'saMskRta'

[cardona at unagi.cis.upenn.edu]

Earlier today, in a message connected with the "out of India" discussion
which I inadvertently deleted, it was asserted that PANini uses 'saMskRta'
with reference to a language and in support of this a reference was given
to an article by Thieme.  This is inaccurate on both counts: Panini does
not use 'saMskRta' with reference to the language he describes.  He
provides for forms in which kR is augmented with s (sUT) when used with sam
in the senses 'adorn' and 'form a group' (6.1.137-138: samparibhyAM karotau
bhUSaNe, samavAye ca) and for derivates meaning 'prepared with' (tena
saMskRtam, 4.4.3: saMskRtam [tena]), 'food prepared in ...' (4.2.16:
saMskRtam bhakSAH [tatra]).  SaMskRta is indeed used of a language, as in
RAmayana 3.10.54: dhArayan brAhmaNaM rUpam ilvalaH saMkRtaM vadan ...,
5.28.18: yadi vAcaM pradAsyAmi dvijAtir iva saMskRtAm ..., and elsewhere,
but not in the aSTAdhAyIi.  (Without wishing to indulge in self
advertising, may I refer you to sections 838ff. of Panini, his work and its
traditions, vol. I: background and introduction, 2nd ed. [due out this
month], pp. 557ff.).  What Thieme says ('PANini and the pronunciation of
Sanskrit', Whatmough Festschrift 263 = Kl. Schr. 612) is: 'PANini's work is
exclusively concerned with defining (lakSaya-) the procedure of regular
word-formation (saMskAra) - anything else does not fall within its scope;
...'  One need not agree with the claim Thieme actually makes without
seeing that he certainly does not claim PANini has used 'saMskRta' with
reference to the language being described.  Regards, George Cardona