Maybe the following example from George
Cardona will help (1992. "Indian grammatical traditions and historical
linguistics". In: E.C. Polomé and W. Winter [eds.], _Reconstructing Languages
and Cultures_. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter):
"Indeed, Pa:n.ini:yas in general and from
earliest times, assert that one of the purposes of grammar is to teach correct
speech forms -- whose use leads to merit -- sharply segregated from incorrect
vernacular usages. Moreover, Patañjali is quite explicit about the status of
such vernaculars. He recounts a legend about a group of sages (<Rs.ayaH>)
who said <yarva:n.as, tarva:n.as> instead of <yad va: nas>
and <tad va: nas>, so that they were referred to
as <yarva:n.as, tarva:n.as>. These learned men did not, however,
utter such incorrect forms at ritual performances, so that they did not suffer
ill due to incorrect usage ... . Now, <yarva:n.as, tarva:n.as> show Middle
Indic features, including <r> for <d> (cf. <ba:raha> ...
[Hindi ba:rah 'twelve' < *dva:das'a -- PG]). That is, in Patañjali's time
those who used Sanskrit for particular purposes, as in performing rites, also
used vernaculars, with typical Middle indic properties, in the course of their
everyday affairs."
Piotr
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2002 1:48 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] MIA and Vedic
Fascinating. So basically the ancient forms of Sanskrit are
only
distantly related to the modern Indian languages in that there is no
clear lineage? The modern languages emerged from some other,
presumably
Sanskrit, dialect than the ones that are recorded in the
Vedas and later
classical Sanskrit texts?