________________
Shri Mahavir Jain Aradhana Kendra
www.kobatirth.orgAcharya Shri Kailashsagarsuri Gyanmandir
12
cruri may be the direct retles of ruträri, but it may be rather of caluro; the change of u into i may strictly bu mechanical. Meanwhile, it is difficult to imagine that the analogy of the use of cutlāri should not have floated in the mine of those using caluri, and influenced this spelling, just as the memory of a Mākadhism Chirchun, has similarly and the orthography bhichure, bhichari (cf. 19, 5). As regards the elision of the I, see I. 10, phasui side by side with bhazali, etc.
communernanannaga 30
6
utitha' na pramajea dhamu sucarita cari dhamacari suhu seati asmi loki parasa vi' o
Cf. Dhammap., 168.
n. The omission of the final e, uritha for wilhe, may
only be due to the negligence of the scribe, not to
any dialectic peculiarity. 6. The traces of the final # of suhu are not quite
distinct; it is perhaps suha which the copyist wished to write. Seuli appears to rest, not on the usual form
seti, but on the form sayati, aya being written. c. This last pada is found ayain likewise in (ro, 2!!,
with the genitive purasa for the locative parasmin. Similarly, namaruvasu, B, 30, sagarandasa, Cro, 3. A mistake, simply clerical (parasa for purusi=parusmi) is hardly probable side by side with usmi loki. It is more natural to admit a perversion, a confusion in the use of cases, of which the following (1. 9. fg) will supply many instances, and of which the lanvuage of the Malavastu affords us so many evidences. For cu we find in this manuscript a regular scale of clerical mollifications: j, ("", 17; j, B, 35; ya, A , 4; yi, here and elsewhere; i, Cro, 37; i for ya is explained well, and the orthography yi may be strictly understood is equivalent to yu; but in ji, for jil, it is dillicult not to admit an abnormal action of the analogy of i-yi.
For Private And Personal
