________________
MAY, 1882.)
CHANGE OF BHU IN THE PRETERIT.
123
at the gate or mahádvara of the temple, and on entering it he prostrates himself near the Dhvajastambha or the monolithic flagstaff, when the pújári or attendant of the goddess gives him the sacred water and prasid called tirtha and bhandára, immediately after which his clothes are given to him by his attendant relatives or friends. A fee or kanike of one anna is paid per head for this vow.
(iii) Persons of both sexes observe the vow of Bevina udige. Bevu or Nim is a tree which does not grow in the locality, and there. fore the pilgrims have recourse to the lakli shrub, with the leaves of which they dress themselves from the neck to the knees, having previously stripped themselves. Some of them also lock up their mouths with a wire lock (bayi bíga), and observe strict silence during the rite. Others, more enthusiastic, wrap their fingers with rags, and carry a light fed on ghee
in the palm of their hands called "Kai drati." This rite brings in a revenue of four annas per head to the temple.
These gatherings, though held under the cloak of religion, give scope, as may be natarally expected, to much immorality. There is a tradition that, till within few years ago, barren women used to vow on the occasion of these fairs at Chandragutti to have illegal intercourse in one night with more than one stranger in order that the goddess might bless them with children. Happily this detestable practice is a thing of the past.
Togarsi in the neighbouring Taluk of Shikaripur is also the scene of an annual méla or paris, at which somewhat similar observances take place. Immoral and vicious exhibitions at religious gatherings however are fast dying out, and are certainly very much discouraged now-a-days by the more intelligent classes.
ON THE ABSENCE OF THE GUNA CHANGE OF BHÙ IN THE PRETERIT.
BY Wx. GOONETILLEKE, HON. SECRETARY, ORIENTAL LIBRARY, KANDY, CEYLON. The sútra Panini VII. 3, 84, interpreted and tion. His translation is as follows :-"The explained by PÅņini I. 1, 3, requires the sub- radical indh is kit in lit" (page 123). The stitution of guna for the final ik of a base when sutra mentions two radicals, indh and bhd, and a sárvadhátuka or an árdhadhátuka affix the translation of the entire sútra would, followe. When, therefore, the substitutes of according to him, be, -"The radicals indh and lit, which are ardhadhatuka affixes (III. 4, 115), bhí are kit in tij.". This rendering is faulty in follow the root bhi, the vowel 1 should be more than one respect. In the first place it changed to o, unless some other rule of Panini is not the radicals that are kit, but it is lit prevents the operation of VII. 3, 84, or some that is so. Kit is a bahuvrihi compound valid reasons exist why the change should not meaning, having k as an it or indicatory letter. take place. The rule I. 2, 6, Paris
Goldstücker was perhaps led to believe hastily in which the words for and fair are valid from and without close examination that it was an the immediately preceding sútra, would pro- epithet of indhibhavatibhydm, but this cannot hibit the operation of VII. 3, 84, but Katyayana be, as this term is in the ablative case, and kit
tarnAR A vårttika anestioning the necessity | is in the nominative. Apart from this, we nofor this sútra and treating it as superfluous. where find k in Påņini's system as an it of a If, then, this rule is struck off from Påņini's root, although we find it so in Vopadêva's work as being unnecessary or superfluous, the Bystem, where the k shews that a root to which question arises, what is there to prevent the it is attached is in the tenth conjugation. In operation of VII. 3, 84 in the case mentioned the second place the rendering "in lit" appears
Before entering upon this inquiry, it is | to me to be incorrect and devoid of any necessary to ascertain what the sútri I. 2, 6 meaning. It is difficult to see what meaning really means. Dr. Goldstücker, one of the ablest is conveyed by the sentence "indh is kit in lit." of orientalists, has translated it, or rather a By the words "in lit" Goldstücker might have portion of it, somewhat incorrectly in his great intended the meaning "in the preterit," but work entitled Panini-his place in Sanskrit it must be remembered that lig is the name Literature-although he seems to have thorough- given to the terminations of the preterit--nou ly understood both its meaning and its applica- to the tense itself.
