________________
210
ira (kira; see *36), ā (tā(t)), uņa (puna) and u (tu). For e, the personal pronoun of the second person, generally a variant de is available (throughout in T and once in S) except in 683, in which case e was misunderstood (see above, p. 163). This marks de as the innovation. The nature of the innovation is in itself peculiar in that it is another typical Pkt word.
For the possible use of de, the personal pronoun of the second person singular, as a kind of particle, see *16.
padihāai (TP, T) corresponds to Skt pratibhāti. pad ihāsai (pratibhāsate) found in the other MSS is most likely originally nothing but a clerical error, the -s- having been intruded from the following word sahThi. It was retained as it did in no way disturb the original sense.
For ii of the text the available MSS read i(y)a. Var. I 14 and Hem. I 90 (see also I 42) mention this ia as a substitute for Skt iti. Its occurrence would be restricted to the beginning of a word (pādādau; Var.) or to the beginning of a sentence (vāk yādau; Hem.). As such it differs from the other substitute for iti, namely (t)ti, which functions as an enclitic.
Pischel ($ 116) looks upon ia as a direct continuation of Latin ita. However, a comparison with AMg. shows that the situation is somewhat different. In AMg. one finds beside iya a form ii, which goes back directly to Skt iti. In North-Indian, and especially in Jaina MSS, the syllables -i- and -ya- are frequently interchanged, which is due to the fact that they are very similar in (the North-Indian) pronunciation. This explains iya beside ii. It should be noted that Pischel (loc. cit) leaves open another possibility, namely that ii in Amg. stands for original iya. It is very doubtful, though, if a copyist would accept such an awkward form as ii unless it was already there. Compare the case of the ending -(y)a in kodi(y)a, for koqti, which latter form was apparently considered awkward, discussed in * 2.
The occurrence in M. Pkt, throughout, of i(y)a would only show that the MSS of most of the earlier M. Pkt texts, go back to North-Indian MSS. This is certainly the case with the MSS of the Sattasaf. For the occurrence of i(y)a in such later texts as the Kams avaho (see I 55) the grammars may be held responsible. In the text I have everywhere adopted ii against the unanimous evidence of the MSS in favour of ia. .
