________________
134
Prakrit and Apabhraṁsa Studies.
(95), चिंचेल्लिय (1196), विहेढग (1312), विहण्णू (100, 423, 1378), खिणिक्खिणिया (109), फडक्य (109), चगोड (142, 145), लच्छिघर (168), उप्फाल (188), कासियार (196), बोज्झक (212), मोहणाघर (235, 1116), कामपाल (238), रिभिय (242, 1488), वोमिस्स (243), चिलल्लिया (254), महाल (255), दोहलिणी (292), पगुत्ति (296), नड्डालिया (310), पढमेल्लुय (341), मालुय (343), बीहणय (362), दोद्दिय (300, 697), घोट्ट (327), अवगुय (464, 859, 1252), वरवरिया (470), किमिच्छग (471), लेण (474), पोराणिय (492), गोसग्गिय (519), पडिजग्गण (552), वंद्र (553), अडयण (556), कट्ठ (589), मगसय (683), चुप्पालय (689), परज्ज्ञ (966), अणाह (696), मिज (697), मुहमक्कडिया (707), सचक्कार (770). आवल्लय (861), मख (863), सिरिघर (934), दुयग्गा (942, 949 etc), मल्लहडि (945), पिरिलि (945), उक्कुट्ठी (965), मत्तलओ (1003), पहालि (1004, 1040), सोल्ल (1004, 1393), अवओडय (1012), पत्तली (1046), निफेडा (1049), निच्चट्ट (1057), वक्खेव (1091), वोद्रही (1095), पारग (1103), चेडरुव (1103), गोस (1158), जोगवखेम (1169), पाउहारी (1175), अंतिवासी (1188, 1189), कविलास (1189), वरिसधर (1201), चुडुली (1218), छायग्घ (1236, 1271), आचिकखणक (1246), गागर (1333), मगुल (1338), वल्लूर (1374), नेव्य (1375), पिल्लय (1383), यत्ति (1431), रिछोली (1468), गिध्धु (1482), अच्छेप्प (1548), दवदवस्स (1561), नीइ (201, 437), नीमो (1151), नीहति (176), परीति (1348), अईती (548, 1201), अतीभि (1621), परेत (322, 353), उईरति (450), उघूसइ (513), उप्फिडति (549, 700), बेइ (412, 533), बेति (62), अवयक्खतो (729), निवज्जामि (813), निघोहतो (1454) etc.
These traits of Archaie Prakirt are the same as those which Alsdorf has pointed out from the language of the Vasudevahindi.9 He has observed that this type of Prakrit belonged to that period when Jain Māhārāstrī was still connected with Ardhamagadhi and wherein colloquial forms were in vogue as against the stylized later forms. As he assigns the Vasudevahindi to the fourth century A.D. or places it even earlier, TL. also, in view of the shared traits of Archaic Prakrit, can be assigned to the beginning centuries of the Christian era. It should not also be forgotten that the number of archaic linguistic traits noted above from TL. must have been much larger in the original Taramgavai.
