Untitled

⟨1⟩ śrimaN ⬦ śrīmaN ?. — ⟨1⟩ sa[tyāśra]ya ⬦ saṁya ? • The scribe omitted one akṣara in the word saṁvatsaraṁbu of the same line, and he might therefore simply have forgotten two akṣaras in this word. There might be a chance, however, that it is sort of an abbreviated way of writing the biruda. The editors state in a footnote that saṁya has to be read satyāśraya. — ⟨1⟩ śri-prithivi-bhallabha ⬦ śrī-¿pri?⟨pr̥⟩thivī¿bha?⟨va⟩llabha ?. — ⟨1⟩ mahārā⟨2⟩ja-Athirāja ⬦ ¿mā?⟨ma⟩h(ā)rā⟨2⟩ja-Adhirāja ?.

⟨2⟩ saṁva⟨tsa⟩raṁbu ⬦ saṁvarabuṁ ? • In many cases the ansuvāra is written on top of the akṣara it is supposed to be pronounced before instead of after in Telugu inscriptions. It is noteworthy, that the first anusvāra is written on top of the ⟨sa⟩ and the second on top of the ⟨bu⟩ in this word; but the second akṣara has to be read ⟨ṁbu⟩. The same occurs with ⟨ṁbu⟩ in line six. The editors state in a footnote that the word has to be read saṁvatsaraṁbu.

⟨3⟩ r¿ē?⟨ā⟩jya[ṁ]buna ⬦ rājyabuna ?. — ⟨3⟩ vaṇarājuL ⬦ ¿va?⟨vā⟩ṇarājuL ?. — ⟨3⟩ vaṁga⟨nū⟩ru ⬦ vagaṁru ? • The anusvāra is written on top of the ⟨ga⟩ but pronounced before this akṣara as is often the case in Telugu inscriptions; the reading vaṁga is furthermore secured by other inscriptions (see Ramesh and Ramachandra Murthy 1969–1970, p. 334, № 56 B, l. 3). The editors state in a footnote that the word has to be read as vaṁganūru. Regarding the misspellings in line 2 and line 1 (if it is not an abbreviation) a further slip at this spot is possible as well.

⟨4⟩ p¡a!⟨ā⟩ḷa • This word may be connected with skt. pāla-. It occurs in a few other Telugu inscriptions. — ⟨4⟩ ḷēnṟurājula ⬦ ḷenṟurājula ? • The length of the vowel is rather probable since the structure of the first compound member seems to be a result of the typical metathesis in Telugu, i.e. ḷē- from *iḷa or *eḷV plus the Telugu ending -nṟu; the cognate may be Kannaḍa eḷa ’tenderness, youth’ (Kittel 1894, p. 284), e.g. in eḷa-arasar ’prince’ (Gai 1946, p. 179 referring to Rice 1905, p. 2, № 7) that represents the same construction as ḷēnṟu-rāju. The title also appears in at least two other inscriptions (Ramesh and Ramachandra Murthy 1969–1970, p. 333, № 56 A, l. 4 and Panchamukhi 1935–1936, p. 98, ll. 23-24). — ⟨4⟩ niṭuru paṭu ⟨5⟩ gana ⬦ niṭ¡u!⟨ū⟩ru paṭu ⟨5⟩ ¡gana!⟨gānu⟩ ? • The auslauting -a could be a spelling mistake but could also represent the so-called ’emphatic particle’ if it was a linguistic reality (Sastri 1969, p. 260).

⟨5⟩ gōtra[ṁ]buna ⬦ gōtraṁbuna ?. — ⟨5⟩ veneyaṟēgari⟨ki⟩ ⬦ venaya-ṟeṁgari⟨ki⟩ ? • The name seems to go back to *veni-ay(y)a-ṟē-gāru (confer similar instances where *Xi-ay(y)a is realized as Xey(y)a as in bādeyya (Ramayya Pantulu 1948, p. 329, № 598); this realization is one of several options). The element ṟē- is the result of the Telugu metathesis and corresponds to Kannaḍa eṟe ’ruler’. As for the first element *veni- compare (vi)ni⟨22⟩yaṇa (Nilakanta Sastri and Venkataramayya [1956] 1947–1948, pp. 234–236, № 42G, ll. 21-22). Both elements may go back to Telugu vinu ’sky’.

⟨6⟩ maṟuntuṟlu ⬦ maṟuttuṟlu ?.

⟨7⟩ v(ē)laya⟨8⟩ṟuneduṁbālu ⬦ valaya⟨8⟩ṟu neḍu-b(ō)lu ? • The editors supply a daṇḍa after this name obviously to indicate the conclusion of a section. The inscription clearly shows ⟨bā⟩ (one may also compare ⟨bō⟩ of line 7). It is therefore questionable whether bōlu is really meant here since it would also deviate from the spelling in the other occurences. The expression paṭṭi gāpuḷu denotes ’the farmers of the village’ which could be referred to e. g. the village that the inscription was issued in. On the other hand, it may refer to what is written before. The element vēla- or vela- occurs in composition with -nāṇḍu in several inscriptions, yaṟu- is attested at least once with -nela (ya(ṟu)nelala (Krishna Sastri 1923, pp. 331–332, № 1014, l. 7)), and niduṁbaṟu (edited as nidubaṁṟu) appears as a place name in a Sanskrit inscription (Fleet 1891). It may be noted that the akṣara ⟨ḍu⟩ could also be read ⟨du⟩ because the difference is minute to non-existing, the regular ⟨da⟩ characters having a round belly while this akṣara in question being a little bit rectangular, a subscript ⟨ḍa⟩ in line 3 being quite rectangular as well. On the other hand, another subscript ⟨°ḍa⟩ of this inscription is round (line 5) while a ⟨da⟩ in line 11 is also a little bit rectangular.The question remains, however, whether these elements, insofar as they represent the counterparts of the elements in this inscription, could form a place name together that, indeed, would be quite long.

⟨8⟩ jan(n)a-p¡a!⟨ā⟩ṟu ⬦ janna-pāṟu ?.

⟨9⟩ v(ē)rasāma¡(pa)!⟨pā⟩ṟu ⬦ varasām(i)-pāṟu ? • The editors’ reading represents a Prakrit form of Sanskrit varasvāmī or parasvāmī and might be what was intended. — ⟨9⟩ (va)ccamuḷu ⬦ vaccamuḷu ? • The ambiguity in reading the first akṣara results from its being very close to ⟨ṭa⟩, ⟨ḍa⟩, ⟨da⟩, or a slightly damaged ⟨va⟩ in this inscription. — ⟨9⟩ dēnik(i) vakra(ṁ)bu ⬦ dēniki vakrabu ?. — ⟨9⟩ pa[ñ]ca° ⬦ pañca° ?.

⟨10⟩ agu{ḷca} ⬦ aguḷcu ? • As to my knowledge, there is no grammatical option to integrate ⟨ḷcu⟩ into the verbal form. It therefore must be seen as yet another lapsus of the scribe. — ⟨10⟩ ṣaṣ¿thi?⟨ṭi⟩-va¿ruṣa?⟨rṣa⟩ ⬦ ṣaṣ¿thi?⟨ṭi⟩⟨r⟩-va¿ruṣa?⟨rṣa⟩ ? • The standard appearance of the verse contains the multiplicativum ṣaṣṭis ’sixty times’. Yet, in the standard spelling a consonant is doubled after a repha. Hence, there is a certain chance that the scribe wrote ṣaṣṭi-varṣasahasrāṇi ’sixty year-thousands’.