--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "S.Kalyanaraman" <kalyan97@...>
wrote:
>
> No, Andy. Every comparative linguistics book that talks of Prakrits
> is off base.
It's hard to see how the whole world could be wrong and you
alone right. It's also hard to discern here that humility
of which you wrote. So you'll forgive us if we take the
word of those who wrote those books, and who unlike yourself,
can actually read and understand the prakrits.
> Samskr.tam (refined, well-defined) is a derivative from Pra_kr.t
> (old, bha_s.a_).
It was derived from some dialects of Old Indo-Aryan through
the process of selection, definition and refinement described
in its name.
> Epigraphical evidence is emphatic: early epigraphs are all in
> Prakrits. It is only later that Samskr.tam epigraphs appear, as in
> Cambodia (Ka_mboja). All Jaina and Buddhists test attest Pali and
> Buddhist Hybrid Samskr.tam (which is Pra_kr.ts presented in some
> sort of samskr.tam grammatical structures).
Sanskrit was _one_ dialect of Old Indo-Aryan, specifically
a cultivated liturgical and literary dialect prescribed by
Panini and his school. Vedic is another dialect of Indo-
Aryan, closely related to Sanskrit, and obviously the one
in which the Vedas were composed. Originally neither was
written, but only preserved and transmitted orally. Writing
came only later to India, from outside, and after the prakrits
had already arisen from Old Indo-Aryan. The oral transmission,
memorization, and preservation of the Vedas, and Sanskrit
was originally the reserve of the brahman caste, who thus
naturally at first resisted it being written down. The
prakrits were non-sacred, popular forms of speech, and thus
no such injunction applied to them. _That_ is why the prakrits
were the first to be written down. However that may well be
the least of the reasons to say that the prakrits came after
Sanskrit and Vedic. Sanskrit is in no way imaginable derivable
from any of the prakrits, but the prakrits can readily be
derived from Old Indo-Aryan with simple, systematic, and
typical sound changes. To suggest otherwise is even worse
than Kalyanaraman's earlier suggestion that Indo-Aryan 'a'
could have spawned P.I.E. 'a', 'e' and 'o', or those about
reversing satemization!
> To use the IE linguistic jargon, one can say Pra_kr.ts are
> Proto-Indic dialects.
Not if one's using I.E. linguistic jargon correctly they can't.
That is where you should at least start Dr. Kalyanaraman.
David