________________
156
speak Magadhi:
dhīvarādyati-niceșu māgadhi ca niyujyate // III. 301
RBh., therefore, it seems, has borrowed this idea from Singabhūpāla as chronologically both are very near to each other; otherwise, the earliest texts on Sanskrit dramaturgy have never mentioned dhivara as speaking Magadhi. However, as dhivara speaks Magadhi, we do not have any objection to take adi as dhīvara in this explanation.
(3)
Sakuntala (Text) -hage na Idiśa kammakālī.
Raghavabhaṭṭa -'vayamor hage' iti sūtrena aham ityasya hage ādeśaḥ
Compare other Grammarians :
TULSI-PRAJÑA
(i) asmadaḥ sau hake hage ahake (ii) aham vayamor hage (iii) hage aham vayamoḥ (iv) ahamarthe hake hañca
(v) ahamarthe hage huñca
(vi) hake hage căhamarthe
(vii) hage ahamarthe yadi māgadhi syāt (viii) ahamityarthe hakke hake ca hagge (hage)
hagă ceti
(ix) (Sab) hake syādaha mityarthe
Comments
—Vr. XI. 9 -Hc. 4. 301
-Tv, III. 31
-Pu. XV. 3
-Pu. XII. 31
-Ki. V. 94
-RT. 2.2.12
-Mk. XII. 30 -Mk. VIII. 5
The Sutra of RBh. does not seem to have taken from any known standard grammar books. But he is very near to Hc. who has a Sūtra aham vayamor hage. If the word aham is not included in this Sütra, the Sutra becomes a little defective. Because in Magadhi Prakrit both aham and vayam become hage. Secondly, vayamor in the dual number has no meaning at all, if aham is not there to make it dual. Whether in the original manuscript, the word aham was inserted or not is not easy to ascertain now. But as it is printed in the text of Sakuntala's edition, we can say that aham is not there. However, as far as meaning is concerned it is not difficult to understand.
(4)
Sakuntala (Text): kim sohane Bahmaneti kalia rajjā paḍiggahe dinne.
Raghavabhaṭṭa: māgadhyām 'pya-nya-jñu-kṣāṁ jjah' iti sūtreṇa jjali. Compare other Grammarians :
(i) nya-nya-jña-ñjām ññaḥ
-Hc. 4. 293
