204 



JOUENAL, E.A.S. (CEYLON). 



[Vol. X. 



o. 



My dear Mr. Guilders, Colombo, May 11, 1875. 



I have duly received your letter of March 23 last. 



I am sorry to find you have misapprehended the drift of my remark 

 as to the Sinhalese verb £)^«3£)3 governing a dative case. I did not 

 mean to say that because the verb governs a dative in Sinhalese, that 

 therefore it should govern the same case in Sanskrit or Pali. If my 

 words led you to infer so, it must be only to the imperfect way in 

 which I expressed myself in English, and not to any Asiatic peculiarity 

 in my mind. I simply wished to call to your remembrance the fact, as 

 the Sinhalese is supposed to be an Aryan dialect immediately derived 

 from the Pali. 



I had, or rather I thought I had, other grounds (whether they be 

 satisfactory or not) to induce me to think that it was possible that in 

 old Pali the verb vanda optionally governed the dative, although the 

 usage may have afterwards become obsolete. You will recollect that it 

 is not only in the Erapatra inscription that the word Bhagavato is 

 found after vandate, but in another inscription at Bharhut, Ajatasta 

 Bhagavato vandatte. 



It also appeared to me that if we regarded Bhagavato as the dative, 

 we might account for it by the rule in Kachchayana, which says the 

 verb sitaghati (to praise) governs the dative c&se—Buddhassa sitaghasi 

 (Senart's " Kaccayana," p. 327, rule 7). 



The verb e)^ is defined in the " Dhatu Patha," s)^ ^£Qi)3qs5S3^ 

 &q : vanda " signifies abhivadhana, 1 respectful salutation,' and thuti 

 ' praise.' " 



Might we not take vanda in the inscription to mean thuti, and if so, 

 render the inscription into English, "Erapatra praises (glorifies) 

 Buddha "? 



I fear I am running the risk of being again charged with Asiatic 

 peculiarity. I have ventured to offer these remarks simply for your 

 consideration. I am too well sensible of my own deficiency, both as an 

 English and Pali scholar, to advance these remarks in a spirit of 

 dogmatism. 



How will you account for the context of the following sentence in the 

 " Sutta Nipata": £)^S3d3(33©S3, Brdhmane vanda Tathdgate 



(vide conclusion of Amagandha Suttan in the " Sutta Nipata ") ? 



To my mind it seems that ssdoca^SJ Tathdgate might be 

 regarded as the dative case and governed by e)^5q vanda. I must, 

 however, be candid and say that I referred to the Atthakathd. 



The Commentator explains it thus : £0Odcc©S3 oo^q o^So^Sc^iS 

 ss3^£)d e)«3§, making £d6dc£©8j the genitive, although I must confess 

 this explanation appears to my mind rather forced and unnatural. 



L. De Zoysa. 



