INTRODUCTION 65 tion between -he, -hi and -him, where -him can be as well genu- ine. Hence besides Aujjhahe 2 7 5, Ujjhahe 4 1 8 we have Aujſhahim (S. ºhi, A. Che) 5 1 1, Ujjahim (A. 'he) 5 12 9b, guha- him 1994, silahim (A. "ha) 13 8 6. $77. Here as elsewhere, the short e of the earlier orthography is spelt as i in the later orthography and hence the earlier form of the G.L. termination is -he and not -hi or him as held by Tagore'. Hence Alsdorf is right in considering the terminations of G. and L. of Fem. A stems as identical and we need not try to connect it with -asmin or -adhi. 878. In later Apabhramša -ahim is quite frequently used for the Loc. sing. of masc. A-stems. $79. Besides -he and -him, thrice -hã is attested in L. sing. of the fem. A-stems: silaha and ilahố 12 19 gb, dikkhaha (P.S. ha) 3 10 2; The Sanatkumāracarita has piyahā and niyahã and Sāvaya- dhammadohä 95 uses dālahā in the Loc. sing. sense. narayahā at Pähudadohä 5 is a similar instance of L. Sing of masc. A stem. All these forms cannot be possibly just scribal errors'. $80. In G. plur. we find -hum and -hã, obviously extended from the masc. Thus chāyahum and padāyahum 3 4 7, muahum 19 2 8, cavantiyahum and acchantiyahum 19 9 4, sunhahum (P.S.) 19 49, sua-sāriyahum 17 5 2, vijjahum (s. Che, Á. Chu) 12 9 7, vijjahu 9 11 96; pīvara-thanahā and varangañahā 3 13 2, dheņuvāhā 3 13 5, kannahā (P.S. him) 10 7 1. $81. sāsuāņa and sunhāņa 19 5 1 are Prakritisms. Masc. I and U Stems 882. The final vowel of the bare stem used in the Nom. Acc. sing. and plur. is optionally lengthened. $83. -ņā and Anusvāra are the terminations of I. sing.: sura- waiņā 2 32, pahunii 13 2 la, Sumälim (S. Sumälem) and Malin (s. Mäleṁ) 8 68, Vāliñ 12 9 10, Sumaliṁ 8 9 6, vairim 15 14 1, Hari- kesiṁ 16 13 7, Sirimālim and alin 17 5 6; once the form ends in -er, Malem (rhyming with dåler) which betrays the influence of A declension, To the derivation of this Anusvāra of I. sing from na (aliņā becoming aliņa becoming alin) Tagare" prefers to to Añjanayah. A, is in many points more reliable than P. and S. so far as the metre, language and orthography of PC. are concerned. Had I only P. and S. at my disposal and constituted that text on their basis. I would have quoted Anjanaho as an instance of the extension of masc. -ho termination to the fem. A. stems. Similarly there are several instances in PC. of P. and S. giving the Nom. Acc. sing. of masc. A stems as ending in -a while the corresponding reading in A. ends in u. Paying little heed to this sort of variable, defective and unreliable orthography of the Ap. Mss., the un- critical character of some Ap. texts and their indiscriminating use have marred many, conclusions in Tagare's Historical Grammar of Apabhramsa which otherwise so far as the method of treatment is concerned, makes a valuable contribution to Apabhramsa linguistics. (1) Tagare, 1948, 892, (2) Over and above these terminations, Tagare gives a supposed instance of 'zero termination in L. sing. of fern. A stems (Hist. Gram. of Apa. 92A and 93B and p. 160). The form in question According to Tagare is akhaint of a per- petual nature' qualifying råmath supposed to be 1. sing. from rima = roma in Påhüqadonā 42. This is a clear case of misinterpretation based on mis- division. The line actually reads jasu akhai nirimain gayau maņu i.e. yasya akbaye niramaye gatan manah. Thus akhaini and ramai are ghost words and there is no instance of zero termination in I. (3) Tagare, 1948, 168.
