The Sanskrit drama : $b in its origin, development, theory and practiceKeith, Arthur Berriedale
History
The Sanskrit drama : $b in its origin, development, theory and practice
Keith, Arthur Berriedale
Sanskrit drama -- History and criticism
In other cases the forms of this Prākrit are clearly older than those
of the grammarians’ Çaurasenī. As in the other Prākrits of the drama,
there is no softening or omission of intervocalic consonants, and no
cerebralization of n. Further, initial y is kept, not reduced to j; the
interjection ai in lieu of aï is supported by the language of the
Girnār and Udayagiri inscriptions; in nirussāsam we have an older form
than ūsasida of Çaurasenī; jñ and ny give ññ, not the later ṇṇ; dy
gives yy (written y) for jj; tuvaṁ and tava are both manifestly older
than the forms tumaṁ and tuha, while karotha is a remarkable example of
the preservation of the old strong base. Old also is the preservation
of the long vowel in bhavāṁ. In adaṇḍāraho and the dubious arhessi we
have two variants on the rule of Çaurasenī, which has i as the
epenthetic vowel in arh, but this merely illustrates the uncertainty of
these epentheses; duguṇa in lieu of diuṇa is not older, but a variant
mode of treating dviguṇa, and there is no special difficulty in holding
that dāṇi and idāṇi are forms which were originally doublets of dāṇiṁ
and idāṇiṁ in Çaurasenī, and later were superseded. From other Prākrit
passages, presumably in the same Old Çaurasenī, we obtain old forms
like vayaṁ, we, and tumhākaṁ in lieu of tumhāṇaṁ; edisa for erisa or
īdisa; dissati for dīsadi; gahītaṁ for gahidaṁ; khu is kept after short
vowels in lieu of being doubled; a long vowel is kept before tti and
such forms as mhi. The future in gamissāma is probably old, while
nikkhanta and bambhaṇa admit of this explanation against the later
nikkanta and bamhaṇa.
In the words of the hetaera the word surada occurs, with softening of t
to d; conceivably the passage might be verse, but in all probability we
are merely faced with a sporadic instance of a change which later set
in, due perhaps to a copyist’s error; to find in it an evidence of
Māhārāṣṭrī would be unwise, especially as the very next word (vimadda)
is not in the Māhārāṣṭrī form (vimaḍḍa). In the dialect of the Duṣṭa we
have a form makkaṭaho which may be genitive, as in Apabhraṅça, but is
not allowed in Māgadhī; but the sense is too uncertain to permit of any
security.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account