Sambodhi 1979 Vol 08

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

Page 19

181
S. N. Ghosal.
now a task for us to consider which of these two forms may have better claim for being the soucre of the Pkt, word mahana..
We have noted before that the form bambhana is later and is a product of bamhand, which itself develops at a very early stage of the transformation of the original form (brahmana). Although the word bambhana is later it nevertheless finds a permanent place in the stock of vocables of the Amg. dialoct, which belongs chronologically to the second stage of Pkt and does not go beyond that age."
Now here a fact is to be considered. The word bābhana, which develops from bambhana and constitutes a stage in the evolution of the word mahana, is fairly late and appears in the shape of bābhana (pronunced babhan) in the New Indo-Aryan speech Maithili. The word mahaņa, which proceeds from bābhand, should be placed then at a still later date chronologically in fact after the manifestaion of the New Indo-Aryan form (Maithili) babharat which retains the intervocalic consonant 'bh and does not allow it to be modified into h. In such a case i. e. in the case of the assumption of the origin of mahana from bābhana one is constrained to presume the simultaneous oocurrence and contemporaneous uso of the two words bambhana and māhana, which develop at two diffrent periods, in some stage of evolution of the speech Pkt. Although one cannot absolutely deny the possibilities of the occurrence of two forms - one earlier and" another later in one and the same speech such accomodation of two foto's belonging to different periods is possible in a language, only when they oocur at a reasonable distance in point of chronology. But it can hardly be expected that words originating at two different periods, within which there occurs a long stretch of time, can have the possibilities of occurring in one and the same speech as resultant forms of identical evolution. One should not take into account here those cases where the earlier forms are borrowings into a later speech as old Indo-Aryan forms in New IndoAtyan languages (Bengali, Hindi etc). If such be the fact it is not possible for us to presume that bambhana and its derivative mahāna, which must have passed through the successive stages of băbhana, vābhana, vāhang and mahaha; should have occurred in one and the same speech Amg. as elements of the same development. This debars'us from assuming bambhana as the source of mähana. We have noted before that the explanation of Pischel which presumes *makhana as the source of this Prākrit word (mähana) and remains involved with difficulties cannot be acceptable to us. This compels US Tal back upon bamhana and accept it as the real source of the Pkt. foti'mahana, that remain prevalent in the Ardha - Māgadhi dialect and stands there as a very common vocable.