Dear all,
  Long note here, please read at your own risk. The ca. 5th Century Khotanese Buddhist compendium, the so-called Book of Zambasta, contains a short but fascinating tirade against the Sanskrit epics (translation mine):
cÅ« BÄratä pyÅ«á¹£á¹u kye arthä samu ttaṃdya paṃjsa naá¸aune
hīśśäá¸ai pÅ«ra KaṃsadÄysna biśśä śśūra jsatÄndä
ttä vÄ biśśä VyÄysä riá¹£ayä nÄte KÄlÅ›asundhare bÄ«sä
hvanaino Ähau haṃbaste tcamna lova bitanda
RÄmä DaÅ›agrÄ«vi SÄ«ysau nÄte Laṃggä kÄ«nthai bÄste
ttye käá¸Ã¤na jÄ«vätu rruste RÄmÄyÄ…nä ttandÄ« arthi
ValmÄ«ki räṣayÄ« haṃbaste haṃtsa drÅ«gyau hÄá¸e
cvÄ« lovi mÄnya pyÅ«á¹£á¸e samu haṃdaraysaṃthva karma
  Â
What has been heard by you in the [MahÄ]BhÄrata, whose point [is] only that five men,
Sons of a relative (?), [together] with KaṃsadÄsa killed all the heroes,   Â
These [things] the seer VyÄsa, the servant of KÄśīsundarÄ«, gathered;
He composed a fabulous tale by which the people of the world are misled.
[From] RÄma DaÅ›agrÄ«va took SÄ«tÄ, he led her to the city of Laá¹…kÄ,
For this reason he lost his life. Such is the point of the RÄmÄyaṇa.Â
The seer Valmīki composed it but together with lies.
That the world listens to him with [any] respect is only [due to] the deeds of [his] other births.
 Many things are noteworthy here, especially the contemptuous tone that the text strikes by referring to Kṛṣṇa as the "slave of Kaṃsa" (cfr. Mbh 9.60.27 kaṃsadÄsasya dÄyada and ViṣṇupurÄṇa 5.27.13) and by bringing up the Buddhist satirical version of the story of VyÄsa and AmbikÄ, which involves the former being infatuated with the latter, and the latter kicking him in response (cfr. Buddhacarita 4.16; Saundarananda 7.30).
 What interests me here, though, is the form of the name of SÄ«tÄ. The Khotanese SÄ«ysau should be acc.sing. for a ka-suffixed stem SÄ«ysaÄ-=/si:za.a:/ (-aÄ>akÄ), but conceivably also for a simple thematic stem SÄ«ysÄ-=/si:za:/ (these generally end in -o, but even in Old Khotanese there is a noticeable o/au oscillation). In the much later "Khotanese RÄmÄyaṇa" (9th Century?) the name appears as SÄ«jsÄ-=/si:dza:/, but this is probably an indigenous Khotanese development.
 To me the most promising way to explain the form SÄ«ysÄ has to do with the vast number of GÄndhÄrÄ« loanwords present in Khotanese: in GÄndhÄrÄ« /z/ is, among others, the outcome of intervocalic OIA [th] and [dh], so that OIA bodhi> GÄndhÄrÄ« <bosi>=*/bozi/ and OIA Å›amatha> GÄndhÄrÄ« <Å›amasa>=*/çəmÉ™zÉ™/. The Khotanese form could be made sense of by postulating a source form *SÄ«thÄ or *SÄ«dhÄ (or *SÄ«thakÄ/*SÄ«dhakÄ) for a hypothetical GÄndhÄrÄ« *<sisa>=*/si:za:/, neither of which seems to be attested. *SÄ«sÄ would of course also be a candidate.
 However, under entry "13428. sÄ«tÄ f.  'furrow, goddess of agriculture' " Turner's Comparative Dictionary mentions a form sihÄ 'furrow' from the Bhalesi language spoken in central Kashmir, which may conceivably act in support of my hypothesis in view of its geographic proximity to ancient GandhÄra proper: here we would have [th/dh]>/h/ instead of GandhÄrÄ« [th/dh]>/z/.
 Is anyone aware of (other) Middle Indo-Aryan or New Indo-Aryan versions of the name of SÄ«tÄ that may point in a similar direction?
Â
 namaskaromi,
Â
 Diego Loukota - The University of Winnipeg