Mahavira Jain Vidyalay Suvarna Mahotsav Granth Part 1

Author(s): Mahavir Jain Vidyalaya Mumbai
Publisher: Mahavir Jain Vidyalay

Page 671

202 : SHRI MAHAVIRA JAINA VIDYALAYA GOLDEN JUBILEE VOLUME
adj.-with which it has merely transposed place. If this position obtains the word gaya can quite easily be assumed as to have thrown off its termination.
But a little reflection shows that this argument of Alsdorf is sure to meet with a grave objection. Because the fundamental condition of samāsa stands against it. If there was any scope for compound here it should have been amongst all the words gayahā, mattahã and cattankusahā (an adj. like mattahā), which maintain a syntactical connection. The forming of compounds between the preceding two words leaving the third outside is forbidden and against the procedure of the construction of compounds (vide : samarthah padavidhiḥ. Pāṇini 2.1.1). This condition stands in the way of our accepting Alsdorf's proposition, even if we find some justification for the transposition of place between two components of the compound. Such being the condition we doubt whether anybody would accept the proposition of Alsdorf. Hence this verse, too, which Alsdorf cites in support of his argument, has got practically no worth in establishing his viewpoint.
Now it is possible for us to say that in all the above-discussed verses barring that of the Paramātma-prakāśa, which Alsdorf unjustifiably draws within the purview of his discussion, there are noninflected gen. forms-most of which are to be interpreted as such and do not admit of any other explanation. But with regard to a few verses we are constrained to modify our statement and suggest that the acceptance of the stem-forms as genitive ones in such cases ascribes to the stanzas a very suitable construction leading to the development of a quite agreeable meaning-but that situation does not rule out the probability of the emergence of other interpretations, consequent on the sudden development of analytical tendencies in Ap. and post-Ap. speeches. These facts should be considered in the background of some other above-discussed phenomena-namely (1) the occurrence of a few non-inflected forms in the Bhavisattakaha and the Nemināhcariu, (2) the copious use of such forms in the Prāksta-paingala and other late-Ap. works, (3) the development of two cases-the direct and oblique in all the New Indo-Aryans, consequent on the disintegration of old terminations traditionally coming down and (4) finally the appearance of the new mode of using post-positions for indicating case relations in the modern Aryan speeches.
Now taking all these facts together into consideration it is possible for us to assert that the loss of inflection in gen. in Ap., which Hemacandra prescribes by formulating a sūtra in unequivocal terms, is
NON+