________________
APRIL, 1874.]
ordinary Hindi prosody, is the substitution of a long syllable for two short ones, and of two short ones for one long syllable. Examples of either case are not very common; those of the latter kind occur only in the syllabic measures (T). Thus in Revátata 61-1:
मिलेचाहु चुहुआ॑नु॒ सा चंपि गोरी ॥
Here we have ; in other places the anomaly is avoided by writing चोहान
157011
Again, ibidem 61, 4 : तिनं अग्ग नीसांनु मिलि अद्ध कोसं ।। 61, 18 : मिरे गोरियं से न अरु चाहुवानं ॥ 61, 23 : लुगे धार धारं तिनै A TE!! Examples of the substitution of a long syllable for two short ones occur, I believe, only in the time-measures (4), and of these almost exclusively in the Kavitta stanza. In the latter they are met with most commonly either at the end of the even hemistichs of the Kavya verse, or in the middle of the uneven hemistichs of the Ullál verse; e.g., in Revátata Kavitta (Ullal) 39-10 पछि मी षांन पट्टान सह ।
33
39
29
PROSODICAL PECULIARITIES OF CHAND.
13
F-n
1
T
41, 11: सभ ले सूर सामंत नृषु ।। Again, Devagiri Kavitta (Kavya) 52, 3-6: नाग समुह धद्ध री। ढाहि देवल सुरंग मढ ॥
il
טוט
- 100-10~11ano-long
थांन थांन नर उडै। चंदं त स उप्पम पाइय ।।
nn-anton 10-11 alonan In-n
or Revátata Kâvitta (Kavya) 39, 5: षां मांगोल लुलरी । बीस टंकी बुरु पंचै ।।
Ibidem, 40, 3:
केली षां कुंज री । साह सारी द ल पधर ।। Ibidem, 78, 7:
सब रसद व द यौ । विषंम द गंधन झारी ।
nnnn 1 10-11 al 1
11
107
spellings, adapted to the pronunciation of those words as it is now usual; in the time of Chand they must have been differently pronounced, and (if they are spelt according to the pronunciation of those times) written thus: afty, पद्धिमिय, ललरिय, कुंजरिय, बदयउ. This is the more probable as those Chandic forms are nearer to the Prákrit धीरओ, पच्छिमओ ( Skr. पश्चिमक :), ललरिभी, कुंजरिभो (Skr. कुंजरक), वादिअओ (Skr. af); and, 2, as the modernized, contracted forms occur only exceptionally, while in most places the original uncontracted Chandic forms are preserved; e.g.,
in Revátata Dandamâlî 50, 25:
A clue to the understanding of this apparent anomaly is, I think, afforded by the word t (he flies, 3rd pers. sing. pres. of 3). Even now the word is occasionally written उडड़ (or उडय). If the word be so written in the verse quoted above, the metre becomes perfectly regular. Now considering that the form 35, being very nearly Prakrit 3, is the more original of the two, it seems to me there can be no doubt that Chand must have recited 355, and that the form is merely a modernization of the word, probably, by subsequent scribes. Similarly धद्धरी, पच्छिमी, ललरी, कुजरी, बदयौ are modernized
बरबीर धार जोगिंद पंतिय ।।
वाइ वीष धुंधरि परिय ॥ उररि षांन गोरिय मुष ।
ibid. Doha 52, 1: ibid. Kavitta 59, 10 : 61, 1: fara at af 11 etc. etc. In all these places we should say now in modern Hindi पाँती, परी, गोरी, वडी, etc.
Another peculiarity of C hand's Epic is that sometimes a short vowel must be read where a long vowel or a diphthong is written; e. g. u for o in Revátata Bhujangi 43, 5:
दीन, हीन,
।।
i for ai, ibidem, Dandamâli 50, 20: कै सुतु धुनु सुसि साचर्ड ॥
u for ú, ibidem, Kavitta 41, 7: हिंदू सेनु उप्परे ।।
11
a for a, ibidem, Kavitta 41, 2: after adr efs Pace ||
In these verses दुऊ must be read for दोड; कि for के हिंदु for हिंदू तह for नहीं; etc.
Similarly sometimes an anunâsikâ must be read where an anuswâra is written; thus in Revátata Kav. 57, 7:
गुरु पंचमिः रवि पंचम ॥ ibidem, Motîdâm 63, 2:
यो ससिर उर सैसब कोर ।।
ibidem, Doha 42, 3: तुब लगि
इंजीर ने
In these verses पंचम must be read for पंचम चंप्यौ for चंप्यो, पुंडीर for पंडीर, for the anuswara causes a preceding short vowel to be positionally long, while the anunâsikâ has not that effect. Now the explanation of this peculiarity, I think, is to be found in the same principle which has
