8/19/2019 On_AVP_4.15.6-7

1/8

  1

 JAS L, No. 4, 2008: 125-136On Paippalāda-SaÆhitā 4.15.6-7 _________________________________________  

Dipak Bhattacharya

1.IntroductoryThis note relates to A. GRIFFITHS/A. LUBOTSKY’s paper (2001/2002)1  ‘Paippalāda-

SaÆhitā 4.15 : To heal an open fracture with a plant’. An offprint of the paper was kindly presented to me by the authors. Prepared with thoroughness and care such papers withvaluable cultural information are to be welcomed for facilitating Paippalāda research based largely on the Asiatic Society edition.

GRIFFITHS  deals with the whole hymn in places disagreeing with my selections.Two such editorial decisions in the paper, apart from some morphological, metrical andgeneral problems, form the subject matter of the present note. They occur in the sixth andthe seventh verse of the hymn. Philological matters specific to the other verses in thehymn fall outside the scope of the present study that concerns itself mainly with thedetermination of the text of the said two verses and some linguistic and literary aspects.

Manuscript material: Five manuscripts have been used for the present note: K thatis the Śāradā  manuscript discovered by Roth and four Oriya script mss from thosediscovered by Durgamohan Bhattacharyya. As a group their sign is Or and individuallyVā, M1, M2 and J. The Orissa mss regularly show the end of hemistich by one da¸·a andmantra end by two as a rule. Most of them also have a pāda-marker. K is irregular. As arule it should show halfverse- and mantra-ends by one da¸·a or ‘z’ and hymn ends with‘ zz ’. But the mantra-end mark is often missed. There is no accent mark for the versesdiscussed. 

Presentaion: Below, apart from the edited text in Devnagari and variants inRoman, an ak Àara transliteration of the Orissa ms-reading too has been given for the sakeof convenience. The manuscripts are usually written in continuous script. The gaps between words in the transcript are mine. The ak Àaras have been (126)separated bymeans of a hyphen. The hyphen has not been inserted when a new word begins. Variantsare not indicated in the ak Àara transcript and rejected Or readings have been underlined.The hemistich final anusvāra has not been normalized. GRIFFITHS’ rendering follows theak Àara transliteration. 

Signs used:In the text: * means purely conjectural reconstruction without manuscript

support.+ means reconstruction with elements from the manuscripts or reconstruction based on manuscript trend.

In the list of variants: * means word or small cluster of ak Àaras; … ... means ‘Asin text’; + means addition by the scribe; →means a correction by the scribe. A semicolonthat occurs at the end of a transcription means that the script continues i.e. there is no endmarker after this.

2.The two verses

8/19/2019 On_AVP_4.15.6-7

2/8

  2

4.15.6 (1997 edition)ª ÉÊnù ´ÉXÉÉä ʴɺÉÞ¹]ºi´ÉÉ®ú EòÉ]õÉiÉ  {ÉÊiÉi´ÉÉ ªÉÊnù ´ÉÉ Ê´ÉÊ®ú¹]õ¨É *´ÉÞIÉÉuùÉ ªÉnù´ÉºÉqù¶É¶ÉÒ¹ÉÇ @ñ¦ÉÚ  ®úlɺªÉä́ É ºÉÆ nùvÉÉ欃 iÉä {ɯû&**

Ak Àara transliterationya-di va-jro vi-s¤-À¶a-stvā-ra k ā-¶ā| tpa-ti-tvā ya-di vā vi-ri-À¶aÆ| v¤-k Àā-dvā ya-da-va-sa-dda-śa-śī r- Àa| ri-bhū ra-tha-sye-va saÆ da-dhā-mi te pa-ru-Å||‘If a vajra that has been hurled has hit you, or if there is an injury due to falling into awell(?), or one that is there [due to falling] from a tree: the ten-headed one shall remove[it]. I put together your joint as Πbhu [the parts] of a chariot.’VariantsM2 misses the verse. K and M1 have no pāda-mark. K shows the half-verse end but notthe mantra-end.a K * * vis¤À¶āsthārak ā¶ātu; M1 * * vis¤À¶aÅ tvāra *; b K * * * variÀ¶aÆ|

cd K * yadivāvibhyasiśī r ÀarbhūritisaevaÆsandhāmi * *;c Or * ja(vā →ya)davasadda…;d Or ribhū…(AVŚ occasionally)                J … … sandadhāmi * *               

(127)GRIFFITHS  rightly states that the hymn ‘was meant to be used specifically toheal open fractures.’ The English assumes that there are five sequentially unrelatedsimple sentences in the verse, three dependent clauses and one principal clause forming acomplex in the first three pādas and one principal clause in the fourth. Also thedescription will make one infer that three types of injuries have been spoken of – onefrom lightning strike, one from falling into a well and one from falling from a tree. It will be attempted, among others in course of the discussion, to show that there is only one principal clause — the one in the fourth pāda — in the complex cum compound sentence

and that two injuries have been spoken of, no lightning strike having been meant.

The pāda by pāda analysis below has the following arrangement: transliteration ofthe 1997 text, GRIFFITHS’ rendering, comments

Pāda a yadi vajro vis ¤À¶a s tvāra k ā¶ āt 

| ‘If a vajra that has been hurled has hit you’ Both J and Vā put the pāda marker at the end of k ā¶ āt  as shown in the transcript.

But though metrically correct, this division is otherwise wrong. This can be proved. k ā¶ āt  is the first word of the second sentence (see Pāda b translation) and hence should belongto the second pāda. Secondly, without k ā¶ āt   the second pāda has nine ak Àaras  i.e.  two

ak Àaras short of a normal triÀ¶ubh pāda. Both point to the proper position k ā¶ āt   in thesecond pāda.How the error took place can be guessed.Stage one(provisional): When it was composed the first pāda, one normally

expects, was read without metrical defect. As such the final words should have been readtvā *aāra instead of as tvāra, the whole pāda reading yadi vajro vis ¤À¶a s tvā *aāra with aˇ ˇ ¯ ¯ | ˇ ¯ ¯ | ¯ ˇ ¯ ˇ division. The translation should be. ‘If the thunderbolt (when) loosenedhas moved to you’. This is an eleven syllable triÀ¶ubh with a trochaic cadence. We can go

8/19/2019 On_AVP_4.15.6-7

3/8

  3

 back to this original by applying the Pr ātiśākhya rules of recitation according to whichone can apply resolution called vyūha (Îkpr ātiśakhya 17.14/22-23, 8.22/40) orvikar Àa(ÎP 17.30-31/46-49) to arrive at the proper metre. This can be arrived at also byhistorical grammar. We shall come to this below.

(128)Stage two(provisional): In the next stage two syllables were lost in the

 process of sandhi,  tvā

  *aāra  being contracted to tv

āra  leaving the first p

āda with ninesyllables. This gives a defective triÀ¶ubh pāda. This was as the text was transmitted after

the currency of sandhi. The Îgveda is received by us in such a state. The Îkpr ātiśākhyastates that in such case one should get the proper metre by way of vyūha or vikar Àamentioned above. The ur-Paippalāda-SaÆhitā also should have stood so.

Without vyūha the division of our verse  is 9 11 11 13. This combination islacking in the triÀ¶ubh metres actually illustrated in the Îkpr ātiśākhya. It might still have been considered a triÀ¶ubh by the total number of ak Àaras2 that is 44. Also see below.

Final stage: received form in two Orissa manuscripts. The final stage is post-Vedic. In the post Vedic stage the Veda was put to writing perhaps in the early medievalage. At that time k ā¶ āt   was transferred to the first pāda to make it eleven syllabled.

Apparently this is the third correction in the text-history of the verse. But this gave adefective second pāda with nine syllables and a 11 9 11 13 division. It could still beconsidered a triÀ¶ubh by the total number of ak Àaras. We have got this stage in the twoOrissa mss. In the absence of any pāda-mark in K one cannot determine whether thisrepresents the K-Or archetype. But since there is no difficulty in restoring the metre byvyūha during svādhyāya, a trained reciter would not find the necessity of the unauthoriz- ed change. It is likely that this was effected much later when there was a decline in tradit- ion among the Orissa Paippalādins.

This post-Vedic and most probably local distortion is to be ignored if one wishesto go back to the original step by step. One should start from the second stage that is 9 1111 13. By restoring the lost two syllables of tvāra as tvā  aāra we get an 11 11 11 13division. Perhaps this could have been a variety of upajagat ī  in the midst of many jagat ī s.But here it is to be regarded as a triÀ¶ubh(RP.16.43/65).

 Now, it is not impossible that another authentic error had taken place within theVedic age that we cannot emend. The verse had been defective from the beginning. Infact the 11 11 11 13 division, that has been the first stage according to our way ofanalysis, was something like a one-and-half stage in the development of the  pādadivision. That we shall revert to after interpreting the first pāda.

First, the resolution of tvāra. GRIFFITHS  resolves tvāra  into t uvā āra  showing thesupposedly original phonemes in subscript. This resolution leaves us with an irregularnon-trochaic ˇ ¯ ¯ ˇ cadence while trochees would have been proper in a triÀ¶ubh pāda.

(129)As is well-known and also told above, a triÀ¶ubh pāda can be arrived at by both the Îkpr ātiśākhya and historical grammar. In the present case however, theÎkpr ātiśākhya cannot be of help in determining the exact original form. It (17.14/22-23)speaks of the resolution of k Àaipra sandhis by replacement of similar vowels(vyavāya)and of praśliÀ¶a sandhis by breaking the coalesced vowels into two(vyūha). By thistechnique one may get either tuvā āra  breaking a k Àaipra as GRIFFITHS  has done or tvā aāra  by way of vyūha that is arrived at also by historical grammar. So the RP advicecannot specify the exact technique to be adopted and exact form to be arrived at in ourcase. So, if we have at all to arrive at the original form it is advisable to follow historical

8/19/2019 On_AVP_4.15.6-7

4/8

  4

grammar and to resolve, as far as possible, into grammatically plausible forms, attestedor hypothetical, without taking resort to arbitrariness.

 Now, since there must have been a laryngeal at the beginning, the Indo-Iranianroot in its full-grade form should have been *Har 3 and the perfect 3/1 form should havestood as *HaHāra  that will be inherited as aāra the laryngeal being subsequently lost.

We expect the same in the initial stage of the mantra when the reading stood as tvā a

āra. This will give an eleven-syllable triÀ¶ubh with a trochaic cadence. I think the metrical

resolution of the first pāda will be more reasonable with this tvā aāra than with t uvāāra.In the rendering ‘If a vajra that has been hurled has hit you’ the original word

vajra has been retained. by GRIFFITHS. But that might mean the mythical thunderbolt ofIndra. The addressee who is being attended to cannot be an object of Indra’s wrath. Thenatural thunderbolt seems to have been meant here. A direct strike in that case will causedeath. So the context demands that the man is in a state of threat and tvā( ā )ra  is bettertranslated as ‘has moved towards you’ or ‘is in your direction’ than as ‘has hit you’4. Thiswill be in consonance with the subsequent statements in the verse(below).

There may be objection against this analysis that the laryngeals could not be very

much a living phenomenon at the time of the composition of the Atharvaveda. That istrue. But here only traces have been spoken of. The existence of a hiatus does not meanthe existence of the vanished consonant that caused the hiatus. There are many examplesof this. In the manuscripts one finds v ¤kyàm  and mártyas  but the metre in both casesdemand that we read v ¤kíam (RV 10.127.6) or mártias (RV 1.36.4). It is also acceptedthat these hiatuses were caused by lost laryngeals (BURROW The Sanskrit Language1955:86-87)

Restored to its original the first pāda stands as  yadi vajro (130)vis ¤ À¶ as tvā aāra‘If a thunderbolt being loosened has moved to you.’ As yet the man has not been hurt.

4.15.5b k ā¶ āt patitvā  yadi vā  viri À¶ am  GRIFFITHS  emends k ā¶ āt   to k ā¶ am andtranslates ‘or if there is an injury due to falling into a well(?),’. The emendation of k ā¶ āt  

to k ā¶ 

am has no manuscript support and has been made on the basis of a parallel but quitedifferent verse that is AVŚ  4.12.7:  yádi kartá Æ  patitvā́  sa Æ śa śré yádi vā́ śmā  pra ́h ¤to jaghā́na etc. This verse has problem of text and syntax. Almost all the manuscripts bothof the SaÆhitā and the Pada read kár (t )tum/  Æ. But the editors preferred kartá Æ. The root√ pat   is intransitive. In sentences like  yádi kartá Æ  patitvā́  sa Æ śa śré the verb  patitvā́ should not be normally construed with an accusative. In spite of that WHITNEY  (HOS1905) translates ‘If, falling into a pit, he hath been crushed’. The sentence ‘If, falling intoa pit,’ should be expressed in Sanskrit as  yadi kartre patitvā, the accusative beingmeaningless. Obviously WHITNEY  has taken this to be a syntactical aberration. It is notclear why WHITNEY who selected the reading following Sāya¸a did not follow Sāya¸a’sexplanation where kartám has been taken as the agent of the verb with the nominativecase-ending. According to Sāya¸a the sentence should mean ‘If a sharp instrument hascrushed him(after)falling (upon him)’.Perhaps, deep distrust of the ability of thecommentator(see Lanman’s remarks in WHITNEY1905: lxvii) led WHITNEY  to an unusualtranslation.

A note should be added on the occurrence of the accusative with √ pat . As noted inthe Pā¸inian system(P.2.3.5) this may occur to express the special sense of extent of timeor space. AVŚ  13.2.38 reads hárer ha Æ sásya pátata Å  svargám. WHITNEY  translates ‘ofthe yellow swan flying to heaven.’, but the extent of the flight in heaven is meant by the

8/19/2019 On_AVP_4.15.6-7

5/8

  5

accusative. This is inferable from the previous verse where the phrase divás p ¤À¶ hédhā́vamāna Æ supar  ¸ám ‘To the eagle running on the back of the sky’(WHITNEY) occursto mean the same flight. In vs.38 too ‘about’ or ‘through heaven’ is meant. In our versethis meaning of ‘extent’ is not suitable for a pit.

There are other points too. GRIFFITHS  argues that kartám  is an instance of the

hyper-Sanskritisation of k ā¶ am. This means that the AV

Ś verse is later. Now, should wearrive at an AVP reading after what was, according to the authors, an improvement upon

it? At least for this verse the AVŚ is not a reliable authority to depend upon. Also if theAVP had *k ā¶ am the supposed change to (131)k ā¶ āt in Or and to k ā¶ ātu in K cannot beexplained. GRIFFITHS assumes that this apprehends ‘the ablative v ¤k  Àād  in the next pāda.’But one ends with a surd and the other with its voiced form; also they are distant. Itshould be admitted that such a distant recitational apprehension of a solitary, partlydissimilar structure, intervened by a whole pāda with its full pause, will hardly effect a jingle. The case is weak at least. So instead of a drastic emendation just to suit one’s purpose one should give consideration to other possibilities that will be concomitant withremaining faithful to the manuscript reading.

To solve the enigma of k ā¶ āt  one should first ask oneself ‘Why this k 

ā¶ āt ?’.k 

ā¶ e would have been syntactically and semantically the most suitable word. It would have

made a triÀ¶ubh too. Cf. RV 1.106.6b k ā¶ é níbā ½ ha  ¤ ́ Àir ahvad ūtáye. So it seems there issome compulsion with the final -āt . Since k ā¶ āt  does not sound good the stubborn final-āt  can only mean that the intended meaning is k ā¶ a(

8/19/2019 On_AVP_4.15.6-7

6/8

  6

4.15.5c v ¤k  Àād vā  yad avasad da śa śī rsa(  Å )  ‘or one that is there[due to falling]from a tree: the ten headed one shall remove [it].’

On avasad  GRIFFITHS notes, “avasad is a root aor.subj. of ava-sā  ‘to harness, toremove’:cf.ÎV 6.74.3 sómārudr ā yuvám et ā́ny asmé ví  śvā tanū́ Àu bhe Àajā́ni dhattam/ áva syata Æ muñcáta Æ yán no ásti tanū́ Àu baddhá Æ k  ¤tám éno asmát // ” The authors are right

when they see the root ava-sā

 in avasad , but how they discover the subjunctive mood isnot clear. The subj. mood will require the normal grade vowel of the root in the stem,which here will be  sā (* saH) giving the form avasād . The subj. augment too cannot beavoided giving the structure *ava-saH-ad . That means we cannot avoid avasād  by anymeans. Not even with a root aorist injunctive that will require at least the stem in full-grade and with the final laryngeal a lengthening will take place. So the form avasād  cannot be avoided even in that case. Obviously, in avasad   the stem is in weak gradewhile the pre-ending -a- belongs to the thematic stem. That is possible only with a-aoristthat usually has the weak stem. Since there is no augment after ava we have to admit theexistence of an a-aorist injunctive from a hypothetical ava-sHa-d .

The injunctive sāt  has been noted by HOFFMANN (1967:173) without an analysis of

the form. That strong form would have been better here too. avasad  is not known to mefrom any other source. The injunctive mood, however, is suited to the context. Atranslation of the first three pādas according to the intent and style of the verse will makethat clear: ‘If a thunderbolt, loosened, has moved towards you, and then falling into a pitif there is injury, or (by falling)from a tree(there is injury), that the ten headed genie hasrelieved,.. ’ There is a pause after vrk  Àād vā making the statement of the two causes forinjury complete. The remaining part of the third pāda states the care received from a tenheaded genie. This (133)is not a prayer or wish as in subjunctive, but the statement of some prior supernatural attention already received by the man and that facilitates the impendingtreatment for joining the fractured limb.  yad coming next to vrk  Àād vā  relates the twoinjuries to that protection by the genie. The whole hymn is a prayer for cure of fracture.Two situations are envisaged as the cause for injury with indications that it is fracture.The causes have been stated step by step. Finally(4th pāda below) a general prayer forcure of injuries irrespective of cause is made. This means there is no report of events here but just statements of situations facilitating the employment of the verse in differentindividual cases. This gives rise to two ‘if’( yadi)s in the verse. Now HOFFMANN’s(1967:218) definition of injunctive according to which an injunctive states events thathappened in the past but whose effect continues is perfectly suitable to the deed of thegenie. Then it is not that the genie ‘shall remove’ but he ‘has relieved’ the patient from pain or some symptoms.

4.15.6d  ¤bhū rathasyeva sa Æ dadhāmi te paru Å ‘I put together your joint as Πbhu[the parts] of a chariot.’

GRIFFITHS draws attention to the absence of a caesura and the jagat ī  cadence. Notethat if we had restored *k ā¶ a āt * etc. in the second pāda another disturbed caesura wouldhave featured the verse.

The translation finally should stand as: ‘If a thunderbolt, loosened, has movedtowards you, and then falling into a pit if there is injury, or (by falling)from a tree (thereis injury), that the ten headed genie has relieved, I put together your joint as Πbhu [the parts] of a chariot.’

8/19/2019 On_AVP_4.15.6-7

7/8

  7

Verse 2  =Êkɹ` |Éäʽþ ºÉʨÉvÉÉªÉ iÉä {ɯû: ºÉÆ iÉä vÉÉiÉÉ nùvÉÉiÉÖ iÉx´ÉÉä Ê´ÉÊ®ú¹]õ¨É * ®úlÉ: ºÉÖ SÉGò: ºÉÖ {ÉʴɪÉÇlÉè ÊiÉ ºÉÖJÉ: ºÉÖ xÉÉʦÉ: |ÉÊiÉÊiɹ`ö B´É¨É **

Aksara transliterationu-tti-À¶ha pre-hi sa-mi-dhā-ya te pa-ru-Å| saÆ-te dhā-tā  tan-vo vi-ri-À¶aÆ| ra-thaÅ 

su-ca-kra-Å su-pa-vi-rya-thai-ti| su-kha-Å su-nā-bhi-Å pra-ti ti-À¶ha e-vaÆ||(134)‘Stand up, go forth, your joint has been put together. Let Dhātar put together

the injury of your body. Be steady in this way, as a chariot goes with good wheels, withgood felloes, with good axe-holes, with good naves.’

VariantsK * * samudhāhi … tanno viriÀ¶āÆ rathasya cakrappyupavar yathairyathaiti

sukhasyanā bhiÀ…; b Or san te…| Vā variÀ¶aÆ| d Vā sukha(+Å)sya(→su)… || Ja sukha(+Å)syunā…||M2 misses up to supavi in c.

a ut ti À¶ ha prehi samidhā ya te paru Å ‘Stand up, go forth, your joint has been puttogether’.

This translation is based on an unsupported emendation samadhā yi by the authors.It is true that samidhā ya of the edited text cannot stand as a correct or authentic reading.But the reading occurs in the mss available to the editor. It was the responsibility of the present author to see that the reading is underlined to indicate its unauthentic/ erroneouscharacter. Unfortunately in quite a few places the underline has been missed in print.

The emendation in samadhā yi, however, has no defence for it. As in the previousverse a solution has been sought not in the readings transmitted in two different traditions but in conjectures that are arbitrary. GRIFFITHS has some additional ms readings from twomanuscripts that read  samidhā yi and  samidhāmi. The final -i- is confirmed by K too, sothat it stands. Also GRIFFITHS rightly observes that K’s final – hi instead of –  yi is typical ofK. The last two ak Àaras then are – dhā yi. But there is no trace of a preterite augment asconjectured by GRIFFITHS. K has samu- while Or has sami- and none has sama-. GRIFFITHS defends the emendation, ‘The emendation to sam *adhā yi is the more obvious in view ofthe persistent theme  sa Æ dhā throughout the hymn.’ What is missed is that one does notmiss the theme  sa Æ  dhā  when the reconstruction is  sam u dhā yi  that requires noextraneous element. The emendation is objectionable not only because it is an unfoundedconjecture but also because the manuscripts themselves offer a solution. K has u after sam  and before dhāhi. This may stand giving  sam u dhā yi. The passive root-aorist

injunctive suits the statement. The aorist-injunctive is different from the aorist-indicativein that while the latter means a statement of event that is not a long past  (135)without refer - ence to its present effect while the former states the event and means the continuity of itseffect (HOFFMANN; see above). We have such a case here. The man has been cured, so hemay get up and walk

The pāda then is to be read ut ti À¶ ha prehi sam u dhā yi te paru Å  ‘Stand up, goforth, your joint is, indeed, put together’.

There is no comment to make on the translation of the remaining part of the verse.

8/19/2019 On_AVP_4.15.6-7

8/8

  8

 * * *

All said, the merit of the paper is not denied. The purpose here has been just to bring home the necessity of facing the uniform elements in the manuscripts as they arewithout random arbitrary emendations. There has been an encouraging trend of growingPaippalāda research. Perhaps the obscurity of the text has encouraged also an undesirable

trend of taking recourse to arbitrary emendation. The manuscript readings weremeticulously recorded in the Asiatic Society edition in a way it had not been done previously. The impetus came from the following lines of HOFFMANN (1968:4) ‘… if areading is common to both (=K and Or), we have, at the very least, an old reading, andwe may even maintain, that we have an AUTHENTIC reading of the Paippalāda-Śākhā…Consequently, if we have a reading common to both branches of transmission, we areobliged to regard it as authentic and to face this fact.’ Both this golden advice and thelabour spent on building up the critical apparatus go in vain when they are neglected inexegesis.  

References

1  Die Sprache, Harrassovitz Verlag 42.1/2 2000/2001 pp.196-210. See Bibliography. The two namesappear in the given order. For the sake of brevity in referring to the authors the term ‘GRIFFITHS’ has beenused to mean them jointly.2  Cf. ak  Àar ā   ̧y eva sarvatra nimitta Æ balavattaram/ RP 17.133  Roman uppercase H means any laryngeal in this paper. In quotations (e.g. below) the sign used by theauthor concerned has been shown.4 A note on K ÜMMEL’s (2000: 101) remark “Zwar konnte die Wurzel √h3or  ‘sich in bewegung setzen’ (…)grundsprachlich ein Perfekt ‘in Bewegung sein’ bilden, …” will not be irrelevant here. K ÜMMEL’s noteconcerns his belief in the narrative-reporting nature of the available perfects of √ar  in the Îgveda where

 just non-reporting statements of conditions were expected. Of the latter the AVP seems to give an examplehere.

(136)Select Bibliography 

Well-known publications are excluded

GRIFFITHS, Arlo /LUBOTSKY, Alexander/ ‘Paippalāda SaÆhitā 4.15 To heal an open fracturewith a plant’ Die Sprache: Zeischrift für Sprachwissenschaft  Band 42·Heft 1/2, 2000/01,Teil II, Wiener Sprachgesellschaft, Harrassowitz Verlag. Pp.196-210

BHATTACHARYA  Dipak The Paippal āda-Sa Æhit ā  of the Atharvaveda  Bibliotheca IndicaSeries No.318, Asiatic Society, Calcutta, 1997.

HOFFMANN, Karl 1967  DER INJUNCTIV IM VEDA  Carl Winter· Universitätsverlag,Heidelberg… … 1968 ‘Remarks on the new edition of the Paippalāda-SaÆhitā’ IIJ 11, 1-10 

K ÜMMEL, M.J. 2000 Das Perfekt im Indoiranischen  Rechert Verlag Wiesbaden240109on telephone