On an intended Prakrit Dictionary.
By Dr. Lnigl Snali.
Shankar Pandurang Pandit, in the Critical Note prefixed to
his edition of the Oaudavaho (p. IX), says: "I have added an
index verborum at the end of the book which I trust . . . will
serve as an humble contribution towards the compilation of a
h Prakrit Dictionary, which it is much to be wished some scholar
may, as soon as materials are available, undertake, as the want of
such a work is keenly felt by all students of Präkpt". We might
repeat also to-day and with more reason nearly all the words of
the Indian scholar, .because the work of the twenty-five years which
10 have elapsed since the publication of the Oaudavaho , makes still
more keenly felt the want of a book, which should collect what
has been done till now in the field of Prakrit lexicography. We cannot, therefore, lament enougji the death of R. Pischel, who could have given us, after the Grammar, also the Dictionary of Prakrit languages.
15 There is nobody perhaps who, being engaged on the publi¬
cation of a Prakrit text, has not experienced how much time is
lost in looking for a lexical item in no small number of glossaries, and who has not felt how speadily and safely research would proceed,
if the disiecta membra were organized into one body. I experienced
20 myself this unpleasant state of things when I set to study the
MSS. for my edition of the Thänangasutta , which is now in the
press, and it was at that time that I began to think of compiling
a Prakfit Dictionary. Shortly after, the Jainas, who know how to
bring together religious interests and scientific purposes , debated
25 the question of the composition of a Prakrit Dictionary in their
(^vetämbara) Conference at Bhavnagar in 1908. They asked the
opinion of Geheimrat Prof. H. Jacobi, who advised them to blend
together and re-elaborate in the'form of a Dictionary the glossaries
which now exist, and to entrust a European scholar with the per-
30 formance of the work. He was pleased to honour me by suggesting
my name, for which I here publicly thank him.
But the difficulty of such an enterprise , which had always
seemed great to me, appeared even greater when I began to carry
it into execution. I know very well indeed that against the com-
85 pilation of a Prakrit Dictionary two preliminary objections can be
t, g
SuaU, On an intended Prakrit Dictionary. 545
raised. Is the amount of available materials sufficient to allow
the composition of a truly useful Dictionary; and does the way
in which they have been edited permit to use them safely? Both
these objections are shadowed forth in the above quoted words of
Sh. Pandurang Pandit, when he says that such a work must be 6
attempted *as soon as materials are available". But during the
twenty-five years which elapsed since the publication of the Oauda¬
vaho, not only new texts have been issued, but the lexical materials
which had been in existence till 1900 have undergone in Pischel's
Grammatik der Prakrit-Sprachen such a critical elaboration, that lo
not only many questions have been settled , but also the way to
settle others has been pointed out. Besides, there is an argument
which had with me strenght enough to determine me to undertake
this task. In the field of Prakrit studies we are beset by con¬
flicting difficulties out of which there seems to be no way: on is
one hand we think that critical editions of the texts and a large
amount of materials are indispensable to the compiler of the
Dictionary; on the other hand we feel the want of the Dictionary
as a subsidy to the interpretation and study 'of the texts. And
then we may ask: when may we think to have reached all the «o
conditions which are practically necessary and sufficient for the
composition of the Dictionary?
I think that in order to answer this question one must
remember that no dictionary can be a conclusive work: we can
observe this also in the field of Sanskrit philology, if we compare ss
the two redactions of the PW. and the second of them with the
Dictionary of Apte. The enterprise seems possible for the Prakrit,
when we consider it from a relative point of view ; and I have
dared therefore to undertake it, being aware that mine will be
only a first Prakrit Dictionary, which, gathering together and duly so
arranging what has been done till to-day will serve as a foundation
and starting-point for a successive redaction. Should my work
meet the wants of scholars for twenty or thirty years, I should
feel as if I had rendered to our studies a very useful service. I
must add , to answer the first of the two objections stated before, ss
that a variety of texts much more than a great number of them
is of importance for the composition of a Dictionary. Portunately,
the Prakrit texts which are available are sufficiently numerous as
well as varied in contents. But these considerations can and must
have only a relative value : what matters is to get out of the texts 40
that we take as our groundwork as much as they can yield.
The materials which are to be elaborated for this Dictionary
are given in the introduction to Pischel's Gramm, d. Pr.-Spr. and
it is useless to review them here : we must, of course, add to them
what has been published from 1900 to the present day and what 45
will be issued while the Dictionary is in preparation. Besides the
inscriptions (of which we must examine only those to which we
can attribute safely enough a präkrit character and in which we
can recognize a sufficiently exact dialectical form), the literary
materials can be divided into three chief groups: 1. Sattasai,
Setubandha, Gaudavaho, and Vajjcdagga (which is being published) ;
e 2. dramatic" literature; 3. Jaina literature. The first three texts
have been very well edited and both the glossaries which accompany
them and the critical literature to which they have given origin
make their lexical exploitation easier. As to the dramas, it is but
too true that only few of them {Sakuntala, Karpüramanjart,
10 Malatimsdhava, Mfcchakafikä, VikramorvaJi, Ratnävali, Mudrä-
räksasa) have been published in critical editions, while others on
the contrary are, in their präkrit parts, a field still open to criti¬
cism. This will certainly be one of the most difficult parts of
my enterprise, because notwithstanding the many emendations that
16 are in Pischel's Grammar, there are still too many particular points
to settle, and even a comparison between the different editions does
not always help towards a solution. It would be necessary to
revise critically on the MSS. most of the existing editions of dramas :
for the present I must confine myself to resort to those editions
»0 which are trustworthy, relying, for the others, on the emendations
which are in Pischel's Grammar and using them with the greatest
caution and discretion. The third group now remains , formed by
the Jaina literature , which gives the largest contribution to our
knowledge of Jaina Mähärästri and ArdhamägadhI , to the latter
85 especially with the Övetämbara Canon. True it is that only few
of its texts have been till now critically edited ; but these editions
are excellent, and, on the other hand, we may hope that before many
years have passed, all or nearly all the canonical books will be made accessible to the scholars in trustworthy editions, as a few years ago a
30 Committee of Jainas was appointed in Ahmedabad for the purpose of
publishing the whole Siddhwnta with the help of European scholars.
But even if we confine ourselves to the existing literary
materials and choose among them only those which are critically
sound, they are sufficient to justify the composition of a Präkrit
36 Dictionary, all the more as we must add to them the grammatical
and lexical Indian production, or at least that part of it which is
such as to meet the requirements of scientific criticism.
The Dictionary cannot be but a Dictionary of the Präkfits,
that is to say, it must include the diflFerent dialects keeping them
40 distinguished as much as possible from one another. On this head
we might raise the question whether it would not be better to
make a separate Dictionary for each dialect; I think, however,
that we can blend them together into one work adopting the two
following leading principles: 1. for each word which has forms
46 phonetically different in the different dialects, the Dictionary shall
give as many entries as the forms of the word may be; 2. when a
word admits of declination or conjugation, the criterion of difference
Suali, On an intended Prakrit Dictionary. 547
shall be given by the tematic or radical part. In both cases the
entry shall be followed by the necessary remarks, in order to
establish in which dialects it appears and by the references to the
other dialectical forms of the same word.
As to verbs, I shall keep to the method followed by R. Hoernle 5
in the glossary of the Uväsagadasäo , that is I shall enter each
compound in its alphabetic place, instead of collecting them all
under their root. I choose as fundamental form the S"* pers. of
pres. ind. act. The diflFerent forms of the same verb shall be found
all collected under this; only those which are phonetically more 10
disfigured shall be found at their alphabetic place with the necessary
references. This way has already been pointed out for me by
R. Hoernle (Üväsagadasäö) and H. Jacobi (Ausg. Erz. in Mähä¬
rästri); but I shall follow this method with full consistency.
R. Hoernle, e. g., gives pavvaiya and pavvaya as two distinguished 15
entries (üväs. I, p. 214), while the first must be placed under the
second as Prof. Jacobi does {Ausg. Erz., s. v.pavvayai). On the other hand. Prof. Jacobi distinguished pavisai and pavesei, while, according to my principle, the second shall appear as causative under pavisai.
In a work of this kind one can fix a priori very general 20
principles only: questions concerning details must be settled during
the execution, and I do not think it impossible that •?ven in applying
the few general principles I have now formulated, I may be com¬
pelled by necessities of a practical order to make some alterations.
But in any case I intend to examine thoroughly from a purely 25
linguistic as well as from a literai-y point of view the materials
which now exist and those which may be published during the
composition of the work. Therefore, though in my intention the
Dictionary has not to take the place of the Grammar, each entry
or form shall give all the essential data concerning iho history of so
the word in question ; the corresponding Sanskrit word ; references, if the case may be, to other similar dialectic forms, and as complete a Semasiologie analysis as possible.
As the largest contribution of texts to this work is given by
Jaina literature, the Dictionary may for this reason be a useful S6
collection of literary materials. Indeed I intend to gather under
each item , be it a proper name or a technical term , all the
passages which in some way may concern mythology, the Church,
historical or legendary characters, the religion and philosophy of
the Jainas. This, after all , is in great part a consequence of the 40
work I must do for my Semasiologie studies, and if the book,
besides being a Prakrit Dictionary, is in some way a Jaina KoSa,
I think that nobody will be the worse for it.
The Dictionary shall be written in English, the lingua franca
of Indian philology. 45
To conclude, I insist once more on two things : firstly, I think
that the materials for a first attempt of this kind are sufficient
4 0*
and that the interest of scholars requires that such an attempt
should be made ; secondly, I am aware that my Dictionary , when
finished (if my strenghth does not fail me before this hard task
is completed) will represent only the first redaction of the Präkfit
5 Dictionary. But if I think (with these words I do not meet to
call for comparison) how much palic studies have benefited by the
Dictionary of Childers, which now is being recast and which was
made with fewer materials than those which are at our disposal for
Präkrit, I feel more and more determined to go on with my enterprise.
10 With these few pages I aim not only at stating some general
principles, but also at establishing a right of priority in this field.
With this, I think to conform to what is the custom of scientists
under like circumstances.
Es sei mir gestattet , im Anschluß an vorstehenden Artikel
15 meine Genugtuung darüber auszusprechen , daß Dr. Suaü , der mit
der Herausgabe des Sthänängasütra beschäftigt ist und sich durch
eine Reihe von Publikationen auf dem Gebiete der Philosophie, des
Jainismus etc., als eifrigen Förderer der indischen Studien in Italien
erwiesen hat, die Ausarbeitung eines Prakrit- Wörterbuches in die
20 Hand nehmen will. Zwar für ein Definitivum ist , wie Dr. Suali
richtig hervorhebt, die Zeit noch nicht reif : das wird Aufgabe einer
späteren Generation sein ; aber es ist dringend nötig, daß die zahl¬
reichen Vorarbeiten zusammengefaßt und das zugängliche Material
lexikalisch bearbeitet werde. Dann wird es geringere Mühe kosten,
26 alles neuhinzukommende dem bereits registrierten Wortschatz als
Nachtrag für spätere Bearbeitung einzufügen. Jetzt liegt die Sache
für den Herausgeber von Prakrittexten so, daß er ein vollständiges
Glossar, zu jedem Text ein Spezialwörterbuch ausarbeiten oder über¬
haupt auf die lexikalische Ausbeutung seines Textes verzichten muß.
30 Wenn man aber bedenkt, daß jeder neue Text weit über dreiviertel
des Wortschatzes mit den bereits edierten Texten gemeinsam hat,
so begreift man, daß der Herausgeber desselben nur mit Unlust
an die Herstellung des Glossars denkt. Ist dagegen der Grundstock
der Sprache erst einmal festgelegt, so wird es jedem Herausgeber
35 ein Leichtes sein, aus seinem Texte neue Wörter, Formen, Be¬
deutungen und Phrasen zusammenzustellen. Ich spreche aus Er¬
fahrung, da ich mit der Herausgabe der Samaräiccakahä (10 250
Granthas) und des Paumacariya (8744 Gäthäs) beschäftigt bin.
Welchen Nutzen würde mir dabei ein Prakrit- Wörterbuch gewährt
40 haben und wie leicht hätte ich diese großen Texte für dasselbe
verwerten können ! Ob ich aber zu ihnen SpezialWörterbücher an¬
zulegen Kraft nnd Zeit habe, steht noch dahin. — So begrüße ich
Dr. Suali's Unternehmen in der sicheren Überzeugung, daß dadurch
ein lang entbehrtes Hilfsmittel für den Indologen und Sprach-
45 forscher, ein mächtiger Hebel zur Förderung der Prakritstudien
geschaffen werden wird. Hermann Jacobi.
4 0 *
549
Die türkisch-mongolische Hypothese.
Von Julius M^meth.
In seinem Artikel „Türkische Lautgesetze" (Bd. 57, S. 535—561
dieser Zeitschr.) spricht HolgerPedersen, der eifrige Anhänger
der indogermanisch-semitischen Sprachverwandtschaft, auf S. 560
die Vermutung aus, daß „sehr viele Sprachstämme in Asien zweifel¬
los mit dem Indogermanischen verwandt seien" ; er fügt noch hinzu : 5
„vielleicht gilt das für alle diejenigen Sprachen, die man als ural-
altaisch bezeichnet hat". Wie aus jenen Worten ersichtlich, ist
dabei die Ansicht über die verwandtschaftliche Zusammengehörigkeit
der türkisch-mongolischen*) Sprachengruppe (= altaisch), ja sogar
die der uralischen und türkisch-mongolischen Sprachen so allgemein lo
angenommen, daß Pedersen nicht verabsäumt den Gedanken weiter¬
zuführen, um zu einer so wichtigen Aussage zu gelangen.
Im Folgenden gedenke ich, die bisherigen Ergebnisse der
Forschung aus diesem Gesichtspunkte zusammenfassend, nachzuweisen,
daß die Annahme der geschichtlichen Verwandtschaft der türkischen is
Sprachen mit den mongolischen — und besonders die Zusammen¬
gehörigkeit der uralischen und türkisch-mongolischen — bei der
jetzigen Lage der Forschung als wissenschaftlich durchaus un-
iDcgründet und mithin unberechtigt sein dürfte.
Die uns zur Verfügung stehende Literatur ist so dürftig, daß 20
wir (ohne die historische Entwicklung der Forschung berühren zu
wollen) bei einer durchgreifenden, wenn auch skizzenhaften Behand¬
lung der Frage nicht umhin können bis auf die Zeit von Wilhelm
Schott zurückzugehen, da manche Fragen seitdem nicht einmal
berührt worden sind. Der hauptsächlichste Grund, der zuerst die 25
Verwandtschaft dieser „tatarischen" oder „hochasiatischen" Sprachen
in einer etwas wissenschaftlicheren Form annehmen ließ , war der,
daß die Gelehrten das Indogermanische und das Semitische gewisser-
1) Zur Terminologie: türkiscli-mongolisch = türkisch, mongolisch, mandschuisch, tungusisch; m and s ch u-m 0 ngo li sc h — mandschuisch, tungu- sisch, mongolisch. — Einteilung der türkischen Sprachen: 1. Tschuwaschisch.
2. Jakutisch. 3. alle übrigen Dialekte werden unter dem Namen „gemeintürkisch*
zusammengefaßt.
ZeitBohrift der D. M. G. Bd. LXVI. 37
