Kansvaho

Author(s): Rama Paniwada, A N Upadhye
Publisher: Motilal Banarasidas

Page 39

Xxxviii
jana (i. 14, 29, iv. 28), ulam kulam (ii. 58). Some of these words occur more than once; so we cannot brush them aside by attributing them to scribes. These forms appear to be used by the author himself. In all probability the author was led to use such words from their occurrence in compound expressions like airam, suiram, kumiäna, muniäṇa, saäṇa, rāüla etc. which are met with in standard texts like Gaüḍavaho and others. When these words (ciram etc.) stand as independent units and not as second members of a compound, the practice of eliding their initial consonants is not a healthy one, nor has it any stable foundation in the genuine Prakrit style of early authors. So I have emended these readings; and asterisks are put on them to indicate that they are subjected to editorial improvement. In the very interest of the language the elision of initial consonants in a compound expression, though optionally allowed by the grammarians, has to be practised with restraint. I have noted some striking cases of the elision of initial consonants in Rāvanavaho na inam=na dinam (viii. 61), aṇehim janaiḥ (viii. 65), ūraṁ pūram (viii. 65); but in every case their presence is due to the necessity of rhyme. The treatment of aspirates like kh etc. is to be considered on the same lines as that of intervocalic k etc.
1
KAMSAVAHO
Seventhly, we may also note the treatment accorded to initial conjunct groups. In the light of Vararuci's Sūtras (iii. 50 & 57) there is no justification for forms like kkhaäṁ (i. 29), kkhuḍiä (iii. 19), tthuo (iv. 16), ppaälaï (iii. 35), ppaïdi (iii. 52), ppaḍinava (iii. 16), ppamaüladam (iii. 37), ppalavaï (iii. 29, 49, 52), ppavaḍiä (iii. 55), ppasaham (iii. 52), ppaharisa (iii. 37), pponnidda (iii. 41), pphuḍa or pphuḍaṁ (i. 29, ii. 5, 18, 38, iii. 18, 58). We get instances of this type in the various readings available for the Prakrit portions of the dramas. Here metre requires them, so they cannot be