Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T02:16:39.520Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Note on the Ancient North-Western Prakrit

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 December 2009

Extract

The discoveries in Chinese Turkestan have brought to light extensive remains of one or two ancient Indian dialects. In the first place we have the Dutreuil de Rhins manuscript, which has found its way to Paris and Leningrad, and, in the second, the numerous Kharosthī documents found by Sir Aurel Stein and now available in the splendid edition of Messrs. Boyer, Rapson, and Senart. I shall distinguish them as Dhp. and Doc. respectively.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies 1936

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 604 note 1 See my remarks Festschrift fur Ernst Windisch, pp. 85 ff. There are several misprints in this paper, owing to the fact that proofs could not be sent to me.

page 605 note 1 Senart and those who have copied his text have failed to distinguish between the aksaras ta and da. Also in Doc. it is often difficult to choose between t and d.

page 605 note 2 Gypsy Lore Society, Monographs, No. 4, p. 7.

page 606 note 1 The signification of the stroke above g is not of interest in this connection.

page 606 note 2 Some of the instances of dh for d may point to a fricative pronunciation, and in the Khotan document No. 661, which has several instances of Iranian features, the regular initial dh < d is almost certainly a fricative. With regard to forms such as tannda < danda it should be borne in mind that it is often very difficult to choose between t and d.

page 606 note 3 Cf., e.g., Morgenstierne, Report on a Linguistic Mission to Afghanistan, p. 51; Report on a Linguistic Mission to North-Western India, pp. 29, 49, 53.

page 606 note 4 The true explanation of this word was given by Lüders, SBAW., 1933, pp. 1000 ff.

page 607 note 1 On the modern Indo-Aryan Languages, para. 326.

page 607 note 2 Cf., e.g., Bloch, La formation de la langue Marathe, para. 132.

page 608 note 1 Cf. Turner, , BSOS., iii, p. 208.Google Scholar

page 608 note 2 LSI., viii, ii, p. 245.

page 609 note 1 Cf. Turner, , Monograph, p. 21.Google Scholar

page 609 note 2 Cf. Grierson, , Vernaculars, para. 367.Google Scholar

page 609 note 3 Cf. Turner, , Monograph, p. 14; but Prasun čipū, Katī čtvå, Waigeli čatā “four”.Google Scholar

page 609 note 4 Cf. Thomas, , Acta Orientalia, xiii, p. 78.Google Scholar

page 609 note 5 Cf. Turner, , BSOS., v, p. 130.Google Scholar

page 610 note 1 Cf.Robertson, The Kafirs of the Hindu-Kush, p. 421.

page 610 note 2 Cf., e.g., Morgenstierne, Report Afghanistan, p. 58.

page 611 note 1 Cf. vañjhu, Pañjābī vañjh < vamśa, and Doc. samcaya < samśaya.