~
Decey(BER, 1873.]
367
is so important and interesting that I trust you will allow me space for a few remarks on the reply of Prof. Hoernle, published in the July number of
the genitive postpositions in Bangāli and Oriya. I think still that it is very easy to prove that
your valuable periodical. As regards my view
postpositions at all in Bangāli and Oriya, and these two languages must be separated at once from all the rest. Prof. Hoernle remarks that my state ments as to the use of keraka have no particular
on the different kinds of Prākrit, I agree with Mr. Beames, that none of the Prākrits was ever a
spoken language, and that in order to learn what was the spoken language of the Aryans We must turn principally to the modern vernaculars. I have never had any other opinion on this subject, and in this respect there is no controversy at all between Prof. Hoernle and myself. But I am sorry to see that Prof. Hoernle still adheres to the error which I had already pointed out in my review of his essays. It is perfectly erroneous to
Prof. Hoernle is in error.
In fact there are no
bearing on the question whether the Bangāli er is a curtailment of keraka or not. My arguments already intimated in my review, where I have tried to state them as briefly as possible, are as follows:–Firstly, the word kera is the original of the word keraka, and hence it follows that kera
has not been curtailed, but, on the contrary, has been lengthened. The word kera or keraka is
say that Wararuchi's siltras are founded upon the plays, or that the plays are founded upon
found in the Mahārāshtri, the Šauraseni, and the
Vararuchi's siltras. The language of the plays is
as well as in the vernaculars.
Šauraseni, and the language taught by Vararuchi
language, as Prof. Childers informs me, it is
in the first nine sections is Mahārāshtri, of which dialect comparatively few instances occur in the plays. Now it is clear that a máh who teaches the Mahārāshtri will not derive the rules for that
used to form the locative of a certain class of
language from the Sauraseni. It is true that Wararuchi, XII. 32, distinctly says Šesham Ma hdráshtrivat, and that on the whole he does not make many exceptions from the principal Prākrit. But this is only one of his numerous blunders. Later Prākrit grammarians, especially Rāmatar kavågiša and Mārkandeya Ravindra, who treat more carefully of the lower dialects, have a good many more rules, which are confirmed throughout by the plays. Vararuchi's rules in the first nine sections are derived from works like the Sapta
éatt and the Setubandha, which were written in Mahārāsthri and composed in verse. This is
clearly proved by the corresponding rules of
Māgadhi; it is found in the various Apabhraſišās
words.
In the Siſihalese
Prof. Kern has lately called attention to
the very common use of this word in the language of the gipsies; but even there kero has not been changed in the least, but has remained unaltered to the present day, as stated by Prof. Pott, Pas pati, and other authorities. The word, though not noticed by Vararuchi, is well known to the later Prākrit grammarians. Hemachandra, VIII. 2, 147, has a special siltra running thus: |idamarthasya kerah ||
idamarthasya pratyayasya keraity fideso bhavati | yushmadiyah tumhakero | as madiyah amha kero ! na cha bhavati | maiapakkho pāririá. Since Hemachandra in the following sūtra : | para rājabhyāſh kkadikkau cha || expressly mentions the two words para and raijan, I am inclined to suppose that the use of kera was originally
restricted to the same words which, according
Hemachandra, who adds numerous examples which are exactly like the poems of the Saptaśati, and several of them already to be found in Prof.
This question I shall discuss at full length in my
Weber's edition.
Hence it is ridiculous to affirm
edition of Hemachandra's Grammar. A siltra cor
that the Prākrit of the plays has been grammar ized by Wararuchi and his successors. The imaginary participle kun no can by no means be used to explain the Gujaráti postpositions. That the colloquial has many forms which in the literary language are restricted to poetry is an old story, but those words are then of frequent
responding to that of Hemachandra occurs in Mārkandeya, fol. 28 b ; and in the Trivikrama
occurrence in either the colloquial or the poetry;
the word again in the section on the Apabhraſiša,
kunno, however, is not yet found, and I have not met with it, though I am in possession of extensive materials drawn from manuscripts. Prof. Hoernle is very partial to words formed according to ana
VIII.4, 422: || Sambandhinah keratarau || gaaii
logy; but such words never prove anything; if the participle kunno had given rise to the Guja rāti postpositions, it ought to be found very often. º
MISCELLANEA AND CORRESPONDENCE.
The principal question, however, is that concerning
to Pālini, may assume in Sanskrit the suffix kiya.
writti II. 1, 8, we have : || kera idamarthe ||ida marthe vihitasya chhapratyayasya kera ity fideso bhavati and now Trivikrama, as usual, gives the same examples as Hemachandra. Simharāja, fol. 43 a, has the same siltra. Hemachandra mentions
sukesaripiahujalu nišchimtai harinăim jasu kerem humkāradem muhahu padamti trirâim]. The same is given by Trivikrama, III.3, 51, and means in Sanskrit: gatas sakesari pibantu jalam nišchintá harirâh yasya (sambandhinā) humkärena mukhât patanti trinăni | : “The lion is gone; without fear may the antelopes drink the water; (the lion) by