--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "P&G" <petegray@...> wrote:
> > Epigraphical evidence is emphatic: early epigraphs are all in
> > Prakrits. It is only later that Samskr.tam epigraphs appear,
>
> But this does not make the language later! Only the
inscriptions! Sanskrit> was deliberately kept as an unwritten
language. Even the Greeks, when they > arrived under Alexander,
commented on that.
That is right, Peter. Both Samskr.tam and Pra_kr.ts could have co-
existed. Gautama Buddha and Maha_vi_ra spoke in Pra_kr.ts (Hybrid
Samskr.tam and Pali).
The point I wanted to make was that non-lexical language trees
should not exclude writing systems (such as those on Gundestrup
cauldron). It is a cop out to wish away the glyphs on the cauldron
as lizards, elephants. The question is: what did the artisan who
made the cauldron call them (parole): lizards,elephants and so on
depicted with astonishing fidelity all over the silver (electrum?)
artifact.