with rud-, in conformity with Sanskrit, which uses rud- to denote 'to weep' (of human beings) and ru- to denote 'to howl' (mainly of animals). It is significant that precisely for this word the exceptions (rua-) in the South-Indian branch are numerous. A comparison of ru(v)a- with the other words involved suggests a different approach to the problem. It is possible to argue that in the MSS of the South· Indian recensions in ua a -v-, probably suggested by a pronunciation of ua as /uwa/, was inserted unless the etymology of the word prevented it. Thus, we find dhuva-, suva-, etc., but not * uvaa (adaka). For u(v)a(-ha) there simply was no etymology to prevent the insertion of -v-. Whereas the form rua- would be expected throughout on the basis of the traditionally accepted etymology, the occasional occurrence of ruvamust be explained as an instance of a scribal lapse.
The problem of the variation between uva(-ha) and ua(-ha), etc. seems still far from definitely solved. Nevertheless some principle has to be decided upon with regard to the text to be edited. I have decided in each instance to adopt the form without the -v- (unless not available, as in, for instance, 909 and 915), thus in the main following the North-Indian , branch. In doing so I adhere in a way to the principle of the lectio difficilior: for most words concerned the form without -v- is the one
