NOTES ON ANCIENT SIMHALESE INSCRIPTIONS. 10 



I have given an analysis of this passage in my report. 

 It remains here only to add a few words regarding its 

 bearing upon the disputed question of the antiquity of the 

 Pali language. 



I feel bound first of all to state my disagreement with the 

 views expressed by the late Prof. Childers (Dictionary II. 

 Pref. p, IX.), on the importance of the inscription found on 

 one of the Bharhut sculptures discovered by Genera] Cun- 

 ningham, The inscription is, 



Jetavana Anddhapediko kotisanthatena ketd. 

 If we compare this with the dialect in Acoka's inscription 

 at Girnar on the one side and with the Cauraseni and 

 Maharashtri Prakrts on the other hand, I do not see why 

 either the descendant of the first-named dialect or the 

 parents of the two latter could not claim ownership just as 

 well as Pali. On the contrary, if we supply an often omit- 

 ted Anusvara, Anadhape\jri\ dlko would be excellent Prakrt, 

 penda being the Prakrt form of Skt. pinda and dh the 

 regular softening down of dh in these dialects. Of course 

 no value need be attached to this, should otherwise the 

 language be apparent, as similar palseographical irregulari- 

 ties are of only too frequent occurrence in ancient inscrip- 

 tions (comp. Burnell, S. Y. Pal. p. 4). But the two points 

 Mr. Childers insists upon as conclusive are the coincidence 

 with a passage of the Vinayapitaka and the use of a hapax 

 legomenon. If kotisanthdrena appears to us now a hapax 

 legomenon, it need not have been or certainly was not so 

 originally ; besides the inscription has not the same word, 

 but kotisanthatena. The similarity of the remaining words 

 is no matter of surprise. Vkri is the common verb for 

 l( buying," and if the inscription has ketd, the Vinaya text 

 kinitvd, this seems quite as natural as if two different per- 

 sons telling such a story in English would both use the 



