1887.] Dr. Hoernle— On Ekotibhdva. 175 



explanation of the term given by Prof. Nilmani Mukherjea, M. A. in 

 Devanagari. 



Dr. Hoernle remarked that he agreed with Dr. Mitra that every 

 rule of Prakrit phonetics could not eo ipso be applied to the Pali or 

 Gatha. With regard to the particular case of eJcotibhdva, though there 

 was no rule in any Prakrit grammar under which a consonant might be 

 elided and its associate vowel carried over to the preceding syllable, 

 still occasional instances of this practice did occur in Prakrit literature ; 

 thus Pr. suhelli for Skr. sukhakeli (Saptasataka, 211, 261, etc., con- 

 tracted from suhaelli) ; Pr. deula for Skr. devakula (Sapt. 109, contr. 

 from deaula). Some of these instances were expressly noted in Hema- 

 chandra's grammar ; thus deula in Hem. I, 271, rdula (for Skr. raja- 

 kula) in Hem. I, 267. After the analogy of these cases, the word 

 elcakotibhdva might contract from eka-otibhdva into ekotibhdva, as Mr. 

 Growse seemed to suggest. It seemed to him unsafe, however, to ex- 

 plain the formation of an old word like ekotibhdva on the authority of 

 word-forms which occurred in a much later stage of the language, and 

 even there only as exceptions. Another serious difficulty was the 

 change of the cerebral t to the dental t, which the derivation of ekoti- 

 bhdva from elcakotibhdva would require. There was no other example of 

 such a change, as far as he was aware, known. The only two apparent in- 

 stances, referred to in Prof. Kuhn's Beitrage (p. 37, Pali dendima = Skr. 

 dindima, Pr. suffix ittha = Skr. ishta), were obviously of a different 

 character. To his mind, the great difficulty attending the derivation 

 from ekakotibhdva lay in the accumulative force of the objections. Each 

 objection, taken by itself, might be met more or less successfully ; but 

 the derivation assumed the concurrent operation of three distinct phone- 

 tic laws (elision of a consonant, elision of the associate vowel, and change 

 of cerebral to dental) all of which would be very exceptional in Pali or 

 Gatha, and two of which were exceptional even in Prakrit. 



Dr. R. Mitra expressed his thanks to Dr. Hoernle for his remarks 

 and for the instances he cited. They opened a new line of research. 

 They were apparently of a later date than the Prakrit grammars, and 

 belonged to Jain Magadhi and other dialects which differed considerably 

 from the Maharashtri Prakrit of Vararuchi ; but they were not enough 

 to prove that Mr. Growse was right when he urged that the transmuta- 

 tion of eka-koti into ekoti was in accordance with rule. Turning then 

 to the note of Babu Saratchandra Das, he said — 



