svasti śrī raccayilluṁ jeṟuvuḷu guḷḷu gucapōṟērivi Ip-pratima vīri pedda koḍuku niḍumrāni kayyaṁbuna jaccinavānṟu iru-gaṇḍug āṟla paṭṭu sēnu bhaṭaraḷaku raṭṭōḍi yiccinadi

raccayilluṁ raccayilluO The reading of B. Radhakrishna (i.e. ⟨O⟩) seems to be a printing mistake at first glance (and this might indeed be the case here). Yet, initial ⟨O⟩ in "archaic Telugu" - and that is what the script is described as - is quite similar to ⟨gu⟩ and this reading would make sense insofar as it could represent one of the several forms of the so called conjunctive or connective particle. It may be noted, though, that while this suffix is attested with a glide, the form is attested as ⟨vu⟩ and not ⟨gu⟩. jeṟuvuḷu jeṟuvu guḷḷu gucapōṟērivi guḷḷu gupōṟērivi guḷlugu pōḍērivi The text of J. Ramayya Pantulu is edited in modern Telugu script where the retroflex double /ḷḷ/ is normally represented via ⟨ḷl⟩. The reading of B. Radhakrishna, however, makes clear that ⟨ḷḷ⟩ was written which was to be expected. The element pōṟ(i)- can be found in several proper nouns but it is always attributed or itself attribute. Hence, there is a certain probablility that the last akṣara and another probably lost akṣara (B. Radhakrishna does not insert a dot in his edition) of line 2 form this attribute. In reference to 244 (kūcapōṟi-) I have tentatively supplied the akṣara ⟨ca⟩ to form guca- (i.e. gūca) without claiming that both names refer to the same person. The form pōṟēri comes from *pōṟi-yāri with the so called honorific suffix in gen. case niḍumrāni niḍumrani āṟla āḍla raṭṭōḍi raṭṭoḍi The inscription is of old age (confer forms like āṟla and the information about the archaic script) wherefore we can assume a long vowel which is a contraction of the diphthong as a result of the loss of the intervocalic /g/: raṭṭōḍi from raṭṭaguḍi/raṭṭakuḍi (attested).

Hail. Prosperity. The court-house, the tank and the temple belong to (i.e. are endowed by) Pōḍēri. This sculpture is of his eldest son who died in the battle of Niḍumranu. The raṭṭoḍi gave land sowable with two gaṇḍus of paddy to the God.

My reading consists in small changes on grammatical grounds which were done without consulting the original in absence of a picture in the editions. The basic reading is due to J. Ramayya Pantulu and the corrections of B. Radhakrishna. The content seems to be quite heterogeneous but there is no reason to assume originally distinct inscriptions here. An inner connection might be produced by the assumption that the raṭṭōḍi is identical with Pōḍēru. The anusvāra in the beginning of lines 2 and 5 shows that the anusvāra was written on top of the akṣara that it was meant to be pronounced before as it is the case in some inscriptions.

A. R. No. 306 of 1920 1634 47-4867 32753