No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 March 2011
Konow's “The Home of Paiśācī” (24 pages) was printed in ZDMG., 1910, and Grierson's reply (38 pages) in ZDMG., 1912. Konow concluded that “the Paiśācī described by Prakrit grammarians was based upon a dialect spoken in and about the Vindhyas, and perhaps further to the south and east” (p. 118). Grierson believed that “the home in India of the Piśācas was in the North-West of India, where these (the ‘modern Piśāca’) languages are spoken, and that— the nidus of Paiśācī Prakrit was also in the North-West” (p. 85). The theories of previous scholars as stated by Konow and Grierson were that Pai. was a hill dialect (Lassen), a low Prakrit spoken by Dravidians identifiable with Apabhraṃśa (Hoernle), a Prakrit of the North-West (Pischel), and (the Pai. of Guṇāḍhya, author of the Bṛhatkathā only) based upon an Aryan language of the north-west or west, but spoken by non-Aryan peoples (Lacôte).
page 35 note 1 Bhādānaka, the third country mentioned by Rāj, has hot been identified.
page 36 note 1 I have not used ṅ,ñ before the k and c vargas, so nk and nc = ṅk, ñc, etc.
page 36 note 2 For the equivalence vaḍḍo = bṛhat, cf. Vṛhadgachasya in Nemicandra's Uttarādhana-ṭīkā IOC ii 7488 śloka 9 and Vaḍḍagaechaṃmi in his Mahavīracarita Pattan Cat. 285 śloka 2 (a.d. 1060). Also Amg vaḍḍa-kumāri “adult unmarried girl”.
page 36 note 3 Cf. Vinson, J., Langue tamoule, p. 228Google Scholar, quoting C. J. Beschi's much admired quatrain of four almost identical lines each with a different meaning.
page 36 note 4 An excellent account of the various versions of the Brh., based upon, among other sources, the Essai sur Guṇāḍhya et la Bṭhatkathā (Lacôte, 1908)Google Scholar, is given in Keith, , HSL., pp. 266 ffGoogle Scholar.
page 38 note 1 In a few points of detail this account may differ from that of Jacobi, H. in his Essay on Apabhraṃśa, Bhavisatta-kahā, pp. 55 ffGoogle Scholar.
page 38 note 2 Apabhraṃśa may mean a corruption of Skt., not of Pkt., as in Patanjali's Mahābhāṣya, and thus refer to early Middle Indian.
page 38 note 3 They are well known and all identifiable except one, which appears to be a dialectal form (māl, “female” = āl, “person, boy, girl, servant”; Koṟava āmḷ, LSI., iv, 321). As for mleccha, many derivations have been suggested, but I have not yet seen suggested *malepsu, “devotee of darkness, obscurity,” cf. malinamukha “goblin.”
page 39 note 1 Daṇḍin's, Apabhraḍśa is not a successor of Skt., “as in the Śāstras” (Kavya. i, 36)Google Scholar, but of Pkt., cf. the later writers (PG 2). There is no place, therefore, in the Triad for early Middle Indian.
page 39 note 2 Bhandarkar, R. G., Wilson Philo. Lectures, 1877, p. 79Google Scholar, calls Pai “the language of the ghosts”.
page 40 note 1 It is, however, found in vadda-kumārī “an old maid” (Munisri Ratnachandraji, ArdhaMagadhi Dictionary).
page 41 note 1 Peshāwar, N.W. India, may be Paiśācapura, but to balance it there was Pisājipadakam, near Nāsik (second century a.d., Bom. Gaz., xvi, p. 552), Skt. Piśācīpadrakam.
page 42 note 1 Pāli peta “dead, deceased, ghost, demon” (Skt. preta), with no idea of madness. Tam, pētu “mental derangement”, Tel. pēda “timid”, have no sense of “demon” and the Kan. meaning is therefore borrowed from pēta.
page 42 note 2 Pīsāji is found in the Nāsik inscription of Puḷumāyi, , Bom. Gaz., xvi, p. 552Google Scholar.
page 42 note 3 GOS., xxxvii, text, pp. 1 ff. See also JRAS., 1938, pp. 67–9, “Note on List of Tod MSS. No. 114.”
page 43 note 1 Or tamma nuḍi “our own tongue”.
page 43 note 2 adu entu enda oḍe “what is that, if it be said”.
page 44 note 1 Śāntipūrāṇa, quoted by Rice, L., KBB., p. ivGoogle Scholar. The dates assigned by Rice before the two Nāgavarmmas. were distinguished (by R. Narasimhachar in Kāvyāvalōkamam and Karṇāṭaka-bhāṣā-bhuṣaṇa, Introduction) have been revised.
page 44 note 2 Cited as GP.
page 45 note 1 One would expect Yogendra, but Yogindra is well attested.
page 45 note 2 “Y's spraehe maoht einen recht späten Eindruck, doch bedarf dies noch genauerer Prüfung.”
page 45 note 3 Upadhye, A. N., Ann. BJian. Inst., xii, pt. ii, pp. 132 ff.Google Scholar, discusses Yoguīdra and his works, but dates Caṇḍa much too early.
page 45 note 4 Eastern School of Prakrit Grammarians and Paiśācī Prakrit.