1870.] 



Rejoinder to Mr. Beanies. 



55 



The general sense remains the same in both MSS , and thus I have 

 been to some extent misled, and in several places have too hastily con- 

 demned the translator for carelessness and inaccuracy. All such criti- 

 cisms I very gladly cancel. Still it is only the minor premiss of my 

 argument that requires modification, the conclusion remains unaltered. 

 Thus, taking Mr. Beames's text as he gives it me, and comparing it 

 with his translation, I find in the very short space of 19 couplets 

 (even after omitting the lines which his alterations have made obscure 

 or unintelligible) the following formidable list of errors : — 



Hindi. 



True meaning. Mr. 



Beames's rendering. 



nisan 



a kettle drum 



a standard 



sevahin 



they serve 



to servants 



nag 



a jewel 



a horse's hoof ! 



khan j an 



a wagtail 



(omitted) 



ras 



a heap or bundle 



perfection 



kok 



a swan [anas casarca) 



a lotus ! 



sudes 



well arranged 



fair to see 



pik 



betel juice 



a koil ! 



bay sandh 



girlhood 



(omitted) 



makarand 



nectar 



god of love. 



Further, on Mr. Beames's translation of his 7th stanza, I would 



| observe that as ang is often used to denote the numeral 6, 1 hesitate to 



| believe that Chand speaks of 14 angs. He might speak of 14 vidyds. 



If Mr. Beames will look at his text again, I think he will find that 



what he has printed as chatur das is in the MS. chatur dis. 



Again, the obvious purport of Mr. Beames's 10th stanza is, that the 

 princess began teaching the parrot to say Bam Bam. The translator 

 declares that this cannot be. Why ? Simply because he has been 

 pleased to render the words ' Grai khel sab bhul' by ' she went to 

 play forgetting all about him.' Surely he must see that the words 

 quoted can, with equal grammatical propriety, be translated ' she forgot 

 all her play' — and as this is the only translation which harmonizes 

 1 with the context, it must be the correct one. Again, in his conclud- 

 ing stanza, after the word pik, the mistranslation of which I have 

 already noted, comes the word sad, which he explains by 'voice.' 

 My impression is, that there is no such word in the language as sad : 



