________________
110
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[MAY, 1915
(Ijiśni, Notes, p. 15, col. 1).
(2)
(8)
(Ibid, Notes, P. 14, col. 1).
(4)
અનેરા પુરૂષ તથી રમી અથવા ભતારહિત નારી ર૯ર્ષ કામાર્થ્ય તથઈ વિષઈ સુ હ (Khurd-Avastarthah, Notes, P. 15)
पुण्यमयी गाथाउ तझोरहिं नमस्कार ह
सुंदर ते भलो बिहरहिं केसलाई मनुष्यनु शुभ कल्याण वर्त
Another work called Arda Gvird (or Ardâ Vîrâf) is translated into Sanskrit and then into Gujarâts. A manuscript copy of this written in v. s. 1507 (-A. D. 1451) was shown to me by Mr. Behramgor Anklesaria. I find therein the following:
जीण पाप करी आत्मारहिं इसउ दोहिलउ निमहः कीजद्द अछि ।
Now, what I may place for Dr. Tessitori's consideration is the fact that these Parsis in the 14th and 15th centuries A. D. could hardly have themselves come under a Marwadi influence, as they had not travelled then beyond Cambay, Div and parts of Central Gujarat. I do not forget that the Old Western Rajasthânî was the prevalent language, and it did not split up into Gujarati and Mârwâdî till after the 15th century, and that all that is intended by Dr. Tessitori is the silent Mârwâdî tendency, indicated by features peculiar to Marwadi and dropped by Gujarâti. Still I submit these data for such use as he may wish to make of them.
The second point is that touched at p. 24 of the February (1914 A. D.) number of this Journal under item 6. It refers to the existence in Mârwâḍi and Gujarati of separate words to express the plural of the first personal pronoun, when the addressee is included, and when he is excluded. Gujarâtt has hame () when the person addressed is excluded and apane (sq) when he is included. I wish to point out that this peculiarity is not general amongst the vernaculars of India. Gujarâtî is one of the few exceptions, which also include the Dravidian (and also the Munda) dialects. (Vide Extract from the Manual of the Administration of the Madras Presidency, taken by Sir George Grierson in his article on Languages in the Imperial Gazetteer of India (new Edition), Vol. I, (A. D. 1907) p. 380).
I cannot go into the voluminous details of phonetics so studiously collected by Dr. Tessitori. It is neither necessary nor within the purpose and scope of the present Note to do so. But I may take this occasion and make a suggestion with due deference. It is about the advisability of classifying the several heads under this chapter on phonetics so as to bring several diverse features under a possible common principle. I would cite the instances under § 2 (4), § 5 (3) and § 7 (3). These refer to the dropping of the initial a, initial u, and initial e. If the several instances falling under these heads are studied together, it will be seen that they fall under the common principle which governs the rule that an unaccented initial syllable is generally dropped. This phonetic rule has been indicated by Dr. Sir P. G. Bhandarkar in one of his Wilson Philological Lectures. (Vide Journal Bombay Asiatic Society, Vol. XVII, Part II A. D. 1889, P. 145). However, it is perhaps necessary for Dr. Tessitori to deal with each head separately under the system of analysis adopted by him.
