Wilson Philological Lectures on Sanskrit and the Derived Languages c8.17

c8.17

This continues still to be my view, notwithstanding all that has since been published on the subject. Dr. Hoernle, in the introduction to his edition of Chanda’s Prākṛitalakshana makes an elaborate attempt to prove that the dialect, the grammar of which is given in that book, is more ancient than the Prākṛit of Vararuchi and Hemachandra. But it is not at all difficult to see that he is altogether on a wrong tack. He says there is nothing in Hemachandra corresponding to the rule given by Chanda about dropping the final vowel of the first member of a compound when the initial vowel of the second is followed by a conjunt consonant, in such words as dhana+ādhya, deva+indra, &c., which in that Prākṛit have the forms dhanaddha, devinda, &c. This change, however, does come under Hemachandra’s rule I. 84, which provides for the shortening of a long vowel when followed by a conjunct consonant. The short vowels corresponding to ए and ओ are इ and उ; and among the instances given by Hemachandra, we have narindo for narendra, aharuttha for adharoshtha, Nīluppala for Nīlotpala &c. Dr. Hoernle thinks the changes of i to short e and of u to short o are later Prākṛit changes. But he will find many instances of them in the Pāli, which certainly is an older dialect than any Jaina Prākṛit. They are, he says, unknown to Chanda. Chanda’s work is a very meagre production, in which very little endeavour is made to classify facts; and thus he must be supposed to include these changes under his very general rule that one vowel takes the place of another vowel (II. 4). The instance ginhati incidentaly given by him in connection with another rule does not show that in his Prākṛit the form genha did not exist, much less that the change of i to e was unknown. Then with regard to consonants, Dr. Hoernle says there are five points in which the “older Prākṛit” of Chanda, as he calls it, differs from the Prākṛit of Vararuchi and Hemachandra. One of these is “the preservation of the instance, the author of the Sâhityadarpaṇa assigns Mâgadhî to the attendants in the royal seraglio, Ardhamâgadhî to footmen, royal children, and merchants, Prâchyâ to the Vidûshaka and others, Âvantikî to sharpers, warriors, and clever men of the world, Dâkshiṇâtyâ to gamblers, Śâkârî to Śakârs, Śakas, and others, Bâhlikâ to celestial persons, Drâviḍî to Draviḍas and others, Ábhîrî to cowherds, Châṇḍâlikî to outcastes, Ábhîrî and Śâbarî, also to those who live by selling wood and leaves, and Pais'âchî to dealers in charcoal. Handmaids, if they do not belong to a very low class, should speak Śaurasenî. Some of the modern grammarians also mention as large a number of dialects. But whether these were actually used by writers