Re: [tied] Sanskrit

From: Piotr Gasiorowski
Message: 14518
Date: 2002-08-25

That's certainly true. It would be more correct to say that Classical Sanskrit was _based_ on the Indo-Aryan language of the "Old" period, which by the way extended over several centuries and was anything but monolithic. One could compare Indo-Aryan to Latin, also a language with a complicated history: consider Mediaeval Latin, the European language of education and scholarly literature, coexisting in time and space with the Romance languages that had developed from the sermo plebeius of the late Roman period, and genetically connected but not identical with Classical Latin. Mediaeval Latin had a strong influence on the vernaculars contemporary with it; its grammar was simpler and more regular than that of Classical Latin, new words were coined or adopted on a massive scale, and those of Classical origin often developed new meanings. Doesn't that ring a bell?
 
Piotr
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: nathrao
To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2002 3:54 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] Sanskrit

--- In cybalist@......, Piotr Gasiorowski <piotr.gasiorowski@......>
wrote:
> Technically, one should refer to Vedic and Classical Sanskrit as
varieties of Old Indo-Aryan (= Old Indic), a term that covers both).

But keep in mind that "Old" in the name is a convention. I find it
absurd to refer to, say Vetalapancavimsati, as Old IA and say,
Majjhamanikaya, as Middle IA. This is especially true when referring
to syntax. Syntax as described by Panini is closer to Brahmana prose
than to the (Sanskrit) dialog of available dramas.