________________
The Bhusa-laksaņa Chapter of Gitulankura
Furrher the fourteenth name is in all prolability catht, and not a frent; the M8 has actually axfish in v 2, and RETT (1. e. JFEIT) in v 21. The last name is most probably ditet (or zillat) and not Asu.
TATHLETI 18 very much suspect and possibly it is a corruptson of $174 .
The number of languages 18 given as fortytwo (v 6). The subsequent verses 8 to 48 present a few lexical characteristics of each of these Prakrits. As there are fortytwo languages, but fortyone characterising verses, we have to assume that either somewhere two languages are accomodated in one verse or alternatively, one verse is missing Daarèlou and Bhatt think that v 40 illustrates in its two halves her and he respectively. Further tbey understand v. 47 also deals 10 similar fashion with two languages, namoy malet and T. They take the last verse, numbered fortyeight, as topically not forming a part of the HT T , but rather as a conclusion to the work as a whole, disregarding the patent fact that the language of the verse is Prakrit while the whole work excepting the verses illustrating the dialects 18 in Sanskrit In fact the whole of v.47 illustrates the strateft dialect and the last verse of ch, XV illustrates the ziet dialect We think that one Verse illustrating wife 18 missing after v, 40, cyen though the Ms, does not indicate any gap at that place.
A crltical consideration of the text of the Prakrit verses of the GT, as presorvod in its single Ms, reveals the following facts about its corru. ptions and lapses There are numerous lacunae in vv 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 36, 39, 40, 41, 44, 45, 46 and 47. The copyist of the Ms. (or of its prototype), besides omitting or adding letters, has mis. read or confused numerous letters for u, or y for a, for at, for म. म for त, ह for ढ, ख for ग्ग, सो for ओ, म for र, स्थ for च्छ, ध for r, q for , 7 for , for 2, a fora, q for a, for ea, q for 3, for a7, a fora, a fora, for #, & fort, F for, for , & for g. 9 for a,a for 2,7 for , a for, o forg, a for 3, 7 for 2, a for, for RT, 3 for a, # for at, a for , for a, eo forg, for an a for 21, for el, for #, 7 for 77, for a, 4 for at and so on endlessly. Omission of post-consonantal signs for and 3, addition or transposition of Anusvāra, single letter for the double onog, etc, are other frogpont errors.
In what follows the text of each verse and the observations on it are presented in the following order . name of the dialect, text according to Daniélou and Bhatt, reconstructed text, notes, the Deśya items identified We have checked the text of Daniélou and Bhatt with the original manue
