________________
99
as the name-ending. Mesāņá (* Mahişánaka-), Pālitaņā (* Pädaliptānaka-), Kutiyāņā, Hariyāņā, Rājputānā, Ahirāņā, Didvāņā, etc. (And inscriptional Bhädánaka, Dindavänaka, Mangalánaka, etc.) can be cited as illustrations. They show the preservation of -āņa-. Ontil recently, -āņū was productive in literary language as shown by the modern formations Bhāvāņu Bhavangar' (from Bhāvasimha) and Jāmāņù “Jamnagar' (from the family name Jäm) both cities in Saurashtra.
Similarly tana(y)a- has preserved its initial t- (like all the inherited Apabhramsa pospositions) down to Modern Gujarti. So the assumption of its loss in Apabhramśa, eventually yielding -āņa(y)awould be indefensible.
Some guesswork can suggest the Sanskrit case ending -(ă)nām, feminine suffy -āņi (Indrāņi, Varunāni, Sivāni; extended to scripts: Yavanāni, Sakāni, etc.) as possible connections. The problem remains to be investigated.
Similarly the possibility of tracing the surname-ending āņi (forming surnames from ancestral personal names e.g. Gujarati Pop!āņi, Bhay-āņi. Hem-āņi. Jāmaņi, Jasāņi, Kośv-āņi, Jeraj-āņi, Madhyāņi and many others, as also the Sindhi surname-endin -āņi to our suffix -āņa(y)-a, though obvious, remains to be definitely cxtablished.
Notes 1. Hemacandra, Siddhahcma, VIII. 2. 147-9, 1. 246; II 99; IV. 422
(20); IV. 434; II 149; R. Pischel, Grammatik der prakrit-sprachen, strassburg. 1900, 176; G.V. Tagarc, Historical Grammar of Apabhraíša, Poona, 1948, 103-4; S.Sen Historical Syntax of Middle Indo-Aryan, 103, 12a; Indian Linguistics, 13(1953), Nos.
3-4, 75-6; etc. 2. A Master “Gleanings from the Kuvalayamālā kana', BSOAS, (13)
(1950), 411, originally suggested by L.B. Gandhi,
Apabhraíśakāvayatrayi, Baroda, 1927. Introd 109 3. L. A. Schwarzschild, 'The Possessive Adjectives of Late Prakrit,
Jras, 1954, 134 4. The passage is cites below.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
