62 INTRODUCTION $56. For the enlarged neut. sing forms in -aum see $12. $57. Stem-enlargement with pleonastic-da-(-daya-) is not known to our text. daya- is used in a pejorative sense only (844). $58. Voc. sing. uses the bare stem, which has its final -a occa- sionally lengthened (through contraction of -aya- from enlarge- ment). Note, Osānā 1 12 6, paiva 5 12 5, mudha 5 12 6, Pahan- jaņā 9 8 1a, all at the end of a Pada. In forms like bhadara 2 6 106, - has resulted from the contraction of the stem-final -aya. On most of these points PC, agrees with MP. $59. The bare stem or the stem with its ending vowel lengthen- ed (the result of vowel contraction in the stem enlarged with pleo- nastic -ya-from-ko-) is used as the Nom. Acc. Masc. pl. form. These as well as forms with the termination -aim are employed in the Neut. pl.: sahāsa (sahasra-) 2 11 7, pavvaiya (pravrajita-) 2 11 7, and sahāsaim 2 10 8 are all neut. pl. In forms like gavesā 14 10 1, the final -aya of the pl. form gavesaya is contracted as a. $60. As remarked above (837), occasionally mas. stems also take this neut. termination -aim'. $61. em, eņa (-ēna), are the terminations of Ins. sing. Short -e and -em are unknown to our text, while -im is found as an orthogra- phic variant of -en. A roughly made sample analysis gives 2 : 1 as the proportion of forms in -er and ena respectively. This agrees with the figures for HP. given by Alsdorf. Metre accounts for most of the forms in -ēņa. The same remark applies to a few Prakritisms in -enan (eg. 17 3 1, 17 71, 17 8 1, 17 15 1, 13 4 1). $62. In the termination -er, the vowel is probably short, as shown by Alsdorf on the ground that its alternative form is -in in the Mss. (cf. Loc. sing. termination in its two forms short -e and -i in the Mss.). $63. Regarding -eņa Tagare observes that it was less popular in Southern Ap. It is frequent in MP. because in it 'Puspadanta deliberately tried to initiate the high-flown ornate style of Sk. and Pk. classics. One has simply to turn to Jc. (i.e. Jasaharacariu) (which is a work of a more popular nature), and one finds the popularity of -in, -eín termination.' But these observations are not correct. The frequency of the forms in -ena in PC. proves that free occurrence of these forms in MP. is not just a vagary of Puşpadanta. And in a casual survey of the Jasaharacariu I have been able to spot two hundred and odd forms in -eņa which shows it to be in no way different from MP. on this point. $64. Further, following Grierson, Tagare derives -er of Inst. sing. from Loc. sing. -ahim. He believes that the Inst. and Loc. merged into one case in Apa. and the desinences of Loc. came to be substituted for those of Inst. He finds support for this view in the Inst. sing. forms in -i (from Loc. sing. short -e) found in Bh. and Kp. He thinks, "the use of -i for Inst. sg. was well established in S(outhern) Ap. of the 10th Cent. A.D. e.g., kāli from kāla-, suhi from sukha-, danisani from darśana- in Jasahara) clariu)'. Hence he finds it 'surprising that Alsdorf's edition of H(ari) V (amsapurāņa) should contain no - forms'. He comes to the conclusion that we (1) Stray cases like ujjaliya (qualifying asivaru) 18 8 2, kaya (qualifying maranu) 123, 5, jujjha 7 5 2 are modernizations, while voc. sing. forms in -u occurring at quite a few places are counted as scribal slips. (2) Tagare, 1948, 118. (3) Tagare, 1948, 118-120.
