Semantic clustering technique in South Asian dictionary

Jonathan Silk SILK at AC.GRIN.EDU
Mon Feb 27 10:52:18 EST 1995


While loath to get involved in this I fear largely fruitless conversation,
allow me to ask one question.  Dr. Kalyanaraman writes:

>     I believe, that it is not necessary to establish 'ancestry' for a word.
>If
>     it is found across scores of languages spread across vast distances, and
>
>     authenticated in very, very ancient literary texts and epigraphs, it does
>
>     not really matter which phonetic variant came first, despite Mayrhoffer
>and
>     Burrow/Emeneau disagreeing. What is more important are the 'images'
>
>     associated with or evoked by the phonemic variants of a language-family.
>
>

What exactly is meant here by "important"?  We need not launch into a long
discussion of etymology vs. usage, or invoke Bhart.rhari and so forth, I
think, if we clarify first and foremost what it is we are after.  What does
each participant in this discussion mean by "important"?  I suspect we will
discover that in the different answers to that question lie the fundamental
disagreements we have seen recently.

Jonathan Silk
SILK at AC.GRIN.EDU


 




More information about the INDOLOGY mailing list