page 232 note 2 To illustrate the errors in which it was possible to fall, I give here two examples from Rāmaśarman.
(i) Stanza 10 (EPG., 128, 138). “In the case of abuse the termination of a noun, whose base is a, is ī in Paiśācika Śaurasena, as śiālī (= syāla ‘brother-in-law’).” The source of this is ps.-Var. xi, 17, Māgadhī—śiāla— from śṛāla “jackal”. Mārkaṇḍeya, xii, 12, has, correctly, śiāle as a Māgadhī word.
(ii) Stanza 20 (id. 131, 141), where the error is due to a defective text. jaai matam āruhanti giri-taṇayā paṇai-kappalaā
which Grierson translates “Victory to Pārvatī, daughter of the Himālayas, who ascends upon pride to destroy it, but who is a Wishing-tree to him, who bends low before her”.
This is taken from an author unknown to Rāma. It occurs in Saras, ii, 17, 9, but tamalliantī is read for matam āruhantī. The passage runs—
vaktṛ-viṣay' aucityādi-prayojyā miśrā yathā
jayati janatâbhivanchita-phala-pradaḥ kalpapādapo giriśaḥ
jaai a tamalliantī girī-tanayā paṇai-kappalaā
evaṃ bhāṣāntarāṇam api miśrī-bhāvo dṛṣṭavyaḥ
“Miśra (mixture of lines), which is to be used for suiting the meaning to the context and so forth, is, for example—
“‘Victorious is the Tree of Wishes, mountain-born, which yields the fruit desired by the world. Victorious to her worshippers is the Liana of Wishes, who tops the Tamāli tree, the Mountain-born (Pārvatī).’
“Thus should be regarded the trope Miśra in connection with different languages (or—translations).”
Bhojadeva's second line is clearly Prakrit (n in tanayā is irregular, but is sporadically found for n, PG224). Rāmaśarman's reading is inferior, and, as Grierson points out, matam (in the suspected passage) is the only Pai. feature.
L. Nitti-Dolci (GP 124) explains why it is unnecessary to trouble with the “mixed Paiśācis” of Rāmaśarman. He probably invented them, as she thinks, and used them to account for anomalies of language, which were, in fact, due to the inferiority of his texts.
