Sandhi in `real' Sanskrit vs `conversational' Sanskrit

[Madhav Deshpande]

	We are getting some interesting discussion here.

>Can one have servicable Sanskrit by knowing only the imperfect, as
>Professor Deshpande implied in his reply, or would you disagree with it?
>Would it be `the full variety' if baadhate and kli"snaati are used
>interchangeably?  What about siidati and aaste? Where does one draw the
>line?

	The tradition itself drew such lines in all sorts of ways.  Many
texts begin with words like baalaanaam sukhabodhaaya.  We not only have
the Siddhaantakaumudii of Bha.t.toji Dik.sita, we have Madhyasiddhaanta-
kaumuddii, Laghusiddhaantakaumudii, and Saarasiddhaantakaumudii.  The
great Naage"sabha.t.ta himself produced elementary and advanced versions
of his works like "Sekhara and Manjuu.saa, and to match Bha.t.toji's
Prau.dhamanoramaa, his disciple produced a Baalamanoramaa.  Different
simplified and/or compromised varieties of Sanskrit have existed
throughout history, and Patanjali himself admitted that people do not go
to the house of a grammarian to have their words produced for them.  They
just go ahead and use the language as they please.  The grammarians (and
us today) can only sit back and pass our opinions, but that has not
prevented the emergence of different sorts of Sanskrit.  The simple fact
is that serviceability and adequacy of a variety is in the eye of the
beholder.  In the Venkateshwara temple in Pittsburgh, I heard a priest
give a blessing to a woman named Kamalaa with : kamalaasya sukham bhavatu.
Obviously, the only person who was unhappy was I.  Kamalaa was very happy
with the blessing she received.  The priest continued to add -sya after
the name of every devotee who came by and did not seem to be aware of any
problems.  As for Venkateshwara himself, I am waiting to hear his
reaction.
		Madhav Deshpande