/bhr/ vs. /br/ (not iti)

Dr. Pind,

> The example of Pali brah- vs Ashokan bah- is often adduced as an example of
> a Sanskritism on the assumption that Pali necessarily must reflect other
> similar or historically close Prakrit(s).

It need not be called a "Sanskritism" for the observation to hold: it
can instead be styled a Palicism, and nevertheless represents a
departure from the Prakrit form --and this is precisely the point,
whatever we may call it.  That some parts of the Pali canon were (and
are) more prakritic (or more dialectical) than others is beyond
dispute; in part this is for similar reasons to the fact that some
passages of Shakespeare are more vernacular than others, but it partly
reflects attempts at standardization the the canon underwent --likely
co-inciding with the re-organization of Angas into Nikayas, and then
the original Nikayas into the form we find now "sealed" by the
commentaries, etc.  Some reforms may have been quite late, as per our
earlier discussion of the Cambodian usage of -b- and -bb- where the
Sinhalese have -v- or -vv- (a phenomenon observed again in the
earliest extant Pali inscriptions in Cambodia --Skilling had an
article on this in the JPTS that I was able to read at Nyanatusita's
hermitage).

To speak directly to the point you have raised: I *do not* assume that
Pali must have originally reflected "other similiar" Prakrits.  It may
be that other scholars assume this; my own assumption is simply that
the Pali canon was more (lingually) heterogenous prior to the cycles
of standardization that were carried out upon it --and still, some
passages (such as the quotations from heterodox philosophers) retain
prakritic and dialectical variations.  I think that some passages
--especially quotations from informal speech-- probably have become
formalized relative to a Pali grammatical standard.  The very
existence of the Dhammapada in the Pali canon demonstrates that
Theravada monks were quite able and willing to "translate" Prakrit
into Pali --and it may be that a significant portion of materials were
incorporated in this way (and underwent degrees of lingual
standardization before, after, or during canonization).  Does this
Pali standardization always entail "Sanskritization"?  No, I wouldn't
assume that in all cases; however, to detect (e.g.) "Dravidianization"
would require a knowledge of Dravidian languages that almost nobody in
Pali studies seems to have --a comparative reading of certain KN texts
with early Shaivite works (in "barbaric Sanskrit") might reveal all
kinds of interesting connections that have been hitherto invisible,
while western scholars have been more easily able to observe (e.g.)
Vedic elements in the language of the Sutta-Nipata.  Comparative work
with Jain Prakrit sources remains at a very preliminary stage; who
knows if Shaivite pseudo-Sanskrit will shed any light on the Pali
canon within my lifetime.

> A look into a
> Pali dictionary shows that Pali does not disallow the cluster /br/ (e.g.
> bruusi, abravi etc.), whereas the language disallows the cluster /pr/. The
> evidence is overwhelming and the distribution systematic.

This observation DOES NOT answer to the metrical argument that "br-"
has replaced "ba" in some Pali verses; obversely, the fact that some
Pali verses could have been translated from Prakrit (or, as in the
case of the Dhammapada, definitely were translated) or were subject to
"Palicization" does not diminish the significance of your point.  I
never said that "Br-" was disallowed in Pali; what I said was that the
evidence suggested it was *preferred* by whoever carried out spelling
revisions --and that it was thus considered "more Palic", although we
may by the same token say it is "less Prakritic".

> On the other hand,
> Pali disallows the cluster /bhr/ ...
> undoubtedly because aspiration
> and /r/ are mutually exclusive.

I would just like to say that I am extremely glad that Pali does just
this, and removes many clusters that would (in our era) be impossible
to pronounce for anyone but the Cambodians.  They alone can handle
initial clusters of (up to) four consonants unmitigated by vowel
sounds.

> Those who assume that the early compilers
> and later generations introduced Sanskritisms like brah-/braah- should
> explain why /r/ is regularly elided from the cluster /pr/ but not from /br/.
> Clearly the onus is on them.

As I hope you will have gathered from all that I've said above, the
significance of the argument certainly does *not* stand-or-fall on
this point.

The premise is simply that "some verses formerly had ba- and now have
br-", and this may indicate the dialect of the source, or a type of
heterogenous lingual variation that has been largely deleted from the
canon.  K.R. Norman's explanation as to why "br-" was important to
standardize in this instance was simply because the word Brahma is of
such unique importance in the debate over religion that defines the
content of so much of the canon; there is no reason why "the onus"
would be upon K.R. Norman to explain why all instances of "pr-" do not
have the unique importance of "Br-" in Brahma.  He remarks himself
that this may be a special case, as a critique of Brahmanic authority
is not of much value if the people being critiqued do not recognise
themselves as the subject of the indictment.  Brahmins did not call
themselves "Bahama"; and, I might add to Norman's comment (which
assumes that the Brahmins are all external to the Sangha) the Brahmins
who became monks may well have found it odd for this particular
(hallowed) proper name to be pronounced so differently from the Vedas
they were accustomed to.

Phonology alone is powerless against lingual changes that are, thus,
closely related to content; the changes and inconsistencies in
Toponyms often have similar problems of historical change and
revision.

E.M.