966 Re-examination of the various Inscriptions [Nov. 



female tortoise (Wilson's Diet.) — ambdkapilikd, the mother (or queen) 

 an t : — the panase, monkey ; kadhata-sayake, the crab, the boa ; sesi- 

 mate, the snake, the eel. (?)* 



It would be endless to enumerate the instances wherein this simple 

 emendation restores sense to passages'that were before only half in- 

 telligible. I had indeed before adopted it in many cases (as etam jane 

 sutd, ^ rf sj«n 'ScBfT, page 599),but without apprehending the invariable 

 rule. The Pali language converts the visarga of the nominatives of 

 such nouns into o, and the same change is observed in the Sindhi and 

 Zendf ; nor am I aware that the grammatical Prakrit or Mdgadhi of the 

 Hindu drama sanctions the use of the vowel e in place of the visarga. 

 If se, ye, te are used at all it is either in the dual, or in the plural 

 sense as in Sanskrit, and as in the modern Hindi Bhdsha. 



The next remark I would make is on the singular passage nomina 

 pdpam dekhati, iyam me pdpekateti (p. 577). The words on the Allahabad 

 pillar are pdpakam and pdpake ; of precisely the same meaning, and 

 therefore establishing the correctness of the translation. The same 

 confirmation of authenticity is deducible from the occasional omission 

 of the verb huti, the final iti, the substitution of chakhu for chakho 

 and other minor variations. I have inserted in the annexed plate a 

 few examples of disputed passages, commencing with hidata palate' 

 dusampatipddayt, which terminates the first long line of the Allahabad 

 pillar, a sure sign that the sense is there completed, since we have a 

 similar completion of the sentence in almost every line, as may be 

 seen by reference to the original lithograph in vol. III. which I have 

 not thought it worth while to recopy entire. 



The five short lines in the old character that follow the Dharma- 

 lipi at a short distance below (see Capt. Burt's lithograph) were the 

 next object of my inspection, I have represented what remains of 

 them faithfully in fig. 1, of PI. LVI. which will be seen to differ con- 

 siderably from Lieut. Burt's copy of the same. The reading is now 

 complete and satisfactory in lines 1, 2, and 5. The 3rd and 4th lines 

 are slightly effaced on the right hand. We can also now construe them 

 intelligibly, though in truth the subject seems of a trivial nature to 

 be so gravely set forth. 



Devdnampiyasd vdchanena savata mahdmdtd 

 Vataviyd : Eheta dutiydye deviye rdrte 

 Ambdvadika vd alameva ddnam : Ehevapati. . . . 



* ^***f tftenirr, W*: qF$Z:, Wl^', WH: nm:- Tho latt er word 

 however more nearly resembles f^J^JTfr'C: the porpoise. 



t Is the similarity of these two names more than accidental ? 



