--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Rick McCallister <gabaroo6958@...>
wrote:
>
> David's explanation was on the mark
> but one thing missing is a definition of Sanskrit
> Kishore's idea of Sanskrit seems at odds to David's
> If someone asked me what Sanskrit was, I would hesitate because
> I'm not exactly sure what it is and what it isn't
> 1. Does it just refer to the Sermo Urbanus artificially created
> and maintained as a religious and literary language?
That is the use to which I think it should be restricted
myself.
I've long thought that only that which Panini 'saMcaskAra'
could properly be called 'saMskRta-', but after thinking
about your question a bit I'm not so sure. My expertise
isn't such that I can say 'saMskRta' was _never_ applied
to any Old Indo-Aryan dialect besides Panini's work.
It might be necessary to go the indo_iranian linguistics
list to get an authorative answer, though in any case I'm
sure that 'Sanskrit' didn't originally apply to the next
two items that you list.
> 2. Does it refer to the ancestor of the Prakrits?
> 3. Is it the same thing as Old Indian? and thereby include all
> pre-Prakrit dialects?
I say 'no' myself to both of these, but I'm not a linguist,
and linguists often do use 'Sanskrit' just that broadly.
My own reason for preferring greater precision is that I've
been a member of a few Indological lists on Yahoo for the
last five or six years, and many times have seen quotes of
legitimate material on Sanskrit produced by non-linguists
trying to support one or another outrageous claim about the
language. As many times as not the broad use of 'Sanskrit'
was at the core of the confusion. Francesco was witness to
at least some of those occasions, I know.
In this very thread we are in just that sort of situation,
with a non-linguist trying to grasp the basics of the matter,
and having misunderstood some of the material he's located
online.
David