A Comparative Grammar of the Modern Aryan Languages of India v1.c7.155

v1.c7.155

Weber, in his Prakrit studies, and especially in Bhagavati, p. 386, contends for the existence of a combination *khk*, derived from *ksh* and *sk*. But in spite of the arguments adduced by the learned writer, there is no reason to believe in this method of pronunciation. It has been noticed before that ख is an awkwardly shaped letter, as it closely resembles रव (*rava*) on the one hand, and by the addition of a slight horizontal stroke स *sra* on the other. It is perhaps nothing more than a curious coincidence that in Zend 𐬑 *kh* regularly corresponds to Skr. ख; but, apart from this, it is probable that the character, which is stated to be common in all the Jain MSS., ख, and which so closely resembles रख (*raka*) as to have been frequently so read, is nothing more than a simpler method of writing क्ख. It will be observed that क differs from व only by having a little handle ┐ on the right side; consequently having already the loop of the *k* in ख, nothing was easier than to attach a handle to it, and thus make a fair representation of *kkh*. That Vararuchi, xi. 8, should be read *kshasya khkaḥ* is hardly possible, since this would militate against the analogy of other cases where a sibilant forms the first member of a nexus, and would besides be directly opposed to the custom of the modern languages. If we read *kshasya kkhaḥ*, we should have the regular process about to be explained, though the ordinary reading *skaḥ* is preferable to either, because pointing to an important elucidation of the modern treatment of क्ष्, as will be shown in the next section. Hemachandra's rule of substituting the jihvâmûliya with क, giving perhaps :क, seems to be founded on the analogy of forms like दुःख, which, however, are quite foreign to the genius of Prakrit or the moderns. If the sound *kh* were pronounced in ancient times as it is now, it would seem to be quite out of the question that there should ever have been such a group as *khk*, a combination of sounds which no Indian could ever pronounce. The only foundation for reading this group as *khk* seems to be the position of the क at the right side, or that side which is read last; but this is no sufficient reason, as inversions of writing are common in the Indian characters. Thus, in Skr. we read कि as *ki*, not *ik*, and in B. and O., as well as in some of the Dravidian alphabets of Sanskrit origin, *e* and *o*, *ai* and *au*, are written before and on both sides of the consonant which they follow; thus, in B. के, कै, को, कौ, are *ke*, *kai*, *ko*, *kau*, respectively, and even in some Skr. MSS. we find this practice, को standing for *ko*, and the like. In Western Indian MSS. we frequently find *mh* written ह्म and *hm* as म्ह, and in Old Hindi MSS., as for instance in Chand, *bh* is regularly written भू or even भ्व. Especially in manuscripts written with a thick pen, as so many of them are, we find the scribe very hard put to it to get all the elements of a nexus into some sort of manageable combination, and he frequently therefore makes up his group more according to fancy or convenience than with regard to the legitimate sequence of the letters. This seems to have been the case with the group now under discussion, and it is therefore unnecessary to consider it as any exception to the general rule; Weber's transliteration *khk* being read wherever it occurs as *kkh*.