﻿AND PRACRIT LANGUAGES. 215 



tionarics, it is arranged in verse to aid the memory. 

 Synonymous words are collected into one or more 

 verses, and placed in fifteen diilerentcliapters, M'liich 

 treat of as many different subjects. The sixteenth 

 contains a iew homonymous terms, arranged alpha- 

 betically in the Indian manner by the final conso- 

 nants. The seventeenth chapter is a pretty full 

 catalogue of indcclinables, M'hich European philolo- 

 gists would call adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions, 

 and interjections ; but Mdiicli Sanscrit grammarians 

 consider as indeclinable nouns. The last chapter of 

 the Amenicosh is a treatise on the gender of nouns. 

 Another vocabular}^ by the same autlior is often 

 cited by his commentators under the title of ^772e7'«- 

 mdlu. 



Numerous commentaries have been Avritten on 

 the Amera cvsh. The chief object of them is to ex- 

 plain the derivations of the nouns, and to supply the 

 principal deficiencies of the text. S'a?iscnt etynio- 

 logists scarcely acknowledge a single primitive 

 amongst the nouns. When unable to trace an ety- 

 m()lo2,v wliich mav be consistent with the accepta- 

 lion of the word, they are content to derive it ac- 

 cording to grammatical rules from some root to 

 v.hich the word lias no affinity in sense. At other 

 times they adopt fanciful etymologies from Piiranas 

 or from Tantras. But in general the derivations 

 are accurate and instructi\e. The best knowu 

 among these commentaries of the Ainera cosha is the 

 Padra chaudrica, compiled from sixteen older com- 

 mentaries by Vrihaspati surnamed ]\Iucut'a, or 



P4 at 



Amera is mentioned in an inscription at Budd'ha gayd as the 

 founder of a temple at that place. (As. Res. v. I.p. 2S4). This 

 circumstance mav serve to explain why his works have been proscribed 

 with peculiar inveteracy, as it is acknowledged by many Pandits that 

 they have been. He was probably a zealous sectarist. 



This is, however, by no means certain ; and Bha'nuji' D'is- 

 CHITA, in his commentary on the Amera cosha, denies that there is 

 any evidence to prove that the author belonged to the sect of Jainas. 



