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

Rolf Heiner Koch roheko at MSN.COM
Tue Nov 25 23:42:56 UTC 1997

1. It is simply a rule (a linguist will explain
you better):
Aorist has 3. plur. (Par.)  ur
Aorist hast 2./3. sgl. (Par.) iis/iit

2. And another important rule: In Pausa -s/-r
always changes to Visarga


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Jacob Baltuch <jacob.baltuch at EURONET.BE>
Datum: Dienstag, 25. November 1997 18:48
Betreff: etymol. final r, s / optionality of ext.

>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
>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
>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