THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.

mama kelakan: 139, 16, attanakelakā; 146, 16, mama kelakaſh; 152, 6, tavaššilie kelakā; 158, 9,

[APRIL, 1873.

Now Prof. Lassen has given the right interpre tation in deriving it from the Sanskrit kāryain,

aijachārudattassa kerakāin, 164, 3, attanakelikäe;

which accounts for all the facts, and has been

164, 8, mama kelikåe; 167, 3, attanakelikäe; 167, 21, mama kelikā; 173, 9, aijašša kelake. Among all these thirty-eight passages I cannot find in Prof.

adopted by Prof. Weber (Hála, p. 38) as in accord ance with the laws of the Prakrit language.

Stenzler's edition the one alluded to by Professor

substantive kāryam, which originally was a part. fut. pass., generally changes into kaijan, and is

Hoernle where a form ppakelaka is said to occur. Prof.Hoernle doubtless alludes to p. 119,5,but all the MSS. have there happakelake,as given in Stenzler's edition.

Professor Stenzler remarks in a note that

the Calcutta edition has pſakelake (sic!), which is translated by ‘prākrita.' Now it must be remem bered that from this very form ppakelaka, which does not really exist, Professor Hoernle derives the whole meaning of keraka itself, and that all his arguments as to the meaning of keraka are taken from this imaginary word. This alone would be sufficient to invalidate the deductions of Professor Hoernle. But besides this, keraka, it is true, does not occur so often in any other play as in

the Mrichchhakatiká, but there are nevertheless several examples of it. It is found twice in the Sákuntalam (ed. Chézy) p. 114, 1; bhattake tava kelake Šampadan mama jivide; and p. 152, 12, mama kerake udae; also Málaviká. p. 23, 9 (ed.

Tullberg), parakeram ttikaria; Milatimidhava (ed Calc. 1866), p. 104, 12, tašša jjevva keraašša attalio sarirassa; Mudrárákshasa, p. 9, 12 (ed. Calc. 1831),

In the principal Prākrit dialect of the plays the

then used here and there in the same sense as

keram. Thus for instance, Iºatmárali (ed. Calc. 1871, p. 20, 12): jaí pathiadi na bhunjiadi tā mama edina na kajjarh i.e. “therefore I had nothing to do with it,” “it does not concern me;” Mudrā riksh. (ed. Calc. 1831, p. 9, 2):—paramaha jamassa chalame kin kajjain devehirin annehirn i.e. “what have you to do with other gods P” “what do other gods concern you?” In the Pāli language ‘kichchain' is employed quite in the same way as the Prākrit “kaijan. Several examples are given by Mr. Childers in his excellent Páli Dictionary (s. v. kichcho). The same signification is found in keram, Milaw. 23, 9, where the learned and accurate Shankar P. Pandit

(p. 28, 2) ought to have writtten with the best MSS. : parakeramin tti karia. The word ‘parakeram' is here equivocal ; the sentence means as well “because it belongs to another” as “because an other ought to do so.” Like artham and nimittam, so we see keran used in Haila, A 17: maha man

hodi; and in Hóla (ed. Weber) A 17,-maha man dabhāinie keran. There is not the slightest

dabhāinie kerann, “for the sake of me an unfortu nate girl,” and also “kaijan 'in Mudrárá. 39, 11: annānan kunai kajjam, i.e. “it (the bee) does it for the sake of others.” Thus ‘kaijan’ and kerain'

reason for the supposition of Professor Hoernle

are in every respect identical. Later, ‘kera’ was

that the use of this word was “slang:” it is

changed into a mere simple adjective noun mean

attano jevva keraašša Dhammabhāduašša gharath

employed even by the Sūtradhára, Mrichchh. 4, 3, who in all probability was a Brähman, and on the other hand, the police officers in Sik. p. 110, 5, who certainly belong to the “slang-people,” do not use kelaka, but its Sanskrit equivalent kſya. Nor is there an adjective noun kerika keraka forms a regular feminine keriká, and wherever

ing “belonging to,” and then assumes the Prä krit affix ‘ka, so that parakereka and attawake raka or attakeraka answer to the Sanskrit para kiya and 4tmakiya. Professor Hoernle believes that in some of his examples keraka has become a sort of affix. If this be true it ought not to be

inflected as it really is. One instance like Mrichchh.

kerikſt occurs it is of course in connection with a

38, 3: aijassa attakerakam edah geham, might

feminine: conf. Mrichchh. 21, 21; 90, 4; 9.5, 6; 104,

have warned him.

9; 167, 21; and in Mrichchh. 132, 16 ; 139, 16, kelaka must be corrected into kelikd. Professor Hoernle

differs, even in the slightest, from that of all other adjective nouns: all the cases of keraka are found except the dative and vocative, the want of

thinks keraka has its origin in the Sanskrit parti ciple krita. This opinion was expressed long ago by Professor Hoefer in his paper De Prakrita Dialecto (Berlin, 1836, p. 35), and Professor Lassen in his Institutiones Linguae Prákriticae, p. 118 (conf. p. 247 and Appendix, p. 58) has proved beyond all doubt that this interpretation cannot be adopted. There are but very few, and even those few most doubtful examples, in which a Sanskrit ri has changed into a Prākrit e ; and even if we admit the fact, krita would never become kera, but only keta.

The use of keraka nowhere

which need not be explained; even the geni tive occurs : Mudrár, 9, 12; Mālatim. 104, 12; and the plural is found in Mrichchh. 122, 15; 130, 10; 152, 6; 153,9. Like all the other adjective nouns, keraka has masculine, feminine, and neuter; indeed

it is often perfectly pleonastic; but there is noth ing extraordinary in that, it being quite in ac cordance with the Prākrit of the plays. People of lower condition like a fuller and more individual sort

of speech and to emphasise their own dear selves.