Wilson Philological Lectures on Sanskrit and the Derived Languages c8.18

c8.18

dental *n* in every case." For this statement the Doctor quotes the authority of a sûtra in which we are told by Chaṇḍa that *ṇ* and *ṇ* do not exist in the Prâkrit, as compared with another version of that sûtra which says that *ṇ*, *n*, and *ṇ* do not exist (II. 14). This last version no doubt provides for the change of *ṇ* in all cases; but the other which denies the non-existence or affirms the existence of *ṇ* cannot mean that it exists or is unchanged in *all* cases. The denial of non-existence or affirmation of existence only proves its existence or remaining unchanged in some cases. Besides we have a specific rule where we are told that a letter of the *d* class takes the place of the corresponding letter of the *t* class (III. 16), thus providing for the change of *n* to *ṇ*; and the instance given is धण्णं for धान्यम्. But this rule the Doctor thinks holds good in exceptional cases, for which however there is no authority whatever, and he gives none. Again, he says that his statement is proved by the uniform spelling of the Prâkrit examples with *n* in Mss. A and B, which, according to him, contain the older version of the work. I, however, find that the spelling in his edition, which is the spelling of A and B, follows uniformly, with one or two exceptions, in which we must suppose a mistake, the rule laid down by Hemachandra, *viz.*, that initial *n* is optionally changed to *ṇ*, while medial *n* is necessarily so changed. The instances are:—all the case-terminations which are to be traced to the Sanskrit terminations having *n* in them, such as णे, णि, and णं; सुणिणे for सुनीन् (I. 1), गयणओ for गगनतः (I. 16), मणिक्सा A. (I. 21), नाणी (I. 24) for ज्ञानी, सक्कीसाणा for शक्तेशानौ (II. 1.), काणं (II. 15), गयणं for गगनम् (II. 21), पीलणं for पीडनम् (II. 24), नाणं for ज्ञानम् (III. 6), जुव्वणं for यौवनम् (III. 15), and रअणं for रत्नं (III. 30). The second point is "the preservation of the medial single surd unaspirate consonants with the only exception of *k*." This simply means the preservation of *ch*, *t*, and *p* which according to the other grammarians are generally dropped. Chaṇḍa agrees with these in dropping not only *k*, but *g*, *j*, and *d*. Whether therefore the preservation of *ch*, *t*, and *p*, supposing that Chaṇḍa really allows it, marks off his Prâkrit as older than that of Hemachandra or Vararuchi is more than questionable. But, as a matter of fact in III. 12, he does provide for their change to *j*, *d*, and *b*; and the change of *t* to *d* is a Śaurasenî, *i. e.*, a local change, and does not indicate priority of time. Besides, even the dropping of these consonants must have been contemplated by him.