`Conversational Sanskrit' vs `Real Sanskrit'

[bpj at netg.se]

>----------
>
>To change the topic :-), is there a difference in attitudes to things
>Indian between those who learnt Sanskrit grammar from Whitney and
>those who learnt it from McDonell or Renou (and then went straight
>to Altindische Grammatik/Syntax for further information)? Just curious.
>
>---------
>
>
>
>
>
>Nath Rao (nathrao+ at osu.edu)             614-366-9341

What do you mean?

I find Whitney one of the few linguists of his century that are still
profitably readable. Grammarwise I find Whitney too chunky for reference,
while McDonell has the right format. I don't know about attitudes to things
Indian because of the grammars, but I have second thoughts about "Vedic
Reader", to be sure...

BPJ

PS: please don't change the subject! I find Sanskrit usage -- for that's
what it's about --, and especially post-classical Sanskrit, a neglected
topic. The question is to what extent Sanskrit really functions as a code
of the vernacular(s) of the time. Much to my surprise a Tamilian friend
stated that he thought that the "grammar" -- i.e. syntax and usage -- of
Sanskrit as he knows it agrees quite well with Tamil! Much Medieval Latin
is just such a code on the respective vernaculars, and I suspect the same
to be true of Sanskrit, though it is not appreciable to me, as I know
practically no other Indic language than Sanskrit and Pali.


*************************************************
*  B.Philip Jonsson <bpj at netg.se>               *
*  Editor, Translator (English <-> Swedish),    *
*  Scholarly font-designer, Web-book designer   *
*************************************************