________________
MAY, 1924)
BOOK-NOTICES
115
about the middle of the third century A.D., inter- 1. ny > in this accords with the Kharorthi vocalie Burds appear to be generally maintained, Inscriptions and with the modern development in although occasional voiced stops or the use of a Sindhi and probably Kasmiri. slightly different sign for the intervocalic as compared 2. y remains unchanged: 49 in the Kharorthf with the initial consonant, indicates that at this Inscriptions, and in Kasmiri. Sindhi also disdate the change was at least beginning. Gypsy, tinguishes y- (>j. ) from .(>j.). which almost certainly belongs to the N. W. 3. > --: Sindhi distinguishes .. (> Himalayan group, bears witness also to this late -t.) from l- -- (>2). This cerebralisation is found voicing and consequent late loss of intervocalic
in the N.-W. Himalayan group (excluding Gypsy surds, in that it preserves Skt. -- a8 l.
and Kasmiri) As far East probably as Kumaoni. There must then have been at one time contem- It is however shared also by the Western groupporary dialect groups in the Indo-Aryan area,
Rajasthani, Gujarati, Marathi-and in the Eastern ono of which represented Sanskrit intervocalio group by Uriya and probably Singhalese. surcis by surds (N.-W. group up to c. 250 A.D.)
4. -ry-> -jj-: Sindhi distinguishes -ry. (>) and the other by voiced stops, while in both the from y. (>-). development of initial and post-consonantal stope, 6. -ry. → -riy. (after a heavy syllable ? c.9., surd and voiced and of intervocalic voiced stops bhdriya = bharyd). This, regular in the Rigveda was the same (i.e., they remained in principle un- (where it is probably based on an Indo-European changed). Thus to Pkt. ghidan (< Skt. ghrlám) phonomenon), appears sporadically in various tho Kharorthi Inscriptions correspond with ghrita. modern languages: but it seems to be carried out But to Pkt. padam nud pindo they correspond with striking regularity in the Kharorthi Inscrip. with pada and pin a.
tions, where, e.g., arogi and arogiyo = drogyam. Obviously the former correspondence, namely Pkt.
6. - > -saf. in kasata = karta : is this -d. = Khar. --, would be felt as a distinguish.
simply a spelling for 3-1 The groups st(h) ing mark. In the light of the modern parallel ! () are maintained in the Kharoodhi Inscripgiven above, is it too much to suppose that anyone
tions and among the modern languages in Gypsy. in attempting to reproduce in literature the language
7. In the word for 'six' - does not become of a speaker of 4 dialect like those on which the
ch: this is in marked agreement with the
whole of the N. W. Himalayan group (Gypsy jov, Kharorths Inscriptions rest, would make the speaker turn all the intervocalic voiced stops of Prakrit
Kasmiri seh, Basgali 80, etc.) as opposed to general into surcs instead of only those Prakrit voiced
Prakrit and the other modern languages which stops which represented Sanskrit Burds! This
all have forms with ch.: the only ambiguous would be the traditional litorary Paisaci of Vararuci
forms are Marathi saha and Singhalese sa and ha, and the modified Calika-Paisacikå of Hemacandra.
which however are probably to be referred to forms
with ch.. And since -- was very common in Sanskrit, e.g.) 3rd sg. pres, and fut. ind., the infinitive, gerundi ve
In opposition to these striking agreements, Pai.
Saci has only one sibilant , (or in Saurasena Pai. and past participle--all forms of great importance
Sacika, according to Ramašarman). The Kharorthi in the Middle India verbal system--the correspond ence Pkt. d = Paisaci -
Inscriptions distinguish three sibilante, ?8,
may have been seized upon as the difference par excellence between
and European Gypsy distinguishes two, iki and :) the two languages. This would be the Paisaci
and e. The same distinction is found in a number of the Valmiki odras.
of other N.-W. Himalayan dialects, e.)., Shina, The schools represented by Ramabarman and Markandeya have gone &
which possibly distinguishes three and Kasmiri step further and have made Paisaci correspond
which distinguishes two. On the other hand the to all the voiced stops, in whatever position, of
distinction is lost in Armenian Gypsy, in the more
easterly of the N.-W. Himalayan dialects, and in Prakrit with surds. The growth of such a literary
Lahnda and Sindhi. dialect based on a not fully understood series of
There is thus & certain amount of evidence correspondences would be etrictly comparable with the exaggeration of the Homeric dialect
connecting Paibaci with the N.-W. group. But
wherever the original home of the dialect at the Among the Alexandrines-e.g., the wrongful ube of the hiatus based on those instances where
base of Paisaci was, it may not be unreasonable
to suppose that Paisaci came to be used as a generic owing to the original presence of & digamma the
term for any dialect diverging from the norn of hiatus was only apparent or the hyper-doricisms
Prakrit. This may account for the dialecte deof the Attic stage.
scribed in Sir George Grierson's text under the name In the text before us, and in Homacandra's of Saurasena-Paisacika, Pancala-P., Gauda-P., grammar, there are noted other sound changes Magadha-P., Vracada-P., Sakemabheda-P. (or conservations), which, though not conclusive | At all events what Sir George Grierson has given in themselves as to the home of Paisaci, are at least us here emphasizes the remoteness of the gramma shared by Paiśáci with members of the N.-W. group. rians from the languages they described and the
