Some Numerical Vocables in Prakrit
By S. N. Ghosal
Summary
Some Numerical Vocables in Prakrit is a linguistic inquiry into the etymology and phonetic development of certain Prakrit numerals. The author critiques Hemacandra’s grammatical sūtras dealing with forms like vimsati and its derivatives and argues that Hemacandra fails to relate nasal elision with vowel lengthening. Drawing on Pischel’s observations in his Grammatik, the paper suggests that the lengthening of the vowel in forms such as vīsa results from the loss of the final consonant rather than the annexation of a feminine suffix. Examples from Epic Sanskrit and dialectal forms illustrate how dialectal simplification replaced a pluti (long vowel) by anusvara or lengthened vowel. The author analyses alternate forms recorded in Apabhramsha and Prakrit sources, noting that changes in conjugation and the dropping of consonantal endings follow identifiable phonetic patterns. By comparing cognate forms across Middle Indo‑Aryan languages, the study shows that the shortening of final syllables and the substitution of nasal endings were not arbitrary but reflected systematic tendencies toward simplification. The discussion extends to the decline of certain endings and the emergence of contracted forms, emphasising that Prakrit preserved older linguistic stages while simultaneously innovating. The paper argues that a thorough understanding of numerical words in Prakrit requires attention to both phonetic environment and morphological analogy, as well as to the influence of dialects and scribal practices. Overall, the investigation sheds light on the dynamic relationship between Sanskrit and Middle Indo‑Aryan numerals and illustrates how careful philological analysis can resolve apparent irregularities.
Conclusion
The article concludes that many seemingly irregular Prakrit numerals can be explained by consistent phonetic and morphological processes. Loss of final consonants, resulting vowel lengthening and dialect‑specific simplifications account for forms that earlier scholars considered aberrant. Recognising these patterns enhances our understanding of the transition from Sanskrit to Middle Indo‑Aryan and underscores the value of comparative philology.