Some Topics in the Development of OIA MIA NIA

Author(s): H C Bhayani
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad

Page 67

53
convincing explanations of numerous phonological and morphological "irregular' developments in Indo-Aryan. Below I have given references to data from Pischel and Turner to illustrate both the views.
Pishel's view Some relevant data is cited below from Pischel's 'Comparative Grammar of Prakrit Languages' (English Translation by Subhadra Jha, 1965 edition), References are to the paragraphs.
pikka- (=pakva-), vivikka-(=vipakva-) and paripikka(-paripakva-) explained on the basis of the phonological change a > i( 101),
subbhi = surabhi, according to which has been formed dubbhi, which mostly occurs beside it : subbhi-durabhi or surabhi-durabhi ($148).
hammai (“goes to' with the compounds nihammai, āhammai, pahammai (= Pali ghammati) ( $ 188,266)
The same sound i ge (i.e. -V->-->-m-) has taken place in the case of the se ry v in the passive cimmai beside civvai from civ and JM. summai beside suvvai from svap (S 536, § 261).
The passive vubbhai = uhyate, dubbhai = duhyate, libbhai = lihyate ( $ 54+61,544) go back to the root-doublets vabh, dubh, libh. bh is related to the original gh, as v is relatd to k, g (8230-231), that is to say here is a case of transforination of guttarals to labialsrubbhai from rudh (8 546), also in the Parasmaipada rumbhai (8 507) is formed on the analogy of the roots in gutturals. ( § 266)
pp in some passive, which .........Jacobi and according to him Johansson wished to derive from false analogy, has regularly arisen fryuvbom py....... sippai = snihyate and sicyate (HC. 4, 255), ....belongs to simpai (HC 4, 96), which is related to Marathi simpņem, Gujarati simpvus and presupposes a root sip, which was parallel to sic, from sik. This is therefore, a case of interchange of gutturals and labials ( 215 )........ vähippai (HC.4,253)........which is derived, with HC. 4,253 from Vhr, is = vyāhriyate, is rather vyāksipyate with a somewhat more special meaning than in Sankrit..... As a proof we have M. nihippanta- (R.8,97) = niksipyamāna, which is wrongly derived by S. Goldschmidt. A. nihittau .......and M. Amg. J. M.