Of the three Aramaic inscriptions of Asoka, i. e. that of Taxila, of Pul-i-Daruntah, and of Qandahar, the present writer has treated first and foremost the last mentioned and then that of Taxila, while that of Pul-i-Daruntah only in passing.
According to the present writer, the complete interpretation of the Qandahar inscription has not yet been arrived at. One of the difficulties, among others, lies in line 2: WKLHM ‘dwšy’ HWBD, which should be interpreted we-kål-hom advišayya hobed “and he (Asoka) has made them all without distress”. advišayya (st. determ. pl.) < α-dvaešah- is a compliment of kål-hom governed by hobed, which should be taken as haf'el of 'abed “to make” and not as that of 'abad “to perish”. The scribe of the inscriptional Aramaic has interchanged the initial 'ain with alef. The interchange of this sort can be attested elsewhere: see my note 19). Once interchanged, though mistakenly, the pe'al 'abed as intransitive or middle voice becomes a starting point whence is derived its haf'el: hobed in the sense of “to make”. In line 1 we have 'abid “made” while in 1. 2 we have thus Wed “he has made”. The sequence of cognate words 'abid: hobed corresponds stilistically to qaššita: mehaqšet (1. 1), paribasta: paribasti (11. 5-6), and hoter: yehotar (1. 8) which yehotar should rather be taken as jussive. The second difficulties lies in 11. 6-7. hupatyasti (nom. sg. f.)…, 'ek 'asra-hi, halquta we-la 'itai dina lekål-hom 'anašayya hassen should be interpreted “the good admonition …(given each citizen) in such a way as they (fem. pl.-i. e. the good admonition by his mother, that by his father and that by [his] communal elders) should refrain him, has come to promote the happiness and peace (lit., there-being-no-lawsuit) for all of the people.” The disaccord between the subject fem. sg. and its predicate masc. sg. makes no difficulties: see my note 31).
Viewed from the Qandahar inscription of Asoka, the Taxila inscription may justly be regarded as that of the King Asoka, and not of him as satrap under his father. The word ZKRWT' in 1. 1 alludes seemingly to such a fact that the edict may be a foundation-inscription of a vihara, or a construction-inscription of a Buddha-image or of the like. This problem however claims further consideration.
