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

[Chandan Raghava Narayan]

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?
>