No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 December 2009
In his recently published Sīgiri graffiti (London, etc., Oxford University Press, 1956), Dr. S. Paranavitana, the Archaeological Commissioner of Ceylon, includes a long introductory section (Vol. I, pp. xxxii-clxxi) entitled ‘Grammar’, wherein he makes a large number of alterations to the previously held theories on the Sinhalese language which are principally to be found in the late Professor W. Geiger's Grammar of the Sinhalese language (Colombo, 1938).
page 483 note 1 More than one explanation can thus be provided for some changes; e.g. däduru for Skt. jarjjara, p. xlii, for Skt. darddura, p. xliii.
page 483 note 2 Turner, R.L., ‘Middle Indian -ḍ- and -ḍḍ-’, Beiträge zur Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte Indiens, 1926, 34–45.Google Scholar
page 485 note 1 Whether sirit and virit belong here is uncertain; it is not clear why they should be connected with cāritta, etc., rather than with caritta, etc.
page 485 note 2 With regard to verbal forms such as danimi ‘I know’ (§ 229), grammarians allow a first personal ending -ami, e.g. Vararuci 7.30.
page 486 note 1 paca, vaci, marica, kavaca, ruci, rucira.
page 486 note 2 cf. tuti (thuti), adara (ādhāra).