278 Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. [June, 1910. 



self in his own commentary (following him the Bombay editors 

 also give xnCfpT^r: in the chaya : vide line 24 in the same page), 

 since the word is DesI and its signification cannot be better 



indicated but by the word xrc^^n. Again in the S'loka JFnp#t 

 fSw^nwT which occurs in page 5 of the Setubandham (also known 

 by the name "Havana Vaho") published in the Kavya-mala 

 series, the commentator Sri Ramadasa Bhupati gives for 



<s jjnpift " "srry^rr" and renders the whole line as ^TfRarr faq^ir- 

 fa«n Ji%rr t? ^fifraj% *r^$T^T#t: In this case according to the 



critic's views the commentator should have put auj^ for *i^*?rt, 

 not ^TTT^rT . But the great commentator has not accepted the 

 critic's views, since the Sanskrit word w^t does not clearly 

 indicate the sense of ajTft^rT which is the true sense of the 

 Prakrita word jra^rrf in the passage. 



Many such examples can be quoted, unnecessarily increas- 



ing the bulk of this essay in support of our view. I shall close 



the present remark by stating simply that ^t^NT in the verse 

 referred to by the critic means ftHPtf^vn, and the Sanskrit 



word ^zj: as suggested by the critic does not give the parti- 



cular sense fWtf^T:. The equivalent of 4fr#t as given by 



Hemacandra in his Desi Nama-mala (Bombay edition, Sas- 



tha Varga, 134th Sloka) is qftfNn, and ^-fe^r means fqftf^f^T 



not *t^t . Of course, following the method of standard writers 



ven €taT#t which also means fsHhf^WT. I may add here 



that the critic's view of rendering a Prakrita word by the cog- 

 nate Sanskrit word has not been strictly followed by the standard 

 writers of olden time, even when it is possible to do so, i.e., 

 when both the Prakrita word and its cognate Sanskrit word are 

 exactly of the same sense (vide Jayavallabha's Vajjalagga and 

 Ratnadeva's Chaya thereon written in the Samvat 1393). 



The above remarks hold true for my rendering ^nsfifiw, since 



^wiffar is not easily understood to be 21 (two-and-a-half) and is 



not much used too. Moreover this form is given by Vinaya- 

 Vijaya-Upadhyaya in his commentary of the Kalpa-Sutra, and 

 Santi Sagaropadhyaya has also given the same form in his 

 commentary of the same work 



Now, my rendering of gW^farN and this reading itself 

 are quite satisfactory, as far as I can think of them. Moreover 



^TlNftoTf?, which the critic 



wr 



according to the rules of Prakrit 



