{"collection":"Hinduism","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/browse/hin/sbe32/sbe3213.htm","path":"hin/sbe32/sbe3213.htm","source_url":"https://sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe32/sbe3213.htm","text":"Vedic Hymns, Part I (SBE32), by Max M\u00fcller, [1891]\nBut what confirms me even more in my view that such strict uniformity must not be looked for in the ancient Conjectural emendations.hymns of the Rishis, is the fact that in many cases it would he so very easy to replace the irregular by a regular dipodia. Supposing that the original poets had restricted themselves to the dijambus, who could have put in the place of that regular dijambus an irregular dipodia? Certainly not the authors of the Pr\u00e2tis\u00e2khya, for their ears had clearly discovered the general rhythm of the ancient metres; nor their predecessors, for they had in many instances preserved the tradition of syllables lengthened in accordance with the requirements of the metre. I do not mean to insist too strongly on this argument, or to represent those who handed down the tradition of the Veda as endowed with anything like apaurusheyatva. Strange accidents have happened in the text of the Veda, but they have generally happened when the sense of the hymns had ceased to be understood; and if anything helped to preserve the Veda from greater accidents, it was due, I believe, to the very fact that the metre continued to be understood, and that oral tradition, however much it might fail in other respects, had at all events to satisfy the ears of the hearers. I should\nhave been much less surprised if all irregularities in the metre had been smoothed down by the flux and reflux of oral tradition, a fact which is so apparent in the text of Homer, where the gaps occasioned by the loss of the digamma, were made good by the insertion of unmeaning particles; but I find it difficult to imagine by what class of men, who must have lived between the original poets and the age of the Pr\u00e2tis\u00e2khyas, the simple rhythm of the Vedic metres should have been disregarded, and the sense of rhythm, which ancient people possess in a far higher degree than we ourselves, been violated through crude and purposeless alterations. I shall give a few specimens only. What but a regard for real antiquity could have induced people in VIII, 2, 8, to preserve the defective foot of a G\u00e2yatr\u00ee verse, s\u0103m\u00e2\u0304n\u0113 \u0103dh\u012d bh\u00e2\u0304rm\u0101n? Any one acquainted with Sanskrit would naturally read s\u0103m\u00e2\u0304n\u0113 \u0103dh\u012d bh\u00e2\u0304rm\u0103n\u012b. But who would have changed bh\u00e2rmani, if that had been there originally, to bh\u00e2rman? I believe we must scan s\u0103m\u00e2\u0304n\u0113 \u0103dh\u012d bh\u0306\u00e2\u0304rm\u0101n, or s\u0103m\u0304\u0103n\u0113 \u0103dh\u012d bh\u00e2\u0304rm\u0101n, the p\u00e6on tertius being a perfectly legitimate foot at the end of a G\u00e2yatr\u00ee verse. In X, 158, 1, we can understand how an accident happened. The original poet may have said: S\u0306\u00fb\u0304ry\u014d n\u014d d\u012dv\u0101s p\u00e2\u0304t\u016d p\u00e2\u0304t\u016d v\u00e2\u0304t\u014d \u0101nt\u0103r\u012b\u0306ksh\u00e2\u0304t, \u0101gn\u012br n\u0101h p\u00e2\u0304rth\u012dv\u0113bhy\u0306\u0101h. Here one of the two p\u00e2tu was lost. But if in the same hymn we find in the second verse two feet of nine instead of eight syllables each, I should not venture to alter this except in pronunciation, because no reason can be imagined why any one should have put these irregular lines in the place of regular ones.\nIn V, 41, 10, gr\u012dn\u00ee\u0304t\u0113 \u0101gn\u012dr \u0113t\u0103r\u00ee\u0304 n\u0103 s\u00fb\u0304sh\u0101ih, s\u014dk\u012bshk\u0113s\u014d n\u012d r\u012dn\u00e2\u0304t\u012d v\u0103n\u00e2\u0304, every modern Pandit would naturally read van\u00e2ni instead of van\u00e2, in order to get the regular Trishtubh metre. But this being the case, how can we imagine that even the most ignorant member of an ancient Parishad should wilfully have altered van\u00e2ni into van\u00e2? What surprises one is, that van\u00e2 should have been spared, in spite of every temptation to change it into van\u00e2ni: for I cannot doubt for one moment that van\u00e2 is the right reading, only\nthat the ancient poets pronounced it v\u0103n\u0304\u00e2\u0306. Wherever we alter the text of the Rig-veda by conjecture, we ought to be able, if possible, to give some explanation how the mistake which we wish to remove came to be committed. If a passage is obscure, difficult to construe, if it contains words which occur in no other place, then we can understand how, during a long process of oral tradition, accidents may have happened. But when everything is smooth and easy, when the intention of the poet is not to be mistaken, when the same phrase has occurred many times before, then to suppose that a simple and perspicuous sentence was changed into a complicated and obscure string of words, is more difficult to understand. I know there are passages where we cannot as yet account for the manner in which an evidently faulty reading found its way into both the Pada and Samhit\u00e2 texts, but in those very passages we cannot be too circumspect. If we read VIII, 40, 9, p\u00fb\u0304rv\u00ee\u0304sh t\u0103 \u012bndr\u014dp\u0103m\u00e2\u0304t\u0103y\u0101h p\u00fb\u0304rv\u00ee\u0304r \u016dt\u0103 pr\u0103s\u0101st\u0103y\u0101h, nothing seems more tempting than to omit indra, and to read p\u00fb\u0304rv\u00ee\u0304sh t\u0103 \u016dp\u0103m\u00e2\u0304t\u0103y\u0101h. Nor would it be difficult to account for the insertion of indra; for though one would hardly venture to call it a marginal gloss that crept into the text\u2014a case which, as far as I can see, has never happened in the hymns of the Rig-veda\u2014it might be taken for an explanation given by an \u00c2k\u00e2rya to his pupils, in order to inform them that the ninth verse, different from the eighth, was addressed to Indra. But however plausible this may sound, the question remains whether the traditional reading could not be maintained, by admitting synizesis of opa, and reading p\u00fb\u0304rv\u00ee\u0304sh t\u0103 \u012bndr\u014d\u0361p\u0103*m\u00e2\u0304t\u0103y\u0101h. For a similar synizesis of \u0304 \u0306, see III, 6, 10. pr\u00e2\u0304k\u00ee\u0304 \u0101dhv\u0103r\u0113\u0361v\u0103* t\u0101sth\u0103t\u016bh, unless we read pr\u00e2\u0304ky \u0101dhv\u0103r\u0113v\u0103.\nAnother and more difficult case of synizesis occurs in\nVII, 86, 4. \u0103v\u0103 tv\u00e2\u0304n\u0113n\u00e2\u0304 n\u0103m\u0103s\u00e2\u0304 t\u016d\u0361r\u0103*(h) \u012dy\u00e2\u0304m.\n[paragraph continues] It would be easy to conjecture tvarey\u00e2m instead of tura iy\u00e2m, but tvarey\u00e2m, in the sense of 'let me hasten,' is not Vedic. The choriambic ending, however, of a Trishtubh\ncan be proved to be legitimate, and if that is the case, then even the synizesis of t\u016d\u0361r\u0103*, though hard, ought not to be regarded as impossible.\nIn II, 18, 5,\n[paragraph continues] Professor Kuhn proposes to omit the \u00e2 at the beginning of the second line, in order to have eleven instead of twelve syllables. By doing so he loses the uniformity of the four p\u00e2das, which all begin with \u00e2, while by admitting synizesis of haribhih all necessity for conjectural emendation disappears.\nIf the poets of the Veda had objected to a p\u00e6on quartus ( \u0306 \u0306 \u0306 \u0304) at the end of a G\u00e2yatr\u00ee, what could have been easier than to change IV, 52, 1, divo adars\u012d d\u016dh\u012dt\u00e2\u0304, into adarsi duh\u012dt\u00e2\u0304 d\u012dv\u0101h? or X, 118, 6, \u0103d\u00e2\u0304bhy\u0306\u0101m gr\u012dh\u0103p\u0103t\u012bm, into gr\u012dh\u0103p\u0103t\u012dm \u0103d\u00e2\u0304bhy\u0306\u0101m?\nIf an epitritus secundus ( \u0304 \u0306 \u0304 \u0304) had been objectionable in the same place, why not say VI, 61, 10, st\u014fmy\u0306\u00e2\u0304 bh\u00fb\u0304t s\u0103r\u0101sv\u0103t\u00ee\u0304, instead of s\u0103r\u0101sv\u0103t\u00ee\u0304 st\u014fmy\u0306\u00e2\u0304 bh\u00fb\u0304t? Why not VIII, 2, 11, r\u0113v\u0101nt\u0101m h\u012d sr\u012dn\u014dm\u012d tv\u00e2\u0304, instead of r\u0113v\u0101nt\u0101m h\u012d tv\u00e2\u0304 sr\u012dn\u014dm\u012b?\nIf an ionicus a minore ( \u0306 \u0306 \u0304 \u0304) had been excluded from that place, why not say I, 30, 10, g\u0103r\u012dtri\u0305bhy\u0101h s\u0103kh\u0113 v\u0103so, instead of s\u0103kh\u0113 v\u0103s\u014d g\u0103r\u012dtri\u0305bhy\u0101h? or I, 41, 7, v\u0103r\u016dn\u0101sy\u0103 m\u0103h\u012b ps\u0103r\u0101h, instead of m\u0103h\u012b ps\u0103r\u014d v\u0103r\u016dn\u0101sy\u0101?\nIt a dispondeus ( \u0304 \u0304 \u0304 \u0304) was to be avoided, then V, 68, 3, m\u0103h\u012d v\u00e2\u0304m ksh\u0103tr\u0101m d\u0113v\u0113sh\u016b, might easily have been replaced by deveshu v\u00e2m ksh\u0103tr\u0101m m\u0103h\u012b , and VIII, 2, 10, sukr\u00e2 \u00e2sir\u0101m y\u00e2\u0304k\u0101nt\u0113, by sukr\u00e2 y\u00e2kant\u0103 \u00e2\u0304s\u012dr\u0101m.\nIf no epitritus primus ( \u0306 \u0304 \u0304 \u0304) was allowed, why not say VI, 61, 11, n\u012dd\u0101s p\u00e2\u0304t\u016d s\u0103r\u0101sv\u0103t\u00ee\u0304, instead of s\u0103r\u0101sv\u0103t\u00ee\u0304 n\u012dd\u0101s p\u00e2\u0304t\u016b, or VIII, 79, 4, dv\u0113sh\u014d y\u00e2\u0304v\u00ee\u0304r \u0103gh\u0101sy\u0103 k\u012bt, instead of y\u00e2\u0304v\u00ee\u0304r \u0103gh\u0101sy\u0103 k\u012bd dv\u0113sh\u0101h?\nEven the epitritus tertius ( \u0304 \u0304 \u0306 \u0304) might easily have been avoided by dropping the augment of ap\u00e2m in X, 119, 1-13, kuvit somasy\u00e2\u0304p\u00e2\u0304m \u012dt\u012b. It is, in fact, a variety of less frequent occurrence than the rest, and might possibly be eliminated with some chance of success.\nLastly, the choriambus ( \u0304 \u0306 \u0306 \u0304) could have been removed in III, 24, 5, s\u012ds\u00ee\u0304h\u012d n\u0101h s\u00fb\u0304n\u016dm\u0103t\u0101h, by reading s\u00fb\u0304n\u016dm\u0103t\u0101h s\u012ds\u00ee\u0304h\u012d n\u0101h, and in VIII, 2, 31, s\u0103n\u00e2\u0304d \u0103mri\u0305kt\u014d d\u0103y\u0103t\u0113, by reading \u0103mri\u0305kt\u014d d\u0103y\u0103t\u0113 s\u0103n\u00e2\u0304t.\nBut I am afraid the idea that regularity is better than irregularity, and that in the Veda, where there is a possibility, the regular metre is to be restored by means of conjectural emendations, has been so ably advocated by some of the most eminent scholars, that a merely general argument would now be of no avail. I must therefore give as much evidence as I can bring together in support of the contrary opinion; and though the process is a tedious one, the importance of the consequences with regard to Vedic criticism leaves me no alternative. With regard, then, to Seven G\u00e2yatra Vrittas. the final dipodia of G\u00e2yatr\u00ee verses, I still hold and maintain, that, although the dijambus is by far the most general metre, the following seven varieties have to be recognised in the poetry of the Veda a:\n1. \u0306 \u0304 \u0306 \u0304 , 2. \u0306 \u0306 \u0306 \u0304, 3. \u0304 \u0306 \u0304 \u0304, 4. \u0306 \u0306 \u0304 \u0304, 5. \u0304 \u0304 \u0304 \u0304, 6. \u0306 \u0304 \u0304 \u0304, 7. \u0304 \u0304 \u0306 \u0304, 8. \u0304 \u0306 \u0306 \u0304.\nI do not pretend to give every passage in which these varieties occur, out I hope I shall give a sufficient number in support of every one of them. I have confined myself almost entirely to the final dipodia of G\u00e2yatr\u00ee verses, as the \u00c2nushtubha verses would have swelled the lists too much.\n\u00a7 2. \u0306 \u0306 \u0306 \u0304.\nI, 12, 9. tasmai p\u00e2vak\u0103 mr\u012dl\u0103y\u0101. (Instead of mrilaya, it has been proposed to read mardaya.)\nI, 18, 9. divo na sadm\u0103m\u0103kh\u0103s\u0101m.\nI, 42, 4; 46, 2; 97, 1-8; III, 11, 3; 27, 10; IV, 15, 7;\n32, 4; 52, 1; V, 5, 9; 7, 4; 7, 5; 7, 7; 9, 4; 53, 12; 61, 3; 61, 11; 64, 5; 65, 4; 82, 9; VI, 16, 17; 16, 18; 16, 45; 45, 17; 61, 4; VII, 15, 14; 66, 2; VIII, 6, 35; 6, 42; 32, 10; 44, 28; 45, 31; 72, 6; 72, 13; 80, 1; 83, 3; 93, 27; IX, 61, 5; 64, 1; X, 118, 6.\n\u00a7 3. \u0304 \u0306 \u0304 \u0304\nI, 22, 11. akkhinnapatr\u00e2\u0304h s\u0103k\u0101nt\u00e2\u0304m.\nI, 30, 13. kshumanto y\u00e2bh\u012br m\u0103d\u0113m\u0101.\nI, 41, 8; 90, 1; 90, 4; 120, 1; V, 19, 1; 70, 3; VI, 61, 10; VIII, 2, 2; 2, 4; 2, 5; 2, 11; 2, 12; 2, 13; 2, 14; 2, 15; 2, 16; 2, 17; 2, 29; 2, 30; 2, 32; 2, 33; 2, 36; 2, 37; 7, 30; 7, 33; 11, 2; 11, 3; 11, 4; 16, 3; 16, 4; 16, 5; 16, 7; 46, 2; 71, 2; 81, 1; 81, 3; 81, 4; 81, 7; 81, 9; 94, 2; IX, 62, 5; X, 20, 4; 20, 7.\n\u00a74. \u0306 \u0306 \u0304 \u0304.\nI, 3, 8. usr\u00e2 iva sv\u0103s\u0103r\u00e2\u0304n\u012b.\nI, 27, 4. agne devesh\u016d pr\u0103 v\u014dk\u0101h.\nI, 30, 10; 30, 15; 38, 7; 38, 8; 41, 7; 43, 7; II, 6, 2; III, 27, 3; V, 82, 7; VI, 16, 25; 16, 26; 61, 12; VIII, 2, 1; 2, 3; 2, 8; 2, 18; 2, 19; 2, 21; 2, 22; 2, 23; 2, 26; 2, 35; 16, 2; 16, 6; 16, 8; 71, 9; 79, 3; IX, 21, 5; 62, 6; 66, 21; X, 20, 5; 185, 1; 185, 2; 185, 3.\n\u00a75. \u0304 \u0304 \u0304 \u0304.\nI, 2, 7. dhiyam ghrit\u00e2k\u00ee\u0304m s\u00e2\u0304dh\u0101nt\u00e2\u0304.\nI, 3, 4. anv\u00eebhis tan\u00e2\u0304 p\u00fb\u0304t\u00e2\u0304s\u0101h.\nI, 27, 3; 90, 2; II, 6, 4; III, 41, 8; V, 68, 3; 68, 4; VIII, 2, 10; 2, 24; 16, 1; 16, 12; 79, 2; IX, 66, 17; X,\n20, 6; 20, 8.\n\u00a76. \u0306 \u0304 \u0304 \u0304.\nI, 15, 6. ritun\u00e2 yag\u00f1\u0103m \u00e2\u0304s\u00e2\u0304th\u0113.\nI, 38, 2. kva vo g\u00e2vo n\u0103 r\u0101ny\u0101nt\u012b (see note to I, 38, 2).\nI, 38, 9; 86, 9; III, 27, 2; 41, 3; IV, 32, 23; V, 68, 5; 70, 2; VI, 61, 11; VIII, 2, 20; 2, 25; 7, 32; 26, 19; 79, 4; 79, 5; 81, 6; X, 158, 4.\n\u00a77. \u0304 \u0304 \u0306 \u0304.\nI, 10, 8. s\u0101m g\u00e2\u0304 \u0101sm\u0101bhy\u0101m dh\u00fb\u0304n\u016dh\u012b.\nI, 12, 5. \u0101gn\u0113 tv\u0306\u0101m r\u0101ksh\u0101sv\u012dn\u0101h.\nI, 37, 15; 43, 8; 46, 6; III, 62, 7; IV, 30, 21; V, 86, 5; VIII, 5, 32; 5, 35; X, 119, 1-13; 144, 4.\n\u00a7 8. \u0304 \u0306 \u0306 \u0304.\nI, 2, 9. daksham dadh\u00e2t\u0113 \u0103p\u0103s\u0101m (or \u00a7 2).\nI, 6, 10. indram maho v\u00e2\u0304 r\u0103g\u0103s\u0101h.\nI, 27, 6; 30, 21; 41, 9; 90, 5; III, 24, 5; V, 19, 2; 70, 1; 70, 4; 82, 8; VIII, 2, 27; 2, 31; 16, 9; 55, 4; 67, 19; 81, 5; 81, 8; IX, 47, 2.\nBut although with regard to the G\u00e2yatra, and I may add, the \u00c2nushtubha p\u00e2das, the evidence as to the variety Traishtubha and G\u00e2gata P\u00e2das.of their vrittas is such that it can hardly be resisted, a much more determined stand has been made in defence of the vritta of the Traishtubha and G\u00e2gata p\u00e2das. Here Professor Kuhn and those who follow him maintain that the rule is absolute, that the former must end in \u0306 \u0304 \u0306, the latter in \u0306 \u0304 \u0306 \u0304, and that the eighth syllable, immediately preceding these syllables, ought, if possible, to be long. Nor can I deny that Professor Kuhn has brought forward powerful arguments in support of his theory, and that his emendations of the Vedic text recommend themselves by their great ingenuity and simplicity. If his theory could be carried out, I should readily admit that we should gain something. We should have throughout the Veda a perfectly uniform metre, and wherever we found any violation of it, we should be justified in resorting to conjectural criticism.\nThe only question is at what price this strict uniformity can be obtained. If, for instance, in order to have the regular vrittas at the end of Traishtubha and G\u00e2gata lines, we were obliged to repeal all rules of prosody, to allow almost every short vowel to be used as long, and every long vowel to be used as short, whether long by nature or by position, we should have gained very little, we\nshould have robbed Peter to pay Paul, we should have removed no difficulty, but only ignored the causes which created it. Now, if we examine the process by which Professor Kuhn establishes the regularity of the vrittas or final syllables of Traishtubha and G\u00e2gata p\u00e2das, we find, in addition to the rules laid down before, and in which he is supported, as we saw, to a great extent by the Pr\u00e2tis\u00e2khya and P\u00e2nini, viz. the anceps nature of e and o, and of a long final vowel before a vowel, the following exceptions or metrical licences, without which that metrical uniformity at which he aims, could not be obtained:\nProsodial Licences.1. The vowel o in the body of a word is to be treated as optionally short:\nII, 39, 3. pr\u0103t\u012d v\u0101st\u014d\u0306r \u016bsr\u00e2\u0304 (see Trisht. \u00a7 5).\nHere the o of vastoh is supposed to be short, although it is the Guna of u, and therefore very different from the final e of sarve or \u00e2ste, or the final o of sarvo for sarvas or mano for manas a. It should be remarked that in Greek, too, the final diphthongs corresponding to the e of sarve and \u00e2ste are treated as short, as far as the accent is concerned. Hence \u1f04\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9, \u03c4\u03cd\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, and even \u03b3\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9, nom. plur. In Latin, too, the old terminations of the nom. sing. o and u, instead of the later us, are short. (Neue, Formenlehre, \u00a7 23 seq.)\nVI, 51, 15. g\u014d\u0306p\u00e2\u0304 \u0103m\u00e2\u0304.\nHere the o of gop\u00e2 is treated as short, in order to get \u0306 \u0304 \u0306 \u0304 instead of \u0304 \u0304 \u0306 \u0304, which is perfectly legitimate at the end of an Ushnih.\n2. The long \u00ee and \u00fb are treated as short, not only before vowels, which is legitimate, but also before consonants.\nVII, 62, 4. dy\u00e2\u0304v\u00e2\u0304bh\u00fb\u0304m\u00ee\u0304 \u0103d\u012dt\u0113 tr\u00e2\u0304s\u030d\u00ee\u0304\u0306th\u00e2\u0304m n\u0101h (see Trisht. \u00a7 5).\nThe forms \u00ee\u0304s\u00ee\u0304y\u0101 and r\u00e2\u0304s\u00ee\u0304y\u0101 in VII, 32, 18, occur at the end of octosyllabic or G\u00e2yatra p\u00e2das, and are therefore\nperfectly legitimate, yet Professor Kuhn would change them too, into \u00ee\u0304s\u00ee\u0306y\u0101 and r\u00e2\u0304s\u00ee\u0306y\u0101. In VII, 28, 4, even m\u00e2y\u00ee is treated as m\u00e2\u0304y\u00ee\u0306 (see Trisht. \u00a7 5); and in VII, 68, 1, v\u00ee\u0304t\u0101m as v\u00ee\u0306t\u0101m. If, in explanation of this shortening of v\u00eetam, v\u00eehi is quoted, which is identified with v\u012dhi, this can hardly be considered as an argument, for v\u012dh\u012d occurs where no short syllable is required, IV, 48, 1; II, 26, 2; and where, therefore, the shortening of the vowel cannot be attributed to metrical reasons.\n3. Final m followed by an initial consonant is allowed to make no position, and even in the middle of a word a nasal followed by a liquid is supposed to make positio debilis. Several of the instances, however, given in support, are from G\u00e2yatra p\u00e2das, where Professor Kuhn, in some of his later articles, has himself allowed greater latitude; others admit of different scanning, as for instance,\nI, 117, 8. m\u0103h\u0101h ksh\u014dn\u0101sy\u0103 \u0101sv\u012dn\u00e2\u0304 k\u0101nv\u00e2\u0304y\u0101.\nHere, even if we considered the dispondeus as illegitimate, we might scan k\u0103\u0361nv\u0306*\u00e2\u0304y\u0103, for this scanning occurs in other places, while to treat the first a as short before nv seems tantamount to surrendering all rules of prosody.\n4. Final n before semivowels, mutes, and double n before vowels make no position a. Ex. III, 49, I. y\u0101sm\u012b\u0306n v\u012bsv\u00e2\u0304 (Trisht. \u00a7 5);. I, 174, 5. y\u0101sm\u012d\u0304\u00f1 k\u00e2\u0304k\u0101n; I, 186, 4. s\u0101sm\u012dn(n) \u00fb\u0304dh\u0101n b.\n5. Final Visarga before sibilants makes no position c. Ex. IV, 21, 10. s\u0101ty\u0103\u0304h s\u0101mr\u00e2\u0304t (Trisht. \u00a7 5). Even in I, 63, 4.\n[paragraph continues] k\u014dd\u00ee\u0306\u0305h s\u0103\u0305kh\u00e2\u0304 (probably a G\u00e2gata), and V, 82, 4. s\u00e2\u0304v\u00ee\u0304\u0306h s\u0101ubh\u0103g\u0101m (a G\u00e2y. \u00a7 7), the long \u00ee is treated as short, and the short a of sakh\u00e2 is lengthened, because an aspirate follows.\n6. S before mutes makes no position. Ex. VI, 66, II. \u016bgr\u00e2\u0304 \u0101\u0306spridhr\u0101n (Trisht. \u00a7 3).\n7. S before k makes no position. Ex. v\u012bsv\u0101\u0306sk\u0101ndr\u00e2\u0304h, &c.\n8. Mutes before s make no position. Ex. r\u0101\u0306ksh\u0101s, according to Professor Kuhn, in the seventh Mandala only, but see I, 12, 5; k\u016b\u0306tsa, &c.\n9. Mutes before r or v make no position. Ex. s\u016ds\u012b\u0306pr\u0101, d\u00ee\u0304rgh\u0101\u0306sr\u016bt.\n10. Sibilants before y make no position. Ex. d\u0101\u0306sy\u00fb\u0304n.\n11. R followed by mutes or sibilants makes no position. Ex. \u00e2\u0304y\u016b\u0306r g\u00ee\u0304v\u0103s\u0113, kh\u0101\u0306rd\u012bh, v\u0101\u0306rsh\u012bshth\u0101m.\n12. Words like sm\u0101\u0306dd\u012bsht\u00ee\u0304n, &c. retain their vowel short before two following consonants.\nWe now proceed to consider a number of prosodial rules which Professor Kuhn proposes to repeal in order to have a long syllable where the MSS. supply a short:\n1. The vowel ri is to be pronounced as long, or rather as ar. Ex. I, 12, 9. t\u0101sm\u0101i p\u00e2\u0304v\u0103k\u0103 mr\u012dl\u0103y\u0101 is to be read m\u0101rd\u0103y\u0101; V, 33, 10. s\u0101mv\u0103r\u0103n\u0101sy\u0103 r\u012dsh\u0113h is to be read arsheh. But why not s\u0101mv\u0103r\u0103n\u0101sy\u0361 \u0304 ri*sh\u0113h (i. e. siarsheh)?\n2. The a privativum may be lengthened. Ex. a\u0305\u0306g\u0103r\u0101h, a\u0305\u0306mr\u012dt\u0101h.\n3. Short vowels before liquids may be long. Ex. na\u0305\u0306rah, ta\u0305\u0306rut\u00e2, ta\u0305\u0306rati, ma\u0305\u0306rut\u00e2m, ha\u0305\u0306rivah, a\u0305\u0306rushi, dadhu\u0305\u0306r iha, s\u00fb\u0305\u0306vit\u00e2 (p. 471).\n4. Short vowels before nasals may be lengthened. Ex. ga\u0305\u0306n\u00e2n, sa\u0305\u0306nitar, ta\u0305\u0306n\u00fbh, \u016dpa\u0305\u0306 n\u0101h.\n5. Short vowels before the ma of the superlative may be lengthened. Ex. nrita\u0305\u0306ma.\n6. The short a in the roots sam and yam, and in am (the termination of the accusative) may be lengthened.\n7. The group \u0103v\u0103 is to be pronounced a\u016b\u0103. Ex. \u0103v\u0103s\u0113 becomes a\u016b\u0103s\u0113; s\u0103v\u012dt\u00e2\u0304 becomes sa\u016b\u012dt\u00e2\u0304; n\u0103v\u0103 becomes na\u016b\u0103.\n8. The group \u0103y\u0103 is to be changed into a\u012b\u0103 or \u0113\u0103. Ex. n\u0103y\u0103s\u012d becomes na\u012b\u0103s\u012d.\n9. The group v\u0103 is to be changed into ua, and this ua to be treated as a kind of diphthong and therefore long. Ex. k\u0101nv\u0103t\u0103m\u0101h becomes k\u0101\u0306nu\u0361a\u0305*t\u0103m\u0101h; v\u0103r\u016dn\u0101h becomes u\u0361a\u0305*r\u016dn\u0101h.\n10. The short vowel in the reduplicated syllable of perfects is to be lengthened. Ex. ta\u0305\u0306t\u0103n\u0101h, da\u0305\u0306dh\u012dr\u0113.\n11. Short vowels before all aspirates may be lengthened. Ex. r\u0103th\u00e2h becomes r\u0101th\u00e2h; s\u0103kh\u00e2 becomes s\u0101kh\u00e2.\n12. Short vowels before h and all sibilants may be lengthened. Ex. m\u0103h\u012dn\u012d becomes m\u0101h\u012dn\u012d; \u016ds\u012dg\u00e2m becomes \u016bs\u012dg\u00e2m; r\u012dsh\u0103t\u0113 becomes r\u012bsh\u0103t\u0113; d\u0103s\u0101t becomes d\u0101s\u0101t.\n13. The short vowel before t may be lengthened. Ex. v\u00e2gav\u0103tah becomes v\u00e2gav\u0101tah; \u0103tithih becomes \u0101tithih.\n14. The short vowel before d may be lengthened. Ex. \u016ddaram becomes \u016bdaram; \u016dd ava becomes \u016bd ava.\n15. The short vowel before p may be lengthened. Ex. \u0103p\u00e2m becomes \u0101p\u00e2m; t\u0103pushim becomes t\u0101pushim ; grih\u0103patim becomes grih\u0101patim.\n16. The short vowel before g and g may be lengthened. Ex. s\u00e2nush\u0103g asat becomes s\u00e2nush\u0101g asat; yun\u0103gan becomes yun\u0101gan.\nciv:a See some important remarks on these varieties in Mr. J. Boxwell's article 'On the Trishtubh Metre,' Journal Asiat. Soc. Beng., 1885, p. 79.\ncvii:a A very strong divergence of opinion is expressed on this point by Professor Bollensen. He says: 'O und E erst sp\u00e4ter in die Schrifttafel aufgenommen, bewahren ihre L\u00e4nge durch das ganze indische Schriftenthum bis ins Apabhramsa hinab. Selbstverst\u00e4ndlich kann kurz o und e im Veda erst recht nicht zugelassen werden.' Zeitschrift der D. M. G., vol. xxii, p. 574.\ncviii:a Professor Kuhn has afterwards (Beitr\u00e4ge, vol. iv, p. 207) modified this view, and instead of allowing a final nasal vowel followed by a mute to make positio debilis, he thinks that the nasal should in most cases be omitted altogether.\ncviii:b Here a distinction should be made, I think, between an n before a consonant, and a final n following a short vowel, which, according to the rules of Sandhi, is doubled, if a vowel follows. In the latter case, the vowel before the n remains, no doubt, short in many cases, or, more correctly, the doubling of the n does not take place, e. g. I, 63, 4; 186, 4. In other places, the doubling seems preferable, eg. I, 33, 11, though Professor Kuhn would remove it altogether. Kuhn, Beitr\u00e4ge, vol. iii, p. 125.\ncviii:c Here, too, according to later researches, Professor Kuhn would rather omit the final sibilant altogether, loc. cit. vol. iv, p. 207.","title":"Vedic Hymns, Part I (SBE32): Preface to the First Edition: Part 10","type":"page"}