1887.] R. Mitra — Remarks on the term Ekotibhava. 3 



met with Ekotibhava, with lingual t, and it was the word which I called 

 possibly a Bhasha word, of which afterwards a learned etymology was 

 attempted. 



" The question of real interest is, do we find in Sanskrit analogies 

 to the contraction eka Jcoti into ekoti. They are frequent in other Aryan 

 languages, in order to avoid the repetition of the same sound in two 

 successive syllables. So we have in English mineralogy instead of miner- 

 alology, wholly for wholely. In Latin nutrix for nutritrix, veneficus for 

 venenificus, vipera for vivipara, stipendium for stipipendium, perhaps 

 fastidium for fastitidium, etc. 



" In Sanskrit my memory would not supply me with any really ana- 

 logous cases. The contracted perfect lebhe for laldbhe is not quite 

 analogous, but I should be glad to know whether you have come across 

 any words in Sanskrit or Prakrit where, for the sake of euphony, one of 

 two syllables beginning with the same consonant is dropt. 



" You may print this note in the Proceedings of the Asiatic 

 Society." 



The question put to me is too general and comprehensive to admit 

 of a categorical reply. Of all ancient languages the Sanskrit is, perhaps, 

 the most complicated in its etymological and euphonic rules. Acutely 

 sensitive to cacophony the Indo- Aryans devised a complicated and very 

 elaborate system of combinations by lengthening, shortening, soften- 

 ing and synizesis, so as to wear, abrade, clip, and elide all asperities, and 

 reduce the elements of their words into what struck their ears as the most 

 harmonious forms. And Sanskrit grammarians revel in framing rules to 

 explain the rationale of the changes adopted. Their ingenuity, however, 

 did not suffice to cover the whole ground. Many words were found in the 

 language which would not yield to any general principle, and these had 

 to be classed as irregular. Now the general principles do not apply to 

 the case under notice, and I have no hesitation in saying with the fullest 

 confidence that the changes by which eka kotibhdva can be reduced to 

 ekotibhava, cannot be accounted for by any rule, general or special, in the 

 Sanskrit grammar. Of the irregular words which have been classed by 

 Panini in the group Prishodara &c. the only explanation given is that 

 " the forms in which they have been pronounced by the learned should 

 be accepted as correct" (sishtair yathochchdritdni tathaiva sddhuni syuh). 

 The group is said to belong to the class dkritigani, i. e., not only the words 

 included in the group, but others of the same form come under it. 

 Ekotibhava, however, does not in form correspond with any of the words 

 given in the ganapatha ; and it is hopeless to find its analogue. Apart 

 from grammar I have ransacked the wide field of Sanskrit vocables, but 

 with no better result. I have not found a single word which is strictly 



