Morphological Evidence For Dialectal Variety In Jaina Maharastri

Author(s): Nalini Balbir
Publisher: Nalini Balbir

Page 21

JAINA MAHĀRĀṢTRĪ
523
Then comes a dṛṣṭānta :
"Without a root, what tree would look excellent and thick? A pot with a broken base would never retain water, etc. ". Throughout these stanzas we find the main "AMg" characteristic, the /(agalino, bahilä, uvakalane, gulu, ambale, talu and so on). As in one of the two cases analysed by Alsdorf, the Sanskrit commentator has here observed the dialectal difference. He has taken note of its specific linguistic feature and quoted the famous sūtra on Magadhi:
iha sarvatrapi ra-karasya la-kärådeśaḥ "ra-sor la-sau "111 iti Magadha-bhäṣā-lakṣaṇa-vaśāt 112,
The other features are not so consistent. Nominatives singular in -e do occur, for instance in the masculine nouns (khamae 4330, je samjae 4331, ghade 4363, etc.), but -o forms are also found (mucchio 4325, pesio... khamao 4331). An extreme case is provided in 4331d:
khamao dei lisiņa ambale,
where and the -o ending stand side by side. The neuter nominative does not show the Eastern ending -e, but the ordinary -am:
see 4362 vayaṇam na vi... pūjiyam.
Again, these are examples of the conflict between conservatism and normalization. Finally, the accusative plural ambale (4330, 4331; Sk. ambarāni) reflects the loss of the masculine-neuter gender distinction in a stems. For this particular word, it is already documented in Pali:
nānāratte ca ambare (Ja VI 230, 29*).
The main tendencies observed in this paper can now be summed up. 1. To some extent, we have seen that a distinction has to be drawn between the two groups of our corpus as far as dialectal influences are concerned.
2. The influence of'AMg on JM seems to be partly limited by stylistic motivations. In several cases, we find in the context some elements which account for it. On the other hand, there are many linguistic features common to these two dialects.
3. The case of Apabhramsa is more difficult. Morphological evidence for the possible influence of this dialect on JM is scarce. It may be
111. See, for instance, Hemacandra's Prakrit Grammar 4.288.
112. Tīkā on the BKBh, vol. IV, p. 1173.