Page:The Indian Antiquary Vol 2.djvu/136

 122 THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY. [April, 1873. mama kelakam: 139, 16, attanakelak&; 146, 16, mama kelakam ; 152, 6, tavassinie kelakA; 153, 9, ajjach&rudattassa kerak&im, 164, 3, attanakelik&e; 164, 8, mama kelik&e; 167,3, attanakelik&e; 167,21, mama kelik&; 173, 9, ajjassa kelake. Among all these thirty-eight passages I cannot find in Prof. Stenzler’s edition the one alluded to by Professor Hoernle where a form ppakelaka is said to occur. Prof.Hoemle doubtless alludes to p. 119,5,but all the MSS. have there bappakelake,aa given in Stenzler’s edition. Professor Stenzler remarks in a note that the Calcutta edition has pyokelake (sic !), which is translated by ‘ pr&krita.’ Now it must be remem¬ bered that from this very form ppakelaka, which does not really exist, Professor Hoernle derives the whole meaning of keraka itself, and that all his arguments as to the meaning of keraka are taken from this imaginary word. This alone would be sufficient to invalidate the deductions of Professor Hoernle. But besides this, keraka, it is true, does not occur so often in any other play as in the Mrichchhakatikd; but there are nevertheless several examples of it. It is found twice in the fadkuntalam (ed. Ch6zy) p. 114, 1; bhattake tava kelake sampadam mama jivide;and p. 152, 12, mama kerake udae; also Mdlavikd. p. 23, 9 (ed. Tullberg), parakeram tti karia; Mdlatimddhava (ed Calc. 1866), p. 104,12, tasSa jjevva keraasSa attano Barirassa; Mudrdrdhshasa, p. 9,12 (ed. Calc. 1831), attano jjevva keraassa Dhammabh&duassa gharam hodi; and in Hdla (ed. Weber) A 17,—maha man- dabh&inie keram. There is not the slightest reason for the supposition of Professor Hoernle that the use of this word was “ slangit is employed even by the Stitradh&ra, Mrichchh. 4, 3, who in all probability was a Br&hman, and on the other hand, the police officers in 8dk. p. 110, 5^ who certainly belong to the “ slang-people,” do not use kelaka, but its Sanskrit equivalent kiya. Nor is there an adjective noun kerika: keraka forms a regular feminine kerikd, and wherever kcrikd occurs it is of course in connection with a feminine: conf. Mnchchh. 21, 21; 90, 4; 95, 6; 104, 9 ; 167, 21; and in Mrichchh. 132,16 ; 139,16, kelaka must be corrected into kelikd. Professor Hoernle thinks keraka has its origin in the Sanskrit parti¬ ciple krita. This opinion was expressed long ago by Professor Hoefer in his paper De Prakrita Dialecto (Berlin, 1836, p. 35), and Professor Lassen in his Inetitutiones Linguae Prdkriticae, p. 118 (conf.p. 247and Appendix, p. 58) has proved beyond all doubt that this interpretation cannot be adopted. There are but very few, and even those few most doubtful examples, in which a Sanskrit ri has changed into a Pr&kpit e; and even if we admit the fact, krita would never become kera, but only keta. Now Prof. Lassen has given the right interpre¬ tation in deriving it from the Sanskrit kdryain, which accounts for all the facts, and has been adopted by Prof. Weber {Hdla, p. 38) as in accord¬ ance with the laws of the PriMq*it language. In the principal Pr&krit dialect of the plays the substantive kdryain, which originally was a part, fut. pass., generally changes into kajjarh, and is then used here and there in the same sense as keram. Thus for instance, Batndvali (ed. Calc. 1871, p. 20,12): jai pathiadi na bhumjiadi t& mama edirA na kajjam i.e. “ therefore I had nothing to do with it,” “ it does not concern me Mudrd- rdk8h. (ed. Calc. 1831, p. 9, 2):—panamaha jamassa chalane kim kajjam devehim annehim i.e. “ what have you to do with other gods ?” “ what do other gods concern you P” In the Pali language ‘kichchaih’ is employed quite in the same way as the Prakrit ‘kajjam.’Several examples are given by Mr. Childers in his excellent Pdli Dictionary (s. v. kichcho). The same signification is found in keram, Mdlav. 23, 9, where the learned and accurate Shankar P. Pandit (p. 28, 2) ought to have writtten with the best MSS.: parakeram tti karia. The word ‘parakeram’ is here equivocal; the sentence means as well ‘‘because it belongs to another” as ‘5because an¬ other ought to do so.” Like artliarh and nimittarh, so we see keram used in Hdla, A 17 : maha man- dabh&inie keraiii, “ for the sake of me an unfortu¬ nate girl,” and also ‘ kajjam ’ in Mudrard. 39, 11: ann&nam kunai kajjam, i.e. “ it (the bee) does it for the sake of others.” Thus ‘ kajjam * and ‘keraih’ are in every respect identical. Later, ‘ kera * was changed into a mere simple adjective noun mean¬ ing “ belonging to,” and then assumes the Pra¬ krit affix ‘ ka,’ so that parakereka and altanake• raka or attakeraka answer to tho Sanskrit para- kiya and dtmakiya. ^Professor Hoernle believes that in some of his examples keraka has become a sort of affix. If this be true it ought not to be inflected as it really is. One instance like Mrichchh. 38, 3: ajjassa attakerakam edam gehaih, might have warned him. The use of keraka nowhere differs, even in the slightest, from that of all other adjective nouns: all the cases of keraka are found except the dative and vocative, tho want of which need not be explained; even the geni¬ tive occurs : Mudrdr. 9, 12 ; Mdlatim. 104,12; and the plural is found in Mrichchh. 122, 15; 130,10; 152, 6; 153,9. Like all the other adjective nouns, kerakah&a masculine, feminine, and neuter; indeed it is often perfectly pleonastic; but there is noth¬ ing extraordinary in that, it being quite in ac¬ cordance with the Prakrit of tho plays. People of lower condition like a fuller and more individual sort of speech and to emphasise their own dear selves.