Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the Other Indo-Aryan Languages c8.s2.t2.9

c8.s2.t2.9

Certain grammatical features of the epigraphic language also support this view. Particularly interesting in this regard is the sporadic application of Sanskrit sandhi rules. The "wrong" application of sandhi is one of the most characteristic features of the epigraphic hybrid, and is often what most clearly distinguishes inscriptions in highly Sanskritized hybrid from fully standard Sanskrit; a characteristic example is the label inscription on the Kaniṣka portrait statue from Māt (Mathurā; MI §97), which reads *mahārājā rājātirājā devaputro kaniṣko*. Here the MIA nominative masculine ending *-o* is used instead of Sanskrit *visarga*, not only *in pausa* (*kaniṣko*) but also before *k* (*devaputro k-*). This usage is very common in EHS, and of course actually reflects not "wrong sandhi" but the retention of the old MIA ending in the otherwise (i.e., orthographically) Sanskritized word. Contrast with this the peculiar sandhi forms found in later Mathurā inscriptions of the posthybrid era, such as *śākyabhikṣunyār jayabhaṭṭāyār yad* . . . in the Kaṭrā pedestal inscription (MI §8) and *viṣṇusyaḥ gomindrapūttrasyaḥ ha*[*ku*]*datta-p*[*au*]*ttrasyaḥ* (Mathurā Nāga statue ins., MI §161). Both of these inscriptions date from the Gupta period, when Sanskrit had become the standard epigraphic language, and in them we clearly do have incompetent attempts to write Sanskrit; the incorrect sandhi does not reflect underlying MIA forms, but simply the misapplication of Sanskrit rules improperly learned or understood by the composer.