APPENDIX TO THE THIRD EDITION 393 § 7 (p. 61). The use of mixed Sanskrit in inscriptions, par- ticularly of the Kushanas, is discussed, and illustrated with examples by E. Lamotte in Histoire de la Bouddhisme indienne, pp. 640-41, Louvain, 1958. On Buddhist Sanskrit see further H. W. Bailey, Buddhist Sanskrit , JRAS, 1955, pp. 13-24; J. Brough, The language of the Buddhist Sanskrit texts, BSOAS, 16, 357-375, 1954; V. Ragh- avan, Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit , Indian Linguistics, 16, 313-322. (pp. 61-2). The vocabulary of Jaina Sanskrit has now been dealt with by B. J. Sandesara and J. P. Thaker in Lexico- graphical studies in Jaina Sanskrit , Baroda, 1962. § 8. For Sanskrit in Indonesia see now J. Ensink and J. A. B. Buitenen, Glossary of Sanskrit from Indonesia , Vdk , no. 6, Poona, 1964. CHAPTER III § 3. There is now a detailed study of the surd aspirates by R. Hiersche : Untersuchungen zur Frage der tenues aspiratae im Indogermanischen , Wiesbaden, 1964. Hiersche rejects the laryngeal explanations, and considers the aspiration to have developed mainly in combinations with sibilant (sthdgati, as opposed to Gk. oriyca, e tc., a phenomenon to which reference was made above, p. 72). Initial surd aspirates are explained by assuming loss of mobile 5- ( phena OPruss. spoayno , etc.). Unfortunately Hiersche does not deal at all with those cases of sonant aspirates where such an explanation is impossible : e.g. rdtha-, sapha-, sahkhd-, iAkha. For the opposing view see F. B. J. Kuiper, Indo-Iranian Journal, 9, pp. 218-227. If seems however that only a portion of the instances can be explained by the laryngeal theory, and that for others (e.g. phena-) an explanation on the lines proposed by Hiersche is preferable. §5. The statement (p. 75, 1. 21) that the satem languages have uniformly abandoned all trace of the labial element needs qualification in one respect as far as Sanskrit is concerned. As first pointed out by O. Szemerenyi in a paper f The problem of Indo-European labio- velars * read to the Philological Society in March, 1952, roots in f have a weak form in urjur when the original was a labio- velar, just as happens in the case of the
