Madhuvidya

Author(s): S D Laddu, T N Dharmadhikari, Madhvi Kolhatkar, Pratibha Pingle
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad

Page 665

64
M. A. MEHENDALE
texts since as he has rightly observed : "No Proto-NIA text marked as such is available to us. It has to be reconstructed from the Avahattha (and Laukika) texts known as yet." (p. 18) A concise vocabulary follows these specimens of texts.
Some comments follow :
(1) On p. 3, while describing how Vedic and Classical Sanskrit differ in vocabulary, the author cites examples of only vocabulary loss. He could have as well given examples of new arrivals in Classical Sanskrit, especially by way of borrowing.
(2) On p. 7 the author expresses his opinion that there exists "a perfect parallelism" (emphasis added) between 'Proto-NIA' and Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit because the literary products of the close of the MIA period show some features of late Apabhraíša although in point of time they are closer to New Indo-Aryan. But such mixtures are likely to be found in any transitional literature. Moreover, as the author himself points out on the same page, the BHS is "to some extent artificial" while the proto-NIA is "hased on colloquial".
(3) On p. 16 the author improperly includes items of lexicon like dola 'eye', bani "horse', etc. under morphology.
(4) On p. 22 the author notes the retention of geminated -5s- in parassu and suanassu as an Apabhraíša feature as opposed to the occur. rence of a single -s- in tasu which is an Avahattha feature. But he also says that the retention of double consonants is due to metrical necessity. If this is true, we cannot point to it as a retention of an old feature.
(5) In chapter 9 on Avahattha morphology one misses certain features. For example, one does not find on p. 68 the instr. sg. termination -ina (cf. sāsanaliņa < śvāsānala 'hot breath' p. 146 verse 4); the very first item airattie in vocabulary does not figure under genitive. The two forms caijja and bhamijja which occur in verse 1 on p. 146 are not treated under the passive (pp. 89-91).
(6) Under Avahattha syntax (p. 103) the author mentions the use of the ablative-genitive and gives as an example guruhū pasāč 'by (=from) the grace of the guru'. This is not the correct example. The use of *by = from' applies to pasāa and not to guru. If at all, the author could have used it as an example of ablative-instrumental.
(7) The second line of stanza 3 cited on p. 146 runs as — navari mayarku vi taha tavai jaha dinayaru khayakāli. The author's translation of khayakäli 'at the time of mutilation (i.e. in the waning phase)' is not correct. The word khayakāli goes with dinayaru and not mayanku.
of the Prakrit grammarian Purusottama. * Prof. P. L. Vaidya's rendering (in his edition of the eighth adhyāya of Siddha-HemaŠabdānušāsana, p. 683) at the close (of the day)' is equally unhappy.
Madhu Vidyā/640