Secondly, I believe it can be proved that, if not the authors of the Prâtisâkhya, those at least who constituted Shortening of long vowels.the Vedic text which was current in the ancient schools and which we now have before us, were fully aware that certain long vowels and diphthongs could be used as short. The authors of the Prâtisâkhya remark that certain changes which can take place before a short syllable only, take place likewise before the word no, although the vowel of this 'no' is by them supposed to be long. After having stated in Sûtra 523 that the eighth syllable of hendecasyllabics and dodecasyllabics, if short, is lengthened, provided a short syllable

p. lxxxiii

follows, they remark that for this purpose nah or no is treated as a short syllable:

X, 59, 4. dyŭ-bhīh hĭtāh gărĭmâ̄ sŭ nă̂h āstū, (Samh. sû no astu.)

Again, in stating that the tenth syllable of hendecasyllabics and dodecasyllabics, if short, is lengthened, provided a short syllable follows, the same exception is understood to be made in favour of nah or no, as a short syllable:

VII, 48, 4. nŭ dēvâ̄sāh vărĭvāh kārtănă nāh, (Samh. kārtănâ̄ nŏ, bhûta no, &c.)

With regard to e being shortened before a short a where, according to rule, the a should be elided, we actually find that the Samhitâ gives a instead of e in RV. VIII, 72, 5. véti stótave ambyãm, Samh. véti stótava ambyãm. (Prâtis. 177, 5.)

I do not ascribe very much weight to the authority which we may derive from these observations with regard to our own treatment of the diphthongs e and o as either long or short in the Veda, yet in answer to those who are incredulous as to the fact that the vowels e and o could ever be short in Sanskrit, an appeal to the authority of those who constituted our text, and in constituting it clearly treated o as a short vowel, may not be without weight. We may also appeal to the fact that in Pâli and Prâkrit every final o and e can be treated as either long or short a. Starting from this we may certainly extend this observation, as it has been extended by Professor Kuhn, but we must not extend it too far It is quite clear that in the same verse e and o can be used both as long and short. I give the Samhitâ text:

I, 84, 17.

ka îshate | tugyate kō bĭbhâ̄yā
ko mamsate | santam indrām kŏ āntī,
kas tokâya | ka ibhâyōtă râ̄yē
adhi bravat | tanve kō gănâ̄yā.

But although there can be no doubt that e and o, when final, or at the end of the first member of a compound, may be treated in the Veda as anceps, there is no evidence, I believe, to show that the same licence applies to a medial or initial e or o. In IV, 45, 5, we must scan

usrâh garante prati vastōh āsvĭnâ̄,

ending the verse with an epitritus tertius instead of the usual dijambus a.