² Examples, certain at least according to my conviction, though partly suspect to Mayrhofer, are: akkhali-kṛ (*akṣarī-kṛ), salila- –(salt) water‘ (*sar-ila, cf. sarṣapa- EWA, III, 448, ‘mustard’), śakaṭa- ‘cart’ (‘[fitted] with a tilt’: *sa-kaṭd), kāla- ‘point\span of time’ (RV also kāra-), etc. I have chosen intentionally words distinctly pointing to a common source: the mother of later Māgadhī.

³ Mayrhofer studiously avoids the expression ‘older/younger Old-Indo-Aryan’, using ‘ältere/neuere Sprache’: the fact remains that the ‘Sprache’ he is talking of is called by him ‘Altindoarisch’.

⁴ I am glad to find myself in perfect agreement on this point with Wright, J. C. in his review of fascicles 1–6 of the EWA in this Journal (see n. 1)Google Scholar.

⁵ In certain cases a replacement (e.g. dā ‘cut’ for do, u ‘weave’ for ve, dhā ‘suckle’ for dhe) of course fully justified.

⁶ In actual fact Bopp learned of it through Wilkins's, Charles grammar (1808)Google Scholar.

⁷ hiṃsra- adj. ‘noxious, hurtful’ is taught as a synonym of ghātuka- ‘murderous’ by the Amarakośa and used in contrast to mṛga- ‘deer, antelope’ as a designation of beast of prey (e.g. Kirātārjunīya 10.5 … hiṃsraih sahacaritānyamgāṇi kānanāni ‘forests in which other animals, [namely] deer, are [peaceḟully] accompanied by beasts of prey…’.

⁸ On Pāṇ. 3.1.137 (Mahābhāṣya, n, 92.)

⁹ jimbha siṇgha ‘yawn, lion!’ orders Duṣyanta's young son—every inch a future hero—the lion cub he is playing with (Ṥak., act VII, after verse 14).

¹⁰ KZ (= ZvS) 54, 1929, 306 [= Kleine Schriften, 215 ff.].

¹¹ One might add Boehtlingk, op. cit., 6831 = Ṥārng. Paddh. 1456:

saptaitāni na pūryante pūryamāṇāṇi nityaśaṇ|

agnir vipro yamo rājā samudra ụdaram gṛham||

Both Sanskrit epigrams, as given by Boehtlingk, name fire, as the most obvious member of their series, first and finish it, as is customary in Indian epigrams, with the least expected, most surprising item: ‘the lovely one’ (manoramā) and the gṛham, i.e. ‘the housewife’ (see Kāśikā on Pāṇ. 3.1.144), who is looked upon here as pestering her husband with ever new and renewed wishes. The sixth item has its equivalent in Homeric γαστέ’ ävaλτov (Od. 17.28) and in Ṥng. Paddh. 173 duṣpūrodara- of the vāḍava fire.

¹² In the following I quote the secondary literature discussed by Mayrhofer s.v. anala- only by the author's name and the year of publication.

¹³ Such as Edgerton's (1959).

¹⁴ Since my former remark (Language, 31) was, perhaps, too short to be properly understood and hence remained unheeded, I draw attention again to the following interesting parallelism:

Jātaka II, 326 analā mudusambhāsā duppūrā tā…

‘these [women] are insatiable, softspoken, difficult to b filled (˜ to be made content)’ and BhagG. 3.39 …tena … kāmarūpeṇa duṣpūreṇānalena ca

‘by this [evil] that takes the shape of desire [and] is difficult to be filled and insatiable.’

The difference is that the two adjectives, actually constituting a hendiadys are separated in the Pali gāthā by mudusambhāsā, which refers, of course, to the fact that women—anyhow in the opinion of the misogynist speaking—are wont to hide their greed behind softspokenness.

¹⁵ Contrast for example RV 7.86.7 áraṃ dāsó ná miḍhúse karāṇy ahám devắya… ‘Let me do (‘offer’) satisfaction to the heavenly one (Varuṇa) like a slave to a gracious one (a gracious master)’, and RV 1.173.6… áraṃ ródasī kakṣ (i)ye nắsmai’…fittingness are to him heaven and earth (‘they fit him’) like two belts (‘belt halves’)’; RV 8.72 (81).24 áram … ta indra kuksáye sómo bhavatu… ‘Let Soma be a satisfaction to your belly…’, and RV 8.15.13 áraṃ kṣayắya no mahé ‘fittingness (suitable conditions) for our big (extended in space and time) [peaceful] living…’.

¹⁶ In a letter dated 9 August 1959, F. Edgerton, my most distinguished predecessor at Yale University and highly admired friend, frankly admitted this. The reason was that Lüders's study was published during the war and hence not available at the Yale Sterling Library. The same is the case with my own article on śi(ṃ) śumāra- (ZDMG, N.F. 21, 1942, 418 (f. [= Kl. Schriften, 54 ff.])Google Scholar. Edgerton (1959) knew only the few lines I wrote in Language, 31, where out of modesty I did not refer to my own article.

¹⁷ Comp. Diet, of Jndo-Aryan languages, s.v. śiṃśumāra-.

¹⁸ All Indo-European roots or root nouns seemingly starting with a short vowel, originally began with a so-called ‘laryngeal’ (H)—as now is generally accepted: *Hok^u ‘see’, *Hap- ‘water’, *Hal ‘feed’. While totally disappearing when initial, this *H lengthened a preceding vowel when disappearing as initial vowel of a second member of a compound in Sanskrit: hence pratīka- ‘face’ <*praii-Hka-, ulūka- ‘owl’ <*uru-Hka- (‘the broad-faced one’); dvīpa- ‘island’ <*dvi- Hpa; pratīpa ‘against the water (‘opposite, reverse’) <*prati-Hpa-; śiśūβla- <*śiśu-Hla- ‘feeding its young’. —Before the diminutive or magnifying taddhita-suffix Indo-European -lo-, Sanskrit -ra-/-la-, a preceding short vowel is, of course, not lengthened: śiśūβla- allegedly ‘Kindchen’ (Wackernagel\Debrunner, Ai, Gr. II, 2, § 954) does not fit together with bahu-lā- (Greek πaχuγós), kapi-lā-, etc., as Wackernagel\Debrunner (and of course others) do not mind assuming.

¹⁹ See Oberlies, Th., Historische Sprachforschung (= Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung [KZ, ZvS], 105 1992, 17)Google Scholar.

²⁰ Schulze, W., Kl. Schriften, 368 fGoogle Scholar.

²¹ ārmaiti- is an erroneous (late) spelling for a linguistically expected and metrically postulated *arəmaiti-. The orthography obviously presupposes a younger pronunciation of an old vocative *spəntārsmaitē: see the Armenian loanword spandaramat\sandaramet (Meillet, A., BSL, XXIII, 68)Google Scholar.

²² Yasna 47.3 cd says—according to my understanding— ‘…giving (or creating) peace (peaceful living) you ( = Ahura Mazdā) formed (created) care (ārmaiti-) for the cow, for her pasture’. In Yasna 43.3 Armaiti—as an aməśa-spənta-, is associated with pasture (vāstra-) for the cow; in Yasna 48.5 and 6 Ārmaiti is|addressed in a context dealing with the care for the cow (5) and the food the cow gives to man (6).

²³ It is difficult, anyway, to believe in onomatopoetic formations that ‘symbolically render visual impressions’.

²⁴ RV 10.75.13 cakrán ná krandad ādhyè śivắyai‘ he [the newly born child] cries like a cartwheel for loving [motherly] care …’. Here and verse 12 b cakran na is a correct, but misleading sandhi form for cakraṃ na, Hoffmann, K. MSS, 8, 5, and Injunktiv im Veda (1967), 205Google Scholar ff. Already the Padapāṭha dissolves wrongly cakran na.