etymol. final r, s / optionality of ext. sandhi?

Chandan Raghava Narayan cnarayan at UCLINK2.BERKELEY.EDU
Tue Nov 25 19:26:03 UTC 1997

Might it be that Renou is not  taking the "-s" following the non-"a"
vowel in absolute final position? For original final "s" becomes visarga
in absolute final position. (devavanipraveshika 3.29)

Chandan R. Narayan
510.642.4551 (work)
510.770.1734 (home)

On Tue, 25 Nov 1997, Jacob Baltuch wrote:

> What follows is elementary. If you can't stand this kind of
> stuff delete this post now.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I have two questions which found no answer (or no explicit
> answer) in either Renou's grammar or the two textbooks I've
> searched (Coulson's TYS and Ashok Aklujkar's SEL). Maybe you
> can help.
> 1. Renou gives, in flexional forms, always final r or s, never
> visarga. In particular he keeps the distinction between final V+s
> and V+r (V not a or aa). For example he gives for the aorist par.
> of kR 2sg "akaarSiis", 3pl "akaarSur" while for the same forms SEL
> would give "akaarSiiH" and "akaarSuH". Is there _any_ reason what-
> soever (not only in such forms but in any hidden corner of the
> language) to keep this distinction (between final Vr and Vs, V not
> a/aa) or is this just a little etymological pedantry?
> 2. I've always wondered about the "optionality" of external sandhi
> in spoken Sanskrit. That's what most textbooks state. And I've always
> had trouble taking it seriously (by analogy to French connected speech
> since I've only dealt with written Sanskrit) Is there really such
> a thing as fully non-sandhied speech which really sounds natural?
> To put it differently, what is the impression you get as an accomplished
> spoken Sanskrit practicioner from hearing someone using fully non-
> sandhied speech? Does that mark that person immediately as an incompetent
> speaker or maybe as a somewhat slow-witted individual or is it really
> just a choice?
> Renou, contrary to custom, never says external sandhi is optional, instead
> he says it is mandatory in general and enumerates those cases where it is
> not done, but then his concern is with the attested written usage and not
> with spoken Sanskrit. But now if the written record does not seem to attest
> that external sandhi is optional, where does that idea come from?

More information about the INDOLOGY mailing list