________________
Vol. XVI, No. 3
65
From the table it appears that Vararuci prefers sk whereas Hemacandra has a new idea i.e. visarjaniya plus k (=phonetically X ork), whereas Puruşottama, Rāma Tarkavāgisa and Mārkandeya prefer palatal sibilant plus k (=šk). This distinction between the two schools is very apparent. As Māgadhi has only palatal $ in place of the other two (i.e. ș and s) it seems quite logical that kş is developed into a sibilant cum velar (=sk). It is possible that sibilant could be a palatal one maintaining the general character of the Māgadhi language, otherwise the characteristics of Māgadhi with regard to palatal świll be confused. That even the Western Grammarians like Hemacandra, Trivikrama and others are not unanimous with regard to the development of kş intok shows that the Western grammarians are even in doubt about it.
In this respect the Māgadhi passages in the Sanskrit dramas will not help us to rectify or to correct the views of the grammarians. As the Māgadhi passages in Sanskrit dramas are very often badly edited perhaps without following any norms) the readings are, in most cases, if not all, very corrupt and cannot even be justified by following any of the Prakrit grammarians. As a result to correct the views of the grammarians with the help of the Māgadhi passages of the Sanskrit dramas will not be wise. Though some editors like Pischel have tried their best to correct the Māgadhi passages of the Sakuntalā in the sixth act, there too the text seems to be not very authentic. As Pischel has corrected the Māgadhi passages in the sixth act of the Sakuntalā with the help of Hemacandra's Prakrit grammar, he too is liable to be mistaken. As Hemacandra belongs to the Western School and Pischel's edition of Sakuntalā belongs to the Bengal recension (therefore, to the Eastern School) a text of the Eastern school should not be corrected with the help of a grammarian belonging to the Western School. Māgadhi passages in the earlier texts as in Asvaghoşa and to some extent in Bhāsa are also not very reliable owing to the fact the earliest characteristics of Māgadhi of these authors are not recorded by any Prakrit grammarians. As a result it remains a problem even till today.
However, as Māgadhi is a feature of the Eastern region of India and as in the Eastern region palatal šis spoken (even till today particularly in Bengali and other neighbouring languages), it seems probable that the conjunct with sibilant in Māgadh! will also be palatal ś. Hence, following the tradition of Eastern grammarians the conjunct with sibilant is corrected with palatal ś, For example kş>śk. The same principle may also be applicable in sibilants with other plossives,
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
