Indian Antiquary Vol 46

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarkar
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 313

DECEMBER, 1917]
THE WIDE SOUND OF E AND O
299
from from
Further, saki, tui, fagi from Paki, fagi, fari; 4, 124, F4 from far, f ; and similar instances (गोव्यंदो for गोविंदी and भ्याली for मिली) point to a still wider field of operation of the anti-samprasdrana process; and it also manifests itself in the final preceded by consonants, as in आंख्य from
भक्खि - अक्षि गांव
tot - af: वास्थ
Tut - f: गौरय from
गवरी - गौरी जात्य from
prat - Fa: and the like.
The list of words given above will show that the change of 7 to is not confined to TTT, tercraft and TETT, but extends over a larger, though necessarily limited, field. All I intended was to indicate the tendency, and leave other cases of wide è and ò to be explained by that process, whether actual change to w in their case wasf ound or not in writing, by a reasonable inference of its operation.
To take (b) in the first objection first :
I do not think ter and Terraft can be found in any Prakrit grammar or work. These always recognize 98 and 93, 93 and 977 (as evolutes of MT and 973) having come into use at a very late stage even in O. W. Rajasthani. One would rather say that and Trust are tatsamas and ter and facroft are tadbhavas. Again, to say that spa (and 9) may in these cases be a corruption of Sanskțit (and t) is hardly supported by Praksit grammar. Hemachandra notes the change of tto TT and we (as also that of spt to st, 3 and 977 ), but he nowhere speaks of 2 ( and 977 ) as evolutes of (and st), nor are they found in Prakrit works, so far as I know. True, Dr. Tessitori has simply advanced a conjecture; but such a conjecture has hardly any basis, either in the grammatical or literary works in Prakrit; nor are there any grounds for going behind Hemachandra and reading into his sûtras any such phonetic tendency, as may fairly be permitted by critical canons.
Now, as regards (a),—it is essential to know specifically the conditions under which O. W. Rajasthani manuscripts write u for (and, as Dr. Tessitori states further on, for 3 ): Is it in the case of initial, medial or final or 3? Is it when they are accented or unaccented ? or, is this substitution of (and a ) for ( and ) dependent, like the spelling with a w or a vin Sam Weller's name, on the taste and inclination of the writer ? Again, are those
• I find t in a poem of Padmanabha copied in V. 8. 1715 (80e Gujardia-Saia-Patra, XII, May, article by Mr. Chhaganlal V. Råvala); and trout in Vaitdla-panchavio (poem), p. 178; Fent in Bhalana's Kadambari, pūrvabhåga, p. 81, 1. 16; p. 83, 1. 13; and p. 102, 1. 20.
This substitution of for is not to be mistaken as 4 vagary of the scribes. Even now in Gujarat ladies of the old generation amongst Vadanagara Någaras and residents of Karnali in Baroda State have this tendency to substitute for in pronouncing words of this kind, c. 9., for fem, म्यरी for मिरी (मरी), and the like.
6 The genesis of farmer (anti-samprasdrana) may be this: when the -3 find themselves in a subordinate position they seek, as it were, some support for self-proservation, and an adventitious
steps in to furnish such support, resulting in the usual sandhi process + = and 3+1=. Pånini's rule, a operates here; this rule is practically the opposite of TTTT: FET ; the change of 4 to being called "YATT (samprasdrana), that of to T may well be terred gregar (prati-samprasarana) or anti-samprasirana.