478 Journ. of the Asiat. Soc. of Bengal. [Nov. & Dec., 1915. 
is also dissimilar. On both of these coins the syllable following 
the symbols for vij is clearly tva and not tya. According to 
Mr. Allan this is the case on the majority of these coins. Now 
the question is whether vijiiva is really an impossible form or 
whether there is any provision for it in Sanskrit Grammar ? 
Ordinarily the formation of gerunds by the addition of the suffix 
tva is not allowed if the verb is compounded with a preposition 
or ends in a short vowel. We add tva@ to ji but tya to vi jr. It 
does not tne very likely that a mistake peso Bios un- 
detected or be allowed to recur in numerous speci 
disposed to think that the form is quite sowibte, "pia fe | 
Panini allows it under his rule y=rgqtsfy ex@a.' According to this ! 
aphorism we can add the suffix kvanip and get the stem vijitvan 
like prataritvan.? When compounded with the word prithivi 
it will form one epithet i in prihtivi vijitva, meaning ‘‘ the earth 
or world conqueror.’’ There is no symbol for anusvara on pri- 
thivt, and it is not at all necessary to read it with a nasal sound 
or make it accusative sy In the circumstances I think 
the legend should read as follow 
Rajadhiraja (h) prithivivijitva. | 
Divam jayatyaihrtavajimedha (h) | 
** The king of kings, the pereconerye and the performer 
of the horse-sacrifice, wins heaven 
Lucknow. HIRANAND SHASTRI. 
1 Ashtadhyayi III, 2. 75. 
2 Cf. Vamana; kas’ ka, TEL, 2:78: 
$ Here I can not refrain from pointing out that the stanza seems to 
have a dosha-(blemish) which a rhetorician would call virudda Mnatrskrt. 
ting an undersirable meaning, for it makes us think that the king 
has departed to the next world. Perhaps the implication will be stronget 
in the case of Vijitya, 
