Non Inflected Genitive In Apabhramsa

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text, "The Non-inflected Genitive in Apabhramsa" by S. N. Ghosai:

The article examines the grammatical phenomenon of the "non-inflected genitive" in Apabhramsa, an ancient Prakrit dialect, and engages with scholarly debates surrounding its existence and interpretation.

Core Argument: The author argues that the non-inflected genitive in Apabhramsa is a genuine linguistic feature, reflecting a natural analytical tendency in the language's development, and that scholarly attempts to dismiss it or reinterpret it solely as compound formations or other grammatical cases are often misguided.

Key Points and Debates:

• Hemacandra's Authority: The text begins by citing Hemacandra, a prominent Prakrit grammarian, who, in his grammar (IV. 395), acknowledges and sanctions the occasional loss of inflection in the genitive case in Apabhramsa. Hemacandra's rule is presented as being in line with older, assumed "Valmiki-sūtras." This practice was considered natural and was used in literary Apabhramsa.

• Jacobi's Skepticism: A significant portion of the article addresses the doubts raised by Jacobi in his "Bhavisattakaha" (Grammatik §23). Jacobi questioned the occurrence of non-inflected genitives, suggesting that these forms could be more plausibly explained as the first members of compound words.

• Alsdorf's Rejection: The author highlights Alsdorf's strong agreement with Jacobi, who went further to dismiss Hemacandra's sutra as misleading. Alsdorf attempted to explain these forms as first members of compounds, vocatives, or even adverbs, rejecting any support for Hemacandra or the Valmiki-sūtras from other Jaina texts.

• The Case of amarinda vijanavindavi and others: Jacobi claimed to find two genuine instances of non-inflected genitives in amarinda vijanavindavi in the Bhavisattakaha. However, Alsdorf challenged this, citing a variant reading in Gune's edition (jaṇavindi vi) and emending the first word to amarindi vi. Alsdorf's emendation aimed to make both words inflected with locative case endings, thus dismissing them as non-inflected genitives. The author notes that Alsdorf also overlooked other forms Jacobi identified (loyana, taruņi).

• The Broader Trend of Inflectional Loss: The author connects the non-inflected genitive to a larger phenomenon of the disintegration of case endings in Apabhramsa. This tendency also affected the nominative and accusative cases. The article argues that this is not a sporadic occurrence but a result of a long-standing linguistic evolution.

• Phonetic Explanation for Loss: The article delves into the phonetic reasons for the loss of final vowels and case endings. It discusses the weakening of final sounds, the influence of initial vowels, and the role of accentuation (both penultimate and initial stress). The author emphasizes the weakening of final syllables as a precursor to the disappearance of endings, a feature that became characteristic of New Indo-Aryan (NIA) languages.

• Apabhramsa as a Stage of Analytical Development: The author posits that Apabhramsa, being an intermediary stage between Prakrit and NIA languages, exhibits the beginnings of analytical tendencies. This is evidenced by the loss of inflections and the later development of two case forms (direct and oblique) and the use of postpositions in NIA languages.

• Rebuttals to Alsdorf's Interpretations: A significant portion of the article is dedicated to critiquing Alsdorf's specific reinterpretations of verses presented as evidence for non-inflected genitives. The author analyzes several verses from Hemacandra and other sources, arguing against Alsdorf's interpretations:

  • Verse 1 (Pischel's illustration of Hemacandra IV. 345): Alsdorf claimed gaja was part of a compound. The author argues this construction is awkward and grammatically unsound, suggesting gaja is indeed a genitive.
  • Verse 2 (Hemacandra IV. 384): Alsdorf saw bali as part of a compound, following Trivikrama, while Pischel (following Udayasaubhāgyaganin) saw it as a non-inflected genitive. The author acknowledges ambiguity but leans towards Pischel's interpretation as it preserves traditional meaning.
  • Verse 3 (Hemacandra IV. 401): Alsdorf interpreted taņu as an adjective in a compound. The author argues Pischel's interpretation as a genitive, based on a traditional commentary, preserves the poem's aesthetic and meaning better.
  • Verse 4 (Hemacandra IV. 332): Alsdorf interpreted pia as a vocative and the verse as a dialogue. The author strongly refutes this, citing the presence of hali (used by women addressing friends) which supports Pischel's interpretation of pia as a genitive.
  • Verse 5 (Hemacandra IV. 356): Alsdorf interpreted tilatāra as a vocative. The author notes the ambiguity but suggests Pischel's interpretation of tilatāra as a genitive is plausible and supported by some scholars.
  • Verse 6 (Paramātma-prakāśa): Alsdorf's interpretation of joia as a vocative is contrasted with Pischel's view of it as a genitive. The author argues that joia can be a regular genitive form and that Pischel did not necessarily claim it was uninflected.
  • Verse 7 (Hemacandra IV. 383): Alsdorf claims gaya is part of a compound. The author objects that this would violate rules of compound formation by excluding syntactically connected words.

• Conclusion: The author concludes that attempts to deny the existence of the non-inflected genitive in Apabhramsa are attempts to disown established facts. The phenomenon is presented as a natural development, consistent with the analytical tendencies of the Aryan speech during its evolution. The author finds Alsdorf's arguments vulnerable and calls for a cautious scrutiny of his propositions in light of the presented evidence. The text strongly supports the view that Hemacandra's assertion about the non-inflected genitive is a well-founded observation of a genuine linguistic feature.