Page 184 - Lokmanya Tilak Samagra (khand 2)

APPENDIX 169
on the same principle ) ; or we may suppose that the change is in
accordance with general phonetic rule which sanctions the
omission of a gutteral before a liquid in such cases. But whichsoever
explanation we adopt, there is no question as to the change itself.
It must not, however, be supposed the rule is an uninflexible one,
and that a gutteral must always be dropped before a liquid; for we
find that gutteral in such cases is often either retained or labialised,
cf. Sk. gravan, 0. Jr. broo, bro, (gen. broon ), Cyrnr. breuan; Sk.
grtntimi, 0. Jr. gair. The proper rule to deduce from these
instances would therefore be, that gr in Sanskrit may be re-
presented by gr, br or r in Teutonic languages, and that all
the three changes are possible.
Can we not extend the rule to Greek and Sanskrit? -is the
next question we have to consider. I do not mean to deny that
there are phonetic rules which are not u'lliversally applicable to
all languages. But the present rule can be easily shewn not to belong
to this class. Prof. Max Miil1er has already extended it to Greek
and Latin and Vararuchi, in his Prakrita PrakAsha II. 2, lays down
that g in ga may be medially dropped as between Sanskrit and
Prakrit, e. g., Sk. sagara, Pk. sa-ara; Sk. nagara, Pk. na-ar, even-
tually corrupted, into nara as in Jun-nara and other names of cities.
This. is, in fact, the same rule which, when applied to Teutonic
languages, accounts for the change of segel into sail, nagel into
nai! and so on. Comparison of Avestic tigra with Mod. Per. t£r
shews tha:t a similar change may also take place between those
languages. We may, therefore, fairly say that the rule about the
omission of a gutteral before a liquid obtains not only in
Teutonic languages, but also between Greek and Latin, Latin
and French, Sanskrit and old Irish, Sanskrit and Prakrit, and
Avestic and Modern Persian. In the face of these facts it would,
I think, be unduly restricting the applicability of the phonetic
rule if we refuse to apply it to Sanskrit and Greek. There is at any
rate no a priori improbability in expecting that a similar change
may take place as· between Greek and Sanskrit. Let us now see if
there are any instances as between Greek and Sanskrit to support
su~to a conclusion. ·
Prof. Benfey compares Sk. gravan with Gk. laos (Lat. lapis);
and Sk. ghrlil}a. with Gk. ris, rinos. If this comparison is correct,
here at least we have two instances where .a gutteral before r in
Sanskrit is lost in Greek. It is sometimes labialised, as in Sk.