Page:The Indian Antiquary Vol 2.djvu/407

December, 1873.] MISCELLANEA AND CORRESPONDENCE. 367 is so important and interesting that I trust you will allow me space for a few romarks on the reply of Prof. Hoernle, published in the July number of your valuable periodical. As regards my view on the different kinds of PrAkfit, I agree with Mr. Beames, that none of the PrAkrits 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 nevor 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 say that Vararuchi’s sAtras are founded upon .the plays, or that the plays are founded upon Vararuchi’s sfftras. The language of tho plays is l^auraseni, and the language taught by Vararuchi in the first nine sections is MaharAshtri, of which dialect comparatively few instances occur in the plays. Now it is clear that a man who teaches the MaharAshtri will not derive the rules for that language from the ^auraseni. It is true that Vararuchi, XII. 32, distinctly says tesham Ma- hdrdshtrtvat, and that on the whole he does not make many exceptions from the principal PrAkpit. But this is only one of his numerous blunders. Later PrAkpit grammarians, especially R&matar- kavAgisa and Markandeya Ravindra, who treat more carefully of tho 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- sati and the Setubandha, which were written in MahArAsthri and composed in verse. This is clearly proved by the corresponding rules of Hemachandra, who adds numerous examples which are exactly like the poems of tho Saptasati, and several of them already to be found in Prof. Weber’s edition. Hence it is ridiculous to affirm that tho PrAkrit of the plays has been grammar- ized by Vararuchi and his successors. The imaginary participle kunno can by no means be used to explain the Gujarati 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 occurrence in either the colloquial or the poetry; 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¬ logy ; but such words never prove anything; if the participle kunno had given rise to the Guja- rAti postpositions, it ought to be found very often. The principal question, however, is that concerning the genitive postpositions in BangAli and Oriya. I think still that it is very easy to prove that Prof. Hoernle is in error. In fact there are no postpositions at all in BangAli 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 bearing on the question whether the BangAli 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 found in the MaliArashtri, the SWraseni, and the MAgadhi; it is found in the various ApabhransAs as well as in the vernaculars. In the Sinhalese language, as Prof. Childers informs me, it is used to form the locative of a certain class of words. Prof. Kern has lately called attention to the very common use of this word in the languago 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 PrAkrit grammarians. Hemachandra, VIII. 2,147, has a special sAtra running thus : |J idamarthasya kerah || idamarthasya pratyayasya kera ity Adeso bhavati J yushmadiyah tumhakero | asmadiyah amha- kero | na cha bhavati | maiapakkho j pApinia. Since Hemachandra in the following sAtra : || para- rAjabhyAm kkadikkau cha || expressly mentions tho two words para and rdjan, I am inclined to suppose that the use of kera was originally restricted to the Bame words which, according to PApini, may assume in Sanskrit the suffix kiya. This question I shall discuss at full length in my edition of Hemachandra’s Grammar. A sAtra cor¬ responding to that of Hemachandra occurs in Markandeya, fol. 28 b; and in the Trivikratna- vritti II. 1, 8, we have: || kera idamarthe || ida- marthe vihitasya chhapratyayasya kera ity Adeso bhavati | and now Trivikrama, as usual, gives the same examples as Hemachandra. SimharAja, fol. 43 a, has the same sAtra. Hemachandra mentions the word again in the section on tho ApabhraSsa, VIII. 4, 422: || sambandhinah keratanau || gaaii sukesaripiahujalunisckimtaiharinAim | jasukerem humkAradem muhahu padarati tpin&im |. Tho same i3 given by Trivikrama, III. 3, 51, and means in Sanskrit: gatas sa kesari pibantu jalam nischinta barinAh yasya (sambandhinA) humkArena mukhAt patanti tripAni | : “The lion is gone; without fear may the antelopes drink the water; (the lion) by