Page:Sacred Books of the East - Volume 2.djvu/48

Rh Prakrit languages, are,, II, 2, 5, 2, for  , where an a standing in   has been changed to i;  , II, 3, 6, 13,  , II, 5, 11, 20, and  , I, 3, 9, 21, and I, 3, 11, 33 (compare Marâthî   for  ), in each of which a standing before a nasal has been lengthened;  , I, 6, 19, 1, the initial a of which stands for ri, if it really has the meaning of  , as some commentators asserted;  , I, 3, 11, 13; I, 11, 32, 5, with the Prakritic change of   to    , I, 2, 8, 15, with   for     for  , where y seems to have been absorbed by the following e;  , I, 11, 32, 16, for  , and  , I, 10, 28, 20, where r has been assimilated to the preceding, or has been lost before the following consonant. The irregularities in the construction are less frequent. But in two Sûtras, I, 3, 10, 2, and I, 3, 11, 31, some words which ought to stand in the locative case have the terminations of the nominative, and it looks as if the author had changed his mind about the construction which he meant to use. In a third passage II, 10, 26, 20,, the adjective which is intended to qualify the noun   has been placed in the genitive case, though the noun has been made the first part of a compound.

The occurrence of so many irregularities in so small a treatise as the Dharma-sûtra is, proves clearly that the author did not follow Pânini's grammar, and makes it very unlikely that he knew it at all. If the anomalous forms used by Âpastamba all agreed with the usage of the other Sûtrakâras, known to us, it might be contended that, though acquainted with the rules of the great grammarian, he had elected to adopt by preference the language of the Vedic schools. But this is by no means the case. The majority of the irregular forms are peculiar to Âpastamba. As it is thus not probable that Âpastamba employed his peculiar expressions in obedience to the tradition of the