Page images

of the


For the year 1922.

[ocr errors]

His Excellency the Governor, ex-officio.

The Hon'ble Sir William Henry Hoare Vincent, Kt.,

T'he Hon'ble Maharajadhiraj Bahadur Sir Rameshwar

Singh, G.C I.E., K.B.E., Darbhanga.
Manaraja Bahadur Sir Raveneshwar Prasad Singh,

K.C.I.E., of Gidhour.
His Highness Maharaja Bahadur Sir

Bir Mitrodaya
Singh Deo, K.C.I.E , of Sonepur State.
The Hon'ble Sir Thomas Fredrick Dawson Miller, Kt., K. C.
Sir Edward Gait, K.C.5.1., C.I.E., Ph.D., I.C.S.

The Hon'ble Sir Havilland Le Mesurier, K.C.I.E., C.S.I.

The Hon'ble Sir B. K. Mullick, Kt., I.C.S.

General Secretary.
Dr. Hari Chand Shastri, D. Litt., I.E.S.

Joint Secretary
Professur G. S. Bhaté, M.A., I.E.S.

Professor J. N. Samuddar, B.A.

Journal Committee.
History - 1. Professor G. S. Bhaté, M.A., I.E.S. (Secretary).

2, Professor J. N. Sarkar, M.A., I.E.S. (Member).

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]


By Dr. A. Banerji-Sastri, M.A. (Cal.), D. Phil. (oxon.),

Professor of Sanskrit, Muzaffarpur College.

A. Characterisation of Asoka Magadhi. 1. General. (a) Asoka and Indo-European Comparative philology. The following are points of common interest : (i) long syllable m as ā only in Gir, e.g. atikrātam=Skt. atikrantam,

9 therefore Gir. is not lineally descended from Skt; (ii) short u in Gir. susrūsă, sustīsatát and Avestan susrusomrö; Käl. Shb.

. Måns. kiti (also Rāmpurvā kite, if not kimti of Bloch) < kid +iti ? not kim titi ; (iv) Gir. sruņāru, Shb. sruneyu, Mans. fruney [u] and Avestan surunaoiti, contrast Skt. srņoti : (0) Shb. and Mans. st=Skt šť (k)-suggests the lingualisation of t and th in Aryan st and sth (Avestan st) as Pan-Indic not ProtoIndic (Michelson) cf. Skt. št(h), G. Páli and ordinary Prkt.-tth (written th), note especially Dh. Jaug. I and Kal. Ith (written

Michelson, I.E. xxiii, p. 263. * Johansson, op cit.

țl): R. 981-% etc. and Hcliv. 290 borne out by Gir. &t. Johansson also cites Gir. ustana- and a few Mid-Indic words as I.E. t$t(!) > st(h).

(6) Asoka and Archaiems. Asoka conjuncts like pr in priya etc. 1759-62 not found in Pali are archaic relicts of old phonetics. They are not Sanskriticisms, ct. same in the North-West Sindhi tịan, Lahndā Ire=3.

(c) Asuki and Pali. Asokan dialects are evolved out of those in use when the Buddha preached. Literary Pali is regarded as another such product. But the origin of Pāli is still obscure. Hence Franke’s 3 “Pali-grundlagefor Asoka is at best problematic. The striking similarity, however, between Pali and Asoka, in Phonology and Morphology-inflexion and conjugation (as will be apparent from what follows in pages 7-8 deserves consideration. As a point of divergence may be noted the gerund in-trā retaining tv."

(d) Aśoka Māgadhi and sister dialects. Pischel has rightly noted that the Mg. dialect as an official imperial language was understood even where it was not spoken. But a word of explanation seems necessary for the above division into two groups. Senart divides the groups into oriental-Kál. Mans. Dh. Jaug. and the minor ones and occidental-Gir and Shb. For the first-no cerebral ș, palatal ñ, initial y elided, l for r, nom.

and usually nom. nent. ending in e, loc. asi, rtilental=cerebral,

kh, final à shortened, -tiy, -dhiy-> ty, dhy. the second, cerebral n palatal ñ, initial y retained, r unaltered, nom. masc. sing. a-stem ending in 9, loc. amhi or e,r * dental=dental,

ks. > ch. Senart's reasons for putting Mans. under group I, seems to be Mans's. morphological kinship with Jaug.

i Bane ji-Sāstrī, Evolution of Magadhi, p. 39. ? Prinsep, J. A. S. B. Vol. VII. p. 278. 3 Franke, Pūli und Sanskrit, p. 66. • Michelson, Transactions of the American Phil. Ass. XI, p 28, footnote 1. 5 Senart, Les Ins. p. 431. 6 Michelsin, IE. XXIII, 219-71; AJP XXX, 28ff. 416ff ; XXXI, 55ff.;

J.A.O.S. XXX, 77 ff., XXXI, 223. 7 Ibid. J.A. XXI pp. 171, 172.



e. g. ending o land e and the same of Shb. with Gir. But at bottom, as shown later, both phonologically and morphologically Māns, and Shb. are almost the same -minus the imported Mg. elements. Gir. and Shb. again apart from some phonological agreements differ in: (i) Gir. only 8, Shb. and Mans. 6, § 8; (ii) conjuncts tp (Bühler-spt) and st only Gir. ; (iii) nom. sing. neut in m Gir. but Shb. e ; (iv) 3rd per. pl. Gir. re Shb. sæ; (v) Loc. sing. Gir. Imhi (also-e), Shb. -si also-e but never mhi; (vi) gen, sing. of in stem. Gir. ino Shb. isa. Both Shb. and Gir. have duly submitted to Mg. influence, e. g. nom. sing. e Gir. xii 1. 1. priye and Shb. x. l.i. Differences between oriental Jaug. and occidental Gir. again are quite marked:-Phonology. (i) Gir. (like Pāli) r-Jaug. (Mg.) 1 2172 ; () Conjuncts in Gir. anaptysis or svarabhakti in Jaug. 702; (iii; loss of lingual , not compensated in Gir. but it is in Jaug. by lingualising the fllowing t 3518, 3551; (iv) Skt. ?-in Gir. a, in Jaug. a and i 2013; () Gir.; idha, Jaug. hida,3613; (vi) Gir has ñ, ņ and n, Jaug. only n 1343. Morphology-(i) Gir. (like Pāli) piyo, Jaug. (Mg.) piye 1689, mago-mige 2013, 80 -80, 3555; (10) loc. sing. Gir. mhi, Jaug. si 3 176 ; 3rd pl. instr. Gir. (like Vedic sere) re, Jaug. anti (cf. Pāli and Prkts.) 468. It is thus more convenient to separate the Mg. Group from Gir. Shb. and Mans, although Gir. might again be subdivided from the last two. It is also not certain whether some forms in Gir. Shb and Mans. are Mg. or native : e. g. Shb. and Mans. 2 gerunds in ti, (i, e. tti Vedic trī) and in tu : Dh. Jaug. Kál. only in 11, therefore plausibly Shb. and Mans. gerund in tu is Mg. because that in tpå (Skt. tvā) is native to Gir. But there is no certainty as Shb. Mans. Dh. Jaug. and Kal. mutually agree in some points against Gir. That such points are very few in contrast with the linguistic affinity of Shb. Mans. and Gir. as against the same of Dh. Jaug. and Kål. does not add to the certainty, only minimises the chances of confusion. All these facts simply touched upon here may be discussed in detail later. Another limitation lies in orthography. Shb. and Mans. have puna=Gir. puna, Kál. punā;

[ocr errors]

is the 1st. puna for Gir. pună or Kal. punā or both ? No solution possible, because Kharoşthi does not distinguish vowel quantities ; nor does Kal, -z from i, ă from ū. Within these limits may now be described the nature of Asokan Mg.

2. Special Characteristics of Asoka-Magadhí.
A. Vowels. r, lì e and au lost.

Vowel changes (a) quantity: (i) lengthening, 86, 1638, 1689, (2); (i) shortening due to conjunct or anusvara 1244. (6) quality 2188. (c) anaptyxis : 849. 3173. (d) syncope 671. Dropping of a consonant between vowels not yet so common as later.

B. Cons.nant changes?. () dental instead of cerebral after q elided : 1590. (ii) gh> h:2164. (iii) bh simplified into h : 3676. (iv) simplification of conjuncts : 61, 72, 133, 853, 1778, 3068– conjuncts first assimilated, then simplified, even without the lengthening of the preceding vowel. Morphology-A. Nouns. (a) Declension. ) consonantal

a(c declension generally merges into the vowel, c.g. a. class : exceptions-2177-78, etc. (i) nom. sing. masc. a-stem-in e, 1916

, (iii) also neut, in e, 1991. (iv) dative in ayn or aye : 94,621-2. (v) abl. in ā no final consonant: 3105. (vi) gen. in sa through 88 from sy (even in i-stems): 1761 also 1687. (tri) loc. in si (through ss1 from smin) and e: 3142. Plurals-almost regular in phonet:c changes : 1993, 675—exception, nom. pl. in e 1620. B. Pronouns. Nom. sing. 86

nom. pl. 38 both masc. and fem. 318. Other forms 531-43, 613-42, 764

68, 1014, 1006, 1017-22, 1959-60, 2059-60, 3560, etc. C. Conjugation.-Active Ind. 748, 848, 1084, 1893, 3676, etc.


[ocr errors]

Passive 467.
Future 270, cansal 202, etc.
Imperative 2091

1. Asoka Inschriften, C. 3.

Senart, XXI p. 2ff.

« PreviousContinue »