156 Jote on the Laxila Inscription. [No. 2, 
which it somewhat resembles, will not, I trust, be represented into a 
violence against the original. 
The phrase Saputra darasa Ayubalavarddhika in the fourth line has 
been explained by General Cunningham as the “ wife of his son Ayu- 
balavarddhika,” but the derivation of the first word of the clause being 
p) 39 
sa “with,” putra “a son,” and dara “ wife,” its meaning should be 
“with his son and wife” and the aywbalavarddhika, if a proper noun, 
should be the name of the wife and not of the son. It might be made 
to correspond with the next word bhratara, but cannot, in consonance 
with any rule of Indian Grammar, be made to jump over the wife 
(dérd) and correspond with the son (putra). I am disposed to take it 
for an invocation for the life (dyw) and health (bala lit. strength) of 
the satrap and his family. The only objection to this explanation is 
the fact of the phrase having no case-aflfix to indicate its connexion, 
but as such an expression in the Sanskrita would have taken the 
accusative case, and in the monumental Pali the mark of that case 
is often elided, the objection cannot be of any moment. 
The last word of the 4th line—pati patikasa, has been left untrans-* 
lated on aecount of a blot at its end. I think it may be derived from 
and infer there- 
from that the concluding word is a declaration in favour of some 
patti a “line of infantry,” and patika “ commander, 
distinguished general. 
Although unconnected with the inscription under notice, I avail 
myself of this opportunity to observe that General Cunningham’s 
conversion into dcharydndm of my reading of asanthandndm of the 
Wardak vase is apparently a very appropriate emendation, being in 
perfect keeping with the S/ravastf record lately discovered by him ; but 
unfortunately for it, it cannot be adopted without declaring one of the 
twos, so distinetly visible at the end of the word, to be a redundancy. 
My observations, I feel, are open to the objection that they are based 
upon too strict an adherence to the rules of Sanskrita grammar, and 
cannot therefore be appropriately applicable to the language of the 
Indo-Bactrians who must have used a mixed tongue, partly Indian 
and partly Bactrian. But inasmuch as a mixed language implies a 
mixture of words from different sources in one language, and not the 
formation of a new language by a combination of the formal elements 
of different tongues, which is unknown in history, no exception should 
be taken on the score of my having availed myself of the standard of 
