Sambodhi 1977 Vol 06

Author(s): Dalsukh Malvania, H C Bhayani, Nagin J Shah
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad

Page 75

Prākrit studies
69
suggests that Skt Ks becomes Sk in Māgadhi dialect, e.g. laskase, daske. Hemacandra notes such a change of Ks only in the derivatives of the roots preksa and acaksa (i.e. peskadi and acaskadi) but in other cases the saine sound Kş should be represented by hk e.g. lahkaše, yah ke etc. Again Vararuci states that a-stems in the nom. sg. show the endings -e, -i and occassionally the loss of the ending, e.g. esi, ese, esa (laa) etc. But Hemcandra would not permit the use of all these endings in the nom. sg., he would approve only the ending -e in such a case and that too only in the case of the masc. a-stems. Again Vavaruci would permit the use of the suffix - dāji as the suffix for tlie absolutive in the Māgadhi dialect, but Hemacandra acknowledge the use of the suffixes -iya and -dūna in this very speech and remains ignorant of the one, suggested by Vararuci. Evidently the divergent forms of Magadhi came from its different sub-dialects, some of which are recognised by Vararuci and some by Hemacandra, So this clearly points to the generic feature of the Māgadbi speech, under which Sakari, Candali and some others might have occurred as sub-dialects,
From all these evidences it is perhaps possible for us to presume that Māhārāştri, Sauraseni and Māgadhi were all generic speeches. They contained a number of minor dialects or sub-dialects within tliemselves. The common features of the subdialects were ordinarily adopted to assign the features of the generic speech but sometimes the individual features of the subdialects were recognised owing to the popularity of such forms. This explains the prevalence of multifarious forms in the declension and conjugation systems in some of the generic speeches. According to our assumption the dialect Ardhamāgadhi too was a generic speech like some others mentioned here.
We come to another problem. Jacobi in his Kalpasūtra expresses the view that Prakrit or Mahārāștri of Hemacandra is not Māhārāştri proper, of which specimens are to be found in the Gathāsaptašati, Setubandha and the dramas, but it is in fact Jaina-Mahārāştri which is evidently different from the traditional Māhārāştri speech. But this view has been categorically contradicted by Pischel, since Hemacandra cites examples in suport of his rules from the texts like the Gathāsaptašati, Setubandha, Gaudavaho, Vişamabāṇalılā and Karpūramanjari, which are all composed in the popular Mahārāştri dialect. Although one cannot deny the statement of Pischel there appears some truth in the statement of Jacobi. Jacobi calls Hemacandra's Mābārāştri Jaina Mälārāștri on account of the fact that he notes there tlie prevalence of some Ärsa or Ardha-māgad hi features, which Hemacandra knowingly or unknowingly admits into that specch.
Now as these features frequently appear in the compositions of the Jains the Mah., which Hemacandra describes and which absorbs most of