Update: 2016-02-02 07:06 PM -0500


Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar and Dictionary


by Franklin Edgerton (18851963), Sterling Professor of Sanskrit and Comparative Philology, Yale University, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Private Ltd., Delhi, 1st ed. New Haven, 1953. ISBN: 81 208-0998-x (Vol. 1), ISBN: 81 208-0997. (Set of 2 books).

Digitized by Daw Khin Wutyi from the original book. This TIL edition is edited, with additions from other sources, by U Kyaw Tun (UKT) (M.S., I.P.S.T., USA) and staff of Tun Institute of Learning (TIL) . Not for sale. No copyright. Free for everyone. Prepared for students and staff of TIL Research Station, Yangon, MYANMAR :  http://www.tuninst.net , www.romabama.blogspot.com

index.htm | Top

Contents of this page 

Prakrit underlying BHS
The case of am or aṃ : {m} or {n}
The case of Ordinary-O /o/ and Open-O /ɔ/ : I use of IPA symbols for explanation
The case of negative particle   : {ma.}


Edgerton notes
Edgerton's footnotes are continuously numbered without any reference to pages. However for this TIL edition, I have given the page numbers as well. Thus fn001-02 means, it is footnote #02 found on p001, and fn003-07 is footnote #07 found on p003.


UKT notes 


Contents of this page

Prakrit underlying BHS

1.78. Various attempts have been made to identify the underlying Prakrit with some known Middle Indic dialect, on the basis of specific resemblances between such a dialect and Middle Indic elements in BHS. On careful examination, such points of agreement are usually found to be not sufficiently specific; that is, the feature in question turns out to occur in other Middle Indic dialects besides the one with which identification is proposed besides the one with which identification is proposed. Furthermore, any such point of agreement will always ( p011c1end-p011c2begin) be found to be more than counterbalanced by points of disagreement. Hence, no doubt, scholars in recent times have become wary of such identifications. One of the latest to be published, as far as I know, is that of Lders in Hoernle MR 162, who thought the original dialect of SP, at least, was Māgadhī, solely on the ground of voc. pl. forms in āho (but see 1.38, fn. 16). For the views of Hin-lin Dschi see 1.24 ff., 1.97, and fn. 21 to 1.81.

UKT 160129: The reason why the early Indologists - Europeans at that - had difficulty in identifying the underlying Prakrit to BHS is their low opinion of the original languages of the Indian subcontinent extending into Myanmarpr. They did not realized that the original languages belong to the Tib-Bur linguistic-group. Their scripts are of Abugida-Akshara writing system, which is fundamentally different from Alphabet-Letter writing system to which English and Sanskrit - the IE languages - belong.

They also failed to realize that the original languages, particularly the Magadhi-Asokan has such a simple grammar that (it is claimed) even the higher animals can understand it. Though we do not know what the Old Magadhi was, at least its direct descendant, Bur-Myan, has no inflexions, no gender, no number and no tense. We can expect Old Magadhi would be totally different from Skt-Dev, and during translations by those who do not know the cultural differences, the underlying meanings would be changed. See my note on
Vedic Mantra-discovers becoming common Sanskrit-bards in i05plan-methods.htm.

1.79. I find no reason to believe that the Prakrit chiefly underlying BHS, or any substantial part of its tradition, was an eastern dialect. (UKT )

UKT 160131: Why couldn't Prof Edgerton accept that the Prakrit chiefly underlying BHS was an Eastern-language, when he knew fully well that Gautama Buddha was an easterner which he had noted in 1.15 "Buddha himself was an 'easterner' "? See: i01. Languages used in early Buddhism -- i01early.htm (link chk 160201)

Buddha was preaching to the common people who were mostly Sudras 'servants and slaves' and to the 'woman-folk' looked down by the Brahmin-Poannar {braah~ma.Na. poaN~Na:}.

I [Edgerton] know no way of localizing it geographically at all. Complete dialectic unity, indeed, could not reasonably be expected, and will certainly not be found, in so large a body of texts, obviously of quite different dates.

1.80. I am not thinking of the varying degrees of Sanskritization, referred to above. If we limit our attention to non-Sanskrit forms, we still find variation; some forms which are common in certain works occur rarely, or perhaps not at all, in others; and often in the same work we find forms which may plausibly be taken to show dialect mixture. As is well known, Pali also shows linguistic differences between the gāthās, canonical prose, later prose, etc. (Geiger p. 1 f.), and dialect mixture in all of them. I should add that, as in the case of Pali, I find no reason to question the essential dialectic unity of the BHS Prakrit. Such differences as occur are minor compared to the great mass of resemblances.

UKT 160129: We must remember that Pali is derived from Old Magadhi carried by the Asokan missionaries to Ceylon, and it is in Ceylon that Pali was invented from Old Magadhi (Tib-Bur) and Lankan the language of Ceylon of Austro-Asiatic (Aus-Asi) group. Of course, the European Indologists would not look into "Pali" of Myanmarpr which I claim is directly derived from Old Magadhi - the language of King Abhiraza of Tagaung, and that of the relatives of the Gautama Buddha fleeing the wrath of Prince (King) Vidudabha of Kosala.

1.81. In some cases, chronological layers in the same book are more easily detected by stylistic or metrical criteria than by morphological or phonological ones. fn011-21. I have not felt it possible, in this work, to consider style or meter except as they seemed to me directly reflected in phonology or morphology. Nor have I attempted anything like a fully collation of parallel passages (for examples see above, 1.43 ff.), either within BHS itself, or between these texts and Pali or other Buddhist texts. Generally speaking, I have referred to such parallels only when I have found in them something useful for the interpretation of a BHS word or form. There is great need for much more extensive study of such parallels than has yet been made; I hope my work may help future workers in this field, but it does not claim to anticipate such work to any noteworthy extent.

1.82. My work aims to be descriptive rather than historical or comparative. Nevertheless, under each non-Skt. form recorded in the grammar I shall usually refer briefly to such correspondences in other M Indic dialects as I have noted. These references are very far from exhaustive, and are not intended to be that. In the now following sections I shall mention a few which are of special interest at this point, because they are not general ( p011c2end-p012c1begin) M Indic or even 'general Prakrit'; some are even quite unknown elsewhere.

UKT 160131: p012 has no footnote.

1.83. So, first and foremost, the loc. sg. of a-stems in esmin (or esmi; also esmi), on which see 8.70-73. It occurs very frequently, in the verses of most texts, and in the prose of Mv. Yet Senart systematically excluded it from his printed text of Mv. Many other editors have followed his example and relegated it to their critica apparatus. Yet it is very easily explained, and must certainly be accepted. Since it occurs in no other known dialect, and is so very common here, it alone is enough to prove that the BHS Prakrit is not exactly the same as any other known to us. In passing it may be noted that asmi or asmin (also asmi) is likewise common (as in Pali) but that the alternative ending aṃhi (cf. Pali amhi; also in some Pkt. mss., according to Pischel 366a by corruption) is extremely rare; it can scarcely have been a form native to the underlying Prakrit. I have noted, in fact, only a single noun form in aṃhi; there are a very few pronouns. The locative ending i (which Pischel recognizes only for Ap.) occurs very often for e  in verses of most texts, m.c.; it is not common in Mv, tho cases are found. The ending aṃse, recalling regular A Mg. aṃsi, is recorded just once, in a verse of Mv (according to the mss.)

1.84. Another ending unknown elsewhere is āvo in the nom.-acc. pl. of fem. ā-stems. It occurs at least half a dozen times in Mv; nowhere else. It also occurs even in a masc. pl. voc., āvusāvo, 8.89. It is probably somehow related to the commoner āyo (= Pali id., and probably Pkt. āo; otherwise Pischel); nom.-acc. pl. āyā and āye are perhaps to be recognized, tho they are very rare. On the y as against Prakrit zero cf. the oblique fem. āye (as in some Aśokan dialects), clearly corresponding to general Pkt. āe (which is very rare in BHS); āye is almost limited Mv, but commoner there the āya, which is the regular ending in (verses of) most texts and is also familiar enough in Mv. The oblique fem. ending ā (bare stem), known in Pali, is rather rare in BHS.

1.85. The endings of fem. ī  (and ī -) stems are partly analogous to those of ā-stems; but the i may be short (without correlation with the historic quantity of the stem vowel), as in Pali oblique sg. iyā (but Pkt. regularly īe, īa). Thus the usual oblique sg. fem. endings in Mv, including prose, are īye, iye; in other texts these occur chiefly in verse; and in most texts, even in verses, īya, iya are commoner; īyo, iyo  also occur, rarely, and chiefly in Mv; also , ya, as generalized oblique endings, chiefly in verses. Fem. u-, ū-stems (much fewer in number) are roughly analogous to i-, ī-stems.

1.86. Another ending not recorded elsewhere is a general oblique form of ar-stems in are or ari, fairly well attested, but only in Mv, and always in prose. It is found from both m. (pitate, pitari) and f. stems, but I presume that it is analogous to the (regularly fem.) oblique endings iye, uye, of i- and u-stems.

1.87. The gen. pl. sānaṃ (cf. the general Pkt. gen. sg. se), 'of these' (to stem sa-: ta-) is not clearly recorded elsewhere. In BHS it is limited to Mv, but quite frequent there.

1.88. The aorist and optative use a 3 pl. ending etsu or etsu; also, rarely, atsu (), itsu(ḥ) after other vowels. These are extremely common in Mv, tho Senart regularly emends them to -nsu(ḥ); elsewhere they are rare. Outside of Mv, the usual 3 pl. aor. ending is iṣu (also found in verses of Mv), for Skt. iṣuḥ; it is precisely paralleled only in Aśokan inscriptions (especially Shahbazgarhi; oftener isu); cf. Pali isuṃ. Also, less often, we find iṃsu = Pali and AMg. id.

UKT 160130: You must remember that inscriptions of Asoka were addressed to the general population speaking many languages. These languages need not be the same speech through out the dominion of Asoka. We must remember that Asoka script is a phonetic script and could be used to write different speeches. However, we must expect Magadhi-Asokan (Magadhi speech in Asokan Brahmi to be the official language.

1.89. Only in Mmk, we find a 3 pl. preterite (middle) ending ire  (cf. Pali are); and, in perfect forms, ure for Skt. ire.
( p012c1end-p012c2begin)

1.90. The root gam forms a future gaṃsali etc., quite common in Mv, not noted 'elsewhere in BHS, and seemingly not exactly paralleled in other dialects; but for possibly related forms see Bloch, Indo-Aryen 88 (after H. Smith).

1.91. Very often in Mv, and occasionally in other texts, the augment a- is prefixed to present tense forms, especially of the root bhāṣ 'speak'. Even an optative form is thus provided with the augment, Cf. for Pali s. v. 1a- and amāpeli in GPD.

1.92. The regular, and in most texts extremely common, aorist of the root bhū is abhūṣi (rarely Sktized as abhūṣīt). No other known M Indic dialect has such a form, nor any form resembling it, unless we count the Aśokan 3 pl. husu (and once 1 sg. husaṃ).

1.93. Entirely unparalleled, so far as I know, is the present sthihati, from root sthā ( 28.43). It is however quite common, especially in Mv, and common enough in other texts, so that it seems reasonable to suppose that a Middle Indic form (*ṭhihati or *thihati ?) on which it is based was the regular present of sthā in the dialect. Once there is trace of a similar present *-dhihati (aor, -dhihe) to dhā.

1.94. The occurrence of e instead of o, as representing Skt. final as (ar, g), is found in the adverbs pure (fairly common) and ante (rare), and sporadically in the n. (and voc.) sg. m. (also nt.) of a-stem nouns and pronouns. It is also found, to about the same extent, in Pali. See 1.32 with fn. 11.

1.95. Very common is u for (chiefly final) o (almost always representing Skt. as). For the most part it is limited to verses, probably metri causa. (UKT )

UKT 160201: The Latin word metri causa simply means 'for the sake of the meter' , which could be explained as -'Excusing flaws in poetry "for the sake of the metre" '
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases_M

For its morphological range see 3.51 ff. In Mv it is quite rare, and seems not to occur in prose. According to Pischel, it should be recognized only for Ap. among the dialects which he treats. It is however found in northwestern Prakrit (Dutreuil de Rhins; Niya, Burrow op. cit. 12, in adverbs), and in all varieties of Ap. (Tagare, Hist. Gram. of Ap., Poona, 1948, p. 27). But BHS is commoner than u; it is very common in Ap. but also known in various other dialects, at least AMg. and Mg. (pischel 364). In BHS it seems to be nearly or quite restricted to use m.c.; it is hardly found in prose. Less common, but well established, is ā ; it even occurs, tho rarely, as acc. sg. It is recorded in Aśokan, and in all local varieties of Ap., according to Tagare p. 27 (not recognized by the grammarians).

Contents of this page

The case of am or aṃ : {m} or {n}

UKT 160201: I am not surprised to see why Prof. Edgerton is confused. It all depends on the paucity of nasals in the IE, exemplified by Eng-Lat. I am explaining from the point of view of Bur-Myan.

For 5 nasal-codas of Bur-Myan: /m/, /n/, /ɳ/ (retroflex), /ɲ/ (palatal), /ŋ/ (velar)
Eng-Lat has only 2 for use in the coda: /m/, /n/

Not having any solution, Shin Kic'si {kic~s:} - contemporary of Gautama Buddha - had to make a ruling that {n} may be used. It is allowable because this nasal has no definite POA (Point of Articulation). 

Shin Kic'si {kic~s:} was praised by (according to Rev. Mason quoting) Gautama Buddha (probably because of such solutions),
  "Monks Priests, from among my clerical disciples who are able to amplify in detail
  that which is spoken in epitome, the most eminent is the Great Kachchayano Shin Kic'si {kic~s:}."
See: A Pali grammar on the basis of Kaccayano {kic~s:} - PEG-indx.htm - update 150630
  - by Rev. F. Mason, 1868 
My Bur-Myan source is Shin ZaNaKaBiWuntha aka Taung'myo Sayadaw. Unfortunately, his book on Kic'si Grammar is in Bur-Myan and Pal-Myan which I still have to go through.

However, because of this ruling, the name of one of our favourite Arahats, "Inguli-mala" gets changed to "Angulimala". We are all familiar Inguli-mala Angulimala Paritta with because it deals with labours of child-birth. The name is spelled with coda /ŋ/ (velar).  

1.96. For final am or aṃ, not only as acc. sg. m. and nom.-acc. sg. nt. of a-stems but everywhere else (e. g. in aham, ayam), BHS may substitute u, apparently only in verses, m.c. The morphological range of the substitution is summarized in 3.58. In BHS it seems to me that his u is not to be regarded as a reduction of o, or in any way related to o. We find BHS o for am only in a very few cases ( 8.36) of acc. sg. m. or nom.-acc. sg. nt. of a-stems, where it seems clearly due to morphological confusion (nom. for acc., m. for nt.). The situation seems therefore quite different form that of the northwestern Prakrits of the Niya and Khotan documents and the 'Prakrit Dharmapada' (ms. Dutreuil de Rhins), where both o and u  seem to occur for final am generally (evidence summarized by Dschi, see 1.97). For final am we find u also in Ḍhakkī Prakrit (Pischel 351) and especially in Ap.; Jacobi (San. XXVIII) tentatively proposed to regard u as characteristic of Western Ap., as against a of Eastern Ap.; Tagare shows, however, that while a is commoner in Eastern than in Western Ap., u is found quite commonly in all varieties of Ap. (see his Hist. Gram. of Ap., pp. 108, 111 ff. for a-stem nouns, 208, 242, et alibi, for pronominal form. Since Tagare's work it seems to me clear that in Ap. generally, as in BHS, the phonetic change of final am to u must be recognized, tho in BHS it is used only in verse m.c. ( p012c2end-p013c1begin)

Contents of this page

The case of Ordinary-O /o/ and Open-O /ɔ/

UKT 160202: I use of IPA symbols for explanation from Bur-Myan point of view.

1.97. In NAWGtt. ph.-hist. K., 1944, Nr. 6, pp. 121-144, Hin-lin Dschi discusses 'Dle Umwandlung der Endung -aṃ in-0 and -u im Mittelindischen'. He regards o and u for aṃ as equivalent, which is not true for BHS (he considers that here o 'has almost disappeared', p. 133, implying a one-time existence), nor for Aśokan (Shahbazgarhi, where only o is found, not u). He refers (136) to a then unpublished monograph of his own (since published, see 1.24 ff.) in which he thinks he has proved that the older parts of both the Pali and BHS canons are based on an old canon in an eastern, 'old Ardha-Māgadhī' dialect. (UKT )

UKT 160201: I cannot see why Prof. Edgerton or Hin-lin Dschi aka Chi Hisen-lin would be stuck with Ardha-Māgadhī 'half-Magadhi'. Why can't they admit that Magadhi or Old Magadhi was the language used by Gautama Buddha. I claim that "Pali" in Myanmarpr is Old-Magadhi which has been influenced by Sri Lankan Pali.

I need to clarify what "o and u for aṃ as equivalent" means in terms of Bur-Myan. The problem is pronunciation of the back-vowels when checked by the nasal codas.

" o " is taken by MLC (Myanmar Language Commission as / {AU.} (one eye-blink duration) or {AU} (2 blk). This vowel-pair of IE with just two tones has to represent the vowel-trio of Tib-Bur {au.} (1 blk), {au:} (2 blk) & {au:} . IPA represents this sound with "Open O" /ɔ/.

However, the man-on-the-street such as I (according to my friend U (Ko) Tun Tint of MLC) uses " o " for {o} /o/.

The formants F1 & F2 are so close that I can imagine what the original translators in the time of Gautama Buddha and Shin Kicsi {kic~s:} must have gone through as they take Buddha's words to the IE speakers of north-western India and Georgia on the border of Europe and to Rome in the heart of Europe.

And, " U " is taken as / {U.} (1 blk), / {U} (2 blk), / (2 blk + emphasis) : the pronunciations are {u.}, {u}, {u:}. They have no nasal sounds, but "aṃ " {n} is a nasal. It is generally substituted for the { n} sound for IE speakers who have no /ŋ/ (velar) phone in their language. This substitution is allowed by the Buddhist grammarian Shin Kicsi {kic~s:} . Presence of {n} in Pal-Myan shows it has been heavily influence by Lankan Pali (partly derived from Aus-Asi language group) which has no { n} sound in their original language.

I can now understand why Gautama Buddha has ruled:

"anujānāmi bhikkhave sakāya niruttiyā buddhavacanam pariyā punitum"

with the general meaning that "I allow my monks to spread the message in any language as long as the meaning  remains unchanged".



I [Edgerton] have shown above why I do not agree with him. He believes, however, that u for aṃ is a dialectic feature of northwestern Middle Indic, following Jacobi in the now untenable assumption that it did not exist in Eastern Apabhraṃsa. (UKT )

UKT 160201: "Apabhraṃsa" अपभ्रंश apabhraṃśa 'fallen down languages', is a derogatory term used by Hindu Brahmin-Poannar Patajali (fl. c. 150 BCE) to refer to the dialects prevalent in the Ganges (east and west). We should compare the days of Patajali (fl. c. 150 BCE), and that of the assassination of the grandson of Asoka-the-Great by his own general a Brahmin-Poannar (185 BCE). Brahmin-Poannars started to destroy Buddhism - the religion, and even called Magadhi - the language, a "fallen down language". Both Buddhism, and Magadhi took refuge in Ceylon and Myanmarpr in two distinct forms of Pali.

He [Hin-lin Dschi] explains its frequent occurrence in BHS as secondary, and due to relatively late influence of some northwestern Prakrit. The only specific evidence he cites for this is a collection of about 50 cases in which, according to the KN edition of SP, the Kashgar recension reads aṃ (or a) where the KN text has u, with some Nepalese mss. (UKT )

UKT 160201: Citing "Nepalese mss" is a problem unless we know definitely what language is being referred to. Is it in Nwari (Nepali-Bhasa) (Tib-Bur) or Nepali (IE). I presume what Prof. Edgerton has meant are the Nwari mss.

He [Hin-lin Dschi] assumes that these cases are typical and that they prove that the older (Kashgar) form of SP had aṃ or a generally, and that u was introduced later in the 'Nepalese recension'. His arguments do not convince me, for several reasons. (UKT )

First, in many of his instances, some or even most of the Nepalese mss. of SP are reported as reading a (), like the Kashgar recension; for such readings, Nep. can not be said clearly to support the supposedly 'secondary' u. (UKT )

Secondly, we have as yet only very scanty information about the Kashgar recension of SP; Dschi's few cases do not prove that the Kashgar recension avoided u for aṃ. Indeed, it would be very strange if it did so; we should expect it to agree with northwestern Prakrits, which are precisely the ones which according to Dschi show u for aṃ (tho he is wrong in denying this change to Eastern Apabhraṃśa with Jacobi). (UKT )

Thirdly, the change of am to u is common in the verses of most BHS texts, and it would take much more evidence than Dschi adduces to prove it a late or secondary feature. It is true (tho not noted by Dschi) that it is rare in Mv. But, tho Mv is probably the oldest BHS text we have, not all the positive and negative formal differences between it and later texts can reasonably be explained as due to secondary changes in the later. And u for aṃ is not entirely unknown in Mv; perhaps in its original form it was much commoner, and has for some reason been nearly eliminated in the course of tradition. The same may be true, e.g., of u for o and of the loc. i for e, which are also rare in our mss. of Mv. I have noted that the mss., and Senart's edition, of Mv very often read final -aṃ in verses in positions where it is metrically impossible, because a short syllable is required. In all such cases the original text must have read either a or u for aṃ ; no one can say which.

1.98. Peculiar to BHS as far as I know is the very common substitution of o for final in verses, m.c. It is not a phonetic change but due to morphological analogy, 3.79-88.

1.99. Reference was made above to the voc. pl. ending āho, of masc. a-stems (cf. Mg. āho, Ap. aho, ahu), which occurs not only in Mv (fairly often) but also in SP, and even in tis prose, according to the Kashgar recension. It occurs once in a fem. a-stems, and there is even a case of devīho, voc. pl. of devī (both these in Mv).

1.100. The personal pronouns are, as in most dialects, extremely varied and confused; see the chapter dealing with them. Some forms have few or no correspondents elsewhere. The chapter on the generic pronouns will also present some curiosities.

1.101. The confusion of person and number in verb inflection transcends by far anything noted elsewhere; 25.4 ff. It is even found in the prose of texts which present a superficial appearance of pretty complete Sanskritization, such as Divy, ŚsP, and Laṅk, not to mention the prose of LV.

1.102. The gerund ending i, which I believe is historically derived form Skt. ya by ' saṃprasāraṇa', seems to be known otherwise only in Ap.

Contents of this page

The case of negative particle  :  {ma.}

1.103. Constructions with the negative particle mā  [ {ma.} 1 blk, {ma} 2 blk] have seemed to me so peculiar as to deserve a special (p013c1end-p013c2begin) chapter. Most of them can, to be sure, probably be paralleled elsewhere, even in Epic and other aberrant forms of Sanskrit. I do not know of any parallel for the fairly common use of in questions, especially as equivalent to Skt. Icaccin na, when a negative response is desired or hoped for, as in māsi dāsi, '(I hope) you aren't a slave-woman, are you?'

UKT 160131: Prof. Edgerton has failed to recognize that the Tib-Bur languages use the negative particle {ma.} (time-duration 1 blk, or {ma} 2 blk when pronounced lightly). The Prakrit underlying his BHS that he has been looking for is not IE, but Tib-Bur which is being Sanskritized gradually.

1.104. The above list could be indefinitely extended by including morphological features which are more widely paralleled in Middle Indic, and on the other hand some which, while not widely paralleled, are scantily or dubiously recorded in BHS.

1.105. Summarizing the results which BHS grammar as a whole seems to indicate as to the dialectic relations of the underlying Prakrit, we find:

(1) In a substantial number of cases, BHS features are either unique, or virtually so, Attention has been called above to the most important of these.

(2) While it has some features in common with Pali, on the whole its morphology is definitely unlike Pali in many important respects.

(3) It has a few special features in common with Apabhraṃśa; but its general character is clearly older than Ap., and more in line with Prakrit as a whole. The features which constitute this 'general character' are for the most part such as can be described as 'common Prakrit', or even 'common Middle Indic' (e.g. treatment of consonant clusters). In my opinion they do not justify the assumption of specially close relations between the Prakrit underlying our dialect and any other specific dialect known to us. I now believe that I was wrong in seeing special relations to Ardha-Māgadhī (BSOS 8.501 ff.). Nearly all the features which I there listed as common to BHS and A Mg. are also found in other Prakrits, or Pali, or both.

(4) No one, to my knowledge, has suggested identifying the BHS Prakrit with Ap. Since identification with A Mg. has been suggested, it seems woth while to list some striking differences between the two: BHS loc. sg. esmi(also loc. ending i  representing e; aṃse, cf. A Mg. aṃsi, recorded just once); non-acc. pl. fem. āvo; oblique sg. fem. āye, īye, etc. (A Mg. and general Prakrit have, to be sure, similar forms lacking the y), and āyo, īyo; objique sg. are, ari, from stems in ar; gen. pl. sānaṃ to stem sa-; 3 pl. aor, etsu (ḥ)  and iṣu; gaṃsati as fut. of gam; abhūṣi, the regular aor. of bhū; sthihati, common present of sthā; u  for final o and aṃ, both extremely common; o for final a m.c.; voc. pl. āho; gerund ending i.

(5) The Prakrit underlying BHS was certainly not identical with any Middle Indic dialect otherwise known to us.

(p013c2cont) for next i08BHS-lex.htm


Contents of this page

Edgerton Footnote

Edgerton's footnotes are continuously numbered without any reference to pages. However for this TIL edition, I have given the page numbers as well. Thus fn001-02 means, it is footnote #02 found on p001, and fn003-07 is footnote #07 found on p003.

fn011-21. For stratification in Mv, see especially Windish, Die Komposition des Mahāvastu, ASGW, ph.-hist. KI., 27, Nr. 14, p. 476 ff.; Oldenberg, NAWGtt. ph.-hist. Kl., 1912, Heft 2, p. 124 ff.; also id., Studien zur Geschichte des buddhistischen Kanons, ibidem 156 ff. Dschi, NAWGtt. ph.-hist. Kl. 1949, p. 245 ff., Die Verwendung des Aorists als Kriterium fr Alter und Ursprung buddhistischer Texte, finds a much greater number of aorists in the older than in the younger strata of Mv, and extends this criterion to other Buddhist texts. Some of his data are interesting and valuable, but at times I think he exaggerates the validity of his inferences. In particular, he seems to me to fail to distingusih between aorists of M indic, or semi-M Indic, type, like abhūṣi, and thoroughtly Sanskrit aorists like prāvikṣat (Divy; Dschi p. 261). The former may reasonably be considered relatively old in BHS; but forms like prāvikṣat are late, and belong to the Sanskritized stage of the language. It is significant that Dschi can cite no correspondent to prāvikṣat in Divy 39.19, 25, from the parallel passage in pali. Sometimes such forms may indeed replace old (M Indic) aorists, as on p. 200 of Divy (Dschi p. 262), but this cannot be taken for granted; a late Sanskritizing author is also quite capable of introducing regular Sanskrit aorists in a BHS text, when an older form (if there was any) of the passage had none. _ An example of how meter may give evidence of relative age is found in SP chapter 11, verses 42 ff. The meter here is obviously quite unlike the usual meter of the verses of SP and similar BHS texts. It alone proves that the passage is an interpolation. This fact is confirmed by the omission of all that follows verse 41 of this chapter in certain Chinese translations (see the KN ed., 256 note 5), and in the Kashgar ms. reported by La Valle Poussin, JRAS 1911, p. 1074.
- fn011-21b

Contents of this page

UKT notes



Contents of this page

End of TIL file