[paragraph continues] VI, 24, 3; VII, 6, 2; X, 74, 1  a. Need we wonder then if we find that, on the other hand, they allowed themselves to pronounce prĭthĭvî̄ as prĭ͡thĭ*vî̄, I, 191, 6; VII, 34, 7; 99, 3; dhri̅shnăvă as dhri̅shn̆͡avă*, V, 52, 14; sŭvâ̄nā as sŭ͡vâ̄*nā? There is no reason why we should change the spelling of sŭvâ̄nă into svâ̄nā. The metre itself tells us at once where suvâna is to be pronounced as two or as three syllables. Nor is it possible to believe that those who first handed down and afterwards wrote down the text of the Vedic hymns, should have been ignorant of that freedom of pronunciation. Why, there is not one single passage in the whole of the ninth Mandala, where, as far as I know, suvâna should not be pronounced as dissyllabic, i. e. as sŭ͡vâ̄*nā; and to suppose that the scholars of India did not know how that superfluous syllable should be removed, is really taking too low an estimate of men like Vyâli or Saunaka.

But if we once admit that in these cases two syllables separated by a single consonant were pronounced as one and were metrically counted as one, we can hardly resist the evidence in favour of a similar pronunciation in a large number of other words, and we shall find that by the admission of this rapid pronunciation, or of what in Plautus we should call irrational vowels, many verses assume at once their regular form without the necessity of admitting the suppression of final s, m, n, or the introduction of other prosodial licences. To my mind the most convincing passages are those where, as in the Atyashti and similar hymns, a poet repeats the same phrase twice, altering only one or two words, but without endeavouring to avoid an excess of syllables which, to our mind, unless we resort to synizesis, would completely destroy the uniformity of the metre. Thus we read:

I, 133, 6. ăpû̄rŭshāghnō͡ऽpră*tî̄tă sû̄ră sātvăbhīh,
                             trĭsāptaīh sû̄ră sātvăbhīh.

Here noऽpra must be pronounced with one ictus only, in order to get a complete agreement between the two iambic diameters.

I, 134, 5.

ūgrâ̄ ĭ͡shă*nāntă bhūrvănī,
ăpâ̄m ĭshāntă bhūrvănī.

As ishanta never occurs again, I suspect that the original reading was ishananta in both lines, and that in the second line ishananta, pronounced rapidly, was mistaken for ishanta. Is not bhurváni a locative, corresponding to the datives in vane which are so frequently used in the sense of infinitives? See note to I, 6, 8, page 47 seq. In I, 138, 3, we must read:

ăhēlămâ̄nă ŭ͡rŭ*sāmsă sărî̄ bhăvā,
             vâ̄gē-vâ̄gē sărî̄ bhăvā.

In I, 129, I I,

ădhâ̄ hĭ tvâ̄ gănĭtâ̄ gî̄gănād văsō,
               rākshōhă͡nā*m tvâ̄ gî̄gă͡nā*d văsō,