[Contents]6.The Language of the PlaysBhāsa’s Sanskrit77is in the main correct according to the rules of the grammarians, but his dependence on the epic is revealed by the occasional use of epic irregularities, almost always for the sake of the metre, which in the epic also is the cause of many deviations from classical grammar. We have thus the irregular contractionsputretiandAvantyādhipateḥ, and a number of middle forms in lieu of active,gamiṣye,garjase,drakṣyate,pṛcchase,bhraçyate,ruhyate,çroṣyate. In other cases the active replaces the middle,āpṛccha,upalapsyati,pariṣvaja. There is confusion between the simple and the causative verb insravatiandvījanti,[121]and invimoktukāma. The formsrudantīandgṛhyahave many epic parallels. Irregular compounds aresarvarājñaḥin verse, andKāçirājñein prose;vyūḍhorasandtulyadharmaoccur in verse. The use in one clause of bothcedandyadiis found in verse and also in prose, as in the epic. Mere blunders perhaps may be styledpratyāyati, a haplological form of the causative with the meaning of the simple verb,samāçvāsitumwith causative sense, andyudhas a masculine noun. There are other seeming irregularities, but they are either sanctioned by usage or possible of explanation by reference to variant interpretations of Pāṇini’s rules.The Prākrits78found in Bhāsa are normally Çaurasenī, which is present in all the plays save theDūtavākya, which has no Prākrit; Māgadhī found in two different forms; and what may be styled Ardha-Māgadhī. The distinctive feature of his language is its transitional aspect as compared with Açvaghoṣa on the one hand and Kālidāsa on the other. Açvaghoṣa never softens—save in one instance—hard consonants, but bothṭandtare changed toḍanddin Bhāsa. Açvaghoṣa never omits consonants, but, though this is less often carried out than in Kālidāsa, we find cases of the loss ofk,g,c,j,t,d,p,b,v, andywhen intervocalic.yitself suffers frequent change toj, contrary to Açvaghoṣa’s usage. The change ofninitial and medial toṇis regular, while it is unknown to Açvaghoṣa. The aspirateskh,gh,th,dh,ph, andbhare all often reduced as later toh, but never in Açvaghoṣa.In the case of conjunct consonants we find thatjñgives in Bhāsa eitherññorṇṇ, possibly the latter by error; Açvaghoṣa hasññonly, Kālidāsaṇṇ. FornyandṇyBhāsa has alwaysṇṇas against Açvaghoṣa’sññ. The eliding of a consonant, with the compensatory lengthening of the vowel as indīsadi, is unknown to Açvaghoṣa, where the omission of the consonant twice occurs but without lengthening; it is frequent in Bhāsa and regular in Kālidāsa. The analogous use of a short vowel and a double consonant to represent a long vowel with a single consonant is unknown to Açvaghoṣa, but Bhāsa has it inevva,evvaṁ,jovvana,[122]devva,ekka. On the other hand, like Açvaghoṣa, forryhe hasyyonly in lieu of Kālidāsa’sjj. For the latermetta mattais always found, and the epenthetic vowel isu, noti, inpurusa, andpuruvais normal.In inflection we have, in the nominative and accusative plural of neuter stems ina,āniin Açvaghoṣa,āṇiin Bhāsa, while bothāṇiandāiṁare allowed later. The accusative plural masculine has also, analogously toāniin the Ardha-Māgadhī of the Açoka inscriptions,79āṇi, and the locative singular feminine is ināaṁ, not as laterāe. For the laterattāṇaaṁwe haveattāṇaṁ. For ‘we’ Açvaghoṣa hasvayaṁ, Kālidāsaamhe; Bhāsa both andvaaṁ. In the genitive plural Bhāsa has bothamhāaṁand the only form lateramhāṇaṁ, while Açvaghoṣa would doubtless have usedamhākaṁ.kissais kept for laterkīsa, andkocci(kaccid) disappears later. The rootdarçis represented bydassanddaṅs,grahbygaṇhadiagainst the latergeṇhadi, which, however, is found in Açvaghoṣa. The olderformskariaandgacchiaorgamia, are found in lieu ofkaduaandgadua, but the last occurs once.māis used with the gerund in the sense ofalam.Many of these peculiarities mark also the Māgadhī, which appears in two slightly varied forms, the first in thePratijñāyaugandharāyaṇaand theCārudatta, the second in theBālacaritaand thePañcarātra; in the two latter we haveṣandofor theçandeof the former. As in Açvaghoṣa there is no trace of obedience to the rules of the grammarians which requiresṭfor Sanskritṣṭhorṣṭ,çcforcch,skorẖkforkṣ. For ‘I’ we findahake, which is an intermediate stage between Açvaghoṣa’sahakaṁand the laterhage.nybecomesṇṇ, notññ, and the use ofyto denote a dropped consonant is not carried out.The only passages that can claim to be anything like Ardha-Māgadhī are the remarks of Indra in disguise in theKarṇabhāra, where the characteristic signs, the use ofr,s, ande, are found; in the speeches of Muṣṭika and Cāṇūra in theBālacaritawe have the use ofland a locative inammi. A single passage in thePañcarātrasuggests Māgadhī Apabhraṅça, but is probably corrupt.[123]
[Contents]6.The Language of the PlaysBhāsa’s Sanskrit77is in the main correct according to the rules of the grammarians, but his dependence on the epic is revealed by the occasional use of epic irregularities, almost always for the sake of the metre, which in the epic also is the cause of many deviations from classical grammar. We have thus the irregular contractionsputretiandAvantyādhipateḥ, and a number of middle forms in lieu of active,gamiṣye,garjase,drakṣyate,pṛcchase,bhraçyate,ruhyate,çroṣyate. In other cases the active replaces the middle,āpṛccha,upalapsyati,pariṣvaja. There is confusion between the simple and the causative verb insravatiandvījanti,[121]and invimoktukāma. The formsrudantīandgṛhyahave many epic parallels. Irregular compounds aresarvarājñaḥin verse, andKāçirājñein prose;vyūḍhorasandtulyadharmaoccur in verse. The use in one clause of bothcedandyadiis found in verse and also in prose, as in the epic. Mere blunders perhaps may be styledpratyāyati, a haplological form of the causative with the meaning of the simple verb,samāçvāsitumwith causative sense, andyudhas a masculine noun. There are other seeming irregularities, but they are either sanctioned by usage or possible of explanation by reference to variant interpretations of Pāṇini’s rules.The Prākrits78found in Bhāsa are normally Çaurasenī, which is present in all the plays save theDūtavākya, which has no Prākrit; Māgadhī found in two different forms; and what may be styled Ardha-Māgadhī. The distinctive feature of his language is its transitional aspect as compared with Açvaghoṣa on the one hand and Kālidāsa on the other. Açvaghoṣa never softens—save in one instance—hard consonants, but bothṭandtare changed toḍanddin Bhāsa. Açvaghoṣa never omits consonants, but, though this is less often carried out than in Kālidāsa, we find cases of the loss ofk,g,c,j,t,d,p,b,v, andywhen intervocalic.yitself suffers frequent change toj, contrary to Açvaghoṣa’s usage. The change ofninitial and medial toṇis regular, while it is unknown to Açvaghoṣa. The aspirateskh,gh,th,dh,ph, andbhare all often reduced as later toh, but never in Açvaghoṣa.In the case of conjunct consonants we find thatjñgives in Bhāsa eitherññorṇṇ, possibly the latter by error; Açvaghoṣa hasññonly, Kālidāsaṇṇ. FornyandṇyBhāsa has alwaysṇṇas against Açvaghoṣa’sññ. The eliding of a consonant, with the compensatory lengthening of the vowel as indīsadi, is unknown to Açvaghoṣa, where the omission of the consonant twice occurs but without lengthening; it is frequent in Bhāsa and regular in Kālidāsa. The analogous use of a short vowel and a double consonant to represent a long vowel with a single consonant is unknown to Açvaghoṣa, but Bhāsa has it inevva,evvaṁ,jovvana,[122]devva,ekka. On the other hand, like Açvaghoṣa, forryhe hasyyonly in lieu of Kālidāsa’sjj. For the latermetta mattais always found, and the epenthetic vowel isu, noti, inpurusa, andpuruvais normal.In inflection we have, in the nominative and accusative plural of neuter stems ina,āniin Açvaghoṣa,āṇiin Bhāsa, while bothāṇiandāiṁare allowed later. The accusative plural masculine has also, analogously toāniin the Ardha-Māgadhī of the Açoka inscriptions,79āṇi, and the locative singular feminine is ināaṁ, not as laterāe. For the laterattāṇaaṁwe haveattāṇaṁ. For ‘we’ Açvaghoṣa hasvayaṁ, Kālidāsaamhe; Bhāsa both andvaaṁ. In the genitive plural Bhāsa has bothamhāaṁand the only form lateramhāṇaṁ, while Açvaghoṣa would doubtless have usedamhākaṁ.kissais kept for laterkīsa, andkocci(kaccid) disappears later. The rootdarçis represented bydassanddaṅs,grahbygaṇhadiagainst the latergeṇhadi, which, however, is found in Açvaghoṣa. The olderformskariaandgacchiaorgamia, are found in lieu ofkaduaandgadua, but the last occurs once.māis used with the gerund in the sense ofalam.Many of these peculiarities mark also the Māgadhī, which appears in two slightly varied forms, the first in thePratijñāyaugandharāyaṇaand theCārudatta, the second in theBālacaritaand thePañcarātra; in the two latter we haveṣandofor theçandeof the former. As in Açvaghoṣa there is no trace of obedience to the rules of the grammarians which requiresṭfor Sanskritṣṭhorṣṭ,çcforcch,skorẖkforkṣ. For ‘I’ we findahake, which is an intermediate stage between Açvaghoṣa’sahakaṁand the laterhage.nybecomesṇṇ, notññ, and the use ofyto denote a dropped consonant is not carried out.The only passages that can claim to be anything like Ardha-Māgadhī are the remarks of Indra in disguise in theKarṇabhāra, where the characteristic signs, the use ofr,s, ande, are found; in the speeches of Muṣṭika and Cāṇūra in theBālacaritawe have the use ofland a locative inammi. A single passage in thePañcarātrasuggests Māgadhī Apabhraṅça, but is probably corrupt.[123]
[Contents]6.The Language of the PlaysBhāsa’s Sanskrit77is in the main correct according to the rules of the grammarians, but his dependence on the epic is revealed by the occasional use of epic irregularities, almost always for the sake of the metre, which in the epic also is the cause of many deviations from classical grammar. We have thus the irregular contractionsputretiandAvantyādhipateḥ, and a number of middle forms in lieu of active,gamiṣye,garjase,drakṣyate,pṛcchase,bhraçyate,ruhyate,çroṣyate. In other cases the active replaces the middle,āpṛccha,upalapsyati,pariṣvaja. There is confusion between the simple and the causative verb insravatiandvījanti,[121]and invimoktukāma. The formsrudantīandgṛhyahave many epic parallels. Irregular compounds aresarvarājñaḥin verse, andKāçirājñein prose;vyūḍhorasandtulyadharmaoccur in verse. The use in one clause of bothcedandyadiis found in verse and also in prose, as in the epic. Mere blunders perhaps may be styledpratyāyati, a haplological form of the causative with the meaning of the simple verb,samāçvāsitumwith causative sense, andyudhas a masculine noun. There are other seeming irregularities, but they are either sanctioned by usage or possible of explanation by reference to variant interpretations of Pāṇini’s rules.The Prākrits78found in Bhāsa are normally Çaurasenī, which is present in all the plays save theDūtavākya, which has no Prākrit; Māgadhī found in two different forms; and what may be styled Ardha-Māgadhī. The distinctive feature of his language is its transitional aspect as compared with Açvaghoṣa on the one hand and Kālidāsa on the other. Açvaghoṣa never softens—save in one instance—hard consonants, but bothṭandtare changed toḍanddin Bhāsa. Açvaghoṣa never omits consonants, but, though this is less often carried out than in Kālidāsa, we find cases of the loss ofk,g,c,j,t,d,p,b,v, andywhen intervocalic.yitself suffers frequent change toj, contrary to Açvaghoṣa’s usage. The change ofninitial and medial toṇis regular, while it is unknown to Açvaghoṣa. The aspirateskh,gh,th,dh,ph, andbhare all often reduced as later toh, but never in Açvaghoṣa.In the case of conjunct consonants we find thatjñgives in Bhāsa eitherññorṇṇ, possibly the latter by error; Açvaghoṣa hasññonly, Kālidāsaṇṇ. FornyandṇyBhāsa has alwaysṇṇas against Açvaghoṣa’sññ. The eliding of a consonant, with the compensatory lengthening of the vowel as indīsadi, is unknown to Açvaghoṣa, where the omission of the consonant twice occurs but without lengthening; it is frequent in Bhāsa and regular in Kālidāsa. The analogous use of a short vowel and a double consonant to represent a long vowel with a single consonant is unknown to Açvaghoṣa, but Bhāsa has it inevva,evvaṁ,jovvana,[122]devva,ekka. On the other hand, like Açvaghoṣa, forryhe hasyyonly in lieu of Kālidāsa’sjj. For the latermetta mattais always found, and the epenthetic vowel isu, noti, inpurusa, andpuruvais normal.In inflection we have, in the nominative and accusative plural of neuter stems ina,āniin Açvaghoṣa,āṇiin Bhāsa, while bothāṇiandāiṁare allowed later. The accusative plural masculine has also, analogously toāniin the Ardha-Māgadhī of the Açoka inscriptions,79āṇi, and the locative singular feminine is ināaṁ, not as laterāe. For the laterattāṇaaṁwe haveattāṇaṁ. For ‘we’ Açvaghoṣa hasvayaṁ, Kālidāsaamhe; Bhāsa both andvaaṁ. In the genitive plural Bhāsa has bothamhāaṁand the only form lateramhāṇaṁ, while Açvaghoṣa would doubtless have usedamhākaṁ.kissais kept for laterkīsa, andkocci(kaccid) disappears later. The rootdarçis represented bydassanddaṅs,grahbygaṇhadiagainst the latergeṇhadi, which, however, is found in Açvaghoṣa. The olderformskariaandgacchiaorgamia, are found in lieu ofkaduaandgadua, but the last occurs once.māis used with the gerund in the sense ofalam.Many of these peculiarities mark also the Māgadhī, which appears in two slightly varied forms, the first in thePratijñāyaugandharāyaṇaand theCārudatta, the second in theBālacaritaand thePañcarātra; in the two latter we haveṣandofor theçandeof the former. As in Açvaghoṣa there is no trace of obedience to the rules of the grammarians which requiresṭfor Sanskritṣṭhorṣṭ,çcforcch,skorẖkforkṣ. For ‘I’ we findahake, which is an intermediate stage between Açvaghoṣa’sahakaṁand the laterhage.nybecomesṇṇ, notññ, and the use ofyto denote a dropped consonant is not carried out.The only passages that can claim to be anything like Ardha-Māgadhī are the remarks of Indra in disguise in theKarṇabhāra, where the characteristic signs, the use ofr,s, ande, are found; in the speeches of Muṣṭika and Cāṇūra in theBālacaritawe have the use ofland a locative inammi. A single passage in thePañcarātrasuggests Māgadhī Apabhraṅça, but is probably corrupt.[123]
[Contents]6.The Language of the PlaysBhāsa’s Sanskrit77is in the main correct according to the rules of the grammarians, but his dependence on the epic is revealed by the occasional use of epic irregularities, almost always for the sake of the metre, which in the epic also is the cause of many deviations from classical grammar. We have thus the irregular contractionsputretiandAvantyādhipateḥ, and a number of middle forms in lieu of active,gamiṣye,garjase,drakṣyate,pṛcchase,bhraçyate,ruhyate,çroṣyate. In other cases the active replaces the middle,āpṛccha,upalapsyati,pariṣvaja. There is confusion between the simple and the causative verb insravatiandvījanti,[121]and invimoktukāma. The formsrudantīandgṛhyahave many epic parallels. Irregular compounds aresarvarājñaḥin verse, andKāçirājñein prose;vyūḍhorasandtulyadharmaoccur in verse. The use in one clause of bothcedandyadiis found in verse and also in prose, as in the epic. Mere blunders perhaps may be styledpratyāyati, a haplological form of the causative with the meaning of the simple verb,samāçvāsitumwith causative sense, andyudhas a masculine noun. There are other seeming irregularities, but they are either sanctioned by usage or possible of explanation by reference to variant interpretations of Pāṇini’s rules.The Prākrits78found in Bhāsa are normally Çaurasenī, which is present in all the plays save theDūtavākya, which has no Prākrit; Māgadhī found in two different forms; and what may be styled Ardha-Māgadhī. The distinctive feature of his language is its transitional aspect as compared with Açvaghoṣa on the one hand and Kālidāsa on the other. Açvaghoṣa never softens—save in one instance—hard consonants, but bothṭandtare changed toḍanddin Bhāsa. Açvaghoṣa never omits consonants, but, though this is less often carried out than in Kālidāsa, we find cases of the loss ofk,g,c,j,t,d,p,b,v, andywhen intervocalic.yitself suffers frequent change toj, contrary to Açvaghoṣa’s usage. The change ofninitial and medial toṇis regular, while it is unknown to Açvaghoṣa. The aspirateskh,gh,th,dh,ph, andbhare all often reduced as later toh, but never in Açvaghoṣa.In the case of conjunct consonants we find thatjñgives in Bhāsa eitherññorṇṇ, possibly the latter by error; Açvaghoṣa hasññonly, Kālidāsaṇṇ. FornyandṇyBhāsa has alwaysṇṇas against Açvaghoṣa’sññ. The eliding of a consonant, with the compensatory lengthening of the vowel as indīsadi, is unknown to Açvaghoṣa, where the omission of the consonant twice occurs but without lengthening; it is frequent in Bhāsa and regular in Kālidāsa. The analogous use of a short vowel and a double consonant to represent a long vowel with a single consonant is unknown to Açvaghoṣa, but Bhāsa has it inevva,evvaṁ,jovvana,[122]devva,ekka. On the other hand, like Açvaghoṣa, forryhe hasyyonly in lieu of Kālidāsa’sjj. For the latermetta mattais always found, and the epenthetic vowel isu, noti, inpurusa, andpuruvais normal.In inflection we have, in the nominative and accusative plural of neuter stems ina,āniin Açvaghoṣa,āṇiin Bhāsa, while bothāṇiandāiṁare allowed later. The accusative plural masculine has also, analogously toāniin the Ardha-Māgadhī of the Açoka inscriptions,79āṇi, and the locative singular feminine is ināaṁ, not as laterāe. For the laterattāṇaaṁwe haveattāṇaṁ. For ‘we’ Açvaghoṣa hasvayaṁ, Kālidāsaamhe; Bhāsa both andvaaṁ. In the genitive plural Bhāsa has bothamhāaṁand the only form lateramhāṇaṁ, while Açvaghoṣa would doubtless have usedamhākaṁ.kissais kept for laterkīsa, andkocci(kaccid) disappears later. The rootdarçis represented bydassanddaṅs,grahbygaṇhadiagainst the latergeṇhadi, which, however, is found in Açvaghoṣa. The olderformskariaandgacchiaorgamia, are found in lieu ofkaduaandgadua, but the last occurs once.māis used with the gerund in the sense ofalam.Many of these peculiarities mark also the Māgadhī, which appears in two slightly varied forms, the first in thePratijñāyaugandharāyaṇaand theCārudatta, the second in theBālacaritaand thePañcarātra; in the two latter we haveṣandofor theçandeof the former. As in Açvaghoṣa there is no trace of obedience to the rules of the grammarians which requiresṭfor Sanskritṣṭhorṣṭ,çcforcch,skorẖkforkṣ. For ‘I’ we findahake, which is an intermediate stage between Açvaghoṣa’sahakaṁand the laterhage.nybecomesṇṇ, notññ, and the use ofyto denote a dropped consonant is not carried out.The only passages that can claim to be anything like Ardha-Māgadhī are the remarks of Indra in disguise in theKarṇabhāra, where the characteristic signs, the use ofr,s, ande, are found; in the speeches of Muṣṭika and Cāṇūra in theBālacaritawe have the use ofland a locative inammi. A single passage in thePañcarātrasuggests Māgadhī Apabhraṅça, but is probably corrupt.[123]
[Contents]6.The Language of the PlaysBhāsa’s Sanskrit77is in the main correct according to the rules of the grammarians, but his dependence on the epic is revealed by the occasional use of epic irregularities, almost always for the sake of the metre, which in the epic also is the cause of many deviations from classical grammar. We have thus the irregular contractionsputretiandAvantyādhipateḥ, and a number of middle forms in lieu of active,gamiṣye,garjase,drakṣyate,pṛcchase,bhraçyate,ruhyate,çroṣyate. In other cases the active replaces the middle,āpṛccha,upalapsyati,pariṣvaja. There is confusion between the simple and the causative verb insravatiandvījanti,[121]and invimoktukāma. The formsrudantīandgṛhyahave many epic parallels. Irregular compounds aresarvarājñaḥin verse, andKāçirājñein prose;vyūḍhorasandtulyadharmaoccur in verse. The use in one clause of bothcedandyadiis found in verse and also in prose, as in the epic. Mere blunders perhaps may be styledpratyāyati, a haplological form of the causative with the meaning of the simple verb,samāçvāsitumwith causative sense, andyudhas a masculine noun. There are other seeming irregularities, but they are either sanctioned by usage or possible of explanation by reference to variant interpretations of Pāṇini’s rules.The Prākrits78found in Bhāsa are normally Çaurasenī, which is present in all the plays save theDūtavākya, which has no Prākrit; Māgadhī found in two different forms; and what may be styled Ardha-Māgadhī. The distinctive feature of his language is its transitional aspect as compared with Açvaghoṣa on the one hand and Kālidāsa on the other. Açvaghoṣa never softens—save in one instance—hard consonants, but bothṭandtare changed toḍanddin Bhāsa. Açvaghoṣa never omits consonants, but, though this is less often carried out than in Kālidāsa, we find cases of the loss ofk,g,c,j,t,d,p,b,v, andywhen intervocalic.yitself suffers frequent change toj, contrary to Açvaghoṣa’s usage. The change ofninitial and medial toṇis regular, while it is unknown to Açvaghoṣa. The aspirateskh,gh,th,dh,ph, andbhare all often reduced as later toh, but never in Açvaghoṣa.In the case of conjunct consonants we find thatjñgives in Bhāsa eitherññorṇṇ, possibly the latter by error; Açvaghoṣa hasññonly, Kālidāsaṇṇ. FornyandṇyBhāsa has alwaysṇṇas against Açvaghoṣa’sññ. The eliding of a consonant, with the compensatory lengthening of the vowel as indīsadi, is unknown to Açvaghoṣa, where the omission of the consonant twice occurs but without lengthening; it is frequent in Bhāsa and regular in Kālidāsa. The analogous use of a short vowel and a double consonant to represent a long vowel with a single consonant is unknown to Açvaghoṣa, but Bhāsa has it inevva,evvaṁ,jovvana,[122]devva,ekka. On the other hand, like Açvaghoṣa, forryhe hasyyonly in lieu of Kālidāsa’sjj. For the latermetta mattais always found, and the epenthetic vowel isu, noti, inpurusa, andpuruvais normal.In inflection we have, in the nominative and accusative plural of neuter stems ina,āniin Açvaghoṣa,āṇiin Bhāsa, while bothāṇiandāiṁare allowed later. The accusative plural masculine has also, analogously toāniin the Ardha-Māgadhī of the Açoka inscriptions,79āṇi, and the locative singular feminine is ināaṁ, not as laterāe. For the laterattāṇaaṁwe haveattāṇaṁ. For ‘we’ Açvaghoṣa hasvayaṁ, Kālidāsaamhe; Bhāsa both andvaaṁ. In the genitive plural Bhāsa has bothamhāaṁand the only form lateramhāṇaṁ, while Açvaghoṣa would doubtless have usedamhākaṁ.kissais kept for laterkīsa, andkocci(kaccid) disappears later. The rootdarçis represented bydassanddaṅs,grahbygaṇhadiagainst the latergeṇhadi, which, however, is found in Açvaghoṣa. The olderformskariaandgacchiaorgamia, are found in lieu ofkaduaandgadua, but the last occurs once.māis used with the gerund in the sense ofalam.Many of these peculiarities mark also the Māgadhī, which appears in two slightly varied forms, the first in thePratijñāyaugandharāyaṇaand theCārudatta, the second in theBālacaritaand thePañcarātra; in the two latter we haveṣandofor theçandeof the former. As in Açvaghoṣa there is no trace of obedience to the rules of the grammarians which requiresṭfor Sanskritṣṭhorṣṭ,çcforcch,skorẖkforkṣ. For ‘I’ we findahake, which is an intermediate stage between Açvaghoṣa’sahakaṁand the laterhage.nybecomesṇṇ, notññ, and the use ofyto denote a dropped consonant is not carried out.The only passages that can claim to be anything like Ardha-Māgadhī are the remarks of Indra in disguise in theKarṇabhāra, where the characteristic signs, the use ofr,s, ande, are found; in the speeches of Muṣṭika and Cāṇūra in theBālacaritawe have the use ofland a locative inammi. A single passage in thePañcarātrasuggests Māgadhī Apabhraṅça, but is probably corrupt.[123]
6.The Language of the Plays
Bhāsa’s Sanskrit77is in the main correct according to the rules of the grammarians, but his dependence on the epic is revealed by the occasional use of epic irregularities, almost always for the sake of the metre, which in the epic also is the cause of many deviations from classical grammar. We have thus the irregular contractionsputretiandAvantyādhipateḥ, and a number of middle forms in lieu of active,gamiṣye,garjase,drakṣyate,pṛcchase,bhraçyate,ruhyate,çroṣyate. In other cases the active replaces the middle,āpṛccha,upalapsyati,pariṣvaja. There is confusion between the simple and the causative verb insravatiandvījanti,[121]and invimoktukāma. The formsrudantīandgṛhyahave many epic parallels. Irregular compounds aresarvarājñaḥin verse, andKāçirājñein prose;vyūḍhorasandtulyadharmaoccur in verse. The use in one clause of bothcedandyadiis found in verse and also in prose, as in the epic. Mere blunders perhaps may be styledpratyāyati, a haplological form of the causative with the meaning of the simple verb,samāçvāsitumwith causative sense, andyudhas a masculine noun. There are other seeming irregularities, but they are either sanctioned by usage or possible of explanation by reference to variant interpretations of Pāṇini’s rules.The Prākrits78found in Bhāsa are normally Çaurasenī, which is present in all the plays save theDūtavākya, which has no Prākrit; Māgadhī found in two different forms; and what may be styled Ardha-Māgadhī. The distinctive feature of his language is its transitional aspect as compared with Açvaghoṣa on the one hand and Kālidāsa on the other. Açvaghoṣa never softens—save in one instance—hard consonants, but bothṭandtare changed toḍanddin Bhāsa. Açvaghoṣa never omits consonants, but, though this is less often carried out than in Kālidāsa, we find cases of the loss ofk,g,c,j,t,d,p,b,v, andywhen intervocalic.yitself suffers frequent change toj, contrary to Açvaghoṣa’s usage. The change ofninitial and medial toṇis regular, while it is unknown to Açvaghoṣa. The aspirateskh,gh,th,dh,ph, andbhare all often reduced as later toh, but never in Açvaghoṣa.In the case of conjunct consonants we find thatjñgives in Bhāsa eitherññorṇṇ, possibly the latter by error; Açvaghoṣa hasññonly, Kālidāsaṇṇ. FornyandṇyBhāsa has alwaysṇṇas against Açvaghoṣa’sññ. The eliding of a consonant, with the compensatory lengthening of the vowel as indīsadi, is unknown to Açvaghoṣa, where the omission of the consonant twice occurs but without lengthening; it is frequent in Bhāsa and regular in Kālidāsa. The analogous use of a short vowel and a double consonant to represent a long vowel with a single consonant is unknown to Açvaghoṣa, but Bhāsa has it inevva,evvaṁ,jovvana,[122]devva,ekka. On the other hand, like Açvaghoṣa, forryhe hasyyonly in lieu of Kālidāsa’sjj. For the latermetta mattais always found, and the epenthetic vowel isu, noti, inpurusa, andpuruvais normal.In inflection we have, in the nominative and accusative plural of neuter stems ina,āniin Açvaghoṣa,āṇiin Bhāsa, while bothāṇiandāiṁare allowed later. The accusative plural masculine has also, analogously toāniin the Ardha-Māgadhī of the Açoka inscriptions,79āṇi, and the locative singular feminine is ināaṁ, not as laterāe. For the laterattāṇaaṁwe haveattāṇaṁ. For ‘we’ Açvaghoṣa hasvayaṁ, Kālidāsaamhe; Bhāsa both andvaaṁ. In the genitive plural Bhāsa has bothamhāaṁand the only form lateramhāṇaṁ, while Açvaghoṣa would doubtless have usedamhākaṁ.kissais kept for laterkīsa, andkocci(kaccid) disappears later. The rootdarçis represented bydassanddaṅs,grahbygaṇhadiagainst the latergeṇhadi, which, however, is found in Açvaghoṣa. The olderformskariaandgacchiaorgamia, are found in lieu ofkaduaandgadua, but the last occurs once.māis used with the gerund in the sense ofalam.Many of these peculiarities mark also the Māgadhī, which appears in two slightly varied forms, the first in thePratijñāyaugandharāyaṇaand theCārudatta, the second in theBālacaritaand thePañcarātra; in the two latter we haveṣandofor theçandeof the former. As in Açvaghoṣa there is no trace of obedience to the rules of the grammarians which requiresṭfor Sanskritṣṭhorṣṭ,çcforcch,skorẖkforkṣ. For ‘I’ we findahake, which is an intermediate stage between Açvaghoṣa’sahakaṁand the laterhage.nybecomesṇṇ, notññ, and the use ofyto denote a dropped consonant is not carried out.The only passages that can claim to be anything like Ardha-Māgadhī are the remarks of Indra in disguise in theKarṇabhāra, where the characteristic signs, the use ofr,s, ande, are found; in the speeches of Muṣṭika and Cāṇūra in theBālacaritawe have the use ofland a locative inammi. A single passage in thePañcarātrasuggests Māgadhī Apabhraṅça, but is probably corrupt.[123]
Bhāsa’s Sanskrit77is in the main correct according to the rules of the grammarians, but his dependence on the epic is revealed by the occasional use of epic irregularities, almost always for the sake of the metre, which in the epic also is the cause of many deviations from classical grammar. We have thus the irregular contractionsputretiandAvantyādhipateḥ, and a number of middle forms in lieu of active,gamiṣye,garjase,drakṣyate,pṛcchase,bhraçyate,ruhyate,çroṣyate. In other cases the active replaces the middle,āpṛccha,upalapsyati,pariṣvaja. There is confusion between the simple and the causative verb insravatiandvījanti,[121]and invimoktukāma. The formsrudantīandgṛhyahave many epic parallels. Irregular compounds aresarvarājñaḥin verse, andKāçirājñein prose;vyūḍhorasandtulyadharmaoccur in verse. The use in one clause of bothcedandyadiis found in verse and also in prose, as in the epic. Mere blunders perhaps may be styledpratyāyati, a haplological form of the causative with the meaning of the simple verb,samāçvāsitumwith causative sense, andyudhas a masculine noun. There are other seeming irregularities, but they are either sanctioned by usage or possible of explanation by reference to variant interpretations of Pāṇini’s rules.
The Prākrits78found in Bhāsa are normally Çaurasenī, which is present in all the plays save theDūtavākya, which has no Prākrit; Māgadhī found in two different forms; and what may be styled Ardha-Māgadhī. The distinctive feature of his language is its transitional aspect as compared with Açvaghoṣa on the one hand and Kālidāsa on the other. Açvaghoṣa never softens—save in one instance—hard consonants, but bothṭandtare changed toḍanddin Bhāsa. Açvaghoṣa never omits consonants, but, though this is less often carried out than in Kālidāsa, we find cases of the loss ofk,g,c,j,t,d,p,b,v, andywhen intervocalic.yitself suffers frequent change toj, contrary to Açvaghoṣa’s usage. The change ofninitial and medial toṇis regular, while it is unknown to Açvaghoṣa. The aspirateskh,gh,th,dh,ph, andbhare all often reduced as later toh, but never in Açvaghoṣa.
In the case of conjunct consonants we find thatjñgives in Bhāsa eitherññorṇṇ, possibly the latter by error; Açvaghoṣa hasññonly, Kālidāsaṇṇ. FornyandṇyBhāsa has alwaysṇṇas against Açvaghoṣa’sññ. The eliding of a consonant, with the compensatory lengthening of the vowel as indīsadi, is unknown to Açvaghoṣa, where the omission of the consonant twice occurs but without lengthening; it is frequent in Bhāsa and regular in Kālidāsa. The analogous use of a short vowel and a double consonant to represent a long vowel with a single consonant is unknown to Açvaghoṣa, but Bhāsa has it inevva,evvaṁ,jovvana,[122]devva,ekka. On the other hand, like Açvaghoṣa, forryhe hasyyonly in lieu of Kālidāsa’sjj. For the latermetta mattais always found, and the epenthetic vowel isu, noti, inpurusa, andpuruvais normal.
In inflection we have, in the nominative and accusative plural of neuter stems ina,āniin Açvaghoṣa,āṇiin Bhāsa, while bothāṇiandāiṁare allowed later. The accusative plural masculine has also, analogously toāniin the Ardha-Māgadhī of the Açoka inscriptions,79āṇi, and the locative singular feminine is ināaṁ, not as laterāe. For the laterattāṇaaṁwe haveattāṇaṁ. For ‘we’ Açvaghoṣa hasvayaṁ, Kālidāsaamhe; Bhāsa both andvaaṁ. In the genitive plural Bhāsa has bothamhāaṁand the only form lateramhāṇaṁ, while Açvaghoṣa would doubtless have usedamhākaṁ.kissais kept for laterkīsa, andkocci(kaccid) disappears later. The rootdarçis represented bydassanddaṅs,grahbygaṇhadiagainst the latergeṇhadi, which, however, is found in Açvaghoṣa. The olderformskariaandgacchiaorgamia, are found in lieu ofkaduaandgadua, but the last occurs once.māis used with the gerund in the sense ofalam.
Many of these peculiarities mark also the Māgadhī, which appears in two slightly varied forms, the first in thePratijñāyaugandharāyaṇaand theCārudatta, the second in theBālacaritaand thePañcarātra; in the two latter we haveṣandofor theçandeof the former. As in Açvaghoṣa there is no trace of obedience to the rules of the grammarians which requiresṭfor Sanskritṣṭhorṣṭ,çcforcch,skorẖkforkṣ. For ‘I’ we findahake, which is an intermediate stage between Açvaghoṣa’sahakaṁand the laterhage.nybecomesṇṇ, notññ, and the use ofyto denote a dropped consonant is not carried out.
The only passages that can claim to be anything like Ardha-Māgadhī are the remarks of Indra in disguise in theKarṇabhāra, where the characteristic signs, the use ofr,s, ande, are found; in the speeches of Muṣṭika and Cāṇūra in theBālacaritawe have the use ofland a locative inammi. A single passage in thePañcarātrasuggests Māgadhī Apabhraṅça, but is probably corrupt.[123]