ciciir.su.h and dudru.su.h

[Vidhyanath Rao]

Sandra van der Geer wrote:

>I'd like to know where exactly did you find these instances? In my
>opinion you are right in considering them awkward. cikiir.su.h and
>dudruu.u.h clearly sound m ore normal. It seems indeed a joke at the
>cost of Dattakala'sin's knowledge of grammar. Is there a reason in the
>context to do so? If not, I'm inclined to interpret them as typo's, but
>if these are the only serious typo's in the whole edition

These occur in M. Ghosh's edition of padmapraabh.rtaka (The actual
title is ``Glimpses of sexual life in Ancient India''. It is actually
an edition and translation of four bhaa.nas) on p.52 at l.13
(between verses 16 and 17). The text runs as follows:
    ki.m bravii.si bhavaan| kva sa~nciciir.su.h| ti.s.tha taavat|
    kim asi dudru.su.h| iti
`dudru.su' may be a typo, but `ciciir.su' is not because Ghosh
glosses it as ``intend to run'' which does not fit `sa.mcikiir.su'. From
the notes, it seems that Ghosh did not use any manuscripts, but used
other editions. These seem to hard to come by, and if anyone with access
to them can tell me what they have here, I will be thankful.

Similar thing also occurs in the following bhaa.na, ``Paadataa.ditakam''.
But here I will be able check Schokker's edition in a few days and I
will wait till I do that before expanding on this.