1920.] Notes on some Edicts of Aéoka. 337 
The nu which ‘ comes’ to conjugated forms of/ (pr)ap is never 
elided in Pali, and such elision is never met with in Asokan 
records ; in the second ‘‘ Separate Edict” at Dhauli and J augada 
we actually get papuneyu and papunevi for Skt. prapnuyuh. 
The proper Sanskrit restoration for papova would seem to be 
prapuryat, a benedictive form of kryadin/ q preceded by pra + 4. 
The variant reading pipova, explained away by Buhler as an 
engraver’s error for papova, should likewise be restored to Skt. 
pipuryat, a potential form of juhotyadin/ q. Root y in both 
classes has the same meanings, pérana and palana, and the 
benedictive is but a modification of the potential ; so that the 
root, in either class and in either tense, might be used to denote 
the idea Asoka sought to express here. 
1 The point was brought home to my mind by my friend Kumar 
Sudhindra Chandra Sinhasarma. 
Per PL BOP DOI IY 
